Falling Asleep While Reading a Good Book

L always has to read before going to sleep because, in her words, "I can't sleep good."

 My sweet L.  A night never passes without her requesting a book to read before going to sleep.  My wifey caught this moment the other night.

HT: Ang

The Relationship Between Theology and Philosophy: Any Good Books?

As stated in an earlier post, I am currently reading K. Scott Oliphant’s book Reasons {for Faith}.  Based on a preliminary scan of the book, I thought Oliphant was going to deal with what the relationship of philosophy is to theology: what the essence of the relationship is, how it is played out, etc.  Unfortunately, as I get deeper into the book, the more I realize that the book is more of Oliphant’s working out of the philosphy of religion – how the Christian can predicate things to God (His goodness, etc.), for instance.  Oliphant deals very little with the actual relationship between theology and philosophy.

As such, what books are out there that deals with the essence of the relationship between theology and philosophy?  Not so much with the application of it, but what the relationship entails, etc.  Hope that is clear.

Recent Posts/Articles on the Logan Controversy

Here’s an update on recent news/info regarding the Logan Controversy:

Trevin Wax at Christianity Today writes a post titled “A Private Matter” in which he questions Chapman’s claim that the reasons for Logan’s firing is a matter that’s to be kept private.  Trevin contrasts Dr. Chapman’s actions to that of SBC president Johnny Hunt, who listened to the concerns of SBCers over the lack of diversity amongst the members of the GCR Task Force and made adjustments accordingly.

Likewise, Tim Brister at Provocations and Pantings, reacts against the form letter sent out by the EC to those who have contacted EC members in regards to Logan’s firing.  Timmy raises some important questions in light of the rather general, non-descript letter:

Is the Executive Committee providing such a response for legal cover?  What are we to think when even their own members were unaware of what happened to Clark Logan?  Is this another disappointing move in the wrong direction in order to avoid being accountable, transparent, and forthright with Southern Baptists? Is this generic response indicative that the Executive Committee officers are listening to the voice of Southern Baptists and giving appropriate attention to such an important (and public) matter?

Timmy, like Trevin, compares Chapman’s response (or lack thereof) to the Logan Controversy with Hunt’s response to concerns voiced about the GCR Task Force.  I encourage you to read his post (note the form letter included) and read the comments.

And On the Other End – Silence: Chapman and Perception

If you’ve been keeping up with SBC life lately, many in the SBC-blogosphere and Tweet-osphere (see the tweets on #clarklogan, HT: SBCvoices) have been turning up the pressure on Dr. Morris Chapman, President of the SBC Executive Committee, to be forthcoming regarding the reasons for Clark Logan’s recent “resignation.”  While the clamor against Chapman is at a high pitch, there has been almost complete silence from Dr. Chapman (except for a  release on 7/7/09 where he states that Logan did not do anything legally or morally wrong).

Why this silence from Dr. Chapman?  An article (dated 8/30/07) on his website titled “FIRST PERSON – Courteous, Cautious, and Caring in Speech,” may shed some light.  In this article, Dr. Chapman discusses his decision to have his name and statement pulled from SBCoutpost.com (The situation, apparently, is that when SBCoutpost started up again, Dr. Chapman provided a quote (see article) affirming the usefulness of blogs for SBCers to communicate and calling for bloggers to communicate in a manner worthy of Christians.  When the site did not live up to its promise to watch it rhetoric, Dr. Chapman had his statement retracted).   Dr. Chapman uses the article to  state his reason for his actions, saying:

Throughout the years when problems have arisen among Southern Baptists, I have most often tried to answer questions and resolve issues quietly, but definitively.  In this instance, I at first felt a more public statement would take the matter to a level that the occurrence did not justify, causing even more confusion among the members of our Southern Baptist family.  It has become obvious to me that my reluctance to make a public statement has offended some, and I believe they deserve a more public response (emphasis mine).

Fastforward almost two years later, and Dr. Chapman is in a somewhat similar position, yet more dire and potentially damaging in that his actions have been  called into question by fellow SBCers.  If we take what Dr. Chapman said two years ago, he may indeed be seeking to clear the Logan matter quietly with the intentions of avoiding further confusion, or controversy, or whatever.  Nevertheless, his “reluctance to make a public statement” today is causing confusion amongst the SBC family. Whatever perception one may have had of Dr. Chapman before, I believe that it’s safe to say that his continued silence is hurting Dr. Chapman, and not helping.  As such, I pray that, as he did two years ago, Dr. Chapman breaks his silence and provides a public response to those who have called upon him to answer.  Until then, the clamor will only increase, causing further distraction in a denomination fresh off a future-changing Convention in Louisville.

Again, as I’ve said before, I hope for a quick resolution to this issue so that we may get back at the task set for us at SBC Louisville.  I pray what we see here is not a return to typical SBC bickering; instead, I hope this is just a bump in the road as we ride the winds of change that began blowing just a few weeks ago from the Bluegrass.

***Note: As I write this, I can’t help but think that I am guilty of the very thing I hope against – perpetuating distraction.  So, where is the balance in voicing concern over and calling to accountability of Dr. Chapman, and leaving the issue to work itself out while focusing on other things?  A conundrum I have no answer to at the moment.

In the meantime, visit www.sbcvoices.com and read Matt Svoboda’s “From One Resurgence to Another“; an interesting comparison of the Conservative Resurgence and the GCR.  The comments have some interesting perspectives as well in regards to the GCR, with some being cautiously hopeful of the future of the GCR.***

Picking Up Steam: Chapman Controvesy and the SBC

Baptist bloggers et. al have not let up (rightly so, in my opinion) on the resignation/firing of Clark Logan, now former EC vice president.  In particular, many are calling on Morris Chapman to be forthcoming in his reasons for this move, which has put Chapman in hotter water compared to that stemming from his SBC Louisville EC “report.”  Rather than rehash what many have said, here are the links to the pertinent sites:

***UPDATED 7/9***Baptist 21 – “Questions Surrounding the Executive Committee: Part 1″.  Here’s Part 2.

Florida Baptist Witness (a major player thus far in reporting the goings on of this controversy) – “SBC President weighs in on Logan controversy”

Timmy Brister – “Addressing the Morris Chapman Controversy in the SBC”

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.  For instance, what will this controversy serve do to the sense of challenge and unity forged at SBC Louisville not even a month ago?  I pray that this does not drive us from our task at hand – GCR – and drive us into a Convention bogged down with in-fighting.

May the Lord guide our denomination, may Chapman answer the questions put forth to him, and may we quickly deal with this issue and move on to hammering out even more the GCR.

I’ll be devoting the RSS feed to the right (News in the SBC) to the latest on what’s going on in the SBC.  I’ll hopefully be adding more blogs/websites/etc. to this feed as time goes on.

In the Blogosphere: Dave Burchett on “The Shack” – A Word to Fellow Christians

One of the hot topics in Christianity today is The Shack and it’s different slant (to put it kindly) on what Scripture says of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Trinity.  While I disagree with what the author presents about the Trinity and each Person, I also disagree with any ad hominem attacks against the books author, William P. Young.  As such, I found Dave Burchett’s words regarding this matter quite helpful and timely.  Rather than quoting from the post, I encourage you to read it in full.  Thank you, Dave, for your post.

For further reviews on the book, see: Tim Challies.  HT: Burchett

Oliphint’s “Reasons for Faith”: Reason in the Service of Faith

I am currently reading K. Scott Oliphant’s book Reasons {for Faith} which deals, in part, with the role of reason in faith.  In chapter2, Oliphint discusses the proper use of reason “to the truth given in Christianity.”  One is “to judge the consistency and coherence of biblical truth,” and to judge what is contridictory or not (via the law of contradiction).  Reason here, however, is to be understood as properly functioning only after salvation and is “enlightened … giving its decisions from the word” (22).

To take this further, reason alone is not to decide what is possible or impossible.  Oliphint then quotes Van Til from the cd-rom titled The Works of Cornelius Van Til to illustrate the difference of reason for Christians and that for non-believers, illustrating the use of the “law of contradiction”:

It is therefore pointless of Christians to tell non-Christians that Christianity is “in accord with the law of contradiction” unless they explain what they mean by this.  For the non-Christian will take this statement to mean something entirely different from what the Christian ought to mean by it.  The non-Christian does not believe in creation.  Therefore, for him the law of contradiction is, like all other laws, something that does not find its ultimate source in the creative activity of God.  Accordingly, the non-Christian will seek to do by means of the law of contradiction what the Christian has done for him by God.  For the Christian, God legislates as to what is possible and what is impossible for man.  For the non-Christian, man determines this for himself.  Either positively or negatively the non-Christian will determine the field of posibility and therewith the stream of history by means of the law of contradiction (Oliphant, 22, quoting Van Til).

The SBC: Unified with Divisions and “Non-Calvinists”

***Update: I’ve removed the “and Move On” from my title as this was a point I was going to make about something, but felt that it did not fit the tone of the post, nor the tone of dialogue amongst Christians.  I thought I’d taken it out, but apparently not!***

A week has passed since the SBC Convention in Louisville, KY, giving many of us SBCers plenty of time to let what went on to sink in.  The big topic from last weeks continues to be the passing of the GCR, among other issues related to it, particularly Morris Chapman and his Executive Committee report.   It would seem that, from the blogs I’ve been reading, that most SBCers agree that Chapman’s actions were uncalled for – taking advantage of a free microphone to rant against Calvinists in the SBC.   While Tim Brister at Provocations and Pantings has stated that Chapman’s actions should “bring about his resignation,” it seems most have voiced disappointment (to say the least) at Chapman’s actions.  Alan Cross at www.Downshoredrift.com, however, provides an interesting perspective on Chapman’s address.

According to Cross,

I might not agree with all that he said (and I don’t), but I am wondering if we dismissed his words too quickly because they didn’t fit with what we all wanted to hear. As I went back and read over his address, I found myself agreeing with almost all of it. Even his controversial statements on Calvinism are more understandable if you hear them in context of the rest of his address. He wonders why we cannot allow for a proper tension between Divine Sovereignty and the human response of faith, instead of putting all of the focus on God’s work and none on man’s response.

While I can see where Cross is coming from, I just don’t see how his rant (not sure what else to call it) fit within the rest of his address, which was excellent.  As I read and re-read it, his call for unity was overshadowed by his seemingly pointed criticisms of Calvinists within the SBC.  It seems that on one side of his mouth Chapman called for unity, but on the other side he drew the battle line.  However if what Cross states is true:

Even his controversial statements on Calvinism are more understandable if you hear them in context of the rest of his address. He wonders why we cannot allow for a proper tension between Divine Sovereignty and the human response of faith, instead of putting all of the focus on God’s work and none on man’s response.

then I agree to an extent, but we must also consider the flip side of the statement ”instead of putting all of the focus on God’s work and none on man’s response” – non-Calvinists need to stop putting all of the focus on man’s response and none on God’s work.  Thus, while I don’t feel we should go as far as Tim suggests (see above), I’m not so sure either about Cross’ interpretation of Chapman’s speech.  To conclude this section, however, I include Cross’ closing words which set a good tone for the GCR conversation:

Here is my main concern:  We need to be careful that we do not enter a time where questions about the GCR or theological differences are dismissed or different positions are not allowed to be presented on the areas where we differ for fear that someone will lose their job or they will be shouted down. If Dr. Chapman was wrong about Calvinism, then someone needs to say so, … I will defend the right of Calvinists to be in the SBC, even though they think that their view is the only correct view. Actually, I respect that. Why would you hold to a view that you don’t think is correct? At the same time, I will defend Dr. Chapman’s right to question that view or to question the GCR, even if he is shown to be mistaken about part of it or is responding to a caricature. That is where dialogue comes in and without dialogue, we have no hope for cooperation. There should be enough room for different voices in the SBC and we should be able to disagree on these issues and still work together.

So, going back and reading Dr. Chapman’s address, I can say that I disagree with him on his perspective on Calvinism (not that the correct view is a divine tension but that Calvinists diminish faith), but I do not disagree with his main point that we should keep Christ and His gospel central to all that we do and that we should cooperate together to take His gospel to the ends of the earth. Let’s not lose the main point because we disagree with the direction the person is coming from. If we do that, then all dialogue will break down and we will never be able to work with those who differ from us in certain areas.

Keep Christ central. Love one another. Agree on the main things. Partner for missions.

Thank you for these words, Alan.

In light of this GCR, I have a question – what is meant by “non-Calvinist” in these discussions?  Throughout my reading on this issue, the term “non-Calvinist” has been thrown around quite a bit with no real definition.  I wrote previously that the term “Calvinist” needed to be clarified in the GCR debate, but so does “non-Calvinist.”  When we refer to a non-Calvinist, do we automatically assume that this person is Armenian in his soteriology with “non-Calvinist” serving as a euphemism for  the Armenian view point?  Or, are there other views of soteriology that fall under this umbrella term (non-Calvinist) plays a role in SBC life?  While some may see the question as trivial and the answer obvious, I believe it is necessary that we clarify what we’re speaking of for arguments sake, for what may be happening is that we have many people arguing past each other while using the same words.

To Judge or Not to Judge: Christians & the Death of Michael Jackson

The death of Michael Jackson wrought many responses on the blogosphere from fans and non-fans alike.  Christians even chimed in on the unexpected death of this cultural icon, which is not unsual, but what stands out is the various tones in which Christians commented on Michael Jackson.  Some spoke with gracious words – while condemning some of Jackson’s actions, they grieved over Jackson himself; however, some Christians presented nothing less than pure vitriol with some almost rejoicing that Jackson is dead.  Many responded to these remarks with a similar remark – Christians shouldn’t judge, but instead to love as God is love (the former part of this statement referring to Matthew 7:1, I’m sure).  While this is true to an extent, does Scripture teach Christians to abstain from any form judgment?  I would say no.

It is true that Jesus, in Matthew 7:1-6, teaches that believer are not to be judged, lest they be judged.  States as such, this seems to allude to any and all judgment; however, in verse 2-4, Jesus clarifies what he means here by referring to one judging according to one’s own standards (verse 2).  Verse 3 carries this further to paint the picture that Jesus is speaking to one who judges with the mindset of finding the faults of others while ignoring his own faults.  This person nit-picks the faults and sins of others, seemingly straining to find anything to point out while ignoring his own glaring faults.  Jesus, in verse 5, calls this person a hypocrite, for this person speaks against sins in others but commits those very sins himself.

Paul speaks to this form of judgment in Romans 2:1-16 and chapter 14.  Romans 2:1 states:

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things (NASB).

Paul had just spoken in chapter 1 how God had handed man over to his sinful lusts, for man, having seen His eternal power and divine nature (1:21), had chosen instead to follow his own desires.  The believers Paul is writing to seems to have been committing the same acts spoken of in chapter 1, as Paul says they were stubborn and unrepentant (verse 5), committing the very acts they condemned others of (verse 1).  As such, they were the hypocrites Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:5.

While much more can be said of these two passages, the point I want to bring out is that Jesus and Paul were speaking against the believer judging as if he (the believer) were in the judgment seat as Judge.  Here, the believer acts as if he has the right to condemn others for their sin.  Yet, in doing so, the believer puts himself in a place reserved only for the Lord Jesus Christ, acting in such a way that he – the believer – is somehow entitled to pass judgment as Judge to whomever he deems out of line.  The end, then, of this kind of judgment is an issue of pride – one condemns others of their sins, causing him to feel righteous, better off … whatever, and ends up sinning himself.

The Christian, however, is not called to completely abstain from judging.  In Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus warns believers against false prophets and tells them that they will be able to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets by their fruits, implying that believers are to judge others’ actions and words to determine whether they are of the Lord or not.  In one of his most direct epistles, Paul bluntly confronts the Galatians for turning from the Gospel taught them by Paul to a false gospel.  Paul holds no punches, clearly letting the Galatians know of their wrong (Paul, in chapter 2, even tells how he confronts Peter and his sin).  Again, in 1 Corinthians, Paul condemns a man for having relations with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:1-13), clearly judging the man for his sin.  What, then, is the difference between these passages and the ones mentioned above?  I believe the answer lies in the standard by which one judges and the end to which one judges.

The act of judgment as referred to in Matthew 7:15-20, Galatians, and 1 Corinthians 5 is done so in light of God’s Word, which serves as the standard of judgment (as opposed to one’s own standard referred to in Matt. 7:1-2).  One knows is able to discern the fruit of another only in light of God’s Word, in which we are taught the characteristics of the godly person and of the fool (one who goes against God’s ways and follows his own path).  Paul, then, in 1 Corinthians 5 is able to call the actions of the man who had relations with his father’s wife as immoral, that he was wrong in committing such an act because of what God says in His Word about proper relationships.  Paul is able to scold the Galatians for their abandonment of the Gospel because of what he was taught by Christ and the Scripture.  Christians, then, should not shirk from calling sin as it is – sin.  God’s Word is clear at to what is in direct opposition to God, and we as believers must not abstain from calling out sin and standing against it.  The believer, however, must not stop at pointing out sin.  Crucial to God’s Word serving as the standard of judgment is the end to which one judges.

Paul, when pointing out the sins of the Corinthians and Galatians, did not stop after telling them where they went wrong.  Paul went one crucial step further and sought to restore the believers into a right relationship with Jesus Christ.  Paul confronted them with their sin in order that the believers would confess and repent of their sins.  In 1 Corinthians, Paul seeks to restore the church to unity found in Jesus Christ, while in Galatians, Paul exhorts the believers to return to the freedom from the Law found only in Christ.  Paul judges others only to point them back to Christ through His Word.  As such, the proper end we should seek for when pointing out sin is that of restoration.  Galatians 6:1 -

Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself so that you too will not be tempted (NASB).

But, what of the unbeliever?  As stated earlier, the issue at hand was Christians judging Michael Jackson and his death.  Again, I do believe that we are to call sin for what it is; yet again, however, to what end are we doing it and by what standard?  Is one pointing out and harping on the sins of unbelievers with no mention of the forgiveness and salvation of God through faith in Jesus Christ?  If so, then that person is no better than the hypocrite of Matthew 7:5, for who does not sin and do the things they condemn others of?  But, if one points the unbeliever to the Gospel of Christ, pounding home the free grace and mercy of God through Jesus Christ rather than harping on the sin, then I think he is right on.  Again, the end is to ultimately point one to Jesus Christ, the Judge of the world.  We are not to condemn one for their sin; that is for God and God alone (1 Cor. 5:13).

May God have mercy on us for when we have acted as Judge against others; may we rest in His sovereignty and judgship, remembering that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin.  We are to be faithful servants to the Gospel, walking in obedience to His Word.

Matt Summers has another persepctive to this very same issue here.

When Christians Quit Acting Like Christians

While looking for various Christian responses on the death of Michael Jackson, I came across this poll from Landover Baptist Church.  Here is a snapshot of the poll (as of 6/26, 10:40 pm):

No! He was a very confused individual, but could have found Jesus. Instead, he’ll go to Hell.		1	9.09%
Yes! He deserved to go to Hell, and I hate him.		5	45.45%
No. He was misunderstood and falsely accused by people who wanted his money.		1	9.09%
No, but I’m glad there won’t be another Michael Jackson album.		1	9.09%
Why limit the party to Christians? Let’s all celebrate!		3	27.27%

I have no words for this.  It’s truly an afront to Scripture and how we as Christians are called to live in this world.  It’s sad.