I’ve posted my Christmas message on my company web site, An Incarnational Christmas Witness. I won’t have time to post anything more here. Merry Christmas!
Category: Christianity
-
The Problem with My Church’s Children’s Ministry
My church has a good children’s ministry. I’m impressed every time I hear our children’s minister present a children’s moment during the church service, and every time I’ve encountered the children’s programs myself, including the couple of times I’ve been invited to speak.
The children are learning a great deal about Christianity, their church, the Bible, and how to live. The problems are challenging and sound. I’m likely to always push for more challenging material, but it’s possible that I would go overboard on that.
I was talking to a church leader a while back who told me that one of all the things going on in the church, the children’s ministry made him most hopeful. Despite the fact that my children are grown, and they’re taking my grandchildren to churches in other cities, I would agree.
So how can I have a problem with this exceptional ministry?
The problem I have isn’t with the program. In fact, I suspect that your church has the same problem as does mine. I’m wondering just where the needed backup is. No matter how good your church’s children’s program is, you can’t depend on other people (children’s ministers, teachers, pastors, and so forth) to nurture your child’s faith.
Just as the home situation is a better predictor of how a child will do at learning, so the home is where most spiritual formation takes place. The church can help, but it cannot replace the parents (or grandparents!) in preparing children for life.
My parents were quite willing to talk about their faith, though they were much more willing to live it. I know my parents prayed, not because they told me they did so, nor because they talked about praying, but because I saw and heard them doing it. I know they spent time studying the Bible, again not because they said so many pious things about the Bible, but because I saw them do it.
I have in my possession one Bible from each of my parents. One is a pocket sized King James Bible that belonged to my father. There isn’t a page in that Bible that isn’t packed with the notes my dad wrote as he read it year after year. It’s in doubtful shape now. But I don’t have to wonder just how much my father cared about his Bible.
I got the Hebrew Bible I carry from my mother. It’s the smaller edition of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. She wanted to stick with the larger edition because the print in this one is too small. But this Bible reminds me that not only did she study all her life, but that she eventually took the time to learn both Hebrew and Greek to use in her personal study.
It was not uncommon to hear the words of scripture from my parents’ lips. But even more importantly they tried to put those words into practice, from the various places the practiced medicine here in the United States, in Canada, in Mexico, and in South America. They gave of themselves.
And that is the true formula for seeing your children involved not just in church but in service throughout their lives. Let them see you do it. Let them know that your faith is important to you, not just because you send them to a Sunday School class, or because you attend a worship service, but because you have made it part of your life.
They’re going to remember a great deal more of what they see you model than they will of what you or someone else tells them. And if you make prayer and Bible study a part of your daily life you’ll also find that those wonderful folks who work in children’s ministry can accomplish much more than they can otherwise.
Don’t make your children’s faith an afterthought. Live your life of faith. Let them see something worth choosing and pursuing.
-
Christopher Hitchens Dies
I’m sad to report that after years of living with cancer, Christopher Hitchens has died at age 62. I have not personal encounters or recollections to report, but I must admit that, while disagreeing with him on many things, including his stand on the war in Iraq, I appreciated his gift for writing, the one way in which I did encounter him.
Most particularly I appreciated the honest and dignified way in which he faced living with cancer. Cancer is a difficult thing to live with, and he showed grace and good humor through it all. I do want to link to one post from someone who does have personal recollections-by Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
And as Ed noted the inevitability of deathbed conversion stories, a Christian habit I deplore, I must call attention to Russell D. Moore’s article Christopher Hitchens Might Be in Heaven, which is not a deathbed conversion story, but lays the groundwork for such stories. I have no doubt that God’s grace is sufficient for any moment, but at the same time it seems to me that such stories at times like this sound more like an attempt to win points against an opponent who can no longer respond than they do like a genuine witness to the faith.
If I am right that there is a God and an afterlife (and thus Hitchens was wrong), I would personally hope as did C. S. Lewis regarding J. S. Mill (God in the Dock, “Man or Rabbit”, 110), that I might encounter him there, and that this would happen without any contrived deathbed story. I’m not a universalist, but I am a hopeful person.
-
Of Virgin Births and Whale’s Bellies
Allan Bevere asks an interesting question today on his blog: Just how important is the doctrine of the virgin birth to you? He titles the post Must One Believe in the Virgin Birth to Be a Christian?
I tend to annoy people on both sides of the spectrum (belief in miracles spectrum, of course) because despite the word “liberal” in the subtitle of this blog I do, in fact, believe in the virgin birth as an event that happened in history, but at the same time, I’m not concerned with whether others believe it or not. Allan cites Albert Mohler, who believes it is necessary to accept the virgin birth in order to be a Christian.
Allan also stomps on one annoying tendency, the way in which some liberals tend to pounce on conservatives as less intellectual because of their beliefs. If one accepts miracles, one is less sophisticated. But I think it is only fair to point out the opposite fault in Mohler’s article, the tendency to regard liberals as less devout because of the things they don’t believe in.
Nicholas Kristof pointed to his grandfather as a “devout” Presbyterian elder who believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” Follow his example, Kristof encourages, and join the modern age. But we must face the hard fact that Kristof’s grandfather denied the faith. This is a very strange and perverse definition of “devout.”
This is a conservative’s way of belittling an opponent, just as “intellectually unsophisticated” is the liberal’s approach. I must, however, point out that neither side is above using the other’s ammunition, and that both sides have those who avoid either fault.
In support of my belief in the virgin birth, I will be very brief. I’ve already accepted the bodily resurrection, so the virgin birth hardly seems like an issue to me. At the same time, and more importantly, I accept the incarnation as both true and as the most central doctrine of Christianity, and if I can accept that infinite God can become a human being, the idea that this might be accomplished through a virgin birth again seems pretty trivial.
In support of my belief that the virgin birth is not essential, I will again cite the doctrine of the incarnation. I believe the incarnation is absolutely critical. It’s quite possible, however, to see the virgin birth as a metaphorical statement of that doctrine, or perhaps more precisely an expression of part of the meaning of that doctrine. I don’t even claim to have any details in mind on how the virgin birth might occur. Did God create a new baby in the womb? Did God adjust the DNA? So despite believing in a virgin birth as a historical event, I don’t have a clue as to how it happened. Thus in teaching it, I probably say almost the same things as would someone who believed it was purely metaphor.
And that brings me to whale’s bellies. On The Jesus Creed we have Scot McKnight getting involved in the question of the historicity of the book of Jonah. (I’ll leave you to follow the further links there.) A miracle of preserving someone’s life for three days inside a sea creature of some sort, whether a whale or something else, is again trivial alongside the incarnation and the resurrection. But I don’t believe the book of Jonah is historical. Why? I think there’s very good evidence in the text that we’re reading fiction designed to make some very specific points to an audience in a different time and place than the one in which the story is set. I don’t have a problem with the miracle. Were I convinced that Jonah was history, nothing else in my belief system would have to change. God could manage the whale’s belly thing. I just happen to believe God did not do so. But if you want to accuse me of being intellectually unsophisticated, go ahead. Because I am intellectually unsophisticated enough to believe the miracle is possible.
Then there’s the question of Jesus’ use of the three days motif from Jonah. I will simply comment that I know one can refer to a fictional story in this fashion because I have done it myself. I’ve used a fictional story to illustrate a real event and it has generally worked just fine. Occasionally fine, fact-oriented, 21st century folks get upset with me about it, but I tell them to chill.
I want to respond also to the first comment on McKnight’s article, which is from Joe Carter. Here he wonders how we might distinguish when Jesus is using supernatural power and when he’s using the knowledge of his culture. I’d make two points. 1) If Jesus didn’t use the knowledge of his culture, could he really have been said to have lived as a human? Would not constant supernatural knowledge make him not quite truly human? 2) Is this not the common problem in reading scripture? We distinguish the cultural background from the message all the time in case after case. Surely it is not that difficult in most cases, and in many cases where it is difficult, it is not all that important.
-
No Apologies for Believing the Bible
Mark Kellner (Adventist Review, Dec. 8, 2011) says he makes no apologies for believing the Bible. That’s great. Neither do I. (Jan M. Long responded to this at some greater length than I am on the Spectrum Magazine blog, to whom a tip of my hat.)
I don’t usually pick on my former denomination (I grew up and was educated in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church), but in this case, Kellner seems to make a very common mistake. He fails to distinguish the way he understands the Bible to mean from what the Bible says.
In this case, he’s particularly concerned with the creation story. Now I understand that this is a very controversial issue on which we can quite easily, and even reasonably disagree. (I note that I consider it much easier to disagree reasonably on the meaning of the biblical text than on the scientific evidence.) But here’s how Kellner phrases it:
One of the more popular fallacies being floated these days is that the Creation account found in Genesis is an allegory, a “celebration,” much in the way the ancient Hebrews took seven days to mark the inauguration of a temple.
Nonsense. Either the Creation account is true, or we can all sleep in next Saturday morning.
But believing the creation story is something other than a historical narrative doesn’t make it less true. If that were the case, we would make many of the Psalms less true than the books of Samuel and Kings, for example, and the parable of the trees (Judges 9:8-15) would be a gross deception. Most of us would regard those other passages as quite true, but true in a different sense than a historical narrative.
I regard Genesis 1:1-2:4a as liturgy. Liturgy is not less valuable than narrative history. It is valuable in a different way. It conveys different truths in a different way.
Of course the line about sleeping in next Saturday morning applies particularly to SDAs, who worship on Saturday, and would, based on a number of scriptures, see this as a celebration of creation. On the other hand, an SDA who believed that Genesis 1 was liturgy could celebrate creation next Saturday with every bit as much validity as any other act of worship. I doubt that Jesus was born on December 25th, yet I won’t mind commemorating it on that date. The liturgy may not represent historical detail, but it commemorates a core element of my faith.
So the Bible may be true or not, but the decision as to whether the Bible is true doesn’t guarantee the same result for my interpretation of it—or anyone else’s.
-
Scripture Reading
I’m a strong advocate of the public reading of Scripture, so I’ve been following with interest the discussion that Tim Challies set off when he wrote about this ministry at his home church.
In his initial post he discussed how those who are to read scripture are trained and makes some suggestions for making one’s reading of scripture a constructive part of the worship service. These suggestions are helpful. I’ve often wished that people would prepare more. Often it is all too clear that the person doing the scripture reading never actually took a look at the passage before getting in front of the congregation to read.
I would add that I believe public reading of Scripture is an act of corporate worship, as is singing, praying, and the proclamation of the word through preaching. Thus there may be many different ways in which Scripture might be presented as part of worship. In my church, First United Methodist Church of Pensacola, we have had the scripture presented in music and in drama as well as simply read. In some cases we have had responses from members of the congregation, some of which are represented in the book A Living Psalter, which compiles art, photography, poetry, and other literature presented as a response to the Psalter.
In general, however, I don’t think we have much patience in the church today for listening to substantial amounts of Scripture. We can handle it when there is exposition between phrases, but not so much when large amounts are presented at once. I believe, however, that we need to both read and hear the scripture in larger portions and develop greater patience for Scripture itself.
This whole discussion has gotten largely sidetracked by the issue of women in worship. As an egalitarian, I obviously believe women have the same privilege and duty to read Scripture as do men. I find the fact that Grace Fellowship Church does not allow women to read Scripture publicly rather odd. For me, however, it’s hard to respond to this issue considering that I believe women should be allowed to be pastors, in fact, should be allowed the privilege and duty of every office of the church for which God gives them the necessary gifts. Thus debating about whether women can read Scripture publicly gives me this sort of surreal feeling.
Tim Challies further explained his view (and that of his church) on women reading scripture. I don’t find the equation of Scripture reading with teaching at all convincing, but again, I must note that I also don’t accept the idea that women should be restricted from teaching.
None of that, however, prevents me from appreciating the emphasis on Scripture reading, something I believe is sadly neglected in many churches.