Liberal Logic

Posted on November 7, 2006 by me

(Just one more side-track, then I’ll get back to the Entitlement issue.)

This week’s Newsweek includes an article by Sam Harris, author of such spell-binding books as The End of Faith. Harris is a Stanford grad, an atheist who seems to think he’s God’s gift to rationalists. Oh, wait…

Anyway, the Issue is about faith and politics, and Harris’ piece is entitled, “A Dissent: The Case Against Faith.” This is a wonderful article, because in just a few words it reveals Harris’ thinking and methods, so you don’t have to bother reading his books to find that out. It’s also a fair example of Liberal Logic. I presume that Harris is a political liberal, though I don’t know. However, that’s not the point; his approach to logic, in my opinion, follows classic liberal thinking.

If you haven’t noticed, conservatives and liberals have completely different worldviews, and completely different approaches to logic. It is nearly impossible for them to communicate with each other. In a nutshell, conservatives are from Mars, liberals are from Venus. Sam Harris is a Venusian.

Harris is actually amazing in his boldness (as are many liberals); for example, here is his opening sentence:

Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago.

More than half? Americans? I don’t think half of Evangelical Christians would say that. Of course, he gives no indication of where he pulled this information from. He also is embarrassed that many of our leaders believe in God, but that’s no surprise. He also claims that “44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years,” another questionable statistic. 50 years? Confident? Or, perhaps, who believe it is possible? The 2 are completely different concepts.

Now I could pick apart his article paragraph by paragraph, but I just don’t have time. (This would be a good project for a logic class, however.) I will, however, give you one prime example of his liberal logic. He states that the problem of religion is that it is “unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality.” He goes on, “One of the worst things about religion is that it tends to separate questions of right and wrong from the living reality of human and animal suffering.” What?? He apparently has never actually heard the Gospel.

He does not provide anything to back up this completely foolish assertion; apparently with Venusian logic, the conclusion is all that matters. I wonder… just where does he expect morality to come from? Society? That’ll work.

Here’s the deal: Harris doesn’t like religion. Since most of the people in the world have some type of religion, it only follows that most of the people who cause problems have one of those religions. So, the fact remains that many religious people do some very bad things. Therefore, religion is bad and the cause of all evil.

People, this is not logical (in the “Martian” sense); this is, in fact, an emotional response. Liberal logic (it’s my term, so I can define it as I wish…) usually starts with an emotional response, moving quickly to a conclusion that “feels” right, then the middle is filled up with “facts” that support the conclusion. Try it – listen to Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, whoever. I don’t think it’s intentional, for the most part. I think the emotions are valid, and the conclusions are wishful thinking, like in John Lennon’s “Imagine.” Many liberal-thinkers are wonderful, sincere people who really care about things. Some of my best friends are Venusians. (There are some, however, as there are some Martians, who are just plain wacko.) The emotions are often valid; the process is just flawed.

It’s interesting, and somewhat humorous, that Harris claims that religion is not rational, and then fails to be rational in response. Of course, many other Venusians think he’s brilliant. But then, considering the Venusian worldview, that’s entirely logical.

Posted in Liberal Logic | Leave a comment

Building mentality

Posted on October 31, 2006 by me

Okay, it’s been awhile and I still haven’t finished my last series of posts on “entitlement,” but I’m going to switch topics for this post. I will continue, I promise, and will even say some positive stuff about pastors.

Our church has just decided to buy a building. It’s a nice building, and a good deal, financially speaking. But, I’m concerned that it will only enforce “ghetto” thinking (or, the “building mentality”) in the church. I’m concerned because that’s already the leadership’s mentality: get people into the building as often as possible.

What they don’t realize is that by getting people into the building, they are pulling people out of homes, and out of neighborhoods, where the “world” is. They think it’s building community; what they also don’t understand is that you don’t build community by putting people into a building. By doing that, the value that is taught is that community happens “in the building,” not in the homes.

Pastors talk alot about community, as well they should. Community is a good thing – an essential thing, for the Church. However, the reason they talk about it so much is because they don’t understand it. The traditional, liturgical church understands that community exists “theologically.” That is, by sheer nature of being “the church,” community exists. Perhaps more on that later.

Today (or tonite, more accurately) is Hallowe’en. And, as usual, our church is having a big “alternative” celebration (that looks exactly like Halloween) and is encouraging us all to come and bring neighbors to the building. Again, they are pulling people away from their neighborhoods, in perhaps what is the best opportunity all year to interact with your neighbors. Imagine, a night when people of all faiths or non-faiths are out walking around, knocking on doors, and giving each other candy! And, what to “church people” do? They run and hide in their buildings.

It’s wrong. We’ve always let our kids trick-or-treat, and for years we’ve walked around with them, meeting neighbors and having fun. Sometimes we serve hot chocolate to the trick-or-treaters. But, we insist on not hiding from our neighborhood, even on this “most evil” of holidays (un-holidays?). We usually end up at the “building” as the kids’ friends are usually there, and they play and have a good time, too. But, we do the neighborhood thing first.

If I were a pastor, I’d want to do everything possible to encourage people to get out of the stupid building and be “Christians” in their neighborhoods. Some pastors agree with me – there are those, for example, who would rather have you stay home from church on Superbowl Sunday and fill your house with non-Christians than hang at the building. It’s radical, I know.

Now, I’m not about to sacrifice any chickens or dance naked under the full moon. It’s way too cold for that in Oregon. But, I will answer my door and give away candy – in fact, I just took a break and did just that.

Posted in Church | 4 Comments

A note about exegesis & hermenuetics

Posted on October 15, 2006 by me

I have not attended seminary (which is probably obvious to some of you). I have not taken any class on either exegesis or hermeneutics. I don’t read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin; at times I barely speak English. However, I do try to read the Bible as objectively and honestly as I can, and according to generally accepted principles of exegesis and hermeneutics. So, I thought this would be a good time to explain how I try to read and understand the Bible.

Exegesis is, for those who don’t know, is a Greek word meaning “to draw the meaning out of.” Strictly speaking, it refers to drawing the meaning out of a text, based solely on the text itself. However, often the word more broadly to mean the use of all available information to draw the meaning out of a text. It sometimes is used interchangeably with hermeneutics, which refers to the philosophy of methods of interpretation and exegesis.

On the flip side we have eisegesis, which means to put meaning into the text. This is not necessarily invalid; however honest scholarship would demand the identification of “hunches” about meaning, apart from exegetical opinions. (Unfortunately, eisegesis seems to have become the preferred study method for some preachers, often to the exclusion of exegesis.)

Gordon Fee says that exegesis “… answers the question, ‘What did the biblical author mean?’ It has to do both with what he said (the content itself) and why he said it at any given point (the literary context). Furthermore, exegesis is primarily concerned with intentionality: What did the author intend his original readers to understand?” (New Testament Exegesis, p 27.)

Now, of course, to go any further, you have to agree that it’s important to determine what the author intend his original readers to understand. Some, relying, for example, totally on the Holy Spirit’s revelation, may not care, believing that God will simply reveal to us what He wants us to get out of the passage. I am by no means discounting the importance of the Holy Spirit’s revelation, which I also hope for; however, I also believe that we have been given “all things pertaining to life and Godliness,” which includes the ability to think and reason. Some Eastern religions would tell you to turn off your mind and simply feel; Christianity involves the mind whille constantly reminding us that there is something beyond our intellect.

It seems fairly obvious to me that a 1st Century Jew would have a completely different grid than a 21st Century American of European descent, and that even should we come up with a perfect Greek to English translation, we’d walk away with different understandings of the same passage. Therefore, taking some effort to look beyond a simple rendering of an English translation makes sense if we are really wanting to understand what is being said. (I do not assume that the Holy Spirit will do all of that for us; if it were so, I doubt there would be so many different denominations.)

Now, adding to the problem, we all have our own internal “noise” which clouds our picture of what is being said. This noise is not necessarily a bad thing; it consists of our worldview, our presuppositions, our understanding of the way things are. This forms from what we are taught, and changes as we learn. As we read the Bible, we understand it based upon what we already believe. We can’t even read John 3:16 without understanding it based on what we already understand.

So, as much as possible, I try to recognize my own “noise” and filter that out; it’s not always easy, or even possible, to do. But, I try to the best of my abilities to read and to understand (with the Holy Spirit’s help) with someone else’s eyes. In doing so, I am finding that my grid has and is changing.

And, I always consider the remote possibility that I still could be wrong …

Posted in Church, My Own Personal Religion, The Daniel Amos Chronicles | 5 Comments

The Entitlement Myth, Part 3 – On Professional Christians

Posted on October 12, 2006 by me

In my last post, I started a discussion about the sense of entitlement that pervades much of the western church (and spreading, as we “evangelize” the rest of the world), dealing in particular with the issue of paid, “professional” Christians. Most of us take for granted that pastors, etc. should be full-time paid positions, and often are paid considerably more than the congregation’s average income. Having this filter firmly in place, we then read the Bible, interpreting it accordingly.

Let me say again, that I am not necessarily opposed to paying pastors and missionaries. I am, however, challenging the presumption that this simply is the Biblical way things should be done, or even the best way for everyone.

A historical analysis would suggest that in 1st Century Israel (and the surrounding Roman Empire), no one would have interpreted Matthew 10:10, 1 Cor. 9, or any other passage to refer to a “professional,” full-time status as pastor, etc. For example, it is my understanding that Jewish priests served in rotation, and while they received remuneration for their scheduled service, they had crafts or trades to support themselves when they weren’t in the Temple. This is good, not only for the Church, but also for the minister.

We currently have a situation where many, many people have, at an early age, decided to become pastors or missionaries, as a vocation. Certainly, most don’t expect to become rich; however, being single-minded, they are devoted to their goal and get their various degrees, and go out in search of a church. This is now their only viable means of support and they have, to various degrees, become a burden for the church. It is their expectation to find other Christians to provide for them so they can serve the Lord. These, for the most part, are good motives, but the strategy is defective.

I have had more than one middle-aged pastor confide in me that they are now in fear of being without a church, because they see no other way to make a living. The same issue applies to missionaries. It is a terrifying thought; starting out with an understanding that they are entitled to full-time support, they have become completely dependent on the church; they either have no other training, or are now too old to “get back in the game” when the church fails (or turns on the pastor).

This can lead to various abusive situations. For one, the church is now in a position to abuse their pastors, and to some extent, many churches have. Perhaps not in ways we’d think, but for example, simply by demanding their full attention to the church (leaving other vocations behind). I know of some churches who even insist that the Pastor’s wife doesn’t work, further hindering (and controlling) the pastor and family from providing for themselves. Furthermore, this dependence means that the pastor will often bow to whims of the church, because the church now holds the pastor’s future in their hands.

Also, we then have situations where the Pastor needs to focus on organization-building (rather than on really pastoring. The congregation, in a very real sense, becomes a group of “giving units.” The pastor needs to keep people “happy,” not for their sake, but for his. And, of course, a hugely successful “ministry” can often become a financial “blessing” for the pastor. This situation can often be an actual conflict of interest for the pastor.

I do know pastors who are partially or even completely self-supporting apart from their church; I’ve known at least 2 pastors who took no salary from the church whatsoever (and were marvelous pastors). It’s really a much healthier situation. And, it keeps pastors in touch with the real world; someone who’s spent 20 years in a church office has really forgotten what it is to work a 40+ hour week, then have to fit in church activities in their spare time.

NEXT: Entitlement for the rest of us

Posted in Church, The Daniel Amos Chronicles | 7 Comments