Applying to Ph.D. Programs

Introduction

I have found that many students are unaware of just what is involved in the process of applying to Ph.D. programs. There are certainly many things I wish I had known ahead of time. For those interested in my experience and/or advice, here it is.

Reality Check

As a disclaimer I want to make it clear that I am not laying this out as a template for getting into a Ph.D. program. There is no way to do that (and if there was they’d change the rules so that there would not be).

The first thing you need to realize before you make plans to get a Ph.D. is that unlike most college and university degree programs, Ph.D. programs don’t need you. They have far more applicants than open slots, and so you will be fighting your way to the top of a very large and competitive heap. Thus, there is a sense in which being “qualified” does not necessarily qualify you – in other words, you don’t get in just because you meet a requirement checklist. The acceptance rates at many of the schools I looked into were between 2-5%, which means that 95% of the applicants will not get in no matter how good their applications look.

Further, there are only so many objective advantages you have control over. Subject area interest, available faculty that share your interest, the competition that particular year, and the like are responsible for more than a few people getting in (or being kept out of) programs. I have known people on both sides. Thus, in any given year the same applicant might get into several schools when the next year or the year before he would have been turned down.

Finally, even the objective areas that you do have some control over do not always tip the scales. I know of people who got into programs who did not do as well as others did on the GRE, or have as high of a GPA.

It just depends on . . . everything.

My Story

A lot of people like to hear the personal side of things. If you don’t, feel free to skip down to the section on The Application.

Qualifications

Here is how I looked, objectively, going in:

ADVANTAGES:	DISADVANTAGES:
Graduate GPA: 3.97 (summa cum laude, top of class) GRE score: 730 Verbal (100th percentile), GRE score: 6.0 Analytic Writing (97th percentile) Published (one book, several book contributions) Experienced College Teaching Professorship Position Secured	Undergraduate GPA: 2.7 GRE score: 610 Quantitative (49th percentile) Previous Education Unrelated to Current Field of Study Majority of My Recommenders were Not Well Known No Prior Contact with Professors at Target Schools No Substantial Foreign Language Skills

Applying to Ph.D. Programs: Phase 1

I was in a pretty unique position when I began applying. When I first decided to pursue a Ph.D. I already had a pretty attractive standing offer, so I really only applied to a few programs that would prove irresistible if I was to get in (e.g., Duke, Boston, Yale, and Princeton). I was also interested in switching to a new subject area. My undergrad was in Psychology, graduate was Apologetics, but I decided to switch to Systematic Theology. Further, I applied to mostly secular, liberal universities instead of conservative seminaries that matched my background. Why? Because the seminaries all wanted Greek and Hebrew completed prior to application and I just wasn’t willing to do that.

What is important to note there is that for most people these might not be very wise choices. The new subject area put me at a disadvantage to those with a typical M.Div. or a degree in theology, and the schools were already insanely competitive. But for me there was no reason to consider anything less than “dream programs.”

Thus, I was disappointed, but not terribly shocked, when I did not do get into any of them.

Lessons from Phase 1

Unless there are only a few programs that you would, for whatever reason, be willing to enroll, it is wiser to cover a wide range of acceptable possibilities. Apply to as many programs as you can find / afford. It’s not a bad idea to include a few “safety schools.” Be aware of your advantages and disadvantages and how those relate to each school’s requirements. Remember that every applicant you are competing with will probably meet the basic requirements – what will get you in is what else you have to offer.

Applying to Ph.D. Programs: Phase 2

After quitting my regular job and spending a glorious 9 months working as a full time professor going through the Ph.D. program, the school ran out of money and the president conveniently forgot that offering someone a Ph.D. program position did not stop at the end of the first year. I managed to remain in the program for another years or so, but as the writing on the wall got less and less optimistic I decided to finish elsewhere.

I first looked into an overseas program so as not to have to start classes over. I found support from a professor at the University of Pretoria and we started making plans to finish there. However, about a year in I once again was faced with a school that might be in serious trouble soon (civil unrest in South Africa). So, although I was accepted, my professor recommended applying stateside. That made sense, so I began all over again.

This time I needed to do things differently.

Lessons Applied During Phase 2

First, I needed to be much more precise with my school choices and make sure I could justify my interest in said schools (beyond simply “liking them”). My interests had developed over the last couple years and I was now interested in how one’s moral philosophy affected one’s theology. Being something of a thomist, I targeted schools that would be strong in his teaching. I ended up choosing Catholic University of America, Ave Maria University, The University of Iowa, and The University of St. Thomas.

Further, my sample paper had to be a lot more relevant and up to date than my first. My previous sample paper was a discourse on Divine Impassibility and the cost of the doctrine’s rejection or misunderstanding at the hands of many scholars. It was good, but not terribly relevant to the kinds of schools I had applied to in phase 1. This time I looked at a debate between two contemporary scholars, did a bit of refereeing of the debate, and offered my own thoughts.

The rest remained basically the same – my GPA had not changed much even though I took more classes. My GRE scores were still applicable. The application process was easier for me this time because I had a better idea what to expect.

In the end I was accepted to more than one school this time. Which of the changes that were made did the trick, or whether it even had to do with those changes,  I do not know.

THE APPLICATION

Below are some objective facts about the application process along with my recommendations for dealing with them.

Application Preparations

I have come to believe that simply surviving Ph.d. applications is a weed-out process. It can be frustrating, but if you consider the advice below it might lessen the pain somewhat.

When to Begin

First, I would allow at least six months for the actual application process. Given most schools’ application deadlines this means you should begin preparations no later than June the calendar year before the semester during which you wish to enroll. Here’s how it works out:

• Summer: Prepare for and Begin Application Process
• Fall: Complete and Send In Applications
• Spring: Receive Notifications from Schools
• Summer: Relocate
• Fall: Enroll in Classes

How Much Money to Save

Applying to Ph.D. programs is an expensive process. There are application fees, GRE supplies and fees, transcripts, postage . . . plus little expenses that add up fast. Here is approximately what I spent in 2007 in applying to six schools:

• Application Fees: $450
• GRE Test, Materials, & Reports: $250
• Transcript Requests: $50
• Postage: $50
• (Feeling you get when you’ve sent in all your applications: Nauseous!)

How much you can afford will impact how many schools to which you can apply, so start putting money away for it well before you begin.

Application Process

Choosing Schools

• Decide on your school choices: http://www.phd.org is a good place to start.
• Check class and faculty lists for those who share your academic interests.
• Try to make contact and establish a relationship with at least one professor per school, preferably one who sits on the committee that will choose doctoral students.
• Gather application details: Find the top level application section of the school’s web site and save those in favorites.
• Make a detailed checklist of each school’s application requirements (deadline, fees, paper length, recommendation letters, required forms, GRE score requirements . . . everything).
• Make a master list of everything you will need (including quantity). Particulars might include:
  • Academic References
  • Ecclesiastical References
  • Institutional Endorsement
  • Language Tests
  • Personal Statement
  • Transcripts
  • GRE scores
  • Housing and Financial Aid Requests
  • Curriculum Vita
  • Resume
• Take the earliest application deadline, subtract a month, and make that date your deadline for all of them. It’s better to get them in early and if something comes up missing you will need time for replacement.

Taking the GRE

• Sign up to take the Graduate Record Exam at http://www.ets.org.
  • Make sure you take the GRE well ahead of the application due dates
  • If you don’t get high enough scores the first time (and it takes a few weeks to get your final scores) you will need time to re-take it (usually no less than 30 days).
• Give yourself about 8-10 weeks to study– not too much more, not too much less.
  • You need the pressure of a looming test date to keep focused.
  • It doesn’t usually help to study any more time than this.
• Get some GRE study materials. ETS’s stuff is good of course – and watch for alerts and changes.
  • Princeton Review is the best material that I know of.
  • Supplement with others like Kaplan, Baron’s, Dummies, or any that provide additional practice tests.
  • I have been told that the GRE classes were not helpful – I did not take any.
• Skim through the basic test materials just to see what the test looks like.
• Study mostly vocabulary for the first half of your study period (3-4 weeks), and continue to study vocabulary once you dig in to the rest of the prep materials.
  • The Verbal practice tests are useless until you have a lot of vocabulary memorized.
  • The Quantitative (math) score may not be important for your program so find out beforehand if you can.
    • It is high school math that you probably won’t learn in 6-8 weeks if you don’t know it already.
    • The engineers all destroy any possibility of a high percentile even if you do score high.
    • BUT . . . If this score is important to you, start studying arithmetic, geometry, and algebra much earlier.
  • The Analytic Writing section cannot really be “studied for” – only practiced.
• Pick your top three schools and make sure you know their physical address and GRE codes on test day.
• Take the test.
  • If you do well, great!
  • Otherwise take it again (don’t wait too long – there is probably not much more you can do to prepare and you are running out of time).

Once the GRE is behind you, celebrate briefly, then start working on your sample paper.

Writing the Sample Paper

• Write, or re-write, a sample paper. If you have a good paper already, you can use that, but be sure to get it up to as high an academic standard as you can first.
• Do not do this while studying for the GRE.
  • It will be a distraction and won’t do you any good if you blow the GRE.
• Be sure to present an argument – not just a research report.
• Deal with a contemporary issue.
  • Try to interact with journal articles.
  • Try to choose relevant writers to interact with.
• Make sure you know how long it has to be.
  • Many schools want papers of different length.
  • You may need to write two or more versions, so look for sections that are easily removable.

While working on your paper, gather . . .

Getting Letters of Recommendation

• Get on this fast – it sometimes is very difficult to get recommenders to complete the process.
• Pick as many professors as you need to fulfill the quantity requirement.
  • It’s not a bad idea to have more than you need in case someone drops the ball.
• Ask them in person (if you can) if they would be willing to write you a letter.
• Prepare all the materials they will need (some schools want forms to accompany each letter, some want them in sign-sealed envelopes, etc.).
• If the school will allow you to send in your letters with your application, do so.
  •  Try to do the mailing yourself.
  • It makes it easier to be sure you have all you need in your application package.
  • It makes it easier to be sure your recommender actually writes the letter.
• Make sure the recommender highlights work you have done with them, grades, ability to complete the program, etc.
• Have the recommender  use official letterhead and envelopes.
• You might want to have them seal the letters, sign the envelope seal, and turn them in to you as many are not comfortable with allowing you to read the letters.
• If the recommender  will allow it, get a good, full resolution color scan of the letter – some schools accept electronic filing and it’s a good way to archive them in case you need them later.

While waiting for these letters to come in start collecting your official forms.

Collecting Official Forms and Other Fun Things

• TRANSCRIPTS
  • Order these at least two months before your application deadline, you need time to re-order if they do not make it.
  • Be prepared to pay $5 or so for each one.
• GRE SCORES
  • Order these for any school that did not get them from your initial schools on test day.
  • These cost about $15 per additional school.
• PERSONAL STATEMENTS
  • You cannot use a generic letter for this.
  • Be specific about why you want to go to this school.
  • Don’t just talk about the school’s reputation, show that you know who is there and what they are working on.
• CURRICULUM VITA  / RESUME
  • Some schools may not require a CV or Resume, but it’s good to have one ready.
  • It is helpful to keep a simple “master list” of jobs / schools / addresses / etc. so that you can make sure you say exactly the same thing on every application.

When all this is done . . .

Application Submission

• Access the school’s application.
  • Download, print, or use the schools online application system.
  • If the school sent you a hard copy make sure you can download another if you mess up, or else make copies and practice first.
• Read through the entire application and make sure you know and have everything the school will want.
  • Make a separate checklist for each school to avoid doubling up or missing anything.
• Don’t wait until the last minute.
  • There may be information needed that you missed and do not have yet.
• Don’t get in a hurry or become impatient.
  • These applications are long, tedious, repetitive, and can make you crazy if you try to do them all at once.
  • Take breaks and allow plenty of uninterrupted time.
• Make clear and disinct piles of your application materials school-by-school.
  • Compare these to the checklists you made earlier.
  • Do not seal into an enveope until you are 100% confident you have all you need.
  • Do not do this late at night.
• Keep copies of everything.
• Mail before the due date.
  • Send as certified / delivery confirmation so you know the school received your package.
• Call the admissions office after a week or so to make sure they have all they need.

Now, take a deep breath, and . . . PRAY!

Concluding Advice

As indicated above, I did not get in to my top picks the first time around, on the second round I was accepted to more than one.  I know of others with the same experience. Which of the changes that were made did the trick, or whether it even had to do with those changes,  I do not know.

The moral of the story is:  Have a backup plan. Remember, given the acceptance rates at most schools it is mathematically more likely that you will not get in. There are too many variables for you to control and the schools do not reveal their thought process to you. There is simply no way to know ahead of time what will get you into that 2-5%. This does not mean you should expect to not get in anywhere – but you should prepare for it.

If you do not get in, you need to decide if you want to try again next year. If you choose to try again you need to decide if it will be the same schools. If so, you’ll need a new paper so you might as well get started. Plan to get to as many academic conferences as you can. Rub shoulders with the people who can help you get in next time, or at least write you good letters of recommendation. Try to get something published. Take more classes . . . basically, do the same things you should have done the first time and hope something sticks next time.

Keeping all this in mind might help keep you from going crazy while waiting to hear back from your chosen schools.

But probably not.

Deadly Weapons in Schools

I have a confession to make. You might want to sit down.

OK here it is: I have been carrying a deadly weapon into virtually all of the schools that I work in for the last several years.

I know, this sounds inexcusable, but there you have it. The fact is, that given my route of travel I simply do not feel safe going to and from work without it. I have grown so accustomed to having it with me that, although similar items are responsible for more unintentional deaths each year than practically anything else, I just refuse to enter most school properties without one. I have had a few of these over the years, but my current one is a 2000 Ford Focus.

What, did you think I was going to say a handgun? Nah, practically no one is in danger of being killed by me with one of those things. They’re kept either in a safe or tucked away on my person 99% of the time. Plus, unlike my Ford Focus, I have had to go through extensive training to have them with me in public.

No, my vice is hurtling my 3,000 pound killing machine full of explosive materials (usually about 10 gallons worth) down the road to work every day. It’s crazy, I drive the thing right on to school property in the sight of police, parents, and principals, but no one has ever tried to stop me! Worse, they allow kids as young as 16  to do the same thing!

Now, I have had enough experience with this instrument of death of that I am pretty hopeful that I will never kill anyone with it, but the statistics are not good. About 40,000 people die annually from driving accidents. That means 1 / 30,000 people who will die each year from automobiles. That’s 93 people per day – and they let people bring these things on to school property!

Maybe the reason these homicidal machines are being overlooked is that the media gets more interest from the comparatively rare instances where death is caused by firearms. Although about 30,000 people die annually from firearms (25% less than cars), according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics, the majority (2/3) of these deaths are drug and suicide related. Boooooring. Once you factor in the fact that guns are used for self-defense more than 2,000,000 times a year (3-5 times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns), you can see why the few firearms deaths left over capture the media’s attention.

So, for example, while the 40,000 automobile deaths per year hardly cause a stir, the dozen or so students that have died in the last 5 years from school shootings make headlines. This almost sounds like a conspiracy! Although, contrary to public perception, school homicides declined after 1993, school shootings are still reported with far more gusto than the thousands of deaths caused by cars each year.

It is the same with the statistical obsession with children’s deaths caused by firearms. Far more children die each year in car accidents, bike accidents, drownings, fires, and poisonings than by firearms – but maybe these other forms of death are so common that they are considered old hat. Oddly, although the majority of the reported “12 children per day who die from gun violence”  are actually young adult males who die in gang-related violence, it is only the extremely rare cases of accidental death that get mentioned.

Further, while we hear statistics quoted all the time about the deaths caused by firearms, we rarely hear about the crimes stopped because the criminal encountered an armed “victim.”  The 31 states that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms have a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that don’t. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. I guess all these crime stopping stats are not interesting enough to repeat ad nauseum either.

The threat to media hype is kept at bay by liberals who gleefully ignore the facts and continue trumpeting their belief that allowing good citizens to legally carry guns somehow makes crime worse. Obvious counterexamples are plentiful – like all 50 states and many countries. For example, the highest death rate by firearm in this nation is in Washington DC – where gun laws are most tightly screwed down than anywhere else, and crimes has only gotten worse for DC residents since these strict gun laws were imposed. In both Canada and Britain, extreme gun control laws have resulted in nearly 50% of all burglaries occurring when residents are home (why not? if they are law-abiding people they won’t be armed!). Meanwhile, in the United States where many households contain guns, only 13 percent of burglaries happen when someone is at home.

But whatever. So long as I have my Ford Focus with me I will have legal recourse to deadly force anywhere I wish.

Is Bacon Biblical?

Introduction

Ah bacon . . . is there any food more simultaneously loved and reviled? Cultural jokes abound at the expense of this breakfast meat, but for some bacon is no laughing matter.(Why do I keep hearing a news reporter’s voice when I read that last sentence?) Some Christians believe that eating pork products (as well as shrimp and other foods) is sinful. Based on the dietary requirements of the Old Covenant (i.e., the Mosaic Law), they will assert that “keeping kosher” (“kashrut”) is necessary for Christians in the New Covenant as well.

While some may object to this idea simply because they wish to continue eating pork chops, bacon, or Surf-n-Turf dinners, there is a much larger issue at hand. For one’s treatment of the diet issue necessarily relates to one’s treatment of the entirety of God’s plan of salvation, specifically with regard to orthopraxy – the normative practices required for people to remain Christians in good standing.

Are these “kosher Christians” correct or simply confused? Are they being legalstic? Below I will critique some common”prooftext” responses, and then offer a a more comprehensive reply.

New Testament Prooftexting

Several common prooftexts are offered in response to the idea that Christians are under biblical mandate to remain kosher. Very few of them can support such a notion, however – at least the way they are often used. Here are the main ones that I have come across:

Matthew 15:11 – “What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him `unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him `unclean.’”
Mark 7:19 – “Because it goes not into the heart but into the stomach, and goes out with the waste? (He said this, making all food clean).”

While some may think that these verses do away with diet issues, the topic at hand is not eating but hand-washing. Specifically, man-made traditions that Jesus used to challenge those who were breaking God’s law while upholding man’s. This verse would probably not seem very useful for overturning kosher laws except that a late, parenthetical reference is often thrown in. For example, the NASB and NIV add “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’)” to Mk 7:19. First there is the variant issue: is this even a legitimate text? But even if it is, given the context it could mean that Jesus was declaring that it is not necessary to ceremonially wash one’s hands to eat, and therefore all the food remained clean. In any case, it’s not as clear as it might sound.

Acts 11:7-8 – “Then I heard a voice telling me, `Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’ “I replied, `Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ “The voice spoke from heaven a second time, `Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’”

If, in the above passages, Jesus had decalred all foods clean it might seem odd that Peter responded the way he did here (although it is not impossible – Peter and other Jews liely would have retained kosher diets out of habit if nothing else). Moreover, it was not the meats that were cleansed here – they were simply symbolic of the Gentiles (Acts 10:28). This kind of symbolism would not have seemed unusual to Peter, for the Gentiles (“the Nations”) are symbolized by unclean animals in Ezk. 17 and Dan. 7. Peter specifically states as much in verse 28 when he explains, “God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

Colossians 2:16 – “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink,”

One must be careful using this verse as proof for overturning kosher laws, for one could argue that a slippery slope would appear: would Christians be free from any dietary restrictions? Obviously not, for gluttony and drunkenness are condemned in other passages. However, this does not seem to be the issue at hand in Colossians – rather it was false teachings concerning requirements for godly living.

1 Timothy 4:2-5 – ” Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.”

It could be argued that since it was God who forbade the eating of unclean meats, then they would not be included in “foods, which God created to be received” in the first place. Some qualification to “everything” is obviously necessary (e.g., God made rocks and stars too, but these are not to be eaten!). Thus “everything” could be qualified by those things which God actually made to be eaten. Being “consecrated by the word of God” may be referring to the food laws themselves.

Romans 14:14 & 20 – “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. . . . Everything is indeed clean . . . “

This passage is the most difficult for Kosher Christians to deal with. First, Paul seems to know the disputed passage from Mark 7! Second, the issue is clearly eating here and Paul says that nothing is unclean in itself – this knocks out any argument that refers to the intrinsic properties of foods as being the basis for it being called unclean (e.g., health). Third, while issue here is vegetarianism (14:2), it parallels the meat sacrificed to idols issue Paul had with the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 8). Fourth, when Paul said that no food is unclean, he used the Greek word koinos, which means common or ordinary, unclean or defiled. But, when he said that all foods are clean he used katharos – the same word used for clean animals. In any case, Paul did not demand that they agree but encouraged them to remain true to their convictions – not something one does when referring to objective sin.

Beyond Prooftexts to Biblical Theology

Even given the strength of Romans 14, it is better to see that the reason the NT does not directly repudiate the kosher laws is that it did not have to. With the coming of the New Covenant, all of the Mosaic laws were done away with for the Church (cf. the Book of Hebrews).  Thus, the burden of proof should be on the kosher Christian to provide verses that clearly state that thier case, not the other way around. The failure to see this has made the kosher case appear much stronger than it really is.

However – what if, as is often claimed, the kosher laws preceded the Mosaic Law? In that case, the fading away of the Old Covenant would not change anything, and the kosher laws in place before the Mosaic Law even came about would indeed require specific reversal in the New Covenant. Here is where a larger view of the biblical covenants, and the exposure of a major assumption in the kosher case, is necessary.

The Noahic Covenant

The distinction between clean and unclean animals is first mentioned in Gen. 7:2 and 8:20, speaking of Noah and The Flood. We are not told which animals were clean or unclean, or how to know which were which, but Noah seemed to be expected to know the difference. The argument for keeping kosher assumes that this distinction in Genesis was equivalent to its use in the dietary laws spelled out in Mosaic Law centuries later. The conversation may go something like this:

“We should not eat pork because it is prohibited in the Bible.”
“That’s in the Old Testament Law, which is not for the Church.”
“Not dietary laws – they were given before Mosaic Law.”
“How do you figure that?”
“Noah knew what clean and unclean animals were, so he was aware of kosher dietary laws centuries before Moses. Therefore, the fact that Mosaic Law is no longer in effect does not mean that kosher laws also went away.”

This is similar in form to arguing for other moral positions (e.g., murder, homosexuality, or adultery) that were later included in the Mosaic Law – simply because that particular instantiation of those laws is not longer in effect, that does not mean those principles are not still in effect. For example, Americans are no longer under British rule, therefore we cannot be tried by British courts for, say, driving on the right side of the road.  But Britain also has laws against theft, and the fact that we are not under Britain’s theft laws does not mean we are not under any theft laws. But is this a legitimate analogy to this necessary assumption in the kosher argument?

The first problem with this assumption is that pre-flood people of God were vegetarian. This is indicated by Gen. 1:30 where God gives “every green herb for food.” It seems that prior to The Fall, all the plants were edible. God says nothing about eating animals. It is not until after the flood that God, in the Noahic Covenant, allowed people to eat meat:

Genesis 9:3 -  ”Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”

Now some argue that “everything” here needs to be understood as “all that may lawfully be eaten.” But I have not seen any convincing reasons to think this is the case. Some say that Gen. 6:21 provides support for this qualification: “And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.” The idea is that Noah is commanded to take all the edible foods into the ark. So then, not all food was lawful to be eaten. But this verse is given in reference to both Noah’s family and the animals Noah was to gather to the ark, thus he would need all foods that are eaten by anything. In other words, although people do not eat hay, or leaves, Noah needed to bring these sorts of items because it is a “food that is eaten.” (And the very idea of “non-edible food” seems nonsensical).

Now here’s the kicker: Why would a vegetarian society be given kosher food laws concerning meat? There is no need for kosher meat laws in a society that was not to eat meat in the first place. That would be like my wife telling me I was never allowed to sleep with other women and then listing the women I could and could not sleep with.

So why did Noah know of this clean/unclean distinction? The answer is that these categories are not limite din their use to dietary issues – they are also used with reference to ceremonial / sacrificial issues which Noah definitely knew. In that case, Noah would have known the difference, but not because they had anything to do with his diet. The ceremonial categories of clean / unclean could have been used later when God introduced dietary laws for Israel via Moses. In other words, these distinctions were used for a new purpose.

And this is not just an ad hoc stab at a counter-explanation, for there is evidence that clean/unclean distinctions in Genesis are ceremonial, and not dietary. Noah was told to make a distinction between clean and unclean animals (Gen. 7:1-9), but we are not told why or how Noah was to make the distinction; so right away we need to be careful. Reading Mosaic law back into pre-flood society would have to be justified on some grounds other than terminology – for it is the reason behind the terms that is important here. (And remember that, although Genesis recounts the story of Noah, it is being told by Moses). It does not seem legitimate to do so, however, for while dietary laws relating to the clean/unclean distinction are lacking in the Genesis account, ceremonial sacrifices are plentiful (e.g., Genesis chapters 3,4,8,22,31). Some occurring even before Noah’s time. And only clean animals were used for these sacrifices (cf. Gen. 8:20). Further evidence that this is not just a Gentile-rationalizing-bacon-consumption theory is found in the fact that this is the position of the The Jewish Encyclopedia  (s.v. “Clean and Unclean Animals”) itself.

This sacrificial knowledge alone accounts for the usage of the clean/unclean distinction in the time of the Noahic Covenant, so without solid evidence of it being used for dietary issues in Genesis, the main assumption of the kosher argument fails. The only move left would be to uphold the following of Old Covenant laws by Christians in the New Covenant.

The Old (Mosaic) Covenant

Centuries after Noah, clean and unclean animals are listed in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 and this time these distinctions refer to diet as well. We are also given the reason for these laws in Lev. 11:44-45 (cf. Lev. 20:24-26 ) – God is holy and He wanted his people to be holy (i.e., distinct from the gentiles – who, even then, were allowed to eat this unclean meat – Dt. 14:21). This is why Mosaic Law included clothing choices, laws against tattoos, etc. Most of these things are not essentially bad. However, by following these regulations the Israelites would stand out from the common culture. The same can be said for the dietary rules in Deuteronomy (14).

Now, if Christians were Israelites under the Old Covenant it would be case closed. But the Bible is quite clear that this is not the case.  At least since Pentecost, humanity falls under a new and better covenant (e.g., Heb. 7:22) which is based on the Abrahamic covenant – which preceded the Mosaic (Gal. 3) and did not include kosher laws.

The New Covenant

Because Christians in the New Covenant are not under the Old Covenant, dietary (and other) rules limited to that covenant are therefore not a matter of sin today. Now, the apostle Paul repeatedly upholds adherence to God’s laws (Acts 24:14; 25:8; Romans 3:31; 7:12, 22), as did James (James 2:8-12; 4:11) and John (1 John 3:4). Now, there is more to God’s law than kosher diets, and these others can explain much of these kinds of statements. When we look at Paul’s treatment of those who tried to force Old COvenant laws on New Covenant believers we see that he certainly made some clear distinctions. But Peter seemed to still be Kosher in Acts. Why, if these kosher laws were no longer in effect, would they do this?

What we need to remember is that the New Testament was written during a transition period, and that the Church was basically 100% Jewish for several years after Pentecost. Further, there was no awareness that Gentiles were to be included in this New Covenant. It should come as no surprise then,  that Jewish members of the early Church would maintain their traditions, and even be confused over what to do with Gentile converts. These traditions were fine as long as they were kept in the right place and not used as a means for salvation (cf. Paul’s words to the Galatians about circumcision with the fact that he had Timothy circumcised).

What we need to make a case then, are not simply descriptions of what people did, but prescriptions for what people were to do – especially with regard to Jewish traditions and laws. That prescription is found in Acts chapter 15 at the Jerusalem Council.

The Jerusalem Council

In Acts 15 we read of the first Church Council held at Jerusalem:

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. . . . When they came to Jerusalem . . . some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “. . . why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

After they finished speaking, James replied, “. . . my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.”

There you have it. The only parts of the Mosaic Law that were to be kept by Gentile converts were to avoid eating things dedicated to idols, sexual immorality, strangled animals, and blood. Notice that although all four are found in Mosaic Law, and three deal with diet (e.g., slaughter – Dt. 12; blood – Lev. 3:17), there is nothing about eating pork or shrimp here. Further, given Paul’s later admonitions concerning eating meat dedicated to idols (1 Cor. 8 cf. Rom. 14), it is clear that even these dietary commands may have been given in order to protect the conscience of others – not to form an everlasting rule that would apply even when “stumbling” a fellow Christian was not at issue).

Side Bar: What About Health?

Although God says nothing about health issues in the kosher passages, an appeal to health is a common backup plan when biblical arguments to obey the Old Covenant fail. While health issues can be shown to overlap with the kosher laws (pork example), it is science, not religion, that is at issue here. God said the laws were to keep His people holy, and that needs to be our guiding principle.

Not only does the Bible never indicates that the uncleanness of animals was different from any other sorts of uncleanness, there are indications that is actually was not related to health. For one, if it was a health issue, why would God allow Gentiles, even during the Old Covenant, to eat unclean food (Dt. 14:21)? Second, there is far more to health than keeping kosher, or even keeping all of the Mosaic Law – so why would God ignore all those things? Third,  if these meats are labelled unclean because of how unhealthy the animals are, why were people only unclean the day they touched them (“until evening”)?

While some of the Mosaic laws might indeed promote health, all were given to promote holiness (i.e., “distinction” or “separation” – not necessarily moral or bodily purity). But this is no longer how this holiness is attained. Thus, the kosher issue should not transcend what may be legitimate health issues and venture into the area of biblical commands for support. (And let’s face it, given the state of much farming today, pork is not the only problematic food for health!)

Summary

While it is true that the New Testament does not provide direct proof-texts to overturn Old Testament dietary laws, it certainly seems to give evidence that they have indeed been overturned.

First, positive statements abound that the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant Mosaic Law. Thus, it is not necessary to find any verses that directly repudiate specific Old Covenant laws (e.g., where does the New Testament clearly say to stop sacrificing animals at the temple or that it is now OK to wear blended materials?). Rather, if any Mosaic Law is going to be said to remain in effect we must find it repeated in the New Covenant. In the case of dietary laws, we do not find them; and this fact alone serves to do away with them.

Second, the rejoinder that Noah’s awareness of clean and unclean categories of animals proved that kosher dietary laws preceded the Mosaic Law was shown above to be an unwarranted assumption. Noah knew these categories for ceremonial / sacrificial purposes, and that is all that is required to explain his familiarity with the distinction. Further, since the clean/unclean meat categories would make little sense in a vegetarian society (while making perfect sense in a ceremonially sacrificial society) this assumption should be rejected unless counter-evidence can be produced. [Note too that these distinctions can still be used today or in the future (e.g., Revelation 18:2) without needing to assert their dietary 1use. These labels do not become meaningless simply because they are not used for the same reasons0].

Third, in the lone instance where the Church  actually ruled on issues of Gentiles keeping the Old Covenant Law, the clean/unclean meat dietary issues were not even brought up in discussion, nor were they included in the final decision. Since other Old Covenant dietary laws were included, we can conclude that such laws were not simply assumed to not be in need of mention.

Conclusion

In closing I will say that I am not a huge pork or shrimp or camel or bat eater. I use kosher salt, I love kosher pickles, and I won’t eat a hot dog that is not made by Hebrew National.  So my dietary lifestyle is not threatened very much by kosher laws. I mention this to counter the accusation that is sometimes made that people who disagree with kosher Christians simply “have their bellies as their gods” so-to-speak. I wrote this article because serious interpretive and theological principles are at stake in this debate. While the kosher laws certainly provide a handy guide for healthier living, they should not – on peril of sliding into heresy – be argued on Old Covenant legal grounds.

Conformation, Transformation, Legalism, Gnosticism, Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
(Romans 12:1-2 ESV)

Why Be Good?

The apostle Paul introduces the transition from the theology of Romans chapters 1-11 to the ethical commands of 12-16 with the above verses. Until recently this passage was troubling for me because I was never clear on why our actions mattered.

Of course, it seems self-evident that we should do good and sacrifice for God, but I had difficulty relating this intuition with the theology I was being taught. First I was taught that we are saved by grace through faith as a gift not by works (Eph 2:8-9), so works don’t matter for the past. Then I was told that because we don’t get salvation by works, so we don’t keep salvation by works (Galatians), so works don’t matter for the present. Finally, I was promised that Christians will be sinners until we are glorified and made perfect, so works don’t matter for the future either. Well, that’s the whole package, so – ultimately – works must not matter. This conclusion seemed obviously false, however – and the tension between this form of the gospel message and what Scripture actually teaches is the subject of this post.

First, I discovered that the Apostle Paul says a lot of good stuff about doing good works. Ephesians 2:10 (which completes the 2:8-9 passage quoted above), for example, says we are saved for good works! And there are verses like these:

“God “will give to each person according to his works. To those who by persistence in good works seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Rom. 2:6-7).

“Present your members to serve righteousness for sanctification” (Rom. 6:19).

“And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Gal. 6:9).

“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, For God is one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work” (Phil. 2:12-13)

“That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life” (1 Tim 6:18-19).

Further, it is widely recognized that Paul’s epistles typically begin with theology (orthodoxy) and end with morality (orthopraxy). My question, then, was why would Paul have so much to say about what we think and do if what we do does not ultimately matter?

Works, Works, Works

The first key to the solution was in in the distinction Paul makes between three kinds of works.

First, Paul uses “works” to refer to sin. These are “works of the flesh,” the sinful attitudes and deeds we all commit (Galatians 5:19; Romans 13:12; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11). Obviously we aren’t saved by or for these!

Second are “works of the law.” These are precepts of the Mosaic Law that were given to Israel in the Old Covenant. These are not necessary for salvation, and acting as if they are is the false teaching of legalism (Gal. 2:3, 12-16; 4:10; 5:2).

Finally we come to “good works,” namely moral and ethical good deeds (Romans 2:16, 21-26; Galatians 6: 7-10). These do matter to salvation, for (as will be shown below) “good works” are the basis on which people will be judged by God and receive either reward or punishment (e.g., 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5:21; 2 Cor. 5:10).

If the distinction between “works of the law” and “good works” is not made then 1 Corinthians 7: 19 would make no sense: ”Circumcision means nothing and uncircumcision means nothing; what matters is keeping God’s commandments.” Circumcision was a command of God, so this verse would be saying that keeping God’s commandments both does and does not matter!

Further, commanding good works, or basing rewards/punishments on them, is not legalism. Legalism makes the performance of good works a sufficient condition for salvation – obligating God to save based on our own merit. But if good works modify a salvation we already have, then the charge of legalism is moot (this view also keeps one from sliding into licentiousness – bonus!). These works are from salvation, not for it – but they do matter.

Now, on to Romans 12:1-2, which is the hinge between the theological and ethical sections of Romans.

Conformation and Transformation

“Form” refers to what something is (not just its “shape”). To CON-form, then, is to share a form – it is being the same thing. TRANS-form means changing from one form to another – becoming a new thing. As sinners, we are worldly (conformed to the world). As saints we are to become godly (transforming into god-like people).

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from this world” (Jas 1:27).

“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, . . . predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:28-29).

“And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18).

“You may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (2 Peter 1:4).

Note that this transformation from conformity to the world to conformity with God comes by ridding ourselves of sin - not just changing our thoughts / beliefs. We don’t often hear this because of a fear of legalism that, I think, is itself based on a subtle, ancient heresy.

Gnosticism

The Gnostics were one of the earliest “Christian cults.” They drew a complete distinction between matter and spirit, and claimed that matter was evil and spirit was good, period. This, and other, false beliefs led to some specifically Christian heresies. Theological Heresy #1 was a denial of Jesus’s incarnation – for how could God take on matter? Moral heresy also followed, for actions performed in the body only affected the body and so did not affect salvation – only what the mind thought (gnosis). IN a sense, then, the Gnostics avoided legalism by substituting it with licentiousness.

Today there are few Christians who would affirm Gnosticism per se, but what one of my pastors called a “practical Gnosticism” often remains. Sometimes this comes out in how the Bible is understood. The “flesh”  is thought to refer to our physical bodies, when it refers to the sin nature (Rom. 7:5; 8:9 cf. Col. 3:5, and Gal. 5). The “world” is sometimes thought to mean the earth / physical / material realm, when it really refers to sin. But these are both Gnostic-like mistakes:

“If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19).

“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world” (John 17:14).

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:15).

“Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

Beyond the strictly theological realm, however, in subtle ways the physical often is denigrated in the attempt to be spiritual. Popular Christian culture excuses its low-grade, derivative music and movies because these come packaged with “good messages.” The churches are plain because don’t want to distract people with beautiful imagery. The layout focuses our attention on a lectern because that’s where “the message” (=the preacher’s thoughts) is delivered. We excuse inappropriate clothing because “God looks at the heart.” Worship music is chosen based on what will get people in the door so they can hear “the message.” Sacraments / Ordinances are practiced and in any way we wish because they’re just symbols. Christian leaders can get away with immorality as long as they “teach truth” (= a “good message”).

I think all of these are signs that many Christians today have fallen for the false dichotomy between the material and immaterial. What we think takes almost complete precedence over what we do.

Virtue: Belief and Action

Perhaps the balance between legalism and licentiousness comes in the relation of the body to the spirit. We are both body and spirit– one “thing” with two principles. It is not the case that “we ARE a soul, we just HAVE a body.” Our bodies are not “earth suits” for the soul. The perfect state for humans is not disembodiment. We do not become angels when we die. We are physical beings in a material world that God calls “good” (Gen. 1).

This is why we are resurrected and why Jesus incarnated. He saved ALL of us – not just our minds or hearts. And if the body is important then what we DO is important. This is the basis for an ethical system that I think explains much of what we read in Scripture. It’s called Virtue Ethics, and basically what it teaches is that how we think and act depends on what we are – and  what we think and how we act changes what we are.

The easiest way to think about it is what we call habits. Our first habitual act is often difficult because we are not used to it. Habits are formed when we DO something repeatedly with pleasurable results. But habits are not just things stuck on to us – they are us. When we change our actions, our thinking changes too. Our actions affect our will, and our wills direct our minds. When we choose certain actions, these strengthen our wills, thus redirecting our minds. Actions that create pleasure will be seen as making us happy. If what we choose does make us happy we return to it much easier next time. This is the process of transformation/conformation. New habits breed new thinking. How we think and act determine what we are.

Conformation to the world is habitually operating in our sin nature. Transformation of the mind requires new habits: not just new thinking in the mind but new acting in the body. Thus, spirituality is not just about the spirit  (our minds) – the physical (our bodies) matters too.

With this understanding of how actions and the mind go together, Romans 12:1-2 made a lot more sense! What we do with our bodies is a spiritual act. And that means the physical matters.

The physical matters in our FAITH. Music matters: I want to worship God, not “rock for Jesus.” Aesthetics matters: I want candles and incense, not lasers and fog machines. Clothing matters: I want robes and stoles, not skinny jeans and trendy print shirts. Sacraments/Ordinances matter: I want the bread and wine, not crackers and juice. Messages matter, true - but so does the messenger: I want a pastor, not a projector.

The physical matters in our WORKS, too. Our works, though they are not for our salvation [i.e., justification], they do matter to our salvation [i.e., sanctification and glorification]. Works matter in this life because they make us what we will be in the next life. God will perfect us in heaven – but what He will perfect is up to us.

The Judgment, Reward, and Punishment of Believers

This view makes sense out of passages  concerning judgment and rewards and punishment that are applied to saint and sinner alike. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:9-15 that, “The fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” Wow! Works, judgment, rewards, loss, and salvation all in one passage!

And there are more:

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10 cf. Rom. 14:10).

“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done” (Rev. 22:12).

“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection” (1 Cor. 15:41-42).

“Be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 15:58).

“For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love” (Hebrews 6:10).

“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. And every man that strives for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible” (1 Corinthians 9:24-25).

“Blessed is the man that endures temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him” (James 1:12 cf. 2 Tim. 4:8).

“It shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. . . . it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Mt. 11:22-24).

“Those who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers . . . will receive the greater condemnation” (Luke 20:47).

While we often talk of “salvation” when referring to the judgment of God concerning one’s “place” in the afterlife (Heaven or Hell), it means much more than that. From the above verses it seems clear that there are also different levels of reward and punishment (loss) for both those in Heaven and those in Hell. And these differing degrees are determined by works. How do we make sense out of these verses if what we do in this life does not modify our experiences of the afterlife?

Finding God’s Will

Pursuit of this reward is not materialistic or selfish – it is God’s will for us.At the end of the passage in question, Romans 12:1-2., Paul says that by not being conformed to the world and by transforming our minds, we will know God’s will.  And here it is: “This is the will of God, your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3).

Our bodily sacrifices are spiritual worship that result in personal sanctification. By doing good works we are sanctified – transformed into godlikeness. When we are godlike we desire what God desires – goodness. To the degree that we love goodness we will be rewarded in heaven - by partaking in goodness. But if we miss out on this process, and remain conformed to the world, much of what we desire and love will not be available to us – for God is all we will have.

So, if Heaven is not going to be a place of any suffering (Rev. 20-21), then God will have to purify us – get rid of the all that is conformed to the world so that we can love only the good and be completely satisfied by it. How much of us will be left? Will we just barely make it (“saved as if through fire”)? If so we will have our reward in full – but our fullness will be lessened because we are lessened. All of our cups will “runneth over” – but how big will our cups be?

So why do good? Why endure suffering? So that we can “glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” This life is not just for getting people off the sinking ship of the world, and neither is it for polishing its brass. We remain alive in part, at least, to prepare our souls for Heaven by being transformed through our lives (which is also by God’s grace – Phil. 2:12-13). Our reward / loss will be the result of what we are conformed to when we get there.

And Shepherds We Shall Be

One of the most amazing women I have ever been honored to know died in a car accident last Saturday night along with her unborn child, Sophy. These are just some thoughts about her – none can match the reality.

When I first met Kortney [Blythe] Gordon I thought she was one of the strangest people I had ever met. Today I realize that my initial impression was technically correct, but not in the way I first thought. She had this car covered with bumper stickers – most of them pro-life. Now, many might have simply pegged her as some crazed lunatic who believed that murder is not mitigated by a victim’s size or location – but Kortney was different. She sported a bag with buttons and patches that ranged from The ATARIS “Represent” to The Boondock Saints as well as those promoting the saving of the unborn. Her online title was “The Abortion Abolitionist,” but her posts were sober and joyful. And she was just as likely to be caught camping at some outdoor rock concert as marching an abortion clinic. But zeal is common to the young, and I admit I wondered if she would mellow as the years passed.

She didn’t.

What she did was become one of the most amazingly integrated people I have ever known. She was her own person, but never in an annoying elitist manner nor dismissive rebellious extreme that most people have to fall into in order to feel like they are “individuals.” She just was one. Kortney could stand toe-to-toe with virulent abortionists without responding in anger (examples). People I would have had to beat down she not only tolerated but loved (though not in some pathetic politically correct manner). She was genuinely concerned about all life – even the lives of those who sought the destruction of others.

But she was no pushover. Kortney was illegally arrested a full nine times in her short career of public campus ministry. Every arrest was found to be illegitimate and overturned. In fact her ministry continues to receive “donations” (i.e., court-ordered lawsuit payments) due to some of the inhumane treatments she received at the hands of various “officers of the law.” (Ah yes, liberal tolerance- you’ve got to love it.) I still remember her gleeful Facebook posts from jail. Incredible.

I think what people will remember most is her unswerving commitment to life. It came out in all she did. She not only fought for the unborn, but helped those who chose life get through the problems that caused them to consider abortion in the first place (yes, abortionists, pro-lifers DO that!). She and her husband Ben would not risk chemical birth control, and brought another life into the world about as fast as a couple could. And she spread her love around to so many others that life will continue to be protected by her even if in spirit only.

At her parent’s house this weekend I was so proud to have known her. I’ve heard some over-stated sentimental eulogizing in my time, but what everyone said about Kortney was pretty much what everyone already knew. There was nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing that required embellishment. What was often said was that she lived her life according to her principles like few have. God allowed Kortney to live long enough to prove that such a thing is possible. She stayed sexually pure for her marriage (at 28), brought another life into existence (in addition to the many she has saved from the abortionist’s table), and had a lasting impact on many, many people.

Kortney pretty much kicked this life’s butt before she left it.

As we mourn and sorrow over our loss, I pray we will remember that our suffering can be part of our sanctification. Besides the pragmatic benefits and inspiration of Kortney’s life, the pain of losing her can unite us further with the God she and we serve. And this, in turn, will be for the good for all who love Him. Our reunion at this life’s end will be all the sweeter for the increase in love we have.

Those who knew Kortney will remember that she (literally) stood on two of her favorite virtues: “Aequitas” and “Veritas” – Justice and Truth. She followed her heart in living these principles out – never content to simply follow the herd. Nor did she expect anyone to follow, or even be impressed by, her way of living them. And that, I think, is the secret of her impact.  Kortney did what few can say they did when the time came for action – she took a stand, “yet with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15). She fought the good fight and was faithful  to the end. I pray we can honor her memory by doing the same. I’ll miss you Kortney.

 And shepherds we shall be,
for thee my Lord for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand,
that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
So we shall flow a river forth to thee,
and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.

---

Christian and Secular Music

Christian or Secular?

Introduction

Music is a big part of many people’s lives. It moves the heart and can inspire in ways that mere words cannot. These effects make it clear that musical discernment is an important area of study. Unfortunately, the “Christian” take on music has often been characterized by unverifiable claims and poor philosophical considerations. Scare tactics and sensationalism are often the name of the game when sober, careful research yields, I think, very different results. Hopefully that is what will be presented below.

Defining “Christian” Music

“Christian” Music is an odd label. It is arguably the only music label that does not refer to style. Music is usually labeled according to musical styles such as Country, Hip-Hop, Metal, and even New Age. What is one saying when using the label “Christian?” It cannot refer to style because several different kinds of music can share the designation. It must refer to the band then. But there are many examples where this does not work either. Same with lyrics and labels. Maybe “Christian Music” is not a proper category in the first place.

Labels

This category could include actual record labels or simply the placement of a CD on a particular shelf or in a certain bookstore. This has problems as well. First, is every band under that label “Christian?” Bands that share secular labels have included D.C. Talk, MXPX, Amy Grant, Switchfoot, Chevelle, Saviour Machine, P.O.D., Sixpence, Lifehouse, and many many others. Second, the very identification of bands into certain categories assumes that such a label is appropriate and has some means of being tested. This is what we are trying to do so I will leave this open to your consideration.

Style

There are some who believe that musical style makes a song Christian or Non-Christian. Usually what they prefer musically is acceptable and any style they find unacceptable is improper for Christians. The popular arguments usually reference “pagan rhythms” or “unhealthy drum beats.”  I think some simple observations will suffice to demonstrate the suspicious nature of these claims.

As to the particular tune: one interesting observation I made during my research is that several popular hymns were written to secular music. These include such favorites as “O Great God of Nations,” “What A Friend We Have in Jesus,” “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” and others. One, “What Child is This?” was written to a tune written by King Henry the 8th – a diseased, promiscuous, heathen despot who murdered his wives.

But what about beat? Many will argue that drums are not to be used in Christian music. Some will argue that NO instruments are to be used. Now, there are plenty of commands given in Scripture regarding music and singing (Ezra 3:11, Isaiah 12:5, 2 Chron. 20:21, Eph. 5:19, 1 Cor. 14:15, Col. 3:15, etc.), but not one of these says anything about style – only lyrical content. Ephesians 5:19 is often called forth to show that music that “emphasizes the beat over the melody” is evil. First, this verse certainly does not teach that – a melody can be made with a strong beat, to have one does not automatically exclude the other. Second, the melody is in the heart not the instruments, so that needs to be explained as well (I think it is clear that this has to do with lyrical content and attitude – not style).

What about Psalm 150? A casual reading of this passage shows that a variety of instruments (strings, horns, cymbals, etc.) are to be used in music to praise God. Some have claimed that the failure of the psalmist to mention drums is proof that God did not want them used. After all, drums were around then – did God just FORGET them??? First, I don’t see a lot of lyre and harp wielding praise teams today. Second, those making this claim usually have just as much trouble with guitars and horns which the passage clearly allows. Third, what these folks seem to miss is that everything that has voice is to make music (verse 6). This would include drums, would it not?

The second argument usually has to do with “pagan rhythms.” The claim is that since certain beats are used in pagan ceremonies that they are somehow inherently evil. The idea that a pagan can somehow “own” a beat once it is used for evil is tremendously problematic. Rather, the pagan has used a good thing for evil purposes. A hammer does not become evil because it is used to hurt someone. Further, the very idea that evil can manifest itself in a physical object is occultic, not Christian.

Simply put – the Bible does not specify a style. If it does, then it sounds to me to be much more like a rock band (Ps. 150) than a pipe-organ backed choir.

Artists

What do Bob Dylan, U2, Creed, and Evanescence have in common? Each was a hotly disputed “Christian Band” at the time of their popularity. Defining “Christian Music” by the bands making it is an even more tricky endeavor than the previous two methods. Many questions need to be settled.

Are they believers?

This might seem like a simple question, but what about bands that seem to make conflicting claims (like P.O.D. or U2 have been accused of doing)? What about bands like Philips, Craig, and Dean who are part of the Oneness Pentecostal heretical movement? What about bands that were or are backslidden like Stryper was when they were popular? What if they only recently became believers, or still play their old songs like Alice Cooper? What if they have fallen away (which, to many, means they were never really believers in the first place) like Roger Martinez of Vengeance Rising or Jennifer Knapp who revealed that she was a lesbian a few years ago? Does their music need to be re-labled?

Are they ALL believers?

Once we’ve dealt with the above issue, what do we do with bands that have a mixed bag of believers and unbelievers (like U2, Iron Maiden, Creed, Extreme, or Evanescence)? Does a majority make a band “Christian” – or could just the front person or the songwriter count?

Do they write their own songs?

Many bands do not write their own music, so do we also need to investigate the actual songwriters (if that is even possible)? And what about Christian bands that perform cover songs? Bands like DC Talk, Jars of Clay, Sixpence None the Richer, and Third Day often cover bands that  would certainly not be considered Christian. In fact, the list of bands that have been covered by Christian bands is a veritable hit list of “evil” secular bands (Ozzy Osbourne, Queen, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Kiss, Black Sabbath, Nirvana, AC/DC, etc.). Does music become “Christian” just because a Christian performs it?

What About “Christian” Songs Written by Non-Christians?

Metallica, hardly a contender for Christian Band of the Year, has written a song (“Creeping Death”) that is a description of the events preceding the Exodus. Extreme’s album “Three Sides to Every Story” has a section of fantastic “Christian” songs. At least two hymns that I have found were written by non-Christians (“All Hail to Thee, Immanuel” and “Hail the Glorious Golden City”). Do these artists remove these songs from consideration as “Christian”?

The fact is that we judge communication every day without caring one way or another about the author. Books, movies, plays, pictures, commercials . . . how can it be that we can objectively discern between good and evil with these without having any knowledge of authorship yet fail to do so in music?

Lyrics

Here is where I think a legitimate claim can be made. Much like a book or movie, all I really need is the actual content of the song to discern its appropriateness for a Christian because lyrics are what communicate the message. Do I really need to know the author of the following lyrics to know whether or not they are acceptable: “The only good god is a dead god. The only god good for me. The only good god is a dead god, baby. The only damn god I need”?

Yet even here we run into problems . . .

What about a song like “Everything to Me” by Avalon? In it they sing, “You’re the air that I breathe, the water I thirst for, and the ground beneath my feet.” Well, to me that sounds pretty pantheistic. It’s the sort of thing a Hindu might sing. Or what about the extremely biblical words to “Athair ar Neamh” by Enya? I don’t know many people who would consider this song “Christian” (after all, Enya is found in the New Age section!), yet no one would bat an eye if this song were sung in a church.

Some add the criteria of specifically mentioning Jesus. One author accused Michael W. Smith for not mentioning Jesus in many of his songs. I doubt that this person would level the same charge against the writers of hymns like “Amazing Grace,” “Great is Thy Faithfulness,” “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and the scores of others that also do not mention Jesus!

Proper Categories

Christian vs. Secular

Here, I think, we come to the real issue. I think too many times Christians confuse “secular” with “worldly” or “evil.” “Secular” simply means non-spiritual. It’s not bad, it’s just not particularly religious. Money is secular. Phones are secular. These things carry no moral value in and of themselves. So when we use categories like “Christian” and “Secular” we confuse the real issues.

Good vs. Bad

It should be clear to any thinking person that there is a clear distinction between the songs of Steven Curtis Chapman and those of Marilyn Manson. Steven is a Christian on a Christian label that sings overtly Christian songs, while Marilyn is the exact opposite. I think it is pretty easy to apply the command to “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22) to these cases.

But what about the majority music that does not fall into these simple and obvious categories? It is these songs that usually create the most interest in issues of artists’ lifestyles, beliefs, etc. for the very reason that the song, by itself, does not fit neatly into  good/bad or Christian/Anti-Christian categories. So we need another label to account for the middle ground.

Dealing with Ambiguity

Meaning vs. Referent

Many lyrics because they are simply ambiguous. This ambiguity is what allows the same terms to be used in very different situations. For example, when I say “I love you” to my wife it means the same thing as when my dad says “I love you” to his wife. We are referring to different people, but the words mean the same thing. Now, if I say, “I love my Honda Accord,” that is a different situation. I have embedded the referent in the statement. While “I love my car” can be used by any car owner, “I love my Honda Accord” can only be used by Accord owners.

So what about a song like “We Are the Champions?” The lyrics are fairly ambiguous: “We are the champions my friend. And we’ll keep on fighting to the end. We are the champions. We are the champions . . .” etc. Can this song be sung in church when referring to Christian victory? Can it be sung at sporting events referring to the home team winning? Can it be sung at gay pride rallies referring to the homosexual agenda? The fact of the matter is that this song has been used in all of these settings. It can because it is ambiguous enough to be able to coherently refer to each of these very different events. Does it matter that it was, in fact, written by a homosexual about gay rights?

If so, are these words forever useless to any but homosexual activists?Does an artist own words once they are used? What if we took a song that a heterosexual artist wrote to his wife? If referents are forever attached to songs, then wouldn’t we be singing to the artist’s wife every time we sang it?  I think this is clearly false. If the referent is missing in a song, and the words are so generic as to be able to be used in many different contexts, then those words cannot, by themselves, be labeled good or bad.

Beyond all the philosophical problems involved in denying this, I think the Bible has something to say to back this up as well. Consider the following phrases that were each written by the apostle Paul (one recording the words of Jesus):

• “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats. (1 Corinthians 6:13)
• “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. (1 Corinthians 15:32)
• “Bad company ruins good character. (1 Corinthians 15:33)
• “All Cretans are liars. (Titus 1:12)
• “It hurts you to kick against the goad. (Acts 26:14)
• “For we are indeed his offspring. (Acts 17:28)

The first two are quotes from Epicurus, the third is from Menander, the fourth is from Epimenides, the fifth is by Euripides, and the sixth is from Aratus – all pagan authors! Note especially the last one – this is, in its original context, clearly referring to Zeus. Now, if the unstated referent of a given message is somehow embedded forever into that message then Paul would have been speaking heresy.

Conclusion

First, songs must be judged (morally) by their lyrical content alone. No particular musical style is commanded in the Bible and every other criteria offered has easily discoverable counterexamples that show them to be dubious at best.

Second, if the lyrics are clearly good or evil then follow the biblical instructions related to dealing with good and evil (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22).

Third, if the lyrics are ambiguous in their meaning/referent then I think they fall into the same category that Paul’s “pagan quotes” above do, and so they may be used for good. What about those who cannot get passed a song’s original referent? I think Paul speaks to this issue as well. In 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 he deals with what to do when an amoral decision becomes a moral decision for someone with a weak conscience. What he says is surprisingly different from what most Christian writers recommend . . . he says to ignore it! In other words, if it is going to be an issue, it’s better to not find out.

In the end, we are all going to be judged by our own convictions – but this does not mean that our convictions are exempt from scrutiny.

The Desires of a Divided Soul

“I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
(Romans 7:15)

“He is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”
(James 1:8)

“Purity of heart is to will one thing.”
(Sören Kierkegaard)

There is some controversy over whether St. Paul was speaking of the Christian or pre-Christian life in the seventh chapter of Romans. I take the chapter as transitioning at verse 15 where he begins to speak in the present tense, first person. The rest of the chapter is an apt description of the Christian life and one that I am very thankful to have. For otherwise I think the pains of regret we face in this life could be unbearable. It is one thing for Christians to rejoice in their salvation, it is another to live in the tension between our two homes. Death is division – division of the soul from the body, between one person and another, or even within oneself. St. James says to endure that we might take on the characteristics of virtue – and warns that to do otherwise is to divide the mind itself (ch. 1). Paul here gives a picture of the struggle to heal this division.

In Romans 6-7, the question comes down to choosing our master. Prior to salvation we are under the mastery of sin. Sin comes “naturally” – we obey it without question if we can get away with it. We are “free with regard to righteousness.” (How terrifying!). Christians, however, have been liberated from this sin master and given the choice of making Christ our master or returning to the old one. So why in the world would we ever choose the latter?

St. Paul’s illustration here is a good place to start. Imagine a man enslaved to another for many years. He is used to doing what he is told, perhaps without thinking much about it. Then one day he finds himself freed from his slavery. Now suppose this newly freed man is walking down the street one day and runs into his old master who then orders him to perform some task. Because of this man’s past actions and lifestyle, his inclination will be to obey his old master. Even if he knows deep down that he is no longer a slave to the old master, it feels unnatural to disobey. It would be easier and, in a sense, make the man happier, to just do what the old master says even if he is no longer required to do so.

I think this illustrates our post-justification state. Romans 7 is in the “sanctification” section of Romans – not the justification or glorification sections. In this state we are being made into something – indeed, we are being re-formed. But what is it that is being reformed? Not our bodies – no, unfortunately those have to wait. But our souls can be. When St. Paul speaks of trans-formation (instead of conformation to the world), he means the renewal of the mind (Gk. “nous” – the meaning is deper than “intellect” – closer to “inner person”). The renewal or transformation of the mind is the key to ending the division of the soul (St. James, in the quotation above, uses the word dipsuchos - literally “one with two souls”).

When we speak of the mind in human beings we refer to two powers in the soul: the intellect and the will. The intellect seeks truth and the will seeks goodness. When we make a choice, our intellect grabs onto reality (truth) and shows it to the will. When the will identifies something in the intellect as a good it produces desire – specifically desire for union. We want that good! We find rest when we attain the good, and we suffer when we do not. The problem is that in this life there are always multiple – and often competing – goods for the will to consider. Because we live in a finite world, all we have to choose from are limited goods. This limit shows itself in two very frustrating ways.

First, we always want more of a good than we can get. I see pizza, my will seeks it as a good, I eat it, and my will is satisfied – but only temporarily. Eventually my desire for pizza will rekindle. But perhaps by then there is no pizza – no way to fulfill my desire and put my will to rest. Thus, we suffer.  Second, limited goods are often in competition. I want the pizza, but I also want to be fit. I now have two goods to consider, and only one can win. My intellect may be show me more good in one choice than the other, and then the will can more easily do its job. But either way I suffer. We tend to think of choice as something positive – I choose this thing and gain it – but every choice is a choice against a hundred other things. Every choice is a sacrifice, and so every choice involves suffering loss.

This potential loss activates a peculiar ability within the will. Since the will governs my actions, and thinking is an action, my will can, in a limited sense, govern my intellect. If I have two goods before me, my will can direct my intellect to stop thinking about the good of one and only consider the good of the other. This is deliberation (or, often in my case, rationalization) – the will moving the intellect to consider different goods in order to make a choice. But what if the will is divided?

The form or “shape” of the soul (I am speaking non-technically here) just is what our wills and intellects are like. What form does the soul have prior to salvation? One shaped by sin. This form affects the intellect and the will (the two constituents of the human soul), along with the emotions that follow from the body. The picture St. Paul gives of the old master is really us in our pre-justified state. In that state our souls are conformed to sin – the will seeks goods, but does not see many evils for what they are. The intellect presents some possible action (theft, fornication, gossip, lying) and the will (which still seeks good) finds the good in those things (for evil is always a corruption of a good thing, not the thing in itself) and latches on. So for example, if lying will get me out of an uncomfortable social situation, that good may be all my will considers. So I choose to lie, it works, my will finds rest, and my soul conforms to that result. The next time I consider lying, it will seem that much better. And so it continues.

But let us say that I become saved. What is saved? Me of course! In other words, my soul. But it is my soul that has been formed by sinful action that is saved, not replaced.  It is still my soul. That soul with the will that saw lying as a good cannot simply be eradicated or what would salvation mean? Saving a child from getting hit by a car does not consist in letting the child die and replacing him with another. Rather than being replaced, my soul needs to be reshaped or transformed.

To be human in the image of God we must have freedom – we must have wills that can function in non-coerced ways. Yet how can my soul, formed in sin, ever will the highest goods?  Having a book full of rules cannot help unless I see duty as a higher good than anything else my will sees as a good. But because my soul is formed in sin, this is difficult. I want that thing that I cannot afford, and knowing that I am obeying a good rule by not stealing does not satisfy me, because I still want that other good too!

Duty can only get us so far. For the legalist the law functions as a guide but offers no hope of success. For the licentious the law only provokes sin. Duty is a good that must be learned, but it cannot by itself really help us to desire the good. For it is only when the will chooses the good because of its goodness that it can rest in that choice. I might go some time merely following a sense of duty – but I will be miserable. Eventually I will fail and be miserable for failing. In this case there is no way out. Because the soul is divided it is logically impossible to find satisfaction. Pain is all one can choose. Despair will come if the will can never find rest.

I might expect God to simply wipe out the old form of my soul so that my will would only seek true goods. But that would, in a frightening sense, be to act against my will. God would be destroying me in a sense, if He changed my soul without me truly, deeply, desiring it. And can a soul desire itself to be destroyed? No, not truly. But can we desire to not desire? Yes.

The good news is that the soul conformed to sin can be trans-formed. Sinning conformed my soul to sin, doing good will transform my soul into one conformed to good. But this is a process – a process my soul must go through if I am to remain me. God’s salvation begins at justification (thankfully apart from doing good!), but it continues with our actions throughout our Christian life. This is sanctification (“saint-making”). This salvific process is seen in that salvation is said to be by God’s grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), but that this is for good works (Ephesians 2:10). Our works – what we choose to do from now on – will form our souls. Certainly God gives us much help – so much that we can take no credit for what we do (“giving up” our striving against God is hardly a heroic action, but it is an action nonetheless!).

But why bother? If we are justified we will also be glorified (cf. Romans 8). So what does it really matter what we do? I think here we need to consider the nature of death and the afterlife. Eternal life, says Jesus Christ, is knowing God. The division of spiritual death will cease. So the intellect will get to see God – but will we want to? Will we see God as a good? Will our wills rest in Him?

Western theology says yes – God, as the ultimate and infinite good, cannot help but be desired by our will. Being in the presence of God is heaven for all. Eastern theology says no – God as the ultimate and infinite good can be shunned in this life and the next. Being in the presence of God for one who shuns His goodness will hell for them. What is interesting is that both affirm degrees of happiness / suffering in the afterlife, and each affirm that it is the state of the soul at death that determines this experience.

Now, if the state of our souls at death determines our experience of the afterlife, and our souls are in a state of transformation out from sin, and our choices and actions are what reform our souls – then every single thing we do takes on significance. Our post-justification lives are not just an add-on, not just an opportunity to get more people off the sinking ship of the world. It is time for us to prepare for heaven (conversely it is time for unbelievers to prepare their souls for hell).

This makes a lot of sense out of the judgment/reward/punishment language in Scripture that is applied to both saved and unsaved alike. It also helps make sense out of the final state of the moral person who dies in unbelief and the immoral person who experiences a deathbed conversion. It also helps to explain James chapter 1 where we see the function of suffering through trials. Nothing will reform the soul faster than suffering. Suffering helps us to stop willing only finite goods, for they are fleeting and often have bad consequences. And suffering prepares us to even better appreciate the infinite good that we will see “face to face” one day (1 Corinthians 13:12).

But only if we choose to seek it (Mt. 7:7).

APOLOGETICS FAIL!

Some Weaknesses in the Evangelical Witness

My SGA lecture at Southern Evangelical Seminary (March 5th, 2011) ended up taking a much more dramatic and, I think, spiritually significant turn than many of those in attendance (myself included!) anticipated. Some have asked for a copy of it, but the talk was not recorded. So here are my notes expanded with some of the material that I added on the fly. As I explained to those present, the talk contained observations based on my own [guilty] experiences and those of friends. Thus, this was not an attack on Christianity’s enemies. Rather, I wrote it hoping to aid those whose eternal lives are being threatened by a culture that has become a spiritual stumbling block.

Introduction

Would it make sense to write a apologetics letter to the leader of our country explaining that Christians are not atheists, cannibals, incestuous, or promiscuous?  Justin Martyr did! This was because he was an apologist who knew what needed to be answered most – the culture. His culture’s misunderstanding of Christian beliefs and practices led to persecution, and so Justin responded. The apologist’s theme verse (1 Peter 3:15) says to “be ready with an answer to everyone who asks.” We need to know what questions the culture is asking – but we also need to know why so few are interested in asking today. I think that today this is due to Evangelicalism’s culture rather than its specific beliefs. But it is generally only beliefs that apologetics stresses. There are many factors contributing to this problem, so at the guarantee of over-generalizing here is my take on it.

Recent History of Apologetic Issues

Christian apologists have had to deal with different issues at different times. A look at the popular apologetic writings of different times reveals this.

• 1960’s-1970’s: Religion (Schaeffer, Lewis).
• 1970’s-1980’s: Bible (McDowell, Montgomery)
• 1980’s-1990’s: God (Geisler, Craig)
• 1990’s-2000’s: Truth (Zacharias, Koukl)
• 21^st Century (so far): Relevancy (Us!)

Today we are simply seen as backward, judgmental, morons. And no one wants to be that!

“Religious beliefs are simply beyond the scope of rational discourse” (Harris, EOF, 13).

“Religion . . . teaches us . . . not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect.” (Dawkins, GD, 284).

“People of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true.” (Dawkins, GD, 108).

“The conflict between Christian theism and atheism is fundamentally a conflict between faith and reason. . . . Atheism is merely a corollary, a specific application, of one’s commitment to reason. . . . A rational man will be without theistic belief, and therefore atheistic.” (Smith, Atheism, 98).

“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” – Mark Noll

How did this happen?

Historical Backdrop of Evangelicalism

(NOTE that the “ism” suffix often turns a good thing into a bad thing!)

• PHILOSOPHICAL: Humanistic Rationalism and the Enlightenment provided the philosophical basis for personal autonomy with regard to things religious.
  • Backlash: An “every man for himself” methodology overcomes authoritative institutions.

• THEOLOGICAL: Protestantism cast off ecclesiastical authority in favor of personal autonomy.
  • Backlash 1: Sola Scriptura became ‘Solo’ Scriptura (“me and my Bible” alone).
    “They rid themselves of one Pope and created thousands!”
  • Backlash 2: Sola Fide became ‘Solo-Faith-Experience’ (total personal salvation via a moment of belief). Salvation became an single-point event instead of actual life change.

• RELIGIOUS: Higher Criticism in scholarship, freed from the boundaries of Church authority, turns against the Church. Insular communities form in academic institutions, when these fail the result is skepticism concerning academia. Responses vary, but retreat is the ultimate result (University-Seminary-Bible College-Homeschool).
  • Backlash 1: Fundamentalism devolves into legalistic anti-intellectualism.
  • Backlash 2: Evangelicalism devolves into emotional anti-intellectualism.
    • Evangelism turns into Revivalism (stirring emotions = spirituality).
    • Individual felt-needs become the ground for evangelism.

• ECCLESIOLOGICAL: The church becomes a place to save unbelievers, not sanctify believers.
  • Backlash: What started as a rebellion against the world now concerns itself with being relevant to it.
    • To work, the church service must be attractive to unbelievers.
    • The new methodology is to mirror the world (ironically making the Church irrelevant!).

Contemporary Results

Evangelicalism has become the pop-culture of Christian religion.

• “Christian” music, movies, bookstores, video game:
  • All have this in common: derivative at best, poor quality at worst.
  • Nothing is good unless it is explicitly evangelistic.
• Sappy Worship:
  • Worship = Emoting. Tears. Swaying hands.
  • Jesus is a friend, a lover, who “walks with me and talks with me” and we “reach out for His embrace” “wanting to touch His Face” while being “overwhelmed by the power of His love” so he can “touch me.”
• “Relevant” Churches:
  • We’re letting the world tell us what Church should be like.
  • Emergent Churches embrace heresy in the name of love.
  • Mega-churches not feeding the people (as they now admit).
  • Instead of the bread and wine, churches serve coffee and cake.
• Personality Cults:
  • If everyone is an equal religious authority, then the only way to stand out is to be more popular.
  • Seeking popularity necessarily means choices made to please people.
  • Success is found the same way it is in the world: SELF-promotion.
• “Fake” Ministries:
  • “National” “Centers” and “Institutes” which are really just individuals with websites.
  • 501c3 “Ministries” often = “Give me money so I don’t have to work.”
    • (Read 2 Thess. and see what Paul says about that!)
  • Self “publishing” books.
  • It’s all about image - not substance.

Loss of Christian Character, Belief, and Tradition

Christians now live like the world in order to get the world to leave the world. Hypocrisy becomes the name of the game. Non-Christians and disenfranchised Christians are leaving churches in droves.

• Proposed Responses:
  • Throw off institutionalism!
    • And training? And tradition?  And accountability?
    • How did that work out before?
  • Get back to the New Testament Church!
    • Like the Galatians? Like the the Corinthians? Like the Laodiceans?
    • The NT church was not private, subjective, Bible study (e.g., Acts 2:42-44)!
  • Do apologetics!
    • But the arguments have not changed!
    • We just aren’t considered to be worth listening to anymore.
    • One writer says that Christianity’s end “will not come with sword or pillory, but with the quiet death of irrelevance.”

What Can Be Done?

Returning to Essential Christianity

The good news is that we do not have to let culture dictate to us how we should live. Christianity is a LOT bigger than the culture of Evangelicalism (or Fundamentalism, or any other “Christian-ism”). I can think of a few areas where we need some major overhauling if we are to present something to the world that will get them asking the important questions again. We need to recover the goal of Christian unity based on Christianity’s foundation and Christian actions, and reclaim Christianity’s identity so that its presence becomes truly universal and supra-worldly.

GOAL: Christian Unity

• Jesus specifically prayed for unity so that the world would know the truth (Jn. 17).
• How can the world see the unity of the Church if they can’t identify it?
  • There are something like 700 churches in the Charlotte area alone – often in the same block!
• Division (“schism”) used to be considered heresy. Now it’s called “diversity.”
• Major on the Christian Faith – not one’s private version.
  • Keep private doctrines private – don’t enshrine / institutionalize them.
  • Realize that 98% of Christendom might not want to go to your church, but it does agree on the essentials (true orthodoxy) – see below.

FOUNDATION: Christian Orthodoxy

• This has been historically defined by the ecumenical councils, creeds, and canons.
  • “Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere , always, and by all.”
    (St. Vincent)
• Orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy – see below.

ACTIONS: Christian Orthopraxis

• VIRTUE: Hold on to the Good.
  • Embrace all that is good – not just what is labeled “Christian.”
  • If something is good, do it well.
  • If it is a good thing to do, the Church should do it better than the world!
    • We should have the best music (ask Bach!). Why not start the trend, or set the standard?
    • We should not give bad movies passes because they “preach the gospel.”
    • We should quit rehashing other people’s material just to get a book “published.”

• VICE: Avoid Evil.
  • Avoid what the Bible calls sin (all of it!), not what a given church thinks of as sin.
  • Avoid being “of the world” (= “sin” -  not just “non-Christian”) – see below.

IDENTITY: Christian Presence

• We need to realize that the Church supersedes the world – it is universal.
  • The universe is already God’s – the world exists for the Church, not vice-versa.
• We need to be supra-worldy.
  • We are in the world, but above the world, and not of the world.
  • We go into the world.
• We need to offer something firm to believe in.
  • The world desires this even if it does not know it.

In other words, Christians need to be One (unified), Holy (orthopraxis), Catholic (universal presence), and Apostolic (orthodox). This should sound familiar!

Conclusion

Evangelicalism’s focus on “preaching the gospel” has led to serious deprivation in many other aspects of the Church’s life and, hence, its culture. Now, evangelism is the responsibility of the Church Body – but not every single member has the gift (1 Cor. 12:4-11 cf. Eph. 4:11-2), and there are lots of other things the Church needs (1 Cor. 12:12-31). Evangelism is not necessarily the responsibility of the pastor either. In fact, evangelism is not even a requirement for a pastor (Titus, 2 Tim. cf. Eph. 4:11). And evangelism is certainly not the responsibility of the Church service. The Church is the body of believers, the Church service is the gathering of the local body (e.g., Acts 2:42-47) – not the world.

What we need to do is be the Church! When the entire body is functioning as it should, each member according to his/her gifting (even if it doesn’t come with a fish sticker attached to it), then God will get done what he purposes to get done. The Church can be the Church without creating a culture that is too silly to be taken seriously if we stop trying to be “relevant” to the world and just be excellent at what we are called to do. The Church can also be the Church without asking the world what they want, and without trying to beat the world with its own culture. (We won’t win against the world’s culture anyway, because sinning is usually more fun!) And when the Church is being the Church – what God called it to be – then the gates of Hell will not withstand it.

“I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.  I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.  Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified  in truth. I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”
(Jesus’ prayer for the disciples and their followers – John 17:14-23)

 

Who Wants to Live Forever?

I wrote this post in 2008, the week my Grandma died.

Having lost my other grandparents, she was the last of my “grand” generation. It’s strange that my parents are now grandparents and at the head of my family lines. There is a sobering sadness that, rightly, surrounds the passing of a loved one. We are reminded of how fleeting life is, and hopefully this prompts us to live better while we can. But I also think there is a deeper issue that lurks beneath the particular sadness that I would like to briefly discuss below.

Now, my family does not do death well. Both sides come from essentially secular backgrounds, so there just isn’t a lot for them to say when someone passes. When my grandmother on my dad’s side passed away we took a trip to one of her favorite spots and my dad spread her ashes over an overlook. When it was done he simply said, “Well . . . that’s it.” Now he was not in the least bit flippant when he said this. He was crying (which is rare for us Beaumonts), and I could tell his heart was broken. But what else could he say? If there is nothing after this life then that pile of dust blowing around in the breeze truly was “it” as far as his mom’s life was concerned. It was one of the saddest moments of my life.

This sentiment is reflected in the movie Highlander during a touching scene montage showing the aging and dying process of the hero’s wife. The beautiful song being played in the background is “Who Wants to Live Forever?” by Queen. The chorus ends with these words:

Who wants to live forever?
Who wants to live forever?
Who dares to love forever?
When love must die?

These are poignant words indeed, but the problem extends beyond love. I would argue that nothing is ultimately worthwhile if this life is all we have. At the end of all things, if nothing is left, then nothing has any ultimate value.

As I did when I lost other family members, I pondered this the night after my grandma died. I have many treasured memories of her, but these memories are not her. And when I die none of my memories of grandma will remain behind. My son who only met her once (see picture above) will not remember her, and by the time my son has grandchildren there will probably be no one left on earth who even knew my grandma. So what of her life? She produced children who each had children who will probably have children of their own. And if that is all there is, then, well, “that’s it.”

Something about this rings awfully hollow doesn’t it? When I think about all that my grandparents went through, all they learned, all they contributed to my life, it seems patently absurd to think that within a generation or two it will all be non-existent and, therefore, practically worthless. Something that does not exist now has no value now. I am not talking about the effects of their lives, of course. But even granting that currently-existing effects of no-longer-existing causes can be considered valuable, that does not solve the problem because eventually these will be gone too. If materialistic philosophers and scientists are correct then the universe as we know it will someday cease to exist. Even if this isn’t for a few billion years it will still be gone someday, and gone is gone. Imagine that – all the lives, experiences, accomplishments, lessons, struggles, sufferings, and joys of hundreds of generations ending in nothingness. No memories, no lasting consequences, no ultimate punishments for evil or rewards for good. Just . . . nothing.

Unless, of course, this is not how it will end – or, rather, there is no end. If our lives have everlasting consequences, if our existence and the effects of our existence will never cease, then the intrinsic value we intuitively place on this life makes sense after all. With an eternal God and the promise of our everlasting existence our lives do have true, everlasting value. It does and will matter that my grandma lived her life. It does and will matter how I treat my son – whether or not he ever appreciates or even remembers all of it. It does and will matter that people have stood against (or for) evil. Moreover, it does and will matter whether one chooses for or against God.

The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Thess. 4:13 to believers that they “sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.” The reason the non-believers had no hope was because they thought death was the end and the dead were gone forever. The final chorus of the Queen song ends on notes of hope, but they are meaningless if not addressed to the everlasting God who can grant eternal life:

But touch my tears with your lips
Touch my world with your fingertips
And we can have forever
And we can love forever

Living Simplicity

Introduction

“In truth to will one thing, then, can only mean to will the Good, because every other object is not a unity; and the will that only wills that object, therefore, must become double-minded.” – Kierkegaard

James had some pretty strong words for the double-minded. Our problem today, as all generations probably, is that we want God plus (insert the thing that “if I just had it I’d be happy”). So we order our lives around striving for that “one last thing.” Of course this is a lie – there is always one more thing. When John D. Rockefeller was asked how much money he needed to be satisfied his reply was right on the mark: “Just a little bit more.” Moreover, the idea that we can actually achieve this elusive end makes us into slaves. We should be the most leisurely society in history with our technological achievements, yet we work 50-60 hour weeks. How is it that Grandma had no modern conveniences yet always had time for her kids?

Peter Kreeft has a book titled Making Choices. It is a basic intro to ethical decision making. His chapter on simplicity is worth the price of the whole book. In it he argues that we cannot have a simple heart with a complex life. And while we cannot attain perfect simplicity externally – in our physical lives – we can get closer. He says that a simple life helps one achieve simplicity of heart the same way that kneeling may help the soul achieve humility, or the lifting of hands help connect a worshiper to the Spirit. To attain simplicity of heart we need simplicity of lifestyle.There are benefits to a life of simplicity. It leads to virtue instead of the compromise that comes from complexity, for we can make easier choices when our ultimate goal is clear. It gives us freedom from entanglement that comes from attachments. Simplicity brings us more power because our energy is concentrated rather than diffused by complexity. Simplicity increases satisfaction, for we can appreciate our things without worry over, or expended energy on, their upkeep. My father-in-law once said that possessions were a burden. As new homeowner I can tell you this is true! Sometimes I wonder if I own a home or if my home owns me. Simplicity also builds character. We require time, silence, contemplation, and solitude to bring us depth rather than the superficiality that comes from the soul being spread too thin. Finally, simplicity increases faith:

A simple heart has simple faith: it takes God at His word.
A simple heart has simple hope: it believes God’s promises.
A simple heart has simple love: it obeys God’s commands.

To this end I will summarize some thoughts on acting according to a philosophy of simplicity (some are mine, some are Kreeft’s, some are Kierkegaard’s – I’ll let you figure out which is which).  I will list some of the practical choices we face every day and how the philosophy of simplicity can help us make them.

“Every choice is a sacrifice.”

This was, for me, the most profound idea in Kreeft’s book. We tend to think of choices as additive, but they are vastly more subtractive – for whatever we choose to do negates all other choices. To do a thing is to not do a million other things. Everything we do will somehow subtract from our lives and our failure to think through those subtractions can cause a lot of stress as we wonder what became of our time. For example, my wife once complained to me that she would have liked to have more time for projects one day but that she had spent the whole day doing her laundry. What choice did she have? “Own less clothing,” I responded. By choosing to own more clothes she not only dedicated money, but time for cleaning them as well as space for storing them which made organization more tiresome. This, and more, was the result of that choice. I do not mean to imply that it was a bad choice – she is famous for her taste in clothes although she spends very little money on them. Rather it is to point out that her choice to add clothing has subtracted more from her life than she might have realized.

The philosophy of simplicity can help us make better choices – choices that increase our time and reward our efforts rather than sap our energy and lessen our effectiveness. Below are just a few examples.

Recharging vs. Charging Ahead

Our responsibilities must not become idols. The world did just fine without us for 10,000 years and it can do without us for a few minutes a day, hours a week, or days a month. We need recharging. To push on without energy is to lessen our quality. Studies have shown that people who work more than 8 hours per day actually achieve less due to lost quality. God can give us time if we are willing to first sacrifice our hold on it. Sometimes we just need to STOP. Many people report that when they are too busy for God they become even busier – God forgive us when we sacrifice time with our ultimate eternal goal to pursue the temporary.

“For pausing is not a sluggish repose. Pausing is also movement. It is the inward movement of the heart. To pause is to deepen oneself in inwardness. But merely going further is to go straight in the direction of superficiality. By that way one does not come to will only one thing. Only if at some time he decisively stopped going further and then again came to a pause, as he went further, only then could he will only one thing.”
- Kierkegaard

Focusing vs. Multitasking

To be excellent requires that you do not spread out your time and talent too far. After some point the more we try to do the less we can get done well. This too is a sacrifice. Mountain climbers often list the single-mindedness of climbing as their reason for doing so – it is pure, unspoiled by competing goals. It allows concentration of energy and resources. In simplicity there is greater power, thus the simple life can achieve greater goals.

Silence of Solitude vs. Noise and Crowds

Without silence simplicity is impossible, and the world is very noisy. Silence is awkward because it is then that we reflect. Solitude focuses on the soul, which produces depth and character if that is allowable. But many are not comfortable alone with their thoughts, for it is here there that we cannot escape them. The deep thinker is happy swallowed up in thought – the shallow person cannot stand to be reminded that they have nothing worthy of it. This is why has TV has replaced books and conversation, and why sound bites have replaced considered argument. While the goal of the world is to always be skimming the surface of a thousand things, simplicity requires time to sink into the depths.

“For at dancing and festive occasions worldly judgment holds that the more musicians, the better. But when we are thinking of divine things, the deeper the stillness the better. When the wanderer comes away from the much-traveled noisy highway into places of quiet, then it seems to him (for stillness is impressive) as if he must examine himself, as if he must speak out what lies hidden in the depths of his soul.” – Kierkegaard

Moderation vs. Extravagance

There are two ways to balance a budget: spend less or make more. Why do we always seem to go after the second? Jesus spoke more about money than heaven and hell. The most parables He gave were about the love of money which is also the root of much evil. It is obvious that Jesus was right. It has been shown that the rich are not more happy than the poor, and more marriages break up over money than sexual sin. People pursue money for either possessions or security, but possessions create burdens of their own. What we own must be secured – which inflicts upon us fear of loss, more complication, more time, more money, etc. The security we seek does not come from money or possessions, in fact these things may rob us of what security we do have because the more we have the more we have to lose. It is not pious to be either poor or wealthy – but in either case we can be unattached and therefore untrapped – trusters, not worriers. Jesus says not to worry about our possessions (Mt. 6:24-34). Do we risk more by trusting the designer of the universe or by trusting our wealth and hoping that He is wrong?

Quality vs. Quantity

Don’t buy expensive, don’t buy cheap. By expensive I mean that in relation to what a thing can be purchased for do not opt for the most expensive, by cheap I mean just the opposite. In college I thought I’d save money by riding a bike to school. I bought a cheapo and ended up spending more time, money, and energy on its upkeep than a good bike would have cost. Most products have a fairly gentle price-to-quality ratio up to a certain point when the price suddenly skyrockets – try to stay just below or just above that point.

Less quantity is usually more quality – when has mass production ever equaled better product? Owning less has many benefits as well. We take better care of what we have when we have less of it. When we own less things we can afford better quality and more useful things. When we own less we appreciate it more (consider the joy of a child playing with one out of a hundred toys vs. the one playing with the only toy he has). Having less also reduces inefficiency and wasted time in upkeep and loss. The more we own the more upkeep is required and the less time we have to enjoy what we have. We are also more responsible with what we own when it is not just a confused jumble of items.

Clutter causes stress because chaos confuses the mind. Be organized with what you own – you should have more space than you need for storage. Having more space means less complexity (so long as you don’t fill it up!). Get rid of everything that is not either: necessary, specifically useful, or at least pleasurable. In this last category strive for an excellent selection, not a large collection.

Conclusion

In the end a philosophy of simplicity will really work itself out naturally. Remember that every choice is a sacrifice. As we get better at recognizing the sacrifices being made we will be better at making the better choice.

“Father in Heaven! What is a man without You! What is all that he knows, vast accumulation though it be, but a chipped fragment if he does not know You! What is all his striving, could it even encompass the world, but a half-finished work if he does not know You: You the One, who is one thing and who is all! May You give to the intellect, wisdom to comprehend that one thing; to the heart, sincerity to receive this understanding; to the will, purity that wills only one thing. In prosperity may You grant perseverance to will one thing; amid distractions, collectedness to will one thing; in suffering, patience to will one thing. Oh, You Who give both the beginning and the completion, may You early, at the dawn of day, give to the young man the resolution to will one thing. As the day wanes, may You give to the old man a renewed remembrance of his first resolution, that the first may be like the last, the last like the first, in possession of a life that has willed only one thing. And although the separation of sin lies in between. Each day, and day after day . . .in this time of repentance may You give us the courage once again to will one thing. . . . bind up anew that which sin has separated, that in our grief we might atone for lost time, that in our anxiety we might bring to completion that which lies before us. . . . Give us victory in the day of need so that what neither our burning wish nor our determined resolution may attain to, may it be granted unto us in the sorrowing of repentance: to will only one thing.” – Kierkegaard