Swinging like Monkeys

I was recently at a Bible study which had quite a culturally-progressive flavor. This culturally-progressive flavor allows for many ideas to circulate, often unchallenged, and this sometime results in heresy espoused. At this study, there were many important questions, opinions and truths thrown around, but little heresy suggested. This was surprising because of the increasingly popular tendency that not only fails to point out or condemn heresy but almost encourages its expression. As I see it, an ideal study according to our culture allows everyone to state their opinion and feel appreciated without condemning or putting one’s opinion over another. Not distinguishing between truth and error forgoes the uncomfortable necessity to claim absolute truth that would follow, and helps to avoid offense. Bible studies are finding it easier to meet these requirements, but this was ideal because it surpassed the minimum, and that is quite a rare thing in light of rising Biblical illiteracy. The convenience of this method allows people to take what they want or can, in a way conveniently non-condemning. They seem to be a perfect balance for those who have been Christians for 40 years, and those who aren’t even considering Christianity. No one is right or wrong, and everyone has a say. Therefore the non-Christian can be heard and the Christian also, and no one is the worse off for it. The problem apparent me is that not only is “no one worse off,” no one is the better off either. In the name of cultural relevance, everyone coming, choosing a passage and then discussing seems to be an improvement over the more distant sunday-school teacher trends. This ideally seems great- people will be able to distinguish between truth and error in their minds, and everyone will walk away owning their ideas. The reason it seems dangerously but inconspicuously unhealthy, is that it is a fairly new method and the weaknesses are almost imperceptible as of yet. But these trends are direct descendants of the modernist philosophy that grandfathered them, and are inherently flawed by the same cultural bias. Modernism would like to believe that everything can be established by foundation and method, and therefore the label of correct theological opinion goes to the most rational and intelligent among us. Those who have mastered enough Greek and Hebrew to be closest to the original Scripture, and those who know the correct exegetical method. So then if postmodernism has removed the method, which is exegesis, and the objectivity of knowledge, which in itself contains the need for knowing Scripture, and it removes the (modernist) solid foundation, which is the closeness to the Hebrew and Greek, than what is left? Opinions that gather around to discuss the Scriptures and go away personally inspired but not united in Faith, Lord or Baptism(Let alone other essential doctrines of the faith). This lack of unity and abandonment of useful doctrine and preparation is a handicapping weakness of the postmodern method. There are many Scriptures that contradict the self-glorifying, falsely seeming objectivity of the modernist, but there are many that would declare a foundation and method to be essential, and a plurality of perspectives(not interpretations) helpful and necessary, according to the New Testament. We must return to the cleansing affect of Scripture on our minds and hearts, so we can see in full view our biases and cultural weaknesses. It will not suffice to continue swinging blindly from one set of weaknesses to another, and all the while miss the blessing God has for us firmly rooted in the unifying effect of His truth. There are many truths to be overlooked without a proper study and method of exegesis, and on the other hand, there are many important truths and questions ignored if only one person has the ability to comment on the text. I would then postulate that though we might be gaining some ground in cultural sensitivity, we are losing more ground in what really matters, the uniting of God’s people around His truth.

ma fiancee et moi

Here I am attempting to show you a bit of what happened for Ariel's proposal. The last picture is us outside the restaurant after getting engaged. My engagement gift to her was the wooden rose, a placard made with exotic woods from all over the world. The shading is done by burning each piece just so in hot sand. It took me three days to make it. The Puzzle was how I proposed to her. I took the pieces from the puzzle and gave them to all her family and some significant people in our lives here in Europe and then throughout Christmas, each person gave them to her in envelopes that she wasn't allowed to open of course. When we went out to the restaurant I could tell she was nervous so I asked her if she was worried I was going to propose to her that night. She said maybe so I pulled out the puzzle frame and all the envelopes containing the pieces and said, "here is a Christmas gift for you that will tell you when I'm going to propose so you don't have to be anxious anymore." The first two words she put together were, "marry me." After that, she had quite a good idea about when I was going to ask her. Then I gave her the ring box upside down and fumbled out a speech neither of us can remember- probably for the better. All that matters is she said yes, we just don't remember what, yet. Speaking of that, that ambiguity might be useful someday! The first picture is a picture of Ariel when we went ice skating in Geneva, Switzerland with the fountain in center ville and the Alps behind us. The second is the ring that came from the same jeweler as my late grandmother's. We are happy with it. Voila, that's the story according to me!

the object of our tolerance: ideas or people

I find myself quite frequently asking questions about why people in a post-modern era are so lonely. If this is supposed to be the age of relationship, tolerance and cultural relativity, why is culture such a sensitive matter? Why is honest, committed relationship so rare? Why is tolerance so debated, misconstrued and barely functional?

It has been said over and over again by many men wiser than myself that one of the fundamental tenets of postmodernism is tolerance. This tolerance then should allow relationship to flourish without cultural, ideological differences threatening to disintegrate the ideal social relationship. The difficulty with this tenet is that the content and definition of tolerance has changed in the past 20 years. It has changed from tolerance of people, and has increasingly become centered on the ideas of people. At a first glance this has nothing to do with the moral, relational breakdown in society at large, but I believe it has everything to do with it.

Think about the most relational man who ever walked the face of the earth, Jesus. He was completely tolerant of the most ignorant, backstabbing thieves; one of whom dared to trade the life of not only the Son of God, but of a respected and followed religious leader, for a few pieces of silver. Jesus did not even refuse his kiss as he was betrayed. What an example of selfless tolerance and true love for humanity! But than why did Jesus storm through the temple with a whip driving out the hypocrites and thieves who were trading their integrity for a few pieces of silver? I believe it is because though all men are created equal, all ideas and “truths” are not. Think of how Jesus could eat dinner with the scum of the earth, a gesture that not even the kindest of religious leaders would have initiated, and also call them for repentance because they were destined for hell.

This does not fit with the postmodern ideal of tolerance. However, I believe this is a better tolerance, for it allows for true honest, committed relationship. The other kind of tolerance does not, however, for it is a tolerance based on ideas, not people. People must listen to another’s ideas because it is wrong to say they are wrong. Therefore, there are a few billion liars in the world who think the others’ ideas are crazy and cannot say so. Indeed, their ideas are crazy, for they have never been challenged with a measure of refining truth, for it is not polite to do so. So then if an identity rests in this shared, shallow shell of one’s ideas, to challenge one’s ideas is to challenge their identity. One the other hand, if one’s identity were to rest in their person, and ideas could be discussed and freely challenged as in Jesus’ model of tolerance, it would be an act of a honest, committed relationship to challenge the ideas of another.

I think that most people can sense this truth deep down inside, and it is a cause for loneliness that no one truly cares about what they think. This indeed is not surprising, for people cannot care about what they cannot adopt as their own, and they cannot adopt as their own those ideas with which they are not at liberty to disagree with more convincing proofs. They cannot disagree for it is inappropriate to challenge the ideas of another, no matter how obvious the fallacy. I think what is even more striking then these observations, is the fact that this false, degraded thinking has permeated the church more than we can know. I also believe we will be feeling the fall-out of this deceit sooner and more forcefully than could be imagined.

In the French Alps 1

These are a few pictures from the past week in the French Alps with Ariel and her family. It was a neat time to have my French family come up and join us for two days as well. You can see them in the third picture from the bottom. It was a great time hanging out and the complicated language barriers made for the beginnings of several new languages I think. It was an awesome mix of English, Dutch and French, though and our common bond in Christ made the whole thing a great experience and encouragement for everyone. It was great as well to do some snowboarding as you can see, and also to get engaged to my new fiancee, Ariel. I will do another post about that later. In fact, I have several post ready that I am still working on, so sorry for the wait. The second pic from the bottom is a pic of me and Ariel on top of the Alps with the tallest mountain in Europe, Mont Blanc in the background. It was so high, we both got a bit sick on the way up, but the 2 mile ski down was totally worth it. The bottom picture is our engagement photo! We both feel it captures a bit of our personality, though Ariel's mom thinks I look dead in pictures because my eyes are always half closed. Sorry guys, those baby blues aren't on display today. Ariel's a real beauty though isn't she? The first pic is her bros and sis. They are a neat family. The second pic is me and Ariel and her dad getting ready to try breaking our necks snowboarding. It is really tough even for a young guy like me, but I am very impressed with how well her dad did and he stuck with it the whole day. The third pic is Ariel and her parents in a little vacation town in the Alps. It really was a blessing to spend the time surrounded by God's creation with the opportunity to get to know her family more. More to come..........soon.