Kent: I’ve never read Maxwell. No one I know reads him except one guy who tore our school apart for a year before leaving us mad. No one I read cites Maxwell. I couldn’t say anything about him. I’ve also never heard him cited or mentioned on here.

The Shame Spiral needs to be on blogrolls everywhere.

Craig at Pyro rocks. The man needs his own blog. TRs and the Occult. Where is that story being told?

Eleven Characteristics of the emerging church.

Next Wave e-zine is a good source of all thing emerging.

The current logic at the TR blogs is that we cannot ask if anyone has read Wright’s actual work on the resurrection. We must only respond to his statement in the interview regarding Borg’s resurrectionless profession of Christian faith.

Fair enough. I intend to devote a major post attacking a well known pastor’s 1983 (?) statements in his commentary on Hebrews denying the eternal generation of the Son. His subsequent statements regarding that topic will not be taken into consideration, as they have no bearing on what he said. (jn)

Just following the logic of this silly pile-on. We used to call this cutting off your nose to spite your face. I’ll tell you that, as a teacher, if someone gave me a piece of research with this approach to the question of NTW’s views on the resurrection, I’d give them an F.

JS: Most of my writing students are first or second year students just trying to get their AA or AS (a few AAS).  For many of them, what we teachers tell them slides around on top and drips off like milk on syrup.  I’ve even had some students in 101 who did okay (C or C- or something), but then get in 102 and remember nothing we did in 101 the semester before (I can’t bring myself to mention the ones who make an A in 101 and tank in 102).  Somehow our education system has fostered the idea in our students’ heads that what you learn in a class is just for that class.  It’s so frustrating!

By the way, the Onion suicide note article was priceless.

Kent- I have not had any experience from Maxwell but have been through several seminars with Tim Elmore.  He worked with Maxwell in the past and has written much material for him.  Check out his stuff at growingleaders.com . 

If you like Mark Driscoll he has a pretty good sermon titled “Good Sex, Bad Sex” from his series in 1 Corinthians.

I concur with Michael’s last post on the topic, however as to “the feminized, male-as-beast, view of sex that has castrated, guilt tripped and controlled men”  – I  don’t know a single woman online or offline that holds this prejudice any longer, at least consciously. Seriously, not one. I think great strides have been made toward accepting the sexuality God has biologically given men. If anything, I see some women feeling totally responsible for keeping their husbands satisfied so that they won’t struggle with how God made them.  Perhaps that is just the circles I run. I sympathize with Jim’s point but agree with PWinn that you (Jim) seem on the edge of beating a dying animal with the end result of distracting from the battle that still remains.

Leif, what level are you working at? I feel for you, because I suspect that you are trying to do the impossible in rehabilitating the writing skills of someone who has been poorly taught for their first 18 years. Seriously, if you don’t learn the fundamentals of spelling and grammar when you first learn to write, you will hardly be able to correct your bad habits years later. Furthermore, if you don’t read frequently to passively reinforce proper usage, you’re never going to retain what your English teacher tries to tell you. Basically, I think you should blame it all on the kids’ second-grade teachers and television.

It could be worse, though.

Has anyone experience with John C. Maxwell and his training courses that they are able to share?

I think we need to invite Craig (from pyro thread) to be a Fellow…total, freakin’ hoot!

A few readers have emailed me asking me to clarify my views on Matthew 5:28. Since most of the notes have been more charitable toward me than my usual lurker mail, I’m inclined to continue.

The question that has to be asked about the Matthew passage is, what is Jesus trying to teach his audience? Is the purpose of the sermon on the mount to give us a more accurate, specific understanding of the nature of specific sins like murder, lust, and divorce? Is he simply expounding on the details of the law in the traditional way that rabbis were expected to teach?

As I read the passage, it seems to me that Jesus rather is trying to point out the universality of the effects of the fall, the fact that no one can escape guilt under the law. Isn’t that more in keeping with the radical departure from the traditional rabbinical teaching that he so adamantly opposed all through the gospels? Isn’t it more in tune with the observation of the writer of Mark, who repeatedly notes that Jesus’ audience was amazed at his teaching because he operated from an entirely distinct basis of authority from what they were used to hearing?

It strikes me that nothing about how Jesus acted toward those who understood that they were sinners supports the first view. And everything about how Jesus interacted with those who failed to understand their own sinful nature is in line with the second.

If we were to consistently apply the same hermeneutic that is being used on Matthew 5:27f to the rest of the chapter(the same one that is used to justify placing a graceless discipline burden on divorcees, for example), why are there no support groups for those who compulsively insult others, or those who hold grudges? The fact is, “fulfilment of the law” plainly cannot mean “further refinements to an otherwise intact code of behavior.” If it did, then the gospels would end with just an account of Jesus’ commentary on the Torah. There would be no need for a crucifixion, no need for a resurrection. Just follow these steps – admittedly difficult ones, but they’re all laid out for us, so it’s just a matter of discipline.

My last night as revival preacher is this evening. We’re all about to drop from exhaustion around here. All that’s left is for us all to get sick. We’re incredibly tired. Join that with what passes for school at this point of the year and I’ll just ask for sustaining grace.

The revival has been an interesting experience. The church is great. The people are super appreciative. As these things go, this has been fun and invigorating. I think God wants me to know I can operate in this environment when I need to. Preaching in a suit is so uncomfortable for me. I haven’t done it in years except on very special occasions. Using the King James Version is like preaching out of another book entirely. (Matthew: I am so addicted to my subheadings.) All of this has reminded me to be kinder to the Bible Belt SBC tradition, and to remember the good in it. These people are very devoted to the Word and to the Gospel. I hope I’ve been able to “stretch” them a bit.

“Together For The Gospel” will dominate the blogosphere for a few days. I really should have spent the dough and shown up. So many of my fans are going to be there. I could have sold some t-shirts.

Ever heard of this? Seems to be a bit of an emerging church expression within the RCC. (I am taking Our Sunday Visitor and really learning a lot of interesting things, both good, bad and weird.)

Interest in whatever it is I am starting that might look like an emerging somethingorother is slowly registering. Would be great to have about 10-15 people to start out with.

Go to the latest Phillips Pyro post on Wright. Try not to fall over with stunned amazement at his comments on hero worship of Wright. (Is there any bigger group of shameless fanboys than the TR blogs?) Then read the posts by “Craig” in the comment thread. It will make your day.

leif: I am having a quarter long tantrum on the idea of revising revising revising revising writing. It’s not taking.

A local girl is singing “He Thinks My Tractor’s Sexy” on the radio.

Leif:
You need to do something with that gold. Publish it, or put it on t-shirts or something. Or wait for this young man to be elected to Congress (or President!) and use it as blackmail.

Here’s a sentence from a student’s paper (keep in mind that they have been working on these for most of a semester):

“So by him protecting himself from a guy trying to rob and shoot him in which he had robbed my friend several times before that.”

Here’s another:

“You know when your in prison you need to be punished for the crime you committed to let you realize what you have done was wrong, but once you’ve owned up an shown remorse.”

I have a headache.

Tim Challies has bought the domain discerningreader.com, and turned it into part of his blogging empire.

There are several pages of posts that I could write on this move. It’s quite revealing. But in honor of the new owner, I’ll just give it a nodding link. wink wink

Michael: Oops, was that too obvious? Yeah, I was calling you out, but I was doing so for honest reasons. I wanted to hear your thought on how to reconcile the words of Jesus with the issue at hand. Jim comes too close to saying nothing but the physical act of sex with someone other than your wife is sinful (my paraphrase, not Jim’s) for my comfort, and that viewpoint (again, my characterization, probably inaccurate) doesn’t reconcile well. I know we all tend to ignore Jim, so I couldn’t expect you to automatically come out with a correction if I didn’t “encourage” it. Besides, Jim’s actually been saying some really good stuff lately, and I’m confused by that. ;-)
So I guess what I was looking for is the via media, Anglican that I am. Not everything described by moralists as lustful is actually lustful. I get that part, definitely. Sex with someone to whom you’re not married (and to simplify things, let’s say that you or the other person is married) is a sin. I get that part. The gray area is the in-between. The part Jesus was talking about. The “lustful intent” (or “lustful thoughts” as some translations have it). You did deal with it in that essay, which I didn’t remember well, so thanks for the link. I think I still would have asked, to get your latest thoughts and see if they’ve changed at all.

I also don’t expect a cut-and-dried line, and recognize that the activities in which a person can engage without sinning may be different for different people. Still, general guidelines are helpful, so thanks for yours. :-)

Kent said: We are the Church and we are in this together and need to support one another in our struggles with sin and be careful not to let somebody struggling with sexual sin to believe that they are being specifically shunned in any way.

Two pints of the Tavern’s finest on me brother!  While I was in St. Louis, I volunteered with a ministry that tried to help men and women who struggle with different sexual addictions.  It is called First Light, and I love the people there!  The group I worked most closely with was of men who struggle with same-sex attraction.  Let me tell you, there are no more ostracized people in the Church than those who struggle with this particular temptation.  My cousin is actually gay, so this issue is particularly emotionally charged for me.  I want to be able to minister to these uniquely excluded people in as compassionate a way as possible.  There is healing for the ravages of sexual sins, but healing comes from Christ in community (iow, in the Church).  When they are cast out, they are forced away from that one source of healing.

iMonk wrote:

PWinn is apparently calling on me [...]

No, no, Michael, you must be mistaken. Surely Mr. Winn couldn’t have been calling on anybody, because, as he stated, he was staying out of the dicussion.

;) ;) ;)

Now, I want allay’alls who have lusted in your hearts to touch the smiling avatar and repent.

Eric, just a clarification. I’m not antinomian. I’m post-nomian.

It’s time for the man’s prayer. Everyone repeat after me:

I’m a man
But I can change
If I have to
I guess

(If you don’t know what I’m referring to, follow the link above.)

...why the folks who are usually so quick to jump to the Gospels and find out what Jesus said haven’t done so in this case. Yeah, that was a cheap shot. Sorry. I’m still looking for a philosophy that explains Jesus’ statement about a man looking at a woman with lust in his heart but draws a distinction between biology and sexual sin.

PWinn is apparently calling on me (“the folks who are ususally so quick to jump to the Gospels”) to realize that I’ve ignored everything Jesus said on the subject of lust. Sorry PW. I’ll try to get back on track with my annoying Jesus-stuff. (jn) And I’m used to cheap shots. TR-blog-addiction makes you tough.

I’ve written an entire essay on this subject, and it’s a pretty good one, I think. “Sex In Dangerous Places.”

A few thoughts.

Matthew 5:27-28 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

What percentage of the Christian treatment of sexuality takes this verse as it stands, rather than rewriting it into “Everyone who looks at a woman and notices that she has sexuality, an attractive body and resembles the biological compliment of male sexuality has committed adultery in his heart. In fact, what we need here is to just don’t ever think about sex. If you look at a woman and think about sex, you’re toast?”

The whack interpretation of this verse is an embarassment to rational people. Sex isn’t lust. Sexual desire isn’t lust. Perhaps someone cough could explain why biology is lust.

This is the feminized, male-as-beast, view of sex that has castrated, guilt tripped and controlled men for decades. It’s the result of more than a century of swarmy, ignorant, hyper-spiritual/sexually dysfunctional women telling the church what men are supposed to be like. “We’d like our men unsexed, then highly sexed, then unsexed, at our whim, which happens to be the same as what God says in the Bible.”

Don’t even get me on David, Samson and Solomon. Don’t even start. Anyone who doesn’t think Jesus was a sexual person is proof positive the nanny-theologians have neutered you.

Epithumeo means to greatly desire to have something. In moral terms, it means to greatly desire to have something WRONGLY. If you look at Buffy and think, “I want to have her breasts,” you’re probably sinning. If she’s single, you want to marry her and you are willing to channel that sexuality into the right approach to having sex with Buffy, then congratulations; you’re on the right track.

Biology isn’t sin. Lust is sin. Lust is the desire to possess something wrongly. I see attractive female students all day. They are beautiful. I don’t want to have sex with any of them. In my fallen condition, the thought may present itself, and I have the rational, moral, will capacity to think about something else. Or I can go look at porn on the internet and indulge it.

Sexual feeling isn’t lust. Sexual thoughts aren’t lust. Desiring to have sex with a woman isn’t lust. Desiring to have sex with someone who isn’t your spouse is lust.

You guys do realize that if you follow this road far enough, its possible to do what fanatics have done for centuries: turn married sex into something that we ought to feel guilty about.

Men ought to be fully sexual beings and be unashamed to be so. They should learn from one another how to manage their sexuality in a GOD honoring way. The emasculated, castrated, sissified, feminized view of sex rampant in evangelicalism is the cause of wretched suffering for millions of people who have nothing to be ashamed of.

And yes, I am the guy who said that if his son had a picture of a woman on the wall of his room, it would assure me he was normal. And he did/does and he is. The sexual component is present in all male/female relationships. Do the right thing with that component.

Lauren Winner in Real Sex comes remarkably close to sounding sane on this topic.

I feel like I heard a discussion about one subject with virtually no common ground. Yes, there is temptation and temptation does not necessarily equal sin but it can be a causal factor. Yes, there is sexual sin that can take place fully in the mind of the sinner. Yes, men may or may not sin upon seeing a naked human female. Like any other sin the threshold varies with the individual…some enter into sin at step #4, some at step #26, some never.

Yes, God created us to be sexual beings with good, healthy (might I say ‘fun’?) sexual responses which are to be acted out in the context of marriage (speaking here of sexual intercourse not masturbation – which is a ‘me’ thing not an ‘us’ thing). Speaking to a son I’d say “Yes, your body was created to have reactions/sensations (that I would be glad to detail), and so will your wife’s, and it will be wonderful to share those reactions/sensations together when you are married – all the more so if you wait and share them only with her. Until then you will need to be very cautious, it is so easy for us to sin sexually and sexual is can be particularly destructive.”

Finally, the individualized tone of discussion surprised me. We are the Church and we are in this together and need to support one another in our struggles with sin and be careful not to let somebody struggling with sexual sin to believe that they are being specifically shunned in any way. Each person is responsible for their own ‘fence laws’ as it were, but we need to be sensitive and loving to others in their struggle. I approach the modesty issue with girls from this direction; “are you being loving to your Christian brothers?”, often they’ve no clue that it’s an issue.

Just a quick thought with no elaboration before I log off for the night. I entirely agree that women have been treated so terribly in the church because of the issue of sex. I’m just not so certain that the biological “men just can’t help themselves” explanation is helpful to that. [forgive me, and please clarify, if I’m missing the point]. Rather, I tend to think that line of reasoning is much more of a culprit for the mistreatment of women.

Jim, I think you misunderstood what Phillip was trying to say with Matthew 5:28.  I’m sure Phillip is well aware of Christ’s words in John 8:1-11.  Your Buffy post, given no context, tended towards the antinomian calling it all Biology… (you’re right, by the way), and Phillip responded with Law to answer what he perceived as teetering towards a lack of it.  Fallen biology produces fallen sexual practices and addictions, as we all know and can, to some certain degree or another, attest to.  As I am a 26-year-old virgin three months away from being married, this is driven home to me more than it ever has been in my life.

Unfortunately, I’ve too much to do at the moment to continue the dialogue myself, but Jared from Thinklings sent this to me.  I’m not familiar with it, but perhaps one of you are, and it will help the discussion along?

Dallas Willard draws some good distinctions on this subject in The Divine Conspiracy. He also defines lust more narrowly and specifically than most Christians (who tend to lump temptation and sexual desire in with lust as companion sins).

Surely one of your barmates has read Conspiracy, eh?

PWinn: Everything you need to know about Jesus and sexual sin can be gleaned from the story of the woman caught in adultery. People who get stuck on “looks at a woman with lust” and can’t get to “neither do I accuse” are case studies of everything that’s wrong with how we view sex.

Travis: Women have been especially badly treated when it comes to the church’s handling of sexuality. We have had generation upon generation of women who have poor information about their own biology, and no real understanding of how a man’s body works, or how his physiology affects his mental state. I’m not just talking about the parts involved in intercourse. A good example would be, how many women understand that men have a testosterone cycle that is similar to (albeit shorter than) a woman’s reproductive cycle? Or that testosterone is a factor in why so often depression goes undiagnosed in men (because it triggers an anger response to depression, rather than melancholy)? Or that a sleeping man whose brain is in REM state will automatically have an erection, even if he’s dreaming about fishing?

For that matter, why do we not teach women that the biological aspects of male sexuality means that her husband is wired to look at Buffy? I’m not saying that a woman should approve of her husband’s lust, but there’s a distinction between lust – a heart state that arises out of improper desire – and the pre-arrousal male sexual response to visual stimulation. It may not sound nice, or romantic, but a woman should at least understand that a measurable component of her husband’s response to the sight of another beautiful woman has nothing to do with his volitional commitment to his wife. She doesn’t have to like it, but then again there are aspects of female sexuality that men are expected to account for when evaluating their wives’ behavior; why isn’t the reverse also true?

Eric: Woohoo! Congrats, and now we definitely need to get you hooked up with Kurt and Amanda before you go in the fall.

Joel: For once, I can say that I’ve heard most of your sentiments expressed (though not together) by others.  Part Ravi Zacharias, part William Placher.  A most insightful connection!
Josh:  Don’t feel bad.  You get much sympathy from me.  In fact, you’ll probably hear my lament of the Hebrew qualifier, which I will need to retake in a couple months.  Greek, Doctrine, NT, and OT I’ll pass with very little additional study time.  Hebrew, on the other hand, will kick my ass.  And all this while some Concordia System brat probably squeaks by because he took Hebrew this last semester and can, with his fading knowledge, barely get off a passing grade.  Are you going to the Fort for summer Greek?

All: Just wanted to share this wonderful news!  I have my acceptance letter from seminary!  I’m back in!!

Josh, if it’s your call stick with it. It took me a long time (twenty years) to understand why God led me through some of the family junk I survived, but now I know.

Josh, it stinks to find one’s calling at the wrong (or inconvenient) time. I doubt I’m feeling exactly the same thing as you, but I can tell you it’s a bummer to be 11 years into an IT career and wondering why I didn’t just go to sem in the beginning.

Never mind not becoming Christian until almost done with the engineering degree, or having to spend some years realizing that maybe it would have been helpful to study philosophy, languages, and all that stuff that engineering majors consider waste-of-brain-cell courses that must be endured to get a degree, or having to grow up enough for people other than myself to tell me that I should be in sem, etc.

Don’t sweat the lazy feelings, and don’t worry aboout people who make you feel dumb. Everyone knows them, and hates them for it. ;-)

I am definitely staying away from the discussion on sex. Except to wonder, quietly, why the folks who are usually so quick to jump to the Gospels and find out what Jesus said haven’t done so in this case. Yeah, that was a cheap shot. Sorry. I’m still looking for a philosophy that explains Jesus’ statement about a man looking at a woman with lust in his heart but draws a distinction between biology and sexual sin. But I’ll shut up.

Joel: Marvelous. Perhaps tending to the ad hominem in that it can’t help but be seen as a personal statement about those who do not allow for mystery in their view of God, but still insightful when it comes to many theological viewpoints.

By the way, you might be interested in the final point made in an essay at The Craw called The Quest for the Masculine.

Jim, what’s step six five?

And I’m supportive of Travis’ question as well adding how do we tell the difference beteween ‘biology’ and our ‘fallen state’?

Joel, that was one mean bait & switch.

Ok, great.  In principle, I agree with the following assertions:

1. Sexual temptation desire is part of our biological makeup


2. Rules won’t change what we are biologically


3. The church has screwed up the sex issue a lot

Perhaps I’m just entirely misunderstanding this, and I’m certain willing to learn.  But what does all of that look like practically when it comes to sexual temptation?  “Sorry, honey…Buffy was wearing that shirt again, and, after all, it’s just my biology” isn’t going to cut it. 

>very few people in the church have any …idea how to tell the difference between biology, sexual temptation, and sexual sin.

Amen. Totally on target.

(I will go to hell for even considering jumping on on this one.)

If you think the world is messed up when it comes to sexuality, well, you’re probably right. If you think that there’s anything in mainstream American evangelicalism that’s “a better approach to sexuality,” you’re an idiot.
One of the primary reasons why so many people in the church are messed up by sexuality, sexual temptation and sexual sin is that very, very few people in the church have any f******g idea (pun intended, as was the offense if you were, so thanks) how to tell the difference between biology, sexual temptation, and sexual sin. So let me give you some help:

1) Buffy is attractive. That is biology.
2) Josh likes breasts. That is biology.
3) Buffy’s breasts appear attractive to Josh. That is biology.
4) Josh begins to feels desire for sexual activity with Buffy when he sees Buffy’s cleavage. Guess what that is? That is biology.

If you said, “that’s sexual temptation” when I asked “guess what,” then you’re a victim of the church’s efforts to perpetuate misinformation about sexuality, sexual temptation and sexual sin. You need help. Unfortunately, there aren’t very many people in the church who have a good understanding of this sort of thing, so muddle about on your own and see how things work out. Don’t worry, if you mess up, that’s what grace is for. Unfortunately, there aren’t very many people in the church who have a good understanding of grace, either, but some of us are trying.

If you said, “that’s sexual sin” when I asked, “guess what”, then you are part of the problem. Go away, please.

If you think making #5 in the list “Buffy needs to change her shirt” is going to change Josh’s biology, forget it. Unless Josh and I get to watch her change. In that case, I’m willing to give it a try, for the sake of science.

In the words (perhaps not exact) of Thomas Merton, we need a definition of “purity” that allows us to still be human.

We spend so much energy trying to drive sexuality out of ourselves, our spouses and our kids. We hate sex, and we wish it would go away. But it doesn’t go away, and we only end up doing foolish, harmful things to people whose only sin (in this area) is that they are human beings with gender, hormones and a nervous system.

I must apologize to Josh and others who read my overly-defensive post earlier. I have been reading (almost non-stop) absolutely depressing and pathetic “research” papers for days now, and I was preparing to go flunk some people when I typed my response. I am appalled at the rhetorical and documentation skills of these students after a semester of detailed instruction in argument and MLA style, and I fear that disgust made me just cranky enough to take your (Josh’s) style personally. While I do find it a bit alienating at times (not necessarily to me, but in general), it doesn’t usually bother me, and I generally consider it a part of your (and I am NOT being sarcastic here) charm.

I believe it also made me lose track of my argumentation skills momentarily also (reading poorly-argued community college essays is like watching someone yawn, I guess), so the post you were responding to was not as coherent as I would have liked.

In short, I apologize for getting all offended. I still, however, think that none of us who feel strongly about this subject are ever going to see eye to eye, so I will, as I said, confine myself to observing the proceedings.

Me after grading paper 72:

A young boy who had a small dog was overheard by his father telling a playmate how this big dog was chasing his little dog with the obvious intent to grab him and bring some harm to him. The big dog was gaining on the little dog with every big, leaping step. The playmate was alarmed but the young boy assured his friend that the little dog escaped by climbing up a tree and perching on a limb safely out of harm’s way and the reach of the big mean dog below. The father rebuked the boy, reminding him, “You should not tell stories like that. You know that dogs can’t climb trees.” But the young boy replied, “But Daddy, he’s just got to!”

Michael, that relationship exists.

I’m trying to figure out how to use art in a non-artistic manner…other than warming a house in winter I’m clueless…

Agreed. Prudence and Wisdom are what you do. It’s not what I insist others do. Voicing the need for modesty, prudence and wisdom are important values in any setting where there are both sexes present.

I don’t follow this to the artistic use of art. That’s something else. If we are talking about non-artistic uses of art, it’s another matter.

Kent: I would never say anything to another person about their appearance unless I was in a clear relationship where that was expected (parent, intimate, supervisory, mentoring.) If I said, “Your cleavage makes it difficult for me to think about my accounting,” I better have a relationship where that isn’t inappropriate.

Michael (& Others) what are those things to say to a young Christian lady?  Does it need to come from an elder woman or may I say those words?

[Deleted first paragraph]

I wonder how the shoe would fit if it were on the other foot. Buffy tells Josh that his tight jeans and t-shirt are a distraction to her.

Is there really a church you would like to belong to that has “No cleavage” as a rule? An actual rule?

This idea that we need to treat all the horny single twenty year olds like big babies because they are so prone to be porn addicts is nothing but generational whining. I think 40 year old librarians are way hotter than belly button showing 20 year olds. Ever been in a nursing home? There’s no lack of lust around there, as anyone who works there can assure you. Saying that we can’t let Buffy just toss her breasts out there for all of us to stumble over is just another way of saying Buffy is the problem. Real breasts, internet breasts, Victoria’s Secret breasts, breasts under the 19th century dresses of Mennonite ladies in Clay Co, breasts in my perverse imagination, the unseen breasts of a woman I see in the park: Now where do I start to clean up my act?

Is there a text somewhere that tells me Jesus told the prostitutes he hung out with to be aware that the disciples hadn’t been with their wives in weeks? Where exactly is the place that Jesus tells me how to fight sin by helping Buffy be more modest?

Locating this problem with Buffy, or in the culture, or on the internet or at the beach or with having men and women together at all for any reason is all missing the point. Christians have tried it all, Josh: No sex, no contact, separate everything, burkas, convents, castration, flagellation, rules, dress codes, preaching, books. It’s not working and never will. Not anywhere. Thanks to the RCC for all those Catholic school uniforms and what they’ve done to cut back on male lust.

I’ll say it again: The only way to battle lust is a greater satisfaction and reordered thinking/choices. If Buffy bugs me, I need to change seats, give up the Bible study or (here’s a thought) learn how to laugh at how my fear of a sexual thought is driving me to distraction. “Man, I can’t quit thinking about Buffy” is only half a problem. God made us with all the sexual energy, and we can blame him for it. He is to blame that we like to look at her breasts and they bring a certain kind of emotional-chemical excitement. What I do with that fact is my business entirely.

[Now there are things to say to Buffy, if she is a Christian, and it’s important to say them…but nothing Buffy does is going to solve this problem. If you aren’t thinking about her breasts until she shows them to you, you’re a better man than me.

Josh: The issues you’re having with formatting might be a side effect of the Textile plugin that was recently installed. If enough people are having issues with it, we can make it go away. Unfortunately, it is not set up well for a multi-user blog and doesn’t support enabling on a per-user basis.

Kent: Glad ya like the favicon. It should annoy those who are already annoyed with us to begin with. ;)

I think it would be better (idealism coming – watch out) for these girls and women to learn from a young age that they don’t have to dress like hookers to be attractive, and they don’t have to look at pop culture for fashion advice.

Yes, I think that’s on the mark.  Buffy’s hanging her cleavage out ‘cause she buys Hollywood’s lies about what’s attractive and how to get a man.  (We men buy these lies too, and so we’re not helping any).  Just as we need to get to the heart of why men are lusting, we need to get to the heart of why women want to be lusted after.  (and vice versa, when appropriate).

Personally, I’d rather not have to look at Buffy’s cleavage, etc. when I’m trying to worship, but more ignorable rules aren’t really going to help that. I think it would be better (idealism coming – watch out) for these girls and women to learn from a young age that they don’t have to dress like hookers to be attractive, and they don’t have to look at pop culture for fashion advice. Much of the problem comes down to a simple lack of taste/self respect.

As for me, I suppose if I have to spend most of my day looking at the floor/ceiling/my wife to keep my mind clean, I’ll take that on myself. Still, there must be a respectful/loving way to ask women to stop doing the mating dance for at least the time it takes to honor the One who gave her the bod in the first place. Perhaps that should be in the realm of the older women instructing the younger women?

Enough of us guys have chimed in. What do the ladies in the tavern think of all this?

Dear Mr Alienation Josh:

I am sorry my post was so upsetting that you felt the need to write things like “blah blah blah” to reduce my argument to nonsense, refer to me as “big guy” to condescend, and apply my reasoning to advertising, which I never mentioned.  I thought I was reasonably “speaking” (typing, whatever).  I suppose my tone did not come through.

At any rate, foreseeing a lot of talking past each other and time-consuming “I’m smarter than you” rhetorical bon mots from all around, I will respectfully bow out of this conversation for the time being.

Oh, and I have no idea what that last sentence meant, even though I read it several times.  I think maybe a word was missing.  I’m sure it was a zinger though.

I am not sulking or angry, by the way—I just prefer a different kind of debating style.

Peace.

I don’t know.  I agree that it’s each person’s job to deal with one’s addictions/lust, but I can’t see a problem with having a rule that Buffy not show her cleavage at church.  Sounds more like an act of grace extended to people with addictions (many of which are rooted in past abuse, etc.) than an act of legalism to me. 

Many people with these addictions need a gigantic wholistic approach, involving counseling and so on.  I just I think the church should be a safe place for people in the middle of that struggle.

Just a brief announcement that two of our patrons, Richard and Douglas, are having bad times with the WordPress install. I think it has something to do with firewalls that they have installed, blocking some of the info that WP uses for security. Hopefully we’ll be able to get them sorted out soon, but I wanted y’all to know that they’re not dead.

I am thinking that they should both give w.bloggar a try, to see if that provides an acceptable workaround.

How a person dresses is matter of personal conscience, family instruction (for minors), and perhaps (and this is a big perhaps) Christian community in extreme cases of offense to others.

Often, Christians sound like it is the responsibility of other people to keep them from lusting. I can’t see that. It may be a person’s responsibility to consider a weaker brother, but with normal adults we never lose our responsibility for dealing with our own flaws and temptations.

The assumption that other people are going to make it easier for me to live a godly life is flawed. Within the Christian community that may be an issue, but is Buffy’s visible cleavage really a reason for me to tell her I’m lusting after her at the Bible study?

Michael & Leif, I guess I’m left wondering how one dovetails your perspective(s) on nudity with modesty and modest dress. This is a real issue in our community as the definition of ‘modesty’ seems to vary greatly between individuals.

I’m pretty sure that if we ran the roll call of the BHT, we’d come up with quite a collection of addictions. I’d have a couple. It’s my responsibility to deal with them. Asking someone to not post a perfectly appropriate artisitic semi-nude figure because of my propensity to lust isn’t one of the helpful ways of dealing with the problem. Nothing on the outside makes me unclean. It comes from within; from the heart. Breaking an addiction is the power of a superior affection and a reordering of the rational and emotive processes that lead from encounter to action.

By the way, as one experienced with the temptation of lust, clothes have never slowed me down much. Nudity actually has the advantage of bluntly confronting me with the true nature of what is happening. Porn addiction is primarily an issue of immaturity and masculinity. I deal with dozens and dozens of boys using porn every year. Efforts to limit the “line of sight” temptation are going to be almost worthless in this culture. A man has to think rightly about sex, whether its looking at a fully clothed stranger or his unclothed wife.

Josh:  I’m not exactly sure which “certain people” you mean (I’m not trying to be snarky—I really don’t know whom you mean); but I think it would be hard to write off everyone who likes nude art as a pervert in disguise.  I know that’s not what you are doing, but it’s what I have seen happen too often.  My wife is an exceptional photographer, and she occasionally will do a nude photo.  Her work is certainly not pornographic, but neither is it of shapeless, amorphic people that no one would ever be attracted to.  She just finds the human body beautiful (especially the female form, although not in an erotic sense for her); in fact, all of her art (paintings, drawings, and photographs alike) feature people, either clothed or unclothed.

The thing that frustrates me is attitudes like those of the people who went in the school library where I used to work and placed contact paper over classic art that featured even partial nudity.  What the heck are people afraid of?  That some sixth-grader will check out that old dusty tome and discover that women have breasts?  They know, people.  And do we have to do away with any nudity at all ever in art, simply because some people are immature or lascivious in response to it?  Why cater to their debaseness?

Michael:  Clay is such a good writer; I love reading his stuff.  Maybe he will grow up to corrupt as many people as you!(jn)  Seriously, when I look back at some of the crap I wrote in high school (why do I feel like I’m singing a Paul Simon song now?), and compare it to your high schooler…well, to quote this guy, “I am depressed.”

On the whole assurance/victory thingy: I am struck by something common to this worry and the apologetical drive that runs so strongly in reformedom. It is this: both are instances of faith trying to turn itself into sight. There is the desire, either experiential or rational, to take hold of and possess as much as possible the mysterium intrinsic to faith. What offends us so that we must mount a defense against moving from faith to faith (Rom 1:17)? It isn’t the offense of Jesus as just another human being who comes into collision with some established order, as a reincarnation of Socrates as it were. And it isn’t the offense of Jesus in his loftiness, that is, declaring himself to be God through his speaking and acting. Rather, it is the offense at Jesus’s lowliness, that “the one who passes himself off as God proves to be the lowly, poor, suffering, and finally powerless human being” (Kierkegaard, Practice in Christianity, 102). This is the same offense that concerns the disciples after the Transfiguration, wherein Jesus, who is revealed in his loftiness, proceeds to teach of his impending death and resurrection. So Peter, who had the clearest evidence of Jesus’s divinity (and which he had already confessed before the Transfiguration), who it could be said had, above anyone else in history, in this experience, his faith replaced with sight, nevertheless was warned of the third offense yet to come. Would he move “from faith to faith,” from the offense of loftiness to the offense of lowliness, from the foretaste of the glorified Jesus to the crucified One? It was not a given that he would. Nor is it a given that we do or will.

This is where apologetics comes on the scene: to move us from a theology of glory to a complete faith. But this is not the ordained path of security. Apologetics is trying to make the faith that could come as a response to the third offense a matter of sight. This is why Kierkegaard has Anti-Climacus say: “He who defends [Christianity] has never believed it.” We try to deal with the offense of lowliness by trying to ponder its paradox (apologetics) or by eliminating the possibility of taking up our cross (theology of glory/victory) and avoiding what Bonhoeffer summarized as the call of discipleship: that when Jesus calls us he bids us come and die. Both apologetics and “victory” are manifestations of “wretched contentment” that averts its gaze from the lowly, suffering, powerless God-man, and substitutions for following Him on the way of the cross. After all, who has time to ponder?

To enjoy the son I’ve raised, first go to his Xanga and read the comments on the original post. And then read the current rant. It sounds like what I should have sounded like at 18, but I got my head stuck up…..church culture. For a while there I thought he got all his DNA from his mother. This clears that up. Blog on, Daddy-o.

S.M. Hutchens describes exactly why I am not comfortable in much of what is called pastoral ministry: trivia and triviality.

U2 Eucharist? I’d try it once.

Yesterday at Calvary Baptist Church in Corbin was fun. They liked my messages on Jesus. 108 in the morning. 85 in the evening. A profession of faith by an older woman. The church is real Bible belt SBC, very traditional KJV, hymns only, pleading extended invitations, etc. All the stuff I’ve been running from for years, but I can get right back to it pretty easily. I told the pastor he would do the invitations, which he is glad to do. The people are very loving, positive and encouraging. I felt like I could do this a lot if that’s what God wants me to do. Three more messages…and dinner every night. I’ll think of you guys while I’m eating catfish at Cracker Barrel.

We’re all exhausted around here, but there is no let up. Denise is in her busiest time of the year and it just about wears her out. Clay has something senior/end of the year/graduation oriented all of the time. Somehow I believe that when we get Noel married off it will all calm down. I don’t know where those crazy ideas come from.

Somewhere in there I want to get in the first meal/fellowship of those who might be interested in forming a house worship experience. Right now it’s the “Meet, talk, listen, pray” stage of things. There is a lot of interest building in where the former MPC gang is going to church in the future. The Baptists want some of us :-) This will be an interesting process, no matter where it goes.

Clay’s hot dog Sager notebook arrives today, and I get a week to get it souped up to suit me before his birthday May 1.

I had an interesting conversation with my daughter yesterday, and it is kind of relevant to some recent discussions here, and I wanted to see if anyone would like to comment.

We were discussing Jonah, and she said, “Daddy, how could a man live in the belly of a fish?  Wouldn’t he drown or be digested?  Also, how did he get water to drink?  Wasn’t it in the ocean?  So all of the water the fish drank would be salt water, right?”  So I answered that there are three possibilities: 1) God made it happen because He’s God and He can do whatever He wants (something she’s always reminding me, actually), including defying the laws of nature or physics; 2) the fish was a kind that we don’t know about, which could accomodate a grown human being without killing or crippling him with stomach acids and the like, and which, perhaps, secretes fresh water or something, which Jonah could drink (?? obviously I am no zoologist or scientist!) (I also explained that he could technically have lived three days with no water, but he would have been very weak and unhealthy—and coupling that with the trauma and lack of food, I have my suspicions about him lasting that long); or 3) the story is merely a lesson, not based on actual events, told to teach us something (a la metaphor or parable).

So what does the bar think?  Was my reasoning sound?  (My prediction: I will be corrected on my didgy science in point 2, and someone will thrash me for disrespecting the Bible in point 3.

Looking for assurance all the time seems to me one more way to go around being miserable.  If Christ dying for me isn’t assurance enough, I have no assurance, and what’s the point?  As my daughter pointed out to me the other day, Jesus died for me.  I truly believe that, hence my assurance.  Anything else could be just smoke and mirrors.

On grading papers and judging their length:  in 101, I refuse to specify a length, telling students that if I set a length, they will write to that length and quit—whether they should have added material, or they had to inject “fluff” to make it meet the requirement.  Occasionally a student will try to be lazy and turn in a two-paragraph essay and hope I won’t notice.  I do.  In 102, which is argument and research, I have to specifiy a length (8-10) because if I don’t, they won’t realize the significance of that one essay.  But as we get closer to the end, and I have seen their Background and Argument section drafts, I let the cat out of the bag: I am far less concerned about length than I am quality.  That works for me: usually the laziest have already dropped in the face of (what they consider to be) so lengthy an assignment; and those serious (serious enough to strive for quality work no matter the page requirement) are left to finish up (along with a few who were too lazy to actually withdraw and somehow cling on till the end and leave individual conferences dazed and glossy-eyed after I tell them their semester average is a 42.6).

Returned from the Midwest regional meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers Saturday evening. Thanks to my fellow grad student Brad for accompanying me on this trip and springing for the gas. Brad is another Asbury alumnus (the college) and is frighteningly informed in the discussions that occur on the BHT. He helped make about 12 hours of driving go by quickly, although I think he was talking in order to distract himself from my driving.

The SCP meeting was also the occasion of a BHT3D between myself and Alex. I have nothing but the highest opinion of Alex because (1) he bought my beer and fish & chips and (2) he could kick the crap out of me. Now that I am a safe distance away, however, I will inform the bar that he is a mostly unapologetic Platonist and constantly bumps his head on abstract objects. He seemed unmoved by my boy’s plenary talk; nevertheless, he seemed resigned to the possibility (fact?) that philosophizing on the subject of mystery requires a bigger toolkit than the method of deductive logical analysis that dominates our colleagues in the SCP. Let us all pray that he recovers from his platonism in due time.

I also attended the paper by another blogging colleague, Cynthia Nielsen. You can read her reflections on the conference here. I dutifully asked an obnoxious question after her paper to which she responded, not in kind, but gracefully and thoughtfully.

Speaking of asking obnoxious questions, I should have known better to attend a paper on reconciling postmodern philosophy and inerrancy, but my curiosity got the better of me. Fortunately, I had a couple rolls of extra-strength duct tape on hand and no permanent harm occurred.

Before leaving the beautiful Notre Dame campus, we visitied the Sacred Heart Basilica. The first impression was one of sound: a student (I think) was practicing the 54-rank Holtkamp organ. She was playing a Bach work (I think). But then she spent almost the remainder of our time in the church on an arrangement of All Creatures of Our God and King. The second impression was one of smell: the sanctuary was filled with easter lilies. There were a few statuary worth spending some time with, especially a modern Pieta by the Croatian artist Ivan Mestrovic, and the Prodigal Son by the same artist. The reliquary chapel includes some bones of the 3rd-century martyr St. Severa. I must confess that even if I were open to the veneration of such items, I don’t think I could get past the creepy wax figure of Severa that they had occupying the bulk of the glass case. ::shudder::

Time to catch up with some unfinished business.

Most people use the verse “the Spirit bears witness with our spirit” to look for proof of salvation.  Something akin the the Mormon’s burning bosom experience, I guess.  Here’s how it caches out for me:  I have no idea what the “Spirit” feels like.  So the best source of assurance or confirmation that I know of is from Spirit inspired scripture.  Romans 10 “assures” me that I am saved.  That’s good enough for me.  The fact that I am inclined to do (works) some things I would have been unlikely to do if not a Christian is a bonus, but since my works are inconsistent then my assurance (if based on works) would be inconsistent also.

Besides, I’ve never read NT Wright, so that provides me some assurance as well. (JN)

Michael: The puritans wrote quite a lot about works and assurance, and I, for one, find their writing and actions (in terms of laws and such) to be… confusing. I completely understand the desire to seek assurance. We systematize theology to the point of introducing several new points for doubt! We have faith in Christ and His work on the cross, right? That should be all the assurance we need (Lutheran-style). But then, like Luther, we begin to wonder if we really have faith, or are we kidding ourselves. And so we seek some indications that the Holy Spirit is at work within us, but of course if we can’t trust our minds to tell us whether or not we have faith, how can we trust those same minds to tell us that behavior X (or the lack of behavior Y) is an indication of the work of the Holy Spirit?

The puritans wrestled with this issue intensely, railing against hypocrites and carnal men on the one hand, who had the outward signs of sanctification but lacked inward regeneration, and desperately seeking assurance on the other hand.

I’ll just say this: James describes faith without works as dead. Clearly someone who claims to believe in Christ but whose behaviour over the long-term is unchanged in any way is fooling himself. (I personally think we tend to be too soft on this issue due to cultural influences here in the U.S., but that’s neither here nor there.) The flip side of that warning is that it’s pretty easy to mimic the sorts of external behavior that makes Christians happy without—as the puritans noted—any actual regeneration or true sanctification going on. So examining our lives on a constant basis as a basis for assurance, well, I don’t see that as consistent with the picture painted in the New Testament. But striving to do the good works God has laid out for us, that’s clearly called for. It’s the emphasis as you’ve described it that seems wrong to me.

Our assurance should be based on Christ and His work, not our works.

BTW, much of my rethinking on the assurance issue was helped by a question I asked here a few weeks ago.

Did anyone see a fun link from one of our Rule 40 friends to a web site looking at the religion of comic book characters? I’m sure it will irritate them to know that Emerging preachers love stuff like that. 8-)

Michael, I’ve heard this line of reasoning quite a bit myself. My probably-too-simple thoughts on works==assurance is:

works=assurance: not really
works=evidence of assurance: partially

My thought is that if we want to try to see though our eye planks at someone else’s fruit, we’re better off looking at things like, I don’t know, love – joy – peace – patience – kindness – goodness – faithfulness – gentleness – self control.

I guess you can look at works in the James sense, but if you want to get into the whole assurance thing, I’d have to say ultimately our assurance comes from the death and resurrection of Jesus, and not from whether or not we’re able to obey perfectly in our brokenness. I think God grants us those things over time, but when we try to act like we have it all together now instead of letting God do it in/through us, it just becomes legalism. More and more I’m convinced that the only thing I can actually do is hear the Word, pray, and ask God to change me, then let Him be in charge of the result. Whenever I try to force the good, I end up making a mess.

I’m in a discussion with a guy that says we should look to our works for assurance that we are Christians. This makes no sense to me at all. Am I wrong to not want to be like the guy who prayed, “Lord, I thank you that I am not like other people because of the following stuff I do…?”

Bill: But my contention is that if I can say in 12 pages what it takes others 15 to say, should I be penalized for that?

Any prof worth his salt is looking for content, not words. My students used to ask, “how many pages?” I’d say, “You tell me! You paid $2k for this class, what do you want to get out of it? Are you going to run around the rest of your life asking, ‘what’s the minimum I can do to get by?’”

Nasty, I know, but effective!

I just sent off my final paper for the term.  The prof said it should be 15 pages, and mine was exactly 15 pages.  Now, some have suggested that when a prof says 15 pages, they mean 15 pages of content, excluding title page and bibliography, thus making my paper only 12 pages.  But my contention is that if I can say in 12 pages what it takes others 15 to say, should I be penalized for that?