The APA's Social Vision

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian points to the American Psychological Association's apparent dismissal of a recent study indicating that abortion has adverse effects on women's mental health and asks, "...is the APA a civil rights organization? Should civil rights trump their advocacy for mental health? What's really going on here politically, anyway?" 


This isn't the first time the self-professed scientific and professional community has opted for activism over research. Nicholas Cummings, a former APA president and co-editor of the book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, claims that the Association only conducts research "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible." In this article about the APA's stance toward homosexuality, Cummings describes an exchange he had with another member at a meeting convened to discuss the future of the organization:

I was just about to agree with one of the participants, when she stopped me before I could speak: 'I don't know what you are going to say, but there is nothing you and I can agree on, because you are a straight white male and I am a lesbian.'

He continues:

Such blatant reverse discrimination was overlooked by everyone else in the room, but I was dumbfounded. This woman is prominent in APA affairs, is extensively published, and has received most of the APA's highest awards. The APA continues to laud her, even though recently she had her license suspended for an improper dual relationship with a female patient! What would be the response had it been a straight white male in an improper dual relationship with a female patient?

A message from current APA President Gerald P. Koocher states in part: "Healthy, well-adjusted people build better societies, and improving societal institutions builds better people. Psychology has much to contribute, and we must do a better job of making these potential contributions self-evident." 


This appears to be a commendable goal but there are important questions we need to ask in response to assertions like this. What criteria will we use to evaluate health and well-adjustedness? What ideals should guide our attempts to improve society? Which conception of the good life should we follow? More important, which is true?


Psychological research may prove quite helpful in giving us insight into how we think and behave but it cannot tell us how we should be thinking and behaving. Even our interpretations of what we observe are dependent upon some pre-scientific beliefs about what it means to be human, whether or not there is a teleology or purpose for our existence, and what is ultimately real. 

When we take the time to reflect on these issues, the well-worn plea for neutrality in the public square is more clearly seen for what it is - nonsense. Someone's philosophy of life will dictate public policy. This means that Christians need not be ashamed or embarrassed for thinking "Christianly" (to use a phrase coined by Harry Blamires) about psychology or any other facet of life. To conform to the myth of neutrality is, in fact, to betray the faith.

Ordinary Means

My curiosity got the best of me since Shaun Nolan at Postscript Posthaste threw out a teaser about having some big news to announce soon. Finally, the veil has been lifted. He and some friends have launched a new monthly podcast called Ordinary Means with a companion blog where listeners can comment on what they've heard. Based on what I've read from Shaun, I'm eager to give a listen and encourage you to do the same.

Breaking the Spell of Daniel Dennett's Superstitious Scientism

Most authors would be elated if a reviewer said it would be hard to improve upon his or her work. I'm pretty sure that won't be Daniel Dennett's reaction to this review of his Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon in the New York Times. Leon Wieseltier, literary editor for The New Republic, writes:

The question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions of our day; and it is not an insult to science to say so. For a sorry instance of present-day scientism, it would be hard to improve on Daniel C. Dennett's book. "Breaking the Spell" is a work of considerable historical interest, because it is a merry anthology of contemporary superstitions.

Dennett, an atheist philosophy professor at Tufts University, has advocated that adherents to a naturalistic worldview should be referred to as "brights" since they are, in his opinion, more reasonable and intelligent than religious believers. To the contrary, Wieseltier claims that with friends like Dennett, rationalism doesn't need enemies. He also charges Dennett with misrepresenting David Hume, Thomas Nagel, and William James in attempt to support his case. Despite his claims to upholding rationality and science, Dennett's 448-page volume is "just an extravagant speculation based upon his hope for what is the case, a pious account of his own atheistic longing."

Reminiscent of C. S. Lewis's argument against naturalism on the grounds that, if true, it would undermine our confidence in our reasoning processes, Wieseltier says:

Dennett's natural history does not deny reason, it animalizes reason. It portrays reason in service to natural selection, and as a product of natural selection. But if reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? The power of reason is owed to the independence of reason, and to nothing else. (In this respect, rationalism is closer to mysticism than it is to materialism.) Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.

The end of the matter? "What this shallow and self-congratulatory book establishes most conclusively is that there are many spells that need to be broken."

Related Tags: Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell, book review, science, scientism, atheism, naturalism, materialism, religion, philosophy, theism, brights, evolutionary biology

A Clone by Any Other Name

Someone in our congregation emailed me requesting information about the ethical issues related to stem cell research. One of his coworkers has been absent from work due to cardiac complications and his fellow employees are trying to raise money for him to undergo treatment that involves stem cells of some sort. To his credit, the gentleman in our church wanted clarification before he made a contribution. This request serves as a vivid reminder of why it's important for Christians to be aware of the ethical issues that accompany advances in medical technology. The following is an edited excerpt from my reply:

Before I made a financial contribution toward stem cell therapy, I'd want to know what kind of stem cell treatment is involved.

There are two methods for acquiring these cells which have the unique ability to transform into various kinds of tissue. The ethically controversial method involves harvesting the desired cells from human embryos produced by cloning or provided by fertility clinics (embryos created for the purpose of reproduction but no longer wanted by their parents).

What's referred to as therapeutic cloning requires taking a female egg, removing its nucleus, and replacing it with the genetic material of the person to be treated. By means of electrochemical stimulation, this cell begins the process of cellular division and is essentially an embryonic clone of the donor. Given the proper environment it would progress through the stages of maturation as would any other embryo.

Advocates of this method refer to it as therapeutic cloning because it involves the cloning of an individual in order to potentially cure him or her of a disease. Proponents contend that while it would be unethical to allow this embryo to come to full term (reproductive cloning), it's morally acceptable to destroy it in its earliest stages in order to benefit others suffering from various diseases. However, this is merely to justify taking some human lives in order to improve others.

In contrast to embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are produced in various parts of our bodies and can be obtained without taking human life. I would have no problem supporting therapy involving these.

For more information about stem cell research, I encourage you to read an article offered by the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity called "Stem Cell Research and 'Therapeutic' Cloning: A Christian Analysis." It's written in a Q & A format and isn't very long. It will not only help you to make an informed decision about your participation in this situation but will also serve to equip you to confidently engage your coworkers on this important topic.

In an op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times, Michael Gazzaniga, the director of Dartmouth's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, castigates President Bush for requesting that Congress "pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms." Gazzaniga takes issue with the President's referring to both therapeutic (or what he calls "biomedical") and reproductive cloning as egregious abuses. While he presumably thinks that such a description is fitting for the former kind of cloning, he finds it completely inappropriate for the latter. President Bush's characterization "makes it sound as if the medical community is out there cloning people, which is simply not true." Oh?

You'll have to read Gazzaniga's article for yourself but I find it quite confusing and contradictory. On one hand he denies that scientists are cloning people while acknowledging that both the products of reproductive and biomedical cloning are.....clones! For crying out loud, the article's title is "All Clones Are Not the Same!" If, as Gazzaniga claims, medical researchers are not cloning people, one wonders what exactly is being cloned? He writes that "the phrase 'in all its forms' is code, a way of conflating very different things: reproductive cloning and biomedical cloning." But in actuality, what makes reproductive and biomedical cloning differ is not the product or process but the intent of those doing the cloning. Concerning the oxymoron of so-called therapeutic cloning, Amy Coxon notes:

...there is absolutely no difference in the scientific techniques used to accomplish - or the embryonic human beings produced - via therapeutic cloning or the cloning of a human being for other purposes. The idea that an "organism" created by cloning is a "new type of biological entity never before seen in nature" is an attempt by scientists to hide the truth of this new technology behind scientific jargon. Instead of calling this cloned organism an embryo, which is precisely what it is, scientists have labeled it an "activated egg." This is again manipulation of terminology with the hope of deceiving the public. In fact, the term "therapeutic cloning" itself is used to deceive the general public into believing that human cloning is acceptable and beneficial in certain medical circumstances. With the media's and the scientific community's frequent misuse of scientific terminology, it is crucial that we as Christians correctly discern the meanings behind this terminology. If we do not take steps to understand the science, we cannot defend our position in an educated manner and therefore will have no public voice on these issues.

Gazzaniga says that in 2002, he and the other members of the President's Council on Bioethics "voted unanimously to ban reproductive cloning--the kind of cloning that seeks to replicate a human being." He goes on to say that this kind of cloning has not been attempted and is not in the works. But this is misleading. In an attempt to derive embryonic stem cells compatible with a diseased person's system, a procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer is performed. This involves replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg with a somatic cell from the patient. Cellular division is then stimulated so that eventually stem cells can be harvested from the embryonic clone which is destroyed in the process. Regardless of the absence of intent to allow the clone to mature into subsequent stages, the fact remains that it is a human clone.

If there is anything with which I agree with Dr. Gazzaniga about it's that at the heart of the moral debate surrounding biomedical cloning is a clash of ideas about what it means to be human. According to Gazzaniga, President Bush's concept of what constitutes humanness is "nonsensical" and "a form of the 'DNA is destiny' story." To the contrary, he asserts, "...all modern research reveals that DNA must undergo thousands if not millions of interactions at both the molecular and experiential level to grow and develop a brain and become a person. It is the journey that makes a human, not the car."

When they're not accusing opponents of embryonic stem cell research of being dispassionate, they're accusing us of being unscientific. However, if you pay close attention to what Dr. Gazzaniga is saying, you'll see that his case does not rest on scientific conclusions but on a functionalist view of humanness or personhood. The distinction that Gazzaniga would like to make is a philosophical not a scientific one. The claim that only those members of the human species that have a brain functioning at a certain level count as human beings or persons is not one that can be verified or falsified by means of empirical inquiry. Furthermore, Gazzaniga's analogy between the earliest stage of human development and a vehicle is faulty. Regardless of how long a drive I take, it will never be true that I was a car. However, it is true that I was once an embryo.

Concluding his essay, Gazzaniga writes:

In his State of the Union speech, President Bush went on to observe that "human life is a gift from our creator-and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale." Putting aside the belief in a "creator," the vast majority of the world's population takes a similar stance on valuing human life. What is at issue, rather, is how we are to define "human life." Look around you. Look at your loved ones. Do you see a hunk of cells or do you see something else?

Most humans practice a kind of dualism, seeing a distinction between mind and body. We all automatically confer a higher order to a developed biological entity like a human brain. We do not see cells, simple or complex-we see people, human life. That thing in a petri dish is something else. It doesn't yet have the memories and loves and hopes that accumulate over the years. Until this is understood by our politicians, the gallant efforts of so many biomedical scientists, as good as they are, will remain only stopgap measures.

The tiny cloned embryo in the petri dish may be void of memories, loves, and hopes. But then again, so are newborns. What conclusions would Dr. Gazzaniga have us draw from that?

The Gospel According to Judas

Do you think the decision about when to publish the Gospel of Judas is in any way connected to the the opening of the Da Vinci Code movie on May 19th?

The first translation of an ancient, self-proclaimed "Gospel of Judas" will be published in late April, bringing to light what some scholars believe are the writings of an early Christian sect suppressed for supporting Jesus Christ's infamous betrayer.

According to scholars who have seen photographs of the brittle manuscript, it argues that Judas Iscariot was carrying out God's will when he handed Christ over to his executioners. The manuscript could bring momentum to a broader academic movement that argues Judas has gotten a bum rap among both historians and theologians, as well as in popular culture.

Related post: Extreme (Judas) Makeover

Satan Quote Explained

For those following the "Satan quote" mystery (see previous post), St. James U.C.C. has posted the following explanation on its website:

We were recently made aware that the former quote we had posted in the header on our site was actually not based on the word of Jesus but was a quote posed to him during his temptation. As soon as we were made aware of this we removed the quote from our site. We removed it...not hackers as some ill-informed bloggers would have you believe. This unfortunate lesson is a demonstration why when using tools online to identify quotes that you think deliver the honest and sincere message you intended you should always view the quotes in their whole context.

Over at Stand to Reason's blog, Art Gelwicks, the church's webmaster, left this comment:

This quote error completely falls on the shoulders of me...the webmaster. The quote was pulled from an online Bible reference out of context. When viewed purely as the words themselves, they did reach the message we were looking for...unfortunately in their full context it was nothing close.  As soon as we had this brought to our attention we removed the quote from our site. As for it being offending I apologize if it did bother anyone for that absolutely wasn't the intent.

Art could have chosen to go with the flow of the already-circulating rumor that the verse was the product of a malicious hacker but he didn't. I'm grateful for and challenged by his example of humility and honesty. Thanks, Art.

Tempting People to Go to Church

I grew up in the United Church of Christ so I'm not usually surprised by their "creative" use of Scripture. But this one shocked even me. One congregation chose a very interesting text to include in the banner of its website. (HT: Between Two Worlds)

Update - 2/13/06: St. James U.C.C. has replaced the biblical text with the church's phone number and thanks all who informed them about "our previously inaccurate quote." Thanks to Milton Stanley at Transforming Sermons for leaving a comment with that info.

I had emailed the church's pastor, telling him that if he'd be willing to offer an explanation for the selected text, I'd be interested in reading it and posting it here. While typing the above update I received the following reply from Pastor Roth: "Embarrassing faux pas! Thanks friend! I never noticed! Whoops! Webmaster is correcting."

As other bloggers have noted, this serves as a vivid illustration of the importance of not treating biblical verses atomistically but understanding them in their literary and canonical contexts. 

Update - 6:15 PM: Chuck Currie, a UCC seminarian, left the following comment at Reverend Mike's House of Homiletic Hash: "I understand that the church will be offering a statement soon on their website explaining that someone hacked into their system and put up that piece of scripture." 

Sony Gives The Microphone to Da Vinci Code Critics

Anticipating the May 19th release of its The Da Vinci Code film, Sony Pictures is has created a website for critics of Dan Brown's book to make their case:

The site, thedavincichallenge.com, will post essays by about 45 Christian writers, scholars and leaders of evangelical organizations who will pick apart the book's theological and historical claims about Christianity.

Among the writers are Gordon Robertson, the son of the television evangelist Pat Robertson and co-host of their television show, "The 700 Club," who is writing about how early Christianity survived; and Richard J. Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif. (source)

George Barna, Darrell Bock, and Hugh Hewitt are among the other contributors.


I'm in complete agreement with a point Richard Mouw makes about why Christians should see the movie:

"It's going to be water cooler conversation, so Christians need to take a deep breath, buy the book and shell out the money for the movie. Then we need to educate Christians about what all this means. We need to help them answer someone who says, 'So how do you know Jesus didn't get married?' "

About two years ago our church offered a short class about the book. One of the benefits was that it provided an occasion for many believers to learn about early church history and the development of doctrine for the first time. Now we're talking about effective ways to prepare our teens and adults to intelligently converse with their non-Christian peers who see the film. The Da Vinci Code Deception DVD and this companion guide to the movie from Josh McDowell are among the resources we're thinking about using. 

Is your church doing anything to equip your people to interact with those who will be seeing and talking about the film? If so, please share your plans in the comments.

He's Got the Whole (Warming?) World In His Hands

The New York Times reports that 86 evangelical leaders, including Rick Warren and Wheaton College President, Duane Litfin, have decided to sign a statement declaring their support for legislation to fight global warming.

"For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority," the statement said. "Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough."

The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through "cost-effective, market-based mechanisms" — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an "Evangelical Climate Initiative" including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges.

On the other side of the issue:

Some of the nation's most high-profile evangelical leaders, however, have tried to derail such action. Twenty-two of them signed a letter in January declaring, "Global warming is not a consensus issue." Among the signers were Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Their letter was addressed to the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of churches and ministries, which last year had started to move in the direction of taking a stand on global warming. The letter from the 22 leaders asked the National Association of Evangelicals not to issue any statement on global warming or to allow its officers or staff members to take a position.

Fleeting Thought

My copy of Women's Ministry in the Local Church arrived in the mail yesterday. While seeing it sitting on our kitchen table this morning, it dawned on me how easily the cover picture, in combination with the book's title, could be misunderstood.

Richard Baxter on God's Design for Christian Marriage

Yesterday morning I removed one item from my infinitely long "I really need to get around to reading that sometime" list. Prior to that I had only read portions of Richard Baxter's The Mutual Duties of Husbands and Wives Towards Each Other but after recommending it to someone considering marriage, I finally decided to read it in its entirety. It was time well spent.   One of the reasons for my not reading it sooner was that I was foolishly waiting until I was at a point in my own relationship when the convicting force of the piece wouldn't be so great. I say "foolishly" because no matter where we are in the process of sanctification, any teaching that is faithful to the Scriptures will shine penetrating light into the crevices of our souls, burning whatever laurels we're resting on, painting a picture of something more beautiful than what we've settled for, and revealing how great and continual is our need for the mercy and grace of the Savior. The uninterrupted session during which I pondered Baxter's counsel did just that, resulting in prayer of confession and petition for the Spirit's enabling might to more faithfully fulfill my calling as a husband and father.


I remember reading somewhere that as Christians we often err in thinking that the goal of marriage is merely not getting a divorce. Baxter reminds us that God's design for the marital bond is that husband and wife be "mutual helpers to each other's souls."

Baxter divided his instruction into the following sections:

I. The first duty of husbands is to love their wives (and wives their husbands). Here he provides a number of directives for maintaining love beginning with the selection of a spouse.

II. Husbands and wives must live together.

III. Abhor not only adultery itself, but all that leads to unchasteness and the violation of your marriage covenant.

IV. Husband and wife must delight in the love and company, and lives of each other.

V. It is your solemn duty to live in quietness and peace.
I. Directions showing the great necessity of avoiding dissension
II. Directions for avoiding dissensions

VI. One of the most important duties of a husband to his wife and a wife to her husband is to carefully, skillfully, and diligently help each other in the knowledge and worship, and obedience of God, that they might be saved and grow in their Christian Life.

Here are some of the passages from the section on avoiding dissension that I took particular note of:

Both husband and wife must mortify their pride and strong self-centered feelings. These are the feelings which cause intolerance and insensitivity. You must pray and labor for a humble, meek, and quiet spirit. A proud heart is troubled and provoked by every word that seems to assault your self-esteem.

Do not forget that you are both diseased persons, full of infirmities; and therefore expect the fruit of those infirmities in each other; and do not act surprised about it, as if you had never known of it before. Decide to be patient with one another; remembering that you took one another as sinful, frail, imperfect persons, and not as angels, or as blameless and perfect.

Remember still that you are one flesh; and therefore be no more offended with the words or failings of each other, than you would be if they were your own. Be angry with your wife for her faults no more than you are angry with yourself for your own. Have such an anger and displeasure against a fault, as will work to heal it; but not such as will cause festering and aggravation of the diseased part. This will turn anger into compassion, and will cause you to administer care for the cure.

Lastly, help each other by an exemplary life. Be yourself, what you desire your husband or wife should be; excel in meekness, and humility, and charity, and dutifulness, and diligence, and self-denial, and patience.

As providence would have it, shortly after reading and meditating on what Baxter had to say, I received an unexpected visit from one half of a marriage in crisis and spent the bulk of the remainder of the day seeking to help both parties.

If you're married or would like someday to be, I encourage you to make time in your schedule to pore over Baxter's biblical counsel. If I could offer and make good on a time-back guarantee, I would. But I can't. So you'll just have to trust me. But if you're dissatisfied after reading it, let me know anyway.

Spurgeon on Christian Conversation (or the Lack Thereof)

Greg Linscott at SharperIron.org has posted a great sermon from the "Prince of Preachers." Here's an excerpt with which Harry Blamires would most certainly agree (see his quote in the banner):

It is, however, much to be regretted that true children of the Lord often talk too little of him. What is the conversation of half the professors of the present day? Honesty compels us to say that, in many cases, it is a mass of froth and falsehood, and, in many more cases it is altogether objectionable; if it is not light and frivolous, it is utterly apart from the gospel, and does not minister grace unto the bearers. I consider that one of the great lacks of the Church, nowadays, is not so much Christian preaching as Christian talking, not so much Christian prayer in the prayer-meeting, as Christian conversation in the parlour. How little do we hear concerning Christ! You might go in and out of the houses of half the professors of religion, and you would never hear of their Master at all. You might talk with them from the first of January to the last of December; and if they happened to mention their Master's name, it would be, perhaps, merely as a compliment to him, or possibly by accident. Beloved, such things ought not to be. You and I, I am sure, are guilty in this matter; we all have need to reproach ourselves that we do not sufficiently remember the words of Malachi, 'Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.'"

I wonder what he'd think of blogging.

Breaking Free From Our Cells

I resisted getting a cell phone for a long time. My reluctance to join the ranks of the perpetually connected was due in part to finances. We just couldn’t justify the monthly charges in light of other priorities. The greater part of my resistance, however, was that I simply didn’t want to be accessible around the clock to anyone who might have my number. Some of my most productive thinking is done in the car while either listening to talk radio or just being quiet. I find the thought of having such moments of solitude interrupted by incoming calls most disturbing. I dread being shackled by what Stephen King refers to as the “21st-century slave bracelet.”

My wife and I eventually broke down and bought pay-as-you-go phones so we could communicate with each other in the event of an emergency. There’s no monthly charge or annual contract. All we have to do is make sure to purchase the minimum amount of time every 90 days. We don’t give the numbers out indiscriminately and make sure that we inform those to whom we do give them that these aren’t the lines to call us on to chit chat. (Time is money, you know.) We don’t even use them much to talk with each other. Lately, I’ve used the text messaging feature to send luv notes 2 my huny. Occasionally, I’ve called her from a supermarket or department store to ask again what it was I was supposed to be picking up. I have to admit that when I reach into my pocket and feel my little flip phone, there’s a comfort in knowing that if my family needs me, I’m accessible to them at any time. That was especially so when I had to go out of state recently for a conference.

A few weeks ago, a friend and I stopped by a local convenience store to pick up a few items. In the midst of ringing up my friend’s purchase, the cashier stopped to answer the phone behind the counter. It was a business-related call concerning a shipment of some kind and it obviously took precedence over tending to the customers standing in line. As we were walking out of the store my friend expressed slight irritation with service people who interrupt their service to take calls. I found this quite ironic since more than a few of our conversations have abruptly come to a halt due to an incoming call on his cell phone. It’s kind of like face to face call waiting. The immediate conversation is put on hold in order to tend to another.

When I give thought to God’s call for me to love my wife sacrificially as Christ loved the church, I'm prone to think of grandiose, heroic episodes like risking my own life to push her out of the way of a speeding car or throwing myself in front of her to shield her from a bullet. Fortunately, in the sixteen years we’ve been married, no such scenarios have arisen. But there have been countless opportunities to practice self-denying love through doing such things as picking up after myself around the house, preparing a meal for her for a change, or surrendering the television remote with gladness when our viewing preferences clash. I’ve missed (or avoided) most of these daily dyings while fantasizing about how, if the time came, I’d give my life for her.

When it comes to loving our neighbor as ourselves, I think we are prone to the same kind of delusions of grandeur. We can daydream about heroic expressions of loving another while overlooking the many apparently mundane opportunities that fill each day. In this technologically-saturated age, a question we should constantly ask ourselves and each other is, How do we use technology in ways that acknowledge and affirm what we as Christians profess to believe? Keeping this question before each other is one way to heed God's command that we "consider how to stir up one another to love and good works" (Hebrews 10:24).

Lauren Winner has written an excellent article that spurs such thinking about the place cell phones have in our lives and how their use shapes our thinking about time, space, and embodiment in ways that don't coincide with a biblical outlook on life. She cautions:

When we buy into cell phones, we may be really buying into a cultural story that is much bigger than your average clam-shell. We may be buying into a story that tells us that all hours of the day are identical, that there's no right or good way to order time — 8 hours a day for work-related calls, for example, but peace and quiet and time for friends and family after 5 pm. We may be buying into a story that is essentially Gnostic, that tells us that our minds, our attention and our conversations should be focused on a person in another city, instead of on the person right next to us. We may be buying into a story that tells us never to be tranquil or still. We may be buying into a story that praises "connectivity" but yanks us out of the small corner of the world we happen to inhabit today. I love talking to my friends in New York, but surely I ought not do so at the expense of connecting to the small patch of campus I'm walking across in Durham, North Carolina, this very afternoon.

Winner's thoughtful piece reminded me of Doug Groothuis who, by the way, also recently acquired a cell phone. Though he won't give you his number, he will share his philosophy of cell phone use.

What God Has Joined: More on Head and Heart

Well, I told you it wouldn't be easy letting go of the "18 inches between head and heart" thing. Two of my friends have weighed in on the matter in comments but I think the subject is so important I wanted to bring it to the surface here.

Byron said:

Allow me to protest a tad, Keith; I think that it all depends upon what you mean when you speak of a head/heart dichotomy. I use this analogy---hey, maybe I need to give it up---but I think that the way I intend it to be understood isn't necessarily at variance with your point. When I speak of "head", I'm speaking of mere intellectual assent, as opposed to "heart", signifying not so much an opposition to head as a trust in , a commitment to, an obedience in, those things which the "head" rightly understands. In my understanding, then, I wouldn't speak of a head/heart dichotomy, as though the two were opposed in some either/or scenario, so much as I'd think of "heart belief" involving a commitment to, a fulfillment of, those things to which the "head" mentally assents. 'Zat make sense?

Yes, that does make sense. What Byron wants to make clear is that knowledge, assent, and trust are essential to biblical faith. With that I'm in full agreement. I think, however, that there are more biblical ways of communicating that concern than by making a head/heart distinction. For example, James warns us against deceiving ourselves by only hearing the word and not doing it (James 1:22). 


The critical issue is, as Byron noted, one of obedience to that which I assent to and obedience originates in the heart. Paul, for example, is grateful to God that the Roman Christians became "obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which [they] were committed" (Romans 6:17). Throughout the Bible, belief and obedience are intertwined and, at times, used interchangeably. In John's gospel, believing in the Son is contrasted with disobeying Him (3:36). According to Psalm 78, the Israelites in the wilderness "did not believe in God and did not trust his saving power" (v. 22). Again, belief, trust, and obedience are in mind. What was the cause of their unbelief, lack of trust, and disobedience? The answer is given in verse 8. They were "a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God." (I take this to be an instance of poetic parallelism demonstrating that heart and spirit are different ways of referring to the same thing.)

I'm a firm believer that we should allow the Scriptures to guide us in our use of biblical terms and concepts. It's much too easy to fall into using biblical vocabulary in unbiblical ways thereby changing its meaning.  A few days ago I picked up Marva Dawn's new book, Talking the Walk, in which she examines a number of key words in biblical faith whose meanings have become distorted or ignored. Dawn, who was an English literature major and teacher, writes in the introduction: "...I am solemnly concerned about the corruption of words in contemporary Christian faith. When we speak bad theology, we live badly theologically. When our theologians and pastors and communities reject or abuse significant words in the heritage of faith, our Christianity is reduced or decimated." Though "heart" is not one of the words she investigates, I think it has been corrupted by being torn from its canonical context.

As Jerry (read with open eyes) pointed out in his comment, the Bible does not ascribe intellectual activity to one part of a person while assigning trust to the heart. I understand that Byron doesn't intend to convey a dichotomy between the heart and head when he speaks of the 18 inches between them, but I think that such language, no matter how well-intended, distances people from a biblical perspective on the unity of the person. 


Another problem is that in our setting people are prone to associate "heart" primarily (if not exclusively) with the emotions. Distinguishing between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge," and implying that the latter is superior to the former, can also serve to perpetuate and strengthen the misconception that reason, education, and intellectual rigor are inimical to Christian spirituality.

Teens Teaching Teens to Cut, Starve, and Choke Themselves

The February 2006 issue of Reader's Digest has an article that youth workers and parents should read. It's about the rising number of American teens who practice various forms of self-injurious behavior such as cutting, anorexia, and nearly asphyxiating themselves to induce a drug-like high by cutting off oxygen to the brain. Though the article does not frame things theologically, it vividly illustrates the role that socialization plays in sin's outworking. According to one pediatrician quoted in the article, "These practices are spreading like wildfire because of the Internet."

Psychologists, pediatricians and youth counselors contend that under the radar, hundreds of websites and chat rooms are fueling an explosion of self-destructive practices considered in vogue by a surprising number of kids. They swap techniques about how to injure themselves -- and, like Joel and Caitlin, keep it all hidden from their parents.

"Clearly, the Internet is a major tool for good," says Ken Mueller, co-director of CPYU.org, an informational website about youth culture. "But as we're seeing now, it can also lead to great harm. Kids become addicted to these sites, and suddenly behaviors that used to be considered taboo are no longer hidden, which makes them seem more acceptable -- even cool."

If the statistics offered in this piece are credible, this is an issue that the church will be facing with greater frequency. One resource I'd recommend as an introduction to the subject from a theological perspective is a booklet authored by Ed Welch called Self-Injury: When Pain Feels Good. Welch explores the various things self-injurious behavior can be saying (e.g., "I am guilty. I must be punished," "I am angry," "I can't feel this way any longer; hurting myself is the only way to stop my feelings") and shows how all of them point to God and how the gospel offers real hope to those enslaved to these self-destructive patterns of living. Addressing the objection some might raise to the suggestion that self-abuse is at root a spiritual issue, Welch writes:

This seems like a harsh way to explain the possible inner workings of self-injury, but if we really believe that self-injurers share a bond with those who don't purposely injure themselves, we would expect self-injurers to have a lot of "self" motivating their behavior. We all do! Scripture consistently reminds us that our greatest problem, even more than Satan himself, is our selfish desires (James 4:1-3). Pride and self-interest tend to rule our hearts. Contrary to what we may think, self-love is never a biblical command. The command is that we love others to the degree that we love ourselves (Matt. 19:18).

I touched on the topic of self-love in a recent post which, if you missed, you can find here.

Head and Heart

Les Newsom at Common Grounds Online wonders if he's the only one who hated hearing at every youth retreat he attended that the 18 inches between his head and heart were what was keeping him from being a committed Christian. I didn't become a believer until I was 19 so I missed out on the youth retreats. But I hear that kind of thinking from adults (who may have been at the same retreats as Les) and I hate it now (see yesterday's post).

While I don't share Les's conviction that substance dualism (recognizing a distinction between soul and body) is ultimately to blame for the pitting of head and heart against each other, I'm in wholehearted agreement with his contention that the head/heart dichotomy has no biblical warrant. Les writes:

...any good exegete of Scripture will tell you that the Bible’s understanding of the “inner zones” of humanity centers on the conception of the “heart.” In Scripture, the “heart” houses not just the feelings, but all of life. My thinking, my feelings, my believing, my committing, my loving: it all proceeds from the heart. Proverbs 4:23 comes to mind, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.”

The head/heart dichotomy is so popular among Christians that it's unlikely that we'll let go of it easily. But Les points out the advantages of doing so:

Leaving the head/heart dichotomy as an apparatus to think about my inner life reorganizes the priorities of Christian self-discipline, helps keeps first things first, and gets me off the hopeless treadmill of trying to figure out if I feel like a Christian today.

Related Tags: Biblical anthropology, Christianity, Anti-intellectualism, Theology, Dualism

Wholly, wholly, wholly

God designed us to be integrated, whole beings, with emotion, mind, imagination, will, and body working together in complete harmony. Otherwise, why would he command us to love him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deut. 6:5; Mark 12:30)? Inner unity, not fragmentation, is our heritage. Wholeness is our birthright, not an internal chaos where one capacity competes with the others for domination (Steve Shores, Minding Your Emotions, Colorado Springs, CO: Nav Press, 2002, p.79).


We were made like God and intended to worship, love and enjoy him. God did not make us to relate to him with one small part of our lives-the spiritual part. He made us to relate to him and express his likeness in all of life-body, mind, emotions, will....Spirituality involves the whole of human life; nothing is nonspiritual. But wherever Platonism has affected Christian teaching there has been a separation of the sacred and the secular. Thus, prayer, worship, evangelism and "the ministry" are thought to be sacred. All other activities are secular. The sacred is said to be more spiritual (Ranald Macaulay and Jerram Barrs, Being Human: The Nature of Spiritual Experience, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1978, pp.36, 55).


Teach me your way, O LORD, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name (Psalm 86:11, ESV).

Common Sense Counseling?

The class I'm leading through Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth recently covered the chapters describing the philosophical ethos of 19th century America and how it contributed to Christians embracing the idea of neutral (that is, free from all religious or philosophical biases) knowledge. Common Sense Realism, which began with Thomas Reid in Scotland, came to the U.S. where it thrived in academic circles, including theological education. Reid's thinking was prompted by the British empiricist skeptic, David Hume. Pearcey says,

....[Reid] aimed his own philosophical efforts at refuting Hume and formulating a new foundation for knowledge. The way to avoid skepticism, Reid proposed, is to realize that some knowledge is "self-evident"-that is, it is forced upon us simply by the way human nature is constituted. As a result, no one really doubts or denies it. It is part of immediate, undeniable experience.

Pearcey further explains the extent to which Reid's thinking was influenced by that of Francis Bacon who maintained that scientific progress required jettisoning all metaphysical precommitments and allowing the facts to simply speak for themselves. Scientific systems can then be constructed by reasoning inductively on the basis of what has been observed. According to this view, complete objectivity is both desirable and possible. But, as Pearcey notes, this insistence that one liberate himself from all philosophical traditions and systems in order to acquire knowledge is itself a philosophy. Failure to recognize this, however, made Christians reluctant to allow their biblical convictions to inform their thinking in fields outside of theology.

One consequence of adopting this model of knowing is that apologetics is necessarily prior to the doing of theology though not a theological task itself. Its purpose is to justify Christianity's claims according to allegedly neutral standards of reasoning. Only upon successful completion of this task is the theologian permitted to proceed. Writing in the early 20th century, B. B. Warfield wrote:

It thus lies in the very nature of apologetics as the fundamental department of theology, conceived as the science of God, that it should find its task in establishing the existence of a God who is capable of being known by man and who has made Himself known, not only in nature but in revelations of His grace to lost sinners, documented in the Christian Scriptures. When apologetics has placed these great facts in our hands-God, religion, revelation, Christianity, the Bible-and not till then are we prepared to go on and explicate the knowledge of God thus brought to us, trace the history of its workings in the world, systematize it, and propagate it in the world ("Apologetics" in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge).

I was reminded of this quote yesterday when I read this post by Tom Gee in which he delves into a subject that is of great interest to me-the subtle yet powerful absorption of psychological conceptual schemes such that the church's ability to think theologically about life and its problems is seriously impaired. Tom challenges the widely held view that some people have been so wounded by the sins of others that they stand in need of professional counseling before the ministry of the Word and the Spirit can take root in their lives and effect change.

If there is one area that Christians have been slow to recognize the crucial role presuppositions play in the formulation of theories, it is that of counseling. The thought that some wounds of the psyche require the application of extra-biblical knowledge so that the Word of God may find fertile soil jogged my thinking. Is there any connection between Warfield's conviction that supposedly unbiased science must grant permission for systematic theology to proceed and the popular assumption that "scientific" psychological counseling must, at least in some cases, pave the way for practical theology?

Technorati Tags: theology, psychology, apologetics, counseling, philosophy, worldview, evangelicalism

Pro-Choice Cognitive Dissonance on Display

JivinJehoshaphat posted this picture and mused:

You've got to wonder about the level of cognitive dissonance that affects this pro-choicer. She calls the unborn child in her womb a "baby" yet is in favor of legal killing of other "babies" and for some reason thinks that her "baby" would also be in favor of the legal killing of other "babies."

The odds are good that this "progressive" thinker would also insist that children should be allowed to choose their own convictions rather than having those of their parents "forced" on them.

Apparently, the pro-choice mind values logic about as much as it does the unborn.

Greg Koukl on BAM

OK, I think this is my final media announcement for the day. This from Melinda at STR's Blog:

Scott Klusendorf is sick, so Greg will pinch hit for him on The Bible Answer Man today and tomorrow discussing abortion and Roe v. Wade. You can also catch it on-line at OnePlace.com. Greg and Scott provide excellent pro-life training in STR's resource "Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-life Persuaion."

We've used "Making Abortion Unthinkable" at our church and I can attest to its excellence.

Al Mohler on Larry King Live Tonight

Albert Mohler will be one of Larry King's guests this evening (9 ET, CNN) discussing the film Brokeback Mountain which he has written about here and here. Here's the teaser from the show's site: "Is it biology or choice? Are same sex unions a legitimate lifestyle? Homosexuals face off with religious conservatives."

Radio Dawkins

If you missed Richard Dawkins' television special, The Root of All Evil (which I mentioned here), don't despair. At least you can listen to him rail against religion. (HT: The New Humanist)

John Frame on A Generous Orthodoxy

John Frame's review of Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy is available here. It's worth reading not only because of its substance but because of the model it provides of gracious yet pointed interaction with fellow believers with whom we disagree. Frame shares many of McLaren's concerns and loves the phrase "generous orthodoxy," but fears that "McLaren has loaded up the concept...with so many confusing arguments and unbiblical notions that he is likely to give generous orthodoxy a bad name." (HT: Between Two Worlds)

The Weapons of Our Warfare Are Not Carnal?

For a donation of $41.10 (which he calls "a statement of faith"), Pastor Rod Parsley will send you The Sword of the King to display in your home as a reminder of God's promise in Isaiah 41:10 (He should have selected a verse from Isaiah $66 for a greater return): "Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."


According to the description, the sword is a replica of the sword of the legendary King Arthur." How, exactly, one replicates a non-existent item, I don't know. But something's fishy because this is supposed to be a replica of Arthur's sword too and it doesn't look anything like what Parsley's selling. Who uses swords nowadays, anyway? For the sake of cultural contextual-ization, Pastor Rod should sell light sabers.  Humor aside, things like this invite the world to mock Christianity as evidenced by The Revealer's caustic coverage.

Old Friends, New Blogs

I wanted to let readers know about two relatively new blogs from men I admire:

A few years ago I participated in an email list devoted to the discussion of the apologetic method formulated by Cornelius Van Til known as presuppositionalism. Sean Choi was one of the members whose contributions I made it a point to read because I routinely learned from them. Sean's a graduate student in philosophy at the University of California who "sees academic philosophy--and the life of the mind in general--as a way of expressing discipleship to Jesus." I recently discovered his blog, The Plurality of Blogs, and look forward to reading him again.

The other blog, Key Lime Pi, belongs to one of my AOL friends of many years, Steve Costley. He's another guy who provokes my intellect and my desire to walk more closely with Christ. I've enjoyed numerous conversations with him about theology and culture so I enthusiastically recommend that you check out his musings. Steve's just getting started and promises "More coming on theology, philosophy, apologetics, law, logic, chess, culture, pie, and maybe pi if I think of something interesting to say about it." He also says that he hopes not to spend too much time writing so don't expect frequent posts. From my experience, whenever he does break the silence he'll have something valuable to offer.

What Makes a Belief Religious?

A seminarian asked me yesterday if I knew of any books that address the question of what makes a belief religious. I immediately thought of Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories and loaned him my copy. As providence would have it, today Joe Carter asks, "What is a Religious Belief?" and provides a very helpful introduction to Clouser's thought. Joe gives good reasons to reject the commonly held view that only those systems of thought that include a belief in one or many gods and/or induce worship-related activities are religious and illustrates how religious belief is inescapable even by the most ardent materialist.

Richard Dawkins and the Root of All Evil

Richard Dawkins wrote and appears in a two-part series called "The Root of All Evil?" to be aired on the UK's Channel 4. In the second episode, "The Virus of Faith," Dawkins equates the religious education of children with child abuse claiming that "Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods. It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?"

Dawkins doesn't hold back his feelings towards the God of the Bible either: "The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist," he says. Dawkins then criticizes Abraham, compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and calls the New Testament "St Paul's nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin." (source: WorldNetDaily).

Dawkins is opposed to claims of religious knowledge because they don't conform to the rigorous standards of science. He'd like us to believe that he is being completely rational and objective while those who don't share his materialistic, atheistic outlook are simply being emotional and unreasonable. However, from quotes like those above as well as from the series title it's obvious that Dawkins' aversion to Christianity is motivated largely by moral considerations. He appeals to the emotional force of analogies to child abuse and finds the God revealed in the Old and New Testaments detestable. But this raises some major problems for Dr. Dawkins. His moral pronouncements are not themselves the fruit of science for values such as justice are not capable of being empirically studied. Dawkins speaks as though certain states of affairs, actions, and motives are wrong despite the fact that he denies the existence of any objective and absolute standard of goodness. Given his view of things, I have no doubt that he finds the God of the Old Testament unpleasant but that's about as far as he can go while remaining true to his atheism.

The Third Great Commandment?

The notion that learning to love ourselves is a prerequisite to loving others is such a fixture in American Christian minds that questioning it might cause some to react as though one is calling into question a tenet of historic Christian orthodoxy. Nevertheless, I think it needs to be challenged. The idea was definitely more prominent during the reign of humanistic theories of counseling that emphasized self-actualization. Believers scurried to find biblical prooftexts to demonstrate to the world that secular psychologists were only now discovering what God had revealed millennia before. Foremost among these was what Jesus identified as the commandment secondary but related to the great commandment to love God with our whole selves. After citing Deuteronomy 6:5 as the answer to a lawyer's query as to which was the greatest of the Law's commandments, Matthew (22:39) and Mark (12:31) tell us that Jesus cited Leviticus 19:18 as the second most important imperative: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Regardless of the fact that Jesus said he was referring to only two commandments, some have sought to find within the second imperative an implicit third - love thyself. Disobeying this one will make loving others difficult if not impossible.

This raises questions in my mind. Can you think of anywhere that the Bible attributes the mistreating of others to the lack of love for oneself? If not, what answers do the Scriptures offer to explain inhumanity, indifference, and cruelty? We need to frequently ask questions like these to insure that we are faithfully reflecting the themes, emphases, and categories of Scripture rather than those of the therapeutic spirit of the age.

Jesus was not insinuating that unless one loves himself he is incapable of loving others. Rather, he knew that self-love is already present and potent within every human heart. But how can that be? I think a great deal of the confusion about this issue stems from the fact that each of us can identify things we don't like about ourselves; things we wish were other than they are. I have in mind things like character flaws, sinful patterns of life, physical imperfections, and deficits in various skills and abilities. We may think or even say at times, "I hate myself because I....." But does it necessarily follow from the fact that there are things about myself that I don't like, that mine is a problem of not loving myself enough? No.

To think through this, we have to first consider what it means to love another biblically. There are many places we could turn in search of an answer but for the sake of time and space I'm going to focus on Jesus' teaching about loving our enemies in Luke 6:27-36. From this passage we can conclude that love involves pursuing and promoting another's well-being; acting in such a manner as to secure what is good for him or her. If that definition of love is granted, it becomes much more evident that none of us is deficient in the area of self love. Even the fact that there are things that I don't like about myself is a manifestation of my love for myself. Those things bother me because I want better for....myself! Likewise, craving the love of others is not an indication that I do not love myself but a sign that I do. I am intent on pursuing whatever I think will enhance my pleasure. The universality of self love is what leads the apostle Paul to call husbands to love their wives as themselves (Ephesians 5:28). He reasons that since a man and woman have become one flesh, then a husband should love his spouse in the same way that he already loves himself. "For no one hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church" (Ephesians 5:29).

"But," someone says, "that may be the general rule but there are many exceptions. What of the countless individuals engaged in self-destructive habits? What are we to make of the unfortunate reports of those who practice various forms of self-mutilating behavior or others who starve themselves to the brink of death on account of a distorted perception of their own bodies? These people obviously hate their own flesh and they are certainly not caring for themselves. I may reluctantly grant that most of us are objects of our own love but these folks certainly aren't." Admittedly this line of thinking is initially compelling and has a great deal of emotional force behind it. Nonetheless, I think that if self-love is understood in the manner that I have described, we must conclude that even such grossly self-destructive behavior is not a manifestation of the lack of self-love but rather evidence of why we stand in need of being liberated from its power.

Paul's use of the words "flesh" in Eph. 5:29 and "bodies" in v. 28 are examples of synecdoche, a figure of speech where the part is used to refer to the whole. This is evident from v. 33: "However, let each one of you love his wife as himself..." Saying that a man loves his own body or that no one hated his own flesh is another way of saying that we are intent on pursuing what we believe will make for our happiness, contentment, security, etc. As Pascal noted in his Pensees, even the decision to end one's own life is motivated by this inclination:

All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.

By denying that we stand in need of learning how to love ourselves, I am not suggesting that what I have called self-love is inherently wrong in all its manifestations. My point is not to advocate self-contempt. Perhaps no contemporary Christian author has done more to illustrate that the motivation to maximize our enjoyment is a good part of creation. Therefore, it is not to be rejected. However, as it did the rest of creation, humanity's revolt against our Creator perverted that self-love such that we are its slaves. God the Father sent forth God the Son to liberate us from that captivity and by the sanctifying work of His Spirit that liberty is being progressively worked out such that we are freer to be what we were made to be - lovers of God and each other.

Integrating Faith and Learning?

In his article "Fifty Years Later," philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff takes issue with the commonly touted idea that the task of Christian scholarship is to "integrate" faith and learning and offers what he thinks is a more appropriate metaphor (HT: Prosthesis):

We in the colleges of the Reformed tradition have often used the language of "integration" to describe the project - not as often as people in the other Christian colleges, but nonetheless often. The project, we have said, is to integrate faith and learning. I have come to think that the metaphor of integration is a poor choice of metaphor. It suggests that the scholar is presented with two things, faith and learning; and that these two must some-how be tied together. The two-story metaphor has been discarded; no longer do we think in terms of placing faith on top of learning. Still, the assumption of duality remains. The idea now is that we tie them together somehow - find the right baling twine and the right place to attach it.

I submit that the project of Christian learning, rightly understood, rejects the assumption of duality that underlies the metaphor of integration. Here is an example of the point: the dominant ideology behind philosophy of art of the past two centuries is that art is an exception to the fallenness of our society; art has redemptive significance. How am I to integrate that ideology with my Christian faith? It can't be done. I have to reject it, not integrate it; and having rejected it, I have to rethink philosophy of art and aesthetics so that it becomes faithful to my Christian conviction. What emerges, if I am successful, is not an integration of two separate things but just one thing: a philosophy of art faithful to Christian conviction. I have never found what seemed to me the absolutely right metaphor. However, better than the integration metaphor is the metaphor of seeing through the eyes of faith. When you look at something, you look at it with your eyes; you don't look at it and then also at your eyes.

I think Wolterstorff is right and am particularly interested in the application of his thinking to the realm of counseling psychology though he doesn't address it in the article. The model of counseling most prevalent in evangelical circles assumes the integration metaphor while biblical counseling, on the other hand, seems to be governed more by the metaphor Wolterstorff suggests. An example of this is the title of David Powlison's book, Seeing With New Eyes: Counseling and the Human Condition Through the Lens of Scripture.

Please Pray for John Piper

Pastor John Piper has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Those familiar with him will not be at all surprised by how he is praying:

So I am praying: “Lord, for your great glory, 1) don’t let me miss any of the sanctifying blessings that you have for me in this experience; 2) don’t let the church miss any of the sanctifying blessings that you have for us in this; 3) grant that the surgery be successful in removing cancer and sparing important nerves; 4) grant that this light and momentary trial would work to spread a passion for your supremacy for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ; 5) may Noël and all close to me be given great peace—and all of this through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.” I hope God will lead you to pray in a similar way.

Read the rest of his letter to his congregation at Desiring God. (HT: Between Two Worlds)

Pascal on Writing

I frequently talk myself out of composing my thoughts for others to read by telling myself that others have already said or are currently saying what I'm thinking. Why reinvent the wheel? I know myself well enough to realize that this is in large part an excuse to avoid what for me is a grueling process of choosing the right words to express myself. But still, at some level, I consider it futile to try to convey the same thoughts that others have articulated so well.

Blaise Pascal is one of my favorite authors. The following words from his Pensees challenge my readiness to excuse myself and encourage me to add my voice to those of others who have sung or are singing the same song. If you share my reluctance, I hope you find them helpful too.

In what I am writing, let no one think I am saying anything new. It is only the arrangement of my material that may be new. For it is like a game of tennis, where we both play with the same ball, but one of us uses it to better advantage. So I would like it to be said that I am simply using well-worn words in a new framework. For when familiar thoughts are rearranged, they simply present a different way of communicating the truth. So too, we can use our words.

Stunning News from West Virginia

Restless, I got out of bed and turned the television on expecting to find a continuation of the jubilation I witnessed and shared last night in response to the announcement that 12 of the 13 miners trapped in a West Virginia coal mine were alive. When I read the caption, "Surviving miner identified as 27-year-old Randal McCloy," I was stunned. What a devastating turn of events. My imagination is not flexible enough to conceive of the staggering pain, disappointment, and anger that fill the hearts of those who loved these men. Video footage of them filing out of the small Baptist church at which they gathered gives me some idea. 


Reflecting on this heartbreaking news, Al Mohler writes:

This tragedy -- and the relief experienced in this rescue -- should remind those of us who work in relative safety that our lifestyles depend upon millions of workers in coal mines, steel mills, and other places who face very real and present dangers.
Those of us described by the late Peter Drucker as "knowledge workers" and by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich as "symbolic analysts" should take this opportunity to pay humble respect to those who, for example, dig coal deep in the earth in order that we might have heat and electricity.

God cares and provides for his creation in part through the labor of people with diverse callings or vocations. All honorable work, therefore, has theological significance. Today is indeed a good time to thank the Lord for people like miners and, of course, to pray for those who hours ago knew unspeakable joy and now experience unimaginable sorrow.

Christians and Kitsch

A few months ago I used the phrase "kitschianity" to describe the evangelical propensity toward creating sentimental works of poor quality (for lack of a better word) art intended to convey some aspect of the Christian message. These articles line the shelves of what used to be Christian bookstores. So, while paging through the current issue of Books & Culture this morning, I took special note of an ad for a new book from a UK-based publishing company called Piquant Editions that specializes in the relationship between Christian mission and the arts. The book is called A Profound Weakness: Christians and Kitsch by Betty Spackman. Here's Piquant's description:

In this image journal and textbook, the contemporary artist Betty Spackman takes us on a guided tour of her collection of the images and objects that represent the Christian faith in popular culture. Having set out to critique these poor relations of ecclesiastical art, she finds herself torn between being deeply moved and outraged by their sentimental appeal. Her gentle deconstructions and playful permutations elicit new life from them to illustrate her observations, and to surprise and at times unsettle the reader. A closing questionnaire prompts further reflection. This is a book that can help us greatly to make sense of the pictures that unwittingly may have shaped our faith or unfaith. It is highly recommended for artists, teachers, preachers, youth leaders, parents and spiritual counsellors.

An information page (PDF) including the table of contents and a brief author's bio is available here.

Oh, by the way, Happy New Year!