(DISCLAIMER: In the following post, I will refer to Democrats and Republicans in general. I am not making claims about you, personally, who may not fit into the generalization, and I am only mentioning the categories as part of a story to make a larger point…so stick with me!)
Recently, I heard a radio talk show host cite a study showing a general increase in support for Israel (rather than the Palestinians) in the United States, but with a very large difference between the percentage of support among Republicans and that among Democrats. The host suggested this may be due to a greater acceptance of relativism on the part of the left (i.e., an inability or unwillingness to make judgments based on moral considerations in distinguishing between acts of terror targeting innocents and acts of military defense).
A woman’s call during this segment illustrated this perfectly. In answer to the question, “Why are Democrats more likely to support the Palestinians than Republicans?” she responded, “I’m a Democrat, and I can tell you why. We are concerned–and have historically been concerned–with power. Right now, Israel has the power, and the Palestinians are the oppressed, so we support them.”
There it is again! As I’ve written before, concern about power comes up over and over as the central reason for why the left (both political and religious) choose their positions. Power is discussed far more often than right, wrong, and truth. Some political leaders urge us to support the Palestinians because they have less power; some religious leaders urge us to adopt “humble beliefs” (beliefs that won’t cause one to have more power than another) rather than asking us to have a humble attitude about true beliefs.
In the past, I’ve connected the origins of this increasingly popular view of “might makes wrong” with materialism (the perspective that there is no God or spiritual world). Materialism is the root of relativism, for one can’t know right and wrong in a world where such things are created arbitrarily by societies and don’t really exist apart from those societies. In a materialist, relativist world, one would have to explain situations and develop “moral” opinions based on physical, observable things like power or possessions since nothing else can be judged.
Though most Christians on the left are not materialists, it seems that many of them, also, have absorbed these materialist-based ideas about the centrality of power. While this isn’t surprising, considering the increasing influence of Marxist ideas in our culture, this does concern me because I think it leads to a perversion of true justice (as I’ll explain in my next post) when we, as Christians, ought to be a light of true wisdom and goodness and a reflection of God’s character to a struggling world.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Philosophy, Politics 
8 Comments »
March 19, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
closeAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Russell Moore on the death of Ronald Nash:
“I pray that those of us left behind will remember in days to walk in
his steps, to pray while studying, to sway our hips when appropriate,
and to call a snake a snake when the gospel hangs in balance.”
Joe Carter:
“This is why Real Men play football, go to war, and get married.”
Call Me Ishmael responding to my comment about flannelgraphs:
“PowerPoint is the new flannelgraph.”
Amy Hall:
“TONY'S NOT DEAD.”
Edward Murrow in Good Night, and Good Luck to his boss at CBS:
“I'm a little busy bringing down the network tonight, Bill.”
Dr. Andrew Jackson reflecting on the Katrina disaster:
“Did a governement welfare mentality control the minds of most of the New Orleans that led them to function like a herd, instead of packing together for strategic action themselves?”
Dr. Victor Reppert upon receiving a free signed book:
“I won the Shameless Plug contest on Never Enough Tea. You can, too, if you are a blogger.”
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 5 Comments »
March 17, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Ms. Kipnis was right about feminism, in that its goal is to
find equality with men. It seeks to overthrow a history of abusive male
oppression, at least as perceived by the feminists. It is built on the
historical understanding (whether right or wrong) that women have been treated
as weak and inferior to men, and since this is not the case, builds an ideology
centered on correcting this view. In my next Friday/gender post I will look
specifically at the history of feminism. Towards that goal, we must first
understand (as much as possible) the Biblical equalities and inequalities of
women and men.
In any discussion of this matter I believe there is one essential place for us
to start. We must begin with the essential equality between women and men. This
too is where the Bible begins; the blessing of God’s creation (Gen 1:27). “So
God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and
female he created them.” As is often the case “man” refers to male and female
(i.e. mankind). God created both male and female in His image meaning they are
of equal worth and value. The image of God is never destroyed in mankind
(though it is distorted by the fall), for His image is given as the reason for
man not to murder (Gen 9:6). Despite the impact of sin, male and female still
bear God’s image and are therefore valuable. We are more like God then anything
else in the universe, and though we are not God, He has granted us value and
worth in creation that renders every single human being equally precious and
significant.
Furthermore, God created male and female as perfect complements of one another.
In Genesis and in the New Testament we are told that in marriage husband and
wife constitute one flesh (Gen 2:24, Mt 19:6, 1 Cor 6:16, Eph 5:31). Coupled
with the recurring condemnations of homosexual activities, we find that male
and female complement one another in such a way that no other beings can. Even
though all females are made in God’s image, no two females can become one, and
likewise no two men. God created human beings in such a way that no other union
except for that of male and female can result in the beauty and glory of one
flesh made in the image of God. To be united in this way in utter devotion of
worship to God is the fullest sense of completion that can be had on this
earth. So, male and female are equal in virtue of being God’s image bearers and
of being each other’s only option for sacred union on this earth.
On the level of ontology, women and men are equal. That is, value and worth are
equal for all who are ontologically human (in essence or nature), regardless of
gender. Gender in no way diminishes ones ontological value. However, when it
comes to functionality, women and men are not equal. The biblical view of manhood
and womanhood is that we exist in ontological equality and functional
inequality. That is, women and men were created for different roles, or
purposes.
As for evidence of functional inequality, we’ve already looked at the roles for
which God created us and the curses He placed on them in Genesis 2. Paul also
spoke to our different purposes. (1 Cor 11:9) “Neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man.” This echoes Genesis in God’s creation of woman to be
man’s helper and support. (Col 3:18) “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is
fitting in the Lord.” This is to be a restoration of God’s creation, a mending
of the curse that gave woman desire to rule over her husband. I could easily tangent into what exactly is
meant by submission, the use and limit of the principle (the danger here is to
think there is no limit), but I’ll leave it there for now.
What is important here is the basic understanding the men and women are of
equal worth and value though we were created to fulfill different roles. We could
look at it as two trees that were cut down for different purposes. One was made
into posts used to hold up a roof, providing shelter during a dangerous storm.
The other was sliced to become the roof. They are both of equal value since
both are necessary to build the shelter. However they have different functions,
one of support and one of provision. They may be able to perform other
functions on their own without ever becoming a shelter, but there is an
exceptional worth that comes from the uniting of the two.
On a divine level, the Trinity is the type of ontological equality and
functional inequality. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equally
God. They are all of equal worth and value regardless of function. But it is
because of their difference in function that we know the three persons of the
Trinity. “The only distinctions between the members of the Trinity are in the
ways they relate to each other and to creation. In those relationships they
carry out roles that are appropriate to each person.” (Systematic Theology,
Wayne Grudem, 251.) Not only do the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
differ, but the roles of the Son and Holy Spirit are such that they are
submitted under the authority of the Father. “The Son and Holy Spirit are equal
in deity to God the Father, but they are subordinate in roles.” (Grudem, 249.)
The Father initiated the act of creation, speaking powerful words to bring the
universe into being. However, it was the Son who carried out the act of
creation (John 1:3, Col 1:16). Finally, it was the Spirit who manifested God’s
presence in His creation (Gen 1:2).
So in the Trinity we have the supreme principle of inequality of roles while
maintaining equality in value and worth. Seeing as women and men were made in
God’s image, it should not surprise us that we would reflect who He is by our
very existence. It is fair because that is the way God decreed it, because it
is a reflection of God Himself. Christ, “who, though he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” (Phil 2:6), but
delighted in doing His Father’s will. The beauty, complexity, and mystery of
the Trinity are reflected in the existence of male and female. Thus to live out
our equalities and inequalities is both God honoring and what is ultimately
best for us.
Posted in Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts 20 Comments »
March 16, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Last April I had an awful experience leaving I’d been attending for three and a half years (an RCA church). Since then I’ve been “church floating.” I’ve also spent a few too many Sundays attending Bedside Baptist, closely following the teachings of Pastor Pillow.
The main thing that the RCA church generally did well was community, and I had no idea just how important it was. Sure, if you asked me then I would tell you, “The three things to look for in a church are good teaching, good worship, and good fellowship.” The problem is that I don’t think I had any idea what I meant by fellowship. But over the past year I’ve learned the importance of community.
Not being in a community means no one is going to ask those annoying questions like, “How’s your soul?” or “What has God been teaching you lately?” My accountability partner and I met so infrequently that we never really went too deep. And so for most of the past year I didn’t check in much on my spiritual life. I didn’t fall into some disastrous lifestyle of sin, but my spiritual life became out of shape. Eventually I began losing focus on what was important and I had no idea. This impacted every area of my life- my job, my relationships, and my studies. Looking back now I see that the stagnate times of my life were those when I wasn’t in a close community, but the thriving times of real growth where those when I was part of an intimate community.
A couple of weeks ago I highlighted a conference I went to featuring James Emery White. One of points he made, as well as philosopher Stephen T. Davis during our small group time, was the importance of community. They made it clear that school, even seminary, without a solid community is a recipe for failure (for students and faculty). The point of Jerry Root’s lecture series is that such communities are necessary for us to grow in understanding the world around us and especially ourselves.
We need other people’s perspectives to begin to see things as they really are. I need people to challenge me with those annoying questions because I’m not usually qualified to ask them of myself. Mirrors work well for some problems, but not if I would like to know there’s a detergent stain on the back of my shirt. Likewise, being spiritually self-referential only works to a limited degree. At some point someone in an objective position is going to have to point me to reality as they see it so I can discard the false image of how I see it.
PS- I’ve decided to expand this to four posts. Next time will be the practical application 
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology No Comments »
March 13, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
We're taking it easy this Lord's Day and serving up some A-Team treats. Think of it as an incredily late anniversary post (1 year as of February 18th).
For those who didn't know, Mr. T. is a Calvinist. These quotes speak for themselves:
Mr T is a Calvinist, rather than an Arminian, “because the five points
of Calvinism begin with T, which is the basis of all good theology,
sucka.”
Mr T believes formal church membership is important. “You gotta be somebody or somebody's fool, fool.”
Mr
T has the entire ESV Bible, Westminster Confession of Faith and the
Three Forms of Unity tattooed in large font on the underside of his
right forearm.
After reading the complete works of Greg Bahnsen, Mr T obliterated theonomy and replaced it with T-onomy.
After
cruising through his first year Church History exam, Mr T punched his
way back through time to punish Marcion for his heresy by removing him
from ever having existed.
In response to the Word of Knowledge movement, Mr T says, “Yeah I got a word of knowledge: shut up fool”.
At
a mass rally in Miami last year, Mr T walked up to Benny Hinn, punched
him in the face and said, “I wanna see you heal yourself! Fool.”
You can find many many more of these here, here, here, and here. (HT: Scott Zeller)
And in case you have trouble with self-identification, you can take a quiz to find out which A-Team member you are.
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 4 Comments »
March 11, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
On May 28, 585 BC, Thales predicted a solar eclipse and it
is said that this was the birth of philosophy. On May 27, 1936 AD (the 28th
in Greece), Ronald Nash was born in Cleveland, OH. Nash would author two books
before completing his Ph.D. at Syracuse University in 1964, and author or edit
some 29 books after that; proving that his philosophic birthday wasn't mere coincidence.
Dr. Ronald Nash easily became one of my favorite
philosophers due to his outstanding sense of humor (you’ll find that in any of
the audio resource listed below). But he is better known as an excellent thinker about worldview issues. He
became so respected that he was allowed to lecture in the former Soviet Union
while it still existed. One of the things I love about him is that he did not
confine his work to philosophy of religion and ethics (both of which he did
great work in), but he saw the need to incorporate economics in the Christian
worldview, something too few of Christians take seriously. Atheist Antony Flew credited Dr. Nash with writing one of the best
economics textbooks he’d ever read.
Earlier today Albert Mohler sent out an email announcing that Dr. Nash is near death. “Betty Jane [his wife] expressed her confidence that God has “a better plan” for Ron
than what they would have chosen, and she looked in hope to his relief from
suffering.” (HT: John Divito) Dr. Nash leaves behind a legacy of thinking carefully
about his faith by taking every thought captive for Christ and that legacy will
on in the lives of countless students he’s impacted around the globe.
Online resources:
BiblicalTraining.org hosts the audio files of several
classes taught by Dr. Nash. These are available for free with registration.
Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions? (free
article)
Open Theism Interview
Lectures available for download or by CD from Summit
Books: (a few of them anyway)
Life’s Ultimate Questions
Is Jesus the Only Savior?
Faith and Reason
Social Justice and the Christian Church
The Word of God and the Mind of Man
The Gospel and the Greeks
Other reflections on Dr. Ronald Nash:
Alex Forrest's Blog
Aaron's Corner
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 4 Comments »
March 10, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
I’ve decided to post each Friday on gender issues. Last week I posted on why
patriarchy is not necessarily oppressive. This week I’m beginning to re-hash a
seven-part series I wrote over a year ago (pre-A-Team).
John
Mark Reynolds commented on an interesting article posted on MSN: “Navel Gazing: Why even feminists are
obsessed with fat.” By Laura Kipnis. After discussing some current
literature on the subject she claims, “There's simply an irreconcilable
contradiction between feminism and femininity.” Unfortunately, she ruins her
incredibly correct point by continuing…
“…two largely incompatible strategies women have adopted over the years
to try to level the playing field with men. The reason they're incompatible is
simple. Femininity is a system that tries to secure advantages for women,
primarily by enhancing their sexual attractiveness to men. It also shores up
masculinity through displays of feminine helplessness or deference. But
femininity depends on a sense of female inadequacy to perpetuate itself…
Feminism, on the other hand, is dedicated to abolishing the myth of
female inadequacy. It strives to smash beauty norms, it demands female equality
in all spheres, it rejects sexual market value as the measure of female worth.
Or that was the plan. Yet for all feminism's social achievements, what it never
managed to accomplish was the eradication of the heterosexual beauty culture,
meaning the time-consuming and expensive potions and procedures—the pedicures,
highlights, wax jobs on sensitive areas, “aesthetic surgery,” and so
on. For some reason, the majority of women simply would not give up the pursuit
of beautification, even those armed with feminist theory.”
What I understand Ms. Kipnis to be saying is that there was no female voice
prior to femininity and feminism. Rather, each of these ideologies was a
reaction to masculine oppression throughout history. In the sense, both
femininity and feminism are relatively new on the historical scene. (This is
what I see behind her comments, but perhaps I’m reading too much feminist
thought into it.) For feminists such as Ms. Kipnis these are liberation
movements.
She’s entirely correct that femininity and feminism are hopelessly
contradictory, but not for the reasons she’s offered. The first major blunder
she made was mischaracterizing femininity. Femininity is not new, and it is not
a strategy to level the playing field with men. It is not a system that tries
to secure advantages for women and has very little to do with sexual
attractiveness. Rather, I think the closest term similar to femininity is Lady;
its cousin is Gentleman. The Lady and the Gentleman are roles long forgotten in
our culture. I point to these not because I think Victorian principles ought to
be our standard, but because historically those Victorian principles more
closely resemble the traditional roles put forth by God’s Word more than any
other.
What do I mean by traditional roles? Those God blessed us with. We can find
them explicitly defined after the fall because God brought difficulty to the
roles as punishment. (Gen 2:16-18) “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely
multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’ And to Adam
he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of
the tree of which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the
ground because of you; in pain you shall eat all of it all the days of your
life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the
plants of the field.”
In these verses and the surrounded context we find defined roles for women
and defined roles for men. For women, there is the specific role of motherhood.
Why is this mentioned and not fatherhood? Because women have a complex capacity
for nurturing men do not have. The other prominent feminine role has to do with
her husband. Some see the curse as being that the husband will rule over the
wife. Rather, the curse is “Your desire shall be for your husband.” This is not
sexual desire, but desire for control and authority. The only other time the Hebrew
word for “desire” is used is found in Gen 4:7, when God tells Cain, “sin is
crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” The
norm is for the husband to have authority; the curse is that the wife will
desire rule and that will bring strife to the relationship. As she was called
when God created her, Eve was Adam’s helper; her role is support. Thus the
primary feminine roles are nurture and support.
For men, the roles are provision and responsibility. He must provide for his
family, but his task will be difficult and painful. Further, he bears the
responsibility for his family. When God entered the garden after the fall He
went to Adam for an answer as to what happened. Though the serpent, the woman,
and the man were all at fault for what happened, the man bore the most
responsibility since he was created as the head. Thus “sin entered the world
through one man.” All subsequent generations have suffered the consequences not
because of Eve’s sin, but because of Adam’s sin.
The curse from the fall will taint our lives until sanctification is
complete, but that doesn’t mean we should not try to be better. As I noted
earlier, I think the ideals portrayed in the concept of Ladies and Gentlemen
most resemble the biblical model of how men and women ought to live. Each was
characterized by a selfless embrace of their respective God given roles. The
Lady was to be completely female through engaging in female activities (like
nurturing and helping), not for her own power, but for her God, her husband,
and her society. Similarly the Gentleman was to be completely male through
engaging in masculine activities (like provision and leadership), not for his
own power, but for his God, his wife, and his society. This was true femininity
and masculinity.
Today we have Ms. Kipnis and her ill view of femininity. What she describes
as femininity is merely the fallout of the Gentleman and the Lady. They are the
results of a culture that is scrambling to redefine itself. The new definition
is feminism. There is no male counterpart; feminism is pushed upon both women
and men. While femininity and masculinity sought what’s best for everyone,
feminism is entirely self-centered. It is arrogantly obsessed with personal
desires and demands at the expense of others. Ms. Kipnis even hints at this:
“One problem with this brand of global feminism is how closely it resembles
narcissism on a global scale: Women everywhere mirror me.”
The reason femininity and feminism are not the same is because they are
geared toward different goals. Femininity embraces God-blessed purposes (in
hand with masculinity) for the sake of bettering everyone else. Feminism throws
away God’s decree for the sake of bettering the self. We are indeed in
narcissistic times.
Next week: the Biblical equality and inequality
between men and women.
Posted in Gender Issues, Main Page No Comments »
March 8, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Jerry Root’s second Saucy lecture last week was “Reality is
Iconoclastic.” [Roger’s thoughts:] I like to define iconoclastic as something
that shatters idols or icons. Not in a physical sense, but rather in reference
to ideas, traditions, and symbols. We create for ourselves images of reality,
what we believe the world is like, in which there are many truths. However,
while we have many sure words about reality, we do not have last and final
words. In our growth we will find times when our images need to be broken
because they cannot cohesively hold all the sure words we have found. By God’s
grace we discard images of ages past in pursuit of better images until we come
face-to-face with the One True Image. [back to summary…]
Due to our situation in relation to reality, “dialectically
safe community is needed that we might understand God, our world, and ourselves
as best we might.” So these sort of communities are needed if we are to
successfully venture beyond our discarded images. According to Jerry, there are
a number of ways reality is iconoclastic (and reality, I think, can be used
interchangeably with truth here).
1)
“Reality demands that we adjust ourselves to its inexorable
demands.” This requires great humility, for if we cannot be humble enough to
see where we are out of step with reality and admit as much, we cannot grow in
understanding. (See the Terry Eagleton quote from the last lecture)
2)
“Reality is complex.” Things are often more than they seem.
Jerry was kind enough to take me out to breakfast last week and he happened to
illustrate this point. He turned his coffee mug so its handle point toward him
and so I couldn’t see it. From my perspective the mug didn’t have a handle, but
from his it did. If I were not willing to listen to his view, then I would not
be able to gain a better understanding of reality. Due to the complexity of
reality we need communities to broaden our awareness.
3)
“Reality, complex as it is, demands that I have respect for
and listen to the perspectives of others.” In other words, mocking Jerry when
he told me the mug had a handle wouldn’t have been productive for either of us.
We need to be respectful enough to listen and humble enough to consider the
views of those we disagree with.
4)
“Reality, if it is to be approached with fresh insight,
demands that the imaginative man awaken.” Some things can be described by
definition, however, other things must be described by similitude. [And it may
be the case that similitude helps provide better definitions.] When C.S. Lewis
was an atheist he believed he could not know God just as Hamlet could not know
Shakespeare. He still held to the analogy after becoming a Christian, though,
and said that Hamlet could know the author if Shakespeare had written himself
into the play- as God did in the incarnation. Such an analogy broadens our
understanding of reality.
5)
“Reality is doxological.” In order to express to others our
perspective of reality in a non-manipulative way, our approach must be one of
awe and wonder rather than pride and insult.
Jerry’s conclusion: “Reality is iconoclastic. It is
within this real world that we communicate with one another. It is a complex
world in which God invites us into deeper relationship with Him, and deeper
relationships with one another. He invites us to develop a more robust
understanding of the world in which we find ourselves. We will make blunders of
varying proportions. In this world the love and grace of God are vital to our
success. It is this love and grace which produces dialectically safe community
and makes wonder and worship possible.”
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 3 Comments »
March 7, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Last week I had the great pleasure of attending two lectures
by one of my most favorite people in the world, Dr. Jerry Root. These lectures
comprised the annual Saucy Lectures at Talbot School of Theology. As usual,
Jerry hit on something that I’ve been dealing with recently: the importance of
community. In the first two posts I’ll mostly be summarizing Jerry’s lectures
and in the third I’ll mark out some of my personal thoughts on community.
The series was entitled “Developing Dialectically Safe
Communities” with the first lecture being “Bullets, Guns and Targets.” From
Jerry’s introduction: “In an era of culture wars and a day when many tend to
vilify those they disagree with, and easily disagree with whatever they don’t understand,
it is necessary to develop dialectically safe communities. Such communities
make it possible to learn and grow without fear.”
In some of his classes, Jerry would give his students a
bullet and tell the students to describe it. They would speak of its shape,
weight, color, size, etc. But Jerry would respond asking about its target and
who would be using this bullet. The point of the metaphor is that exegesis of
the text is valuable, but it’s enhanced when done within a community. “Exegetes
would do well to know their audiences; to become acquainted with the people in
the pew and in the world in which they live if they would contribute well to a
dialectically safe community.”
Quoting from Anne Lamott, Jerry talked about the old
question, “What is the sound of rain?” The Japanese would ask, “What is the
sound of the rain? Which is to say, Silence, until the drops hit something, an
umbrella, or a roof, or the sea.” What is the sound of grace? What is the sound
of exegesis? Jerry answered nothing, until it hits the people in the pews.
Quoting Frederick Buechner, Jerry illustrated how high the stakes are for those
who would teach the Word of God. “Perhaps it is through our own participation
with the daily struggles of the person in the pew that we begin to offer our
own study of Scriptures and shape a dialectically safe community.”
We must understand the text and the people in the pews, but
we must also understand ourselves. “There is much about ourselves we do not
know. Much we can discover in communion with God; and much we can discover in
communion with the people of God in dialectically safe communities.” We need
others to tell us about what we can’t of ourselves since we are all broken and
inevitably self-referential. Jerry closed this lecture with several quotes from
Terry Eagleton’s After Theory, which he had been quoting throughout the
message.
“Trying to be objective is an arduous, fatiguing business,
which in the end only the virtuous can attain. Only those with patience,
honesty, courage and persistence can delve through the dense layers of
self-deception which prevent us from seeing the situation as it really is. This
is especially difficult for those wield power—for power tends to breed fantasy,
reducing the self to a state of querulous narcissism… Nobody who was not open
to dialogue with others, willing to listen, argue honestly and admit when he or
she is wrong could make real headway in investigating the world.” (After
Theory, 132-133)
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology No Comments »
March 5, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
|
The past sixty years has seen dramatic changes in the
culture of America. These changes range from the way religion is viewed and the
invention of new forms of media, to the general demise of racism and the controversies
over abortion and homosexuality. How Christians have viewed and reacted to
these changes has differed over time. Faith of My Fathers explores these
changes and much more through the experiences of three generations of pastors.
|
Though Chris Seay is the principle author, Faith of My
Fathers is really a conversation between a family of pastors united by
their love for Christ but divided in their views of ministry and culture. The
conversations take place between Chris, his brothers, Brian and Robbie, dad and
grandfather (Papa). Donald Miller also adds his two cents from time to time.
After introducing themselves, the family begins by
discussing inner-church issues, such as the use of different forms of media and
music, multigenerational gaps, and the spiritual and family life of pastors.
They then move on to discuss doctrine and how to properly understand the Bible.
The conversation gets heated when they begin discussing abortion, James Dobson,
and how Christians should be involved in politics (if at all). After addressing
racial issues, Chris brings up a personal family matter to close the book.
The parts of the book I enjoyed most were those that
resonated with my own experiences. Since multigenerational issues were part of
the reason I left the church I grew up at, I was intrigued by that
conversation. What I didn’t appreciate
about the book was the input of Donald Miller. Some of his comments, especially
his rants again James Dobson and the Republican party, distracted from the
stories of Chris’s family.
In his foreword, Donald Miller describes Faith of
My Fathers as a documentary (15), and I think that’s the best way to
approach it. Those who are looking for a ‘how to’ in regards to the issues
discussed won’t find much direction. What they will find are rich and honest
stories born out of the real life experiences of men who have sailed the
rolling waves of a changing church and culture.
Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts No Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments