The Week in Words

WiW: On Depression, mostly

August 30, 2010 2 Comments by bekahcubed

On Depression as an idea about suffering:

“There is a sense in which depression has been manufactured–not as an illness, but as an idea about our suffering, its source, and its relief, about who we are that we suffer this way and who we will be when we are cured.”
~Gary Greenberg, Manufacturing Depression

Greenberg’s thesis is fascinating: that the modern medical model of depression involves distinct value judgments about what suffering is, what causes suffering, and how suffering is to be cured. As a reluctant sufferer from depression (that is, one who did not seek out a depression diagnosis), I know that I have often wondered about the implicit statements the diagnosis of “depression” seems to make about who I am and what I am experiencing.

The medical model seeks to de-personalize depression by making it “just” a disease. At the same time, how can I separate my response–that is, my willful response to my circumstances–from what the doctors would say is an involuntary, pathological response to my circumstances?

On the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM):

“The DSM is an unparalleled literary achievement. It renders the varieties of our psychospiritual suffering without any comment on where it comes from, what it means, or what ought to be done about it.”
~Gary Greenberg, Manufacturing Depression

Unlike manuals in more traditional medicine (which tend to describe etiology, symptoms, and treatment options), the DSM describes only the symptoms of a particular “mental disorder”. It pathologizes without regarding either cause or treatment, leaving sufferers in a difficult spot. They have been told that they have a problem–but since no one knows the cause, the only response can be to try to make the symptoms go away. The problem with this is that we have arbitrarily labeled these responses as unhealthy and sought to do away with them–but how do we know for sure that these responses truly are pathological? It’s an interesting thing to contemplate.

On what we really need when we need help:

“What you and I need most is not the affirmation of our stories, nor content-less, shapeless platitudes about the mysterious journey of faith, nor a morality pep talk, nor the undermining of God’s sovereignty. What we need is a glimpse of God in all his terrible splendor and wonderful weightiness.”
~Kevin DeYoung

It’s tempting, when times get tough and coping seems difficult, to think of all the things one needs: a good friend, unconditional acceptance, more sleep, less stress, an end to the struggles, an increase in medication, a check of thyroid hormones. But while some of these things may be helpful–they are not ultimately what we need when life is hard. When life is hard, what we ultimately need is to see God.

It reminds me of God’s answers to Job’s questions–more like God’s non-answers to Job’s questions. God doesn’t answer Job’s questions. He doesn’t explain the circumstances. Instead, He reveals Himself. And that’s exactly what Job needed.

“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes”
~Job 42:5-6

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

**Note: Please recognize that I do not intend to make light of the sufferings of depressed individuals. Depression can be difficult and even debilitating. Many (including myself) have benefited from the medical treatment of depression. But I don’t think this means that we should simply blindly accept the medical model of depression without evaluating its underlying assumptions about who we are and how we respond to our circumstances. And we should certainly never let medicine or other psychological therapies take the place of turning our eyes towards Jesus.**

The Week in Words

WiW: On Christian Occupation

August 23, 2010 4 Comments by bekahcubed

On what sets Christians apart:

“‘And they’re all so–so happy in their Christianity,’ said Davy.

And I said, ‘Could it be–that happiness–what’s called “Christian joy”, do you think?’

That night I wrote in our journal: ‘The best argument for Christianity is Christians: their joy, their certainty, their completeness….Indeed, there are impressive indications that the positive quality of joy is in Christianity–and possibly nowhere else. If that were certain, it would be proof of a very high order.'”

~Sheldon Vanauken, A Severe Mercy

Christians, and Christians alone, have reason to walk in joy. For it is only we who have certainty of God’s favor, certainty of eternal life, certainty of purpose. We are called to rejoice in all things (Philippians 4:4)–and we have reason to do so.

I love the concept of Christian hedonism–and John Piper’s twist on the Westminster catechism’s answer to the question “What is the chief end of man?” Piper suggests that it should be “to glorify God by enjoying Him forever.”

As Christians, our joy and our occupation are one and the same–the glorification of God. Our task is to glorify Him–and glorifying Him brings us joy.

“Christian joy” is how all other occupations take on their meaning.

On what the world needs:

“Don’t ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.”

~Howard Thurman (HT: Semicolon)

The only way to truly come alive is to know Christ Jesus, to be crucified with Him and raised to newness of life through Him. But there is a very real sense in which people who do what energizes them are a blessing to the world, simply because they take pleasure in their work.

The thought reminds me of another quote, this one by Eric Liddell, “I believe that God made me for a purpose, but He also made me fast. When I run, I feel His pleasure.”

Just as Christian joy is not an end in and of itself, but a logical outcome of glorifying God, so outreach is not an end in and of itself, but a direct outcome of the Christian’s pleasure in God and awareness of God’s pleasure in him.

What this world needs is fully alive people, walking (or running) in the pleasure of the Lord.

On the virtue of wasting time:

“Drinking beer with friends is perhaps the most underestimated of all Reformation insights and essential to ongoing reform.”

~Carl Truman

This article was really quite insightful, talking about the value of rest. It reminded me of I Corinthians 10:31 “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” And indeed, while the worldly man is given either to workaholism or to sloth, the Christian has reason to rejoice in both diligent work and regular rest.

Whether you’re a beer drinker or not (I’m not–stuff smells too nasty!), there’s a definite aspect in which this is true. Time “wasted” in relaxation and relationships (not in front of the tube) has purpose. God Himself rested, setting a pattern for us to follow. And God designed us to live in relationship with others.

We can glorify God as we run, as we work, as we play, as we relax with a cup/mug/glass of our beverage of choice.

We can do all things for the glory of God. And, as John Piper puts it, God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

Book Notes, The Week in Words, Theology

Does the cross promote pacifism?

August 16, 2010 3 Comments by bekahcubed

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 12: Loving Our Enemies

Those of you who’ve been following me for a while know that I’m in a book club that’s reading Greg Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation (our last meeting is tonight, boo-hoo.) Well, Boyd, who appears to be from an Anabaptist tradition, seems to be a pacifist (I’m reading the last chapter, about violence, right now).

If you’re at all familiar with my family, you know that I have two brothers in the Marines (currently, they’re “poolies”.) John leaves for training in October. Tim’ll leave in January.

And a few of you know that, over the past year, I’ve developed friendships with several people who ascribe to a basically pacifist or nonviolent position on the basis of their faith–in Christ.

It’s been an interesting process, sorting out my own thoughts in relation to pacifism and the cross and how the two relate–or if they relate.

I definitely don’t have it all figured out. I don’t have any problem with personally being non-violent (I don’t have any desire to join the military, etc.)–but I’m not sure if I’m ready to suggest that others should also subscribe to non-violence, or that I should promote non-violence as national policy, etc.

Of course, those are merely side issues compared to the big question that I’m wrestling with, that is: How does the cross inform a Christian’s involvement or non-involvement, support or opposition, approval or disapproval of war and other acts including violence? Or, to put it more simply: Does the cross promote pacifism?

Many of those within my book club (who tend towards non-violence) have said that they do believe in some concept of justified violence–that states have some authority to “wield the sword” (a la Romans 13) which results in violent acts of justice. The question, then, is whether Christians can and/or should be participants in this just violence. This has been my primary struggle.

John Stott addresses Christian involvement in state administration of justice (including via violent means) in The Cross of Christ:

“It is important to note that Paul uses the same vocabulary at the end of Romans 12 [‘do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath’] and at the beginning of Romans 13 [‘he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath’]. The words ‘wrath’ (orge) and ‘revenge/punishment’ (ekdikesis and ekdikos) occur in both passages. Forbidden to God’s people in general, they are assigned to God’s ‘servants’ in particular, namely officials of the state. Many Christians find great difficulty in what they perceive here to be an ethical ‘dualism’. I should like to try to clarify this issue.

First, Paul is not distinguishing between two entities, church and state, as in Luther’s well-known doctrine of the two kingdoms…

Secondly, Paul is not distinguishing between two spheres of Christian activity, private and public, so that (to put it crudely) we must love our enemies in private but may hate them in public….

Thirdly, what Paul is doing is to distinguish between two roles, personal and official. Christians are always Christians (in church and state, in public and private), under the same moral authority of Christ, but are given different roles (at home, at work, and in the community) which make different actions appropriate. For example, a Christian in the role of a policeman may use force to arrest a criminal, which in the role of a private citizen he may not; he may as a judge condemn a prisoner…and he may as an executioner (assuming that capital punishment may in some circumstances be justified) kill… This is not to say that arresting, judging, and executing are in themselves wrong (which would establish different moralities for public and private life), but that they are right responses to criminal behavior, which however God has entrusted to particular officials of the state.”

~John Stott The Cross of Christ

This makes a lot of sense to me–but still leaves the question open in my mind: But should a Christian seek out “official” roles in which they must perform actions that are not permissible to them in their “personal” roles as private citizens and members of the body of Christ?

Since bulk of this post is an extended quote from Chapter 12 of John Stott’s The Cross of Christ, I’m linking it up in lieu of my regular Week in Words post. Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

(See more of my notes on The Cross of Christ.)

***I’d also like to clarify that we should attempt to keep our comments Christ-honoring. I know that this is a topic that can get people riled up (I do, after all, belong to a military-ish family, and you know those pacifists :-P) But let’s try to be respectful.****

The Week in Words

WiW: On Focus

August 9, 2010 3 Comments by bekahcubed

Joni Erickson Tada, on worrying

“I want to stay in the habit of ‘glancing’ at my problems and ‘gazing’ at my Lord.”

I love this quote–and I love the circuitous route it took to get to me. I got it from Vitamin Z who got it from Josh Harris who got it from a tweet by Randy Alcorn.

Stephen Altrogge, on information and technology:

“There’s only one Word that really matters: God’s Word. We have it. Let’s never let the mass of information available push away from the only information of eternal significance.”

via Vitamin Z

Brett McCracken, on relevance:

“Everyone’s got an idea of what Christianity should be (Missional! Emergent! Conservative! Progressive! Post-colonial!…), but part of what I argue in Hipster Christianity is that we need to cool it a bit on the whole “how can we change Christianity to be more current/relevant” thing. We need to instead focus our attention on being a biblical, gospel-centered people whose attractiveness to the world is the result of the Spirit’s edifying work within us, not a result of our Tru Religion jeans, $600,000 sound system, or tasty shade-grown coffee served in the vestibule.”

WiW: On men and pigs

July 26, 2010 5 Comments by bekahcubed

I’m gonna be short today, since I’ve got kids coming over and I expect to be busy with them all day…

C.S. Lewis on slavery, via Justin Taylor

“Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”

From Michael Hyatt on wrestling with pigs:

“Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pigs like it.”

Wise words.

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

Books, Politics, The Week in Words

WiW: A “Christian” Nation?

July 19, 2010 3 Comments by bekahcubed

I’m still working my way through Greg Boyd’s Myth of a Christian Nation with my Monday night book club–but as so often happens, one book spawns another. When I saw Jon Meacham’s American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, I was curious to hear what he had to say about religion in America. I’ve only read the introduction so far, but it appears that this could be a VERY interesting treatment of the topic.

Meacham clearly sees the United States as unique and exceptional (I’m a bit of an American exceptionalist myself), but attributes this exceptionalism neither to a Christian founding of the nation nor to a non-Christian founding of the nation (as many might). Rather, he seems to attribute this exceptionalism to the interesting balance that the founders merged between secular government and religious freedom. I’m most intrigued by the potential of this book.

On America’s early years:

“America’s early years are neither a golden age of religion nor a glowing hour of Enlightenment reason. Life was shaped by evangelical fervor and ambitious clergy, anxious politicians and determined secularists. Some Christians wanted to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country; other equally committed believers though faith should steer clear of public life. In the fulcrum stood the brilliant but fallible political leadership of the new nation. The Founding Fathers struggled to assign religion its proper place in civil society–and they succeeded.“

On opposing claims made regarding the Founding Fathers:

“The right’s contention that we are a ‘Christian nation’ that has fallen from pure origins and can achieve redemption by some kind of return to Christian values is based on wishful thinking, not convincing historical argument….Conservatives are not alone in attempting to appropriate the Founding for their own ends. Many Americans, especially secular ones, tend to stake everything on Jefferson’s wall between church and state….The wall Jefferson referred to is designed to divide church from state, not religion from politics.

On how religion has shaped America:

“Taken all in all, I think history teaches that the benefits of faith in God have outweighed the costs….Guided by this religiously inspired idea of God-given rights, America has created the most inclusive, freest nation on earth. It was neither easy nor quick: the destruction of Native American cultures, the ravages of slavery, the horrors of the Civil War, and the bitterness of Jim Crow attest to that. And there is much work to be done. Yet while the tides of history are infinitely complex, other major Western powers have had a worse time of it than America, and our public religion, with its emphasis on the supremacy of the individual and its cultivation of moral virtue, is one reason why….Religion alone did not spare America, but the Founding Fathers’ belief in the divine origin of human rights fundamentally shaped our national character, and by fits and starts Americans came to see that all people were made in the image of ‘Nature’s God,’ and were thus naturally entitled to dignity and respect.“

Quoting Robert Ingersoll (in what I view as the most provocative statement yet, especially in light of our discussion group):

“Our fathers founded the first secular government that was ever founded in this world….our fathers were the first men who had the sense, had the genius, to know that no church should be allowed to have a sword…“

I’m interested to see how Meacham develops these thoughts throughout the book!

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

The Week in Words

WiW: The Cross and Society

July 12, 2010 4 Comments by bekahcubed

I’ve been reading John Stott’s The Cross of Christ and making notes over the past few weeks. Then I found a couple of articles that seemed to go along with what I’ve been reading…

Michael Horton on The Cross in Today’s Discourse:

“In contemporary discourse on the atonement and justification, Hunsinger judges, ‘The social or horizontal aspect of reconciliation…eclipses its vertical aspect.'”

“In much of evangelicalism today, the emphasis falls on the question “What Would Jesus Do?” rather than “What Has Jesus Done?” Jesus provides the model for us to imitate for personal or social transformation.”

I can see the growing emphasis on the horizontal aspect of the cross–how the cross impacts our behavior towards others–in much of my reading, blogwise or bookwise. Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation, particularly, seems to emphasize this a good deal.

And it is true that the cross impacts our relationships with others. But is this the whole story?

C.S. Lewis rightly decries the notion.

Screwtape (Lewis’s fictional older demon) on how to tempt a Christian:

“The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy [=God] demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner.”

If the cross becomes merely a means by which society can be changed, the cross loses its power and the enemy has succeeded to a large degree.

What then is the cross’s impact?

Michael Horton (again) on the essence of the cross:

“Christ’s penal substitution is not the whole of Christ’s work, but without it nothing else matters.”

We cannot primarily look upon the cross as an example we are to follow, but as a completed work, accomplished by Christ on our behalf. We cannot primarily look upon the cross as a means by which to transform society, but as the means by which God the Father and Christ the Son transformed us from sinners to saints, from enemies to friends, from abandoned orphans to adopted sons.

Yes, we should attempt to take up our crosses and follow Christ. Yes, we should seek to follow Christ’s example in our daily lives. But unless we recognize the accomplished work of Christ on the cross, we will have lost the transformative power of the cross.

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

Faith, Politics, The Week in Words

WiW: Patriotism and the Christian

July 5, 2010 2 Comments by bekahcubed

I’ve been reading and discussing Greg Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation with a book group here in town. The reading–and the discussion–has been intellectually and spiritually stimulating. Some of my assumptions have been confirmed–but far more have been challenged, forcing me to think through how being “in but not of” the world informs a Christian’s political involvement.

Boyd on the calling of the church to be “set apart”

“We utterly trivialize this profound biblical teaching if we associate our peculiar holiness with a pet list of religious taboos…No, the holiness the New Testament is concerned with is centered on being Christlike, living in outrageous, self-sacrificial love. If you make this your life aspiration, you will certainly be peculiar–about as peculiar as a Messiah dying on a cursed tree! You will be a ‘resident alien.'”

Although I might disagree with Boyd over how involved a Christian can be in politics, I sincerely appreciate Boyd’s emphasis that the kingdom of God is not about promoting a certain political or social agenda but about being Christ-like (the culmination of course, of Christ-likeness being exemplified in the cross.)

Boyd on Patriotism, at Relevant Magazine via Becky S. on Facebook

“So over the Fourth of July weekend—and all year—be appreciative of your country. Be patriotic. But make sure your patriotism pales in comparison to your sacrifice, commitment and allegiance to the Kingdom of God.”

I was glad I saw this article linked by a friend on Facebook. From where I’m at in The Myth of a Christian Nation (Chapter 4), Boyd appears to be bashing any “proud to be an American” sentiment. I’ve been relatively cautious about making conclusions based on just these few chapters, but I’m glad to have this notice that Boyd doesn’t have a problem with patriotism in general, just overemphasis on patriotism at the expense of the Kingdom of God. :-)

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

The Week in Words

WiW: On love, madness, and minstrelsy

June 28, 2010 2 Comments by bekahcubed

I’m late, I’m late…for a very important meme. But despite my lateness, I will be participating (briefly) in this week’s “Week in Words”.

On love, madness, and minstrelsy

“‘Because that’s the only reason a lad like you would be stupid enough to cross the border into Faerie. The only ones who ever come here from your lands are the minstrels, and the lovers, and the mad. And you don’t look like much of a minstrel, and you’re–pardon me saying so, lad, but it’s true–ordinary as cheese-crumbs. So it’s love, if you ask me.’

‘Because,’ announced Tristran, ‘every lover is in his heart a madman, and in his head a minstrel.'”

~Neil Gaiman’s Stardust

Tristran is not usually the wisest of fellows–but this statement strikes true with me. For love (or infatuation, as it was in Tristran’s case) can certainly incite mad desires, wild longings, and foolish fantasies–and can send the lover into passionate songs of alternating rapture and despair.

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

The Week in Words

WiW: On the Church and the World

June 21, 2010 4 Comments by bekahcubed

The Esteemed Reverend Welcher, on relevance in preaching (from a Facebook note):

I wonder how many modern sermons replete with movie quotes, pop references and endless rehashings of the Pastor’s college exploits will be even remotely useful to a person living in the future?

Of course, the vast majority of us won’t be read after we fall asleep, let alone 500 years after we fall asleep. It’s not a problem we’ll have.

For most of us, our goal should be to preach the Bible is such a way that we are relevant to the people we are teaching in the here and now, and to train up men who will be relevant tomorrow.

This was good! The question of “relevance” vs. “timelessness” is of definite interest to many within the church. The answer, however, is not in choosing one or the other (as some might look upon it), but in seeking to translate timeless truth into relevant terms so each generation can be transformed by the unchanging but ever relevant gospel of Christ.

Of course, I’m not a preacher–but I’d be willing to say that the same principles should be true of our teaching, evangelizing, making disciples, and… dare I say blogging?

Robert L. Saucy, on the exercise of spiritual gifts, from Are miraculous gifts for today?: Four views:

“The ministry of spiritual gifts is the encounter of God with his people. For a person open to God, the reception of gifted ministry is the experience of his supernatural work. Too often this is primarily seen and therefore sought in the miraculous. But the edifying experiences of rebuke, conviction, encouragement, comfort, etc., brought through the nonmiraculous gifts, are as much supernatural and the experience of God as are miracles.”

I really appreciate this comment from Saucy’s “Open but Cautious” standpoint. I think there is a grave danger in letting the pursuit of the miraculous overshadow the “everyday” exercise of spiritual gifts. While the miraculous gifts are a hot button issue that receive a lot of attention, the bulk of the spiritual gifts listed in Scripture are non-miraculous (but still supernatural) workings of the Holy Spirit for the edification of the church. To lose sight of this and fail to practice the less “showy” spiritual gifts would be a tragedy.

Chris Brauns, on the power of the church:

You know: the magnifying glass does not provide any power of its own. It serves only to direct the power of the sun. But, when it does, it brings light to a burning focus and things ignite.

That is what the local church is supposed to do. By itself, the church, God’s people, do not offer any power. But, a church is like a magnifying glass that God uses to focus and direct His power.

HT: Vitamin Z

This quote refers to using a magnifying glass to ignite something on a sunny day. I appreciate the perspective this analogy provides to the idea of how a Christian is to work. Matthew 15:16 says “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” Our good works, our very lives as the church are but a tool that God uses to display His power and glory to the world.

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.

Notes on John Stott’s The Cross of Christ Chapter 12: Loving Our Enemies

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 12: Loving Our Enemies