Michael Moore's "Gustav Proof" That God Exists

Moviemaker Michael Moore has given us another proof for the existence of God. Moore said:

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven. To have it planned at the same time – that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for day one of the Republican Convention, up in the Twin Cities – at the top of the Mississippi River.”

Moore's argument can be stated as follows:

1. The Republican Convention is being held this week at the "top" of the Mississippi River.

2. At the same time Hurricane Gustav is going to blast New Orleans at the "bottom" of the Mississippi River.

3. The timing of these two events is not a coincidence.

4. Therefore there must be a God who is sending this human catastrophe to divert attention from the Republican Convention.

My MCCC Courses

(Monre County Community College)

I’m in my 8th or 9th year (I don’t know!) teaching philosophy at Monroe County Community College. I am so thankful for the opportunity to do this. I’ve spent a lot of time in academia, both as a student and as a professor. I think our community college is a tremendous deal, with a good facility that’s getting better, a wonderful location, and a lot of very, very good professors who are dedicated to teaching students. (Note: at major universities there are professors who are not so dedicated to teaching students but spend their time on grants used to further their own research and publishing. A number of them are not so student-oriented, because in the unversity it’s “publish or perish.”)

This fall I’m teaching Introduction to Logic and Philosophy of Religion.

What’s Intro to Logic about? Logic is the area of philosophy that evaluates arguments. Philosophers are interested in issues concerning meaning and truth. A major way to arrive at truth is by using logic. Persons make arguments to explain or persuade or convince others of the truth of some statement. The philosopher then asks – is the argument “logical?” For many philosophers if the argument is not logical, then it need not be believed. Personally I think this is too narrow an approach to truth, but that’s the approach I teach becaise it’s a logic class.

What’s Philosophy of Religion about?
The study of the philosophy of religion concerns philosophical ideas and concepts that are brought to bear on religious issues. The purposes of this course include:
1) To introduce the student to basic issues in the academic discipline of the philosophy of religion.
2) To enable the student first of all to understand these issues and then, secondly, to enable the student to evaluate the issues.
3) To engage the student in dialogue about major issues in the philosophy of religion.
4) Students will have learned some new ways of thinking about some of life’s most important issues.
Areas we especially look at include:
- Classic and contemporary arguments for the existence of God
The Ontological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Anthropic Teleological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
- Classic and contemporary refutations of the above arguments
- Classic and contemporary arguments against the existence of God
The Argument from Evil
- The hermeneutics of suspicion – Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche
- Philosophical issues in the comparative religions – especially regarding the idea of God or gods or lack thereof, and regarding the problem of evil as understood in each of the great world religions.
Hinduism
Buddhism
Islam
Judaism
Christianity

I love the beginning of the school year and the opportunity to meet new students and teach them things I am passionate about.

Dead Sea Scrolls to Be on Internet

Today’s nytimes.com says that “Israel [Is] To Display Dead Sea Scrolls on the Internet.”

“The 2,000-year-old scrolls, found in the late 1940s in caves near the Dead Sea east of Jerusalem, contain the earliest known copies of every book of the Hebrew Bible (missing only the Book of Esther), as well as apocryphal texts and descriptions of rituals of a Jewish sect at the time of Jesus. The texts, most of them on parchment but some on papyrus, date from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D.”

Note: The Dead Sea Scrolls say nothing about Jesus but tell us about the Qumran community known as the Essenes. They give us valuable historical background to a type of Jewish life at the time of Jesus.

Rawls' Rejection of Utilitarianism

I found this article on John Rawls' interesting, especially regarding his attack on utilitarianism.

The pre-Rawls preference was utilitarianism, which seeks to answer the question: how can we maximize people's preferences. How can we achieve the most satisfaction possible for everyone. But utilitarian theory "has some odd consequences." Why, e.g., is rape "wrong?" The article states: "A utilitarian would have to answer that the pain to the victim outweighs the pleasure to the rapist. Surely, though, this is not why rape is wrong; the pleasure the rapist gets shouldn’t be counted at all, and the whole thing sounds ridiculous. (By the way, Judge Richard Posner, who might be called Jeremy Bentham redivivus, accepts just this view of rape in his Sex and Reason.)"

Consider this. Executing a few Danish cartoonists may bring pleasure to a Muslim mob, giving them pleasure. Doing this would achieve greater satisfaction for a greater number of people. "A utilitarian would have to endorse the execution." Herein lies the problem. "As Rawls says, “there is a sense in which classical utilitarianism fails to take seriously the distinction between persons.”"

Rawls, thus, rejects utilitarianism, and puts forth his own theory in his famous book A Theory of Justice. The rest of this essay presents Rawls' theory and objections to it.

Obama’s Pay Grade Is Not Above Answering the Question About the Beginning of Human Life

In his interview with Barack Obama Pastor Rick Warren asked him the question, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama replied: “Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade. ”

Well, it’s not above my pay grade, so here’s my answer. For some years now I’ve agreed with Baylor University professor Francis Beckwith. Here’s Beckwith’s argument against abortion, with the answer to Warren’s question in premise 1. Note: Beckwith’s pay grade is surely lower than Obama’s.

1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community.
2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong. (In Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, p. xii.)

Beckwith’s book is brilliant, and i think his argument is powerful. In the book he argues strongly for premise 1.

I now submit the following argument, which I think is understandable by people way below my pay grade:

1. Barack Obama’s pay grade is higher than my pay grade.
2. I can understand Beckwith’s argument that the unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community and therefore gets all the rights of the human community.
3. Therefore answering the question “When does a baby get human rights” is not above Obama’s pay grade.

And, by the way, the question as to when a baby gets human rights, or when personhood begins, cannot be answered scientifically.

D'Souza on Pascal's Wager: Part III

D’Souza has so far argued for the truth of these three statements:

1. Noumenal reality exists.
2. Miracles are possible.
3. A Wittgensteinian approach to noumenal reality is epistemically superior to Dawkinsian claims about noumenal reality such as “There is no life after death.”

Next, D’Souza argues for an additional claim, which is:

4. Religious faith is not in opposition to reason.

Again, he cites Wittgenstein, who wrote: “Even if all possible scientific questions are answered, the problems of life have still not been touched on at all.” (105)

With that, I agree. The questions “Why am I here? What should I love? What should I live for?” lie outside the realm of the phenomenal, therefore outside of science. So, for D’Souza, we now can see the reasonable place of faith. “Faith is an attempt to reach beyond the empirical realm and illuminate those questions. Both Kant and Wittgenstein say this is impossible, but they mean it is impossible as a project of reason alone. Perhaps there is another way.” (195)

At this point the agnostic might say “It can’t be done. There is no other way.” But D’Souza says he can’t critique the believer who tries “a new path to reach the summit.” And that new path is “faith.”

More about this in a future post…

D'Souza on Pascal's Wager: Part II

(Wittgenstein)

D'Souza uses Kant and Pascal to argue that it’s reasonable and very good to have faith, especially faith in God. God and the things of God are not accessible to science; thus faith-things are neither proven by science nor can they be critiqued by science, since noumenal reality is, Kant-like, beyond phenomenal reality. D’Souza writes: “Empirical evidence is unavailable because the senses cannot penetrate a realm beyond experience.” (194)

I pause here to note that I am interested in but not so sure of where D’Souza is heading. From my Christian viewpoint there is an empirical ground to my faith; viz., in the Jesus story. And, I am personally influenced by arguments for God’s existence such as, e.g., the fine-tuning argument. Re. such arguments they only have inductive probability, and so can be doubted.

With that in mind D’Souza brings in Wittgensteinian fideism. Wittgenstein wrote, famously, that “we don’t get to the bottom of things, but reach a point here we can go no further, where we cannot ask further questions.” So, when asked what happens when we die, “Wittgenstein refused to answer one way or the other.” (194) For D’Souza this is significant in that Wittgenstein did not and would not give the answer, as would Dawkins and Sam Harris, “There is nothing.” Wittgenstein “couldn’t say this because he didn’t know.” (194)

Pause again. That’s a good point to make, is it not? Consider:

1. Noumenal reality exists. (True, acc. to D'Souza)
2. Miracles are possible. (True, acc. to D'Souza)
3. Science can say nothing about noumenal reality. (True, acc. to D'Souza)
4. Therefore science can say nothing about life after death.

D’Souza then states that, for a religious person such as myself, this is something I can embrace. He cites Hebrews 11:1 which states that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” D’Souza writes: “Faith says that even though I don’t know something with certainty, I believe it to be true.” (195)

Then, to the surprise of many atheists (I’m not so sure of this; but surely village atheists), and even a few Christians, one affirms that: “doubt is the proper habit of mind for the religious believer.” (194) D’Souza writes: “The Christian has faith even though he is not sure, while the unbeliever refuses to believe because he is not sure. But they agree in being unsure. The skeptical habit of mind is as natural to Christianity as it is to unbelief.” (195)

I suspect Christian fundamentalists would disagree with D’Souza here, but I affirm it. Maybe, because I’ve been a musician since age 5, the idea of “mystery” is not problematic for me. In this regard I remember, e.g., years ago reading B.F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Skinner wrote that the purpose of science is to reduce all mystery to knowledge. To which I thought, at that time, what a truly futile purpose. Skinner had a scientistic paradigm in which mystery had no place. I did not believe Skinner then, nor do I now.

Next D’Souza states that “religious faith is not in opposition to reason.” I’ll begin my next D'Souza post with that.

Tumor Healed after Prayer and Laying on of Hands

I believe there is a God. This God who made the universe can also heal people. I've seen, personally, a number of people healed over the last few years. So when I see a story like the one below I am not shocked but encouraged and strengthened in faith.

*****

Tumor Healed after Prayer and Laying on of Hands

Teresa Neumann (August 9, 2008)

"He said it's got to be a mistake, it has to be. We are going to schedule another test, there is no way its just gone and just the whole time he is stuttering and there is just this look on his face like I don't understand. I don't know. We did another one and it was gone and his words were it was truly a miracle, this has to be the act of God."

(Tyler, Texas)—KLTV News reports that 11-year-old Kayla Knight has received a miraculous healing after an MRI showed a tumor that was covering nearly one-fourth of her brain.

"We prayed," said her mother Amy, who described the severe headaches her daughter had been experiencing.

"We both hit our knees and we were praying. That was actually on a Wednesday so when we got to church we had a good 30 people or more lay hands on her and it just.... you could feel God. I can't say we prayed as much before. I mean we did...but not like this. Not like we do now."

Two days later, doctors sent Kayla to Baylor Hospital in Dallas where she had another MRI. Kayla's mother said the doctor told her the tumor had disappeared. (Photo: KLTV 7 News)

"He said it's got to be a mistake, it has to be. We are going to schedule another test, there is no way its just gone and just the whole time he is stuttering and there is just this look on his face like 'I don't understand. I don't know.' We did another one and it was gone and his words were it was truly a miracle, this has to be the act of God," said Amy.

The single mother added, "I have never been as comfortable in my faith as I am right now. The best way to describe it, I was a mediocre Christian. To be honest. I mean I went to church, the mundane thing. You do this and you do that and you think, 'Okay, I'm going to Heaven.' Looking back now, I don't know that I would have. I know I will now. I know this has opened my eyes and I think maybe God used that to make us better Believers. To make us fully depend on Him."

The link is right here.

It’s Not Enough to Just Give Thanks For What You Have

My passion is to know Jesus and make Jesus known to others. And by “Jesus” I’m not interested in some “cultural Jesus” or some “American Jesus.” Jesus, remember, was not born in Monroe.

I recently preached on Jesus’ story about a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus. In the story the rich man is outrageously, hideously rich, and Lazarus is phenomenally rock-bottomly poor. Lazarus wears Armani suits, eats every day at Carl’s Chop House, and lives in a gated community. Lazarus wears open, oozing sores, would like to eat the rich man’s table scraps, and his home is on the ground outside the rich man’s gate.

The rich man sees Lazarus everyday or, better, steps over Lazarus on his way to shop at Neiman Marcus. He’s dressed in fine purple linen imported from Egypt. He doesn’t even see the dogs who lick Lazarus’s open sores after they’ve been dining on dead carcasses.

There’s a huge gap, a monstrous abyss, between the world of the rich man and the world of Lazarus even though physically they are very close.

As the Pharisees hear Jesus tell this story it must have outraged them because Jesus has just identified them as lovers of money.

Then, Mr Rich Man dies. He has a funeral unlike the funeral you and I will ever have. And Lazarus dies too, only he gets no funeral or burial. But, in the story Jesus tells, he does get the greatest funeral procession ever recorded as angels carry him away to sit at the Great Banquet next to the Big Three - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (as well as the prophets of God).

The rich, self-aggrandizing guy sits on the other rim of what looks to him like the Grand Canyon, and sees Lazarus… sitting at the BIGGEST FOOD-THING ever known. Still thinking he’s in his gated community replete with servants who wait on him, he asks Abraham to send lowly, slavish, disgusting Lazarus over and give him some water because he’s parched. Abraham says, sorry… this gap is now fixed.

What’s happened is that the gap in the rich man’s heart between him and Lazarus, and also between him and God, becomes an eternal reality. He gets the desires of his heart, which is to be apart from the true heart of God.

The prophets, says Abraham, told you all about this. Remember Amos 5? You failed to have compassion on the poor. You failed to act. You failed to pro-actively attend to Lazarus and his likes. You built your own little earthly kingdom on the backs of the poor, stepping over them with your Guccis on your way to the spa.

So…? What’s Jesus saying here? I think Jesus, the Real One, is telling us that to occasionally or even often say “Thank you God that I have so much!!” but NOT use what we have been given to help the poor is far, far from the heart of God. To thank God for what we’ve been given and not to spend our money and resources on eternal things and the things Jesus is passionate about (= the poor) is scandalous. At least, according to my Bible, and Matthew-Mark-Luke-and John.

China's Evil Repression of Religion

There’s an article today on cnn.com about four Christians who were bringing 300 Bibles into China to give to Chinese Christians. The Bibles were confiscated, because according to Chinese law it’s illegal to bring religious literature into China unless it’s just enough (= one Bible) for personal use.

Last fall I stayed at the home of a friend who’s been sneaking Bibles into China for years. He told me that maybe one day I’ll visit China with him, and added, “Of course you’ll have to bring a suitcase of Bibles into the country, too. There’s such a need for them, so we use every opportunity to bring them in.”

I also teach at a Chinese seminary in New York City, and at a large Chinese church there. I’ve talked with many Chinese, some who recently feld the country because they were Christians. They have told me firsthand about religious repression and persecution.

For all the beauty of the Olympics before us China remains a very dark place for people who want to worship as they choose. The idea that churches can freely worship if they are registered with the government is a repressive joke. In spite of this there is a flourishing, growing, underground church happening in China right now as I type this. I have photos, e.g., of a church that literally meets underground in a cavern carved out by hands located below a village.

Pray for these real followers of Jesus who dare to follow him in the midst of a nation that wants to repress them.

Oxford U. Re-examines the Shroud of Turin

Every once in a while the "Shroud of Turin" thing raises its head. In today's Chicago Tribune there's an article on Oxford University's agreement to re-examine the ST.

Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, says: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow, and so further research is certainly needed. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information."

For me, this is interesting, but finally irrelevant to my following of Jesus. If the ST is the real thing, cool. It fits within my paradigm. If not, it makes no difference to me.

D'Souza on Pascal's Wager: Part I

Pascal’s wager is often mocked by atheists. In light of this I admit to much enjoying D’Souza’s chapter “A Skeptic’s Wager: Pascal and the Reasonableness of Faith.” Here’s D’Souza’s reasoning as I see it, with my comments.

D’Souza believes he has demonstrated, using Kant, that noumenal reality exists, and that science therefore cannot in principle grasp all of reality since it only deals with phenomenal reality.

Next, D’Souza thinks he has shown that miracles are possible.

Now, he wants to show, using Pascal, that faith is reasonable. “Faith is the smart bet. It makes sense to have faith.” (191) Contrast this to folks like Dawkins, who writes: “Faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.” (In D’Souza, 192)

But faith is necessary in life. For example, “I express a lot of faith in air traffic control and the skill of the pilot every time I board an airplane.” (192) A response to this might be, “But it works. The airplane gets me from point A to point B.” But faith in a God strikes Dawkins et. al. like faith in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. That seems a lot different than faith in airplanes, that the Battle of Waterloo happened, and so on.

D’Souza responds that “this is no argument against religious faith because, for the believer, faith also delivers the goods.” D’Souza cites William James as supporting the idea that “faith in God, for the millions who have it, is routinely vindicated in everyday life.” (193) To this, personally, I would agree. My coming to faith in God has worked to change my life for the better. I could reasonably be dead by now given the drug-filled life I was living before I came to believe in a God who loved me and made a choice to seek God and follow God. Note: this is not insignificant, to me. It may not be others’ experience, but it is my experience, so it would be unreasonable for me to deny it.

But for D’Souza, as for me, it’s not enough to say that faith in God has changed my life for the better. I also want to know: is it true; viz., is an argument like this sound:

1. At age 21 my life took a radically turn for the better. (True)
2. This turn began at the moment I came to believe in God and place my trust in God. (True)
3. For me, scientific/genetic/psychological/cultural explanations do not suffice to explain my experience. (True)
4. Therefore, there is a God who effected this change in me. (???)

While I can empirically verify that the Battle of Waterloo happened, I cannot, according to D’Souza and Kant, empirically verify that “there is a God in heaven who seeks to be eternally united with us.” (193) D’Souza writes: “These things are outside the bounds of experience, and therefore they are outside the power of human beings to check out. As Kant showed, they are beyond the reach of reason itself.” (193) But that does not mean Kant thought religious faith was unreasonable. This is because “outside the phenomenal world… these criteria do not apply, just as the laws of physics apply only to our universe and not to any other universe.” (193)

Hitchens, therefore, makes what philosopher Gilbert Ryle might call a “category mistake” when he says that “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (D’Souza, 194) The category mistake is to apply scientific empirical criteria to noumenal reality.

Note what D’Souza is doing so far:

1. Noumenal reality exists.
2. Science only applies to phenomenal reality and cannot speak to the issue of noumenal reality.
3. Therefore, to use empirical reasoning to think about noumenal reality is to be fundamentally misguided. It is to commit a Ryle-ian category mistake.

(I’ll continue this in a future post.)

D'Souza Agrees That Science "Works" But...

D'Souza has argued Kant's position that science cannot access noumenal reality to prove that there is noumenal reality, or reality essentially undetectable by the 5 senses. If that is so then it follows that empiricism is not capable of judging that non-empirical reality does not exist.


D'Souza then asks about those who say something like "So what - science works!" He quotes astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Science's biggest success rests on the fact that it works." (What's So Great About Christianity, 186) D'Souza explains: "If science did not accurately describe the world, then airplanes would not fly and people who undergo medical treatments would not be cured... Better to fly in an airplane constructed by the laws of physics, Tyson scornfully says, than to board one "constructed by the rules of Vedic astrology." (186)


OK. D'Souza agrees that science works. "But it doesn't follow that scientific laws are known to be true in all cases." (187) D'Souza then proceeds to show how, in a Kuhnian way, the history of science is the history of error. For example, Newton's laws of physics worked for many years, only to have Einstein's theories of relativity contradict Newton. And one day Einstein's may be equally contradicted.


Examples like this caused Karl Popper to conclude "that no scientific law can, in a positive sense, claim to prove anything at all. Science cannot verify theories, it can merely falsify them." (187)

D'Souza's point is that what "works" today in science may be refuted in the future, thus leaving us skeptical of science's claims to special epistemic access to reality. And science qua science proves nothing, if we mean by "proof" absolute certainty. Science gives us "best guesses" about the world. "What we call laws are nothing more than observed patterns and sequences. We think the world works in this way until future experience proves the contrary."

A final note. Imagine X sees a truck coming at them, jumps out of the way, and saves their life. In this case their 5 senses seem to "work." OK. But such utilitarianism cannot provide us with a theory of truth except for: "truth" = what works. I don't see how one could argue for the truth of consequentialist theories.

1) It "works" to save my life when I see a truck coming at me.

2) Therefore, my senses are properly informing me.

I don't think so.

Your Marriage Can Be Saved

A year ago, in my Monroe Evening News Blog “Discovering the Real Jesus in Monroe,” I made 20 blog posts, all on the theme of “Your Marriage Can Be Saved.” Here they are in their entirety.
Blessings!
John Piippo

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #1

In my 36 years as a pastor, with 35 of those years married to my incredible wife Linda, I have counseled and pre-counseled hundreds of couples re. their marriages. I have seen marriages of all kinds and shapes and in all varieties and levels of duress. I have learned a lot of things. Here is one: I have never, ever met a marriage that I thought could not be saved and restored and made better. Never.
So, if you are in a marriage that is in bad shape, I want you to know that your marriage need not be over. I am going to begin a series of “marriage saving” posts that, hopefully, will save at least one marriage in Monroe. If that’s you, let me know, and I’ll be very encouraged.
Begin by reading this very good article, posted on CNN today.

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #2
This past Monday Linda and I went out for a drive to Adrian to eat at Culver’s. Culver’s has the best fast-food hamburgers and fries on the planet. On the way Linda read to me out of a book by Rick Renner. She read some stuff Renner wrote about having a good marriage. One of the things I listened to that night was his ten thoughts for husbands on improving their marriage. As she read them to me I thought we both thought - we’d like every husband to read these!
Here is #1.
#1 - Husbands, never put your wife down in front of others. Even if she smiles and laughs, trying to shrug off your verbal jabs, this kind of behavior on your part is deeply hurtful to your wife. She needs your honor, not your sarcasm. If there is a conflict between you, wait until you get home where you can talk about it privately, but never make fun of her or put her down in front of others. You certainly wouldn’t want her to do this to you.
As Linda read that to me I can say that I have never done that to her, nor her to me. Thankfully, before I married Linda, I read a book by Charlie Shedd called Letters to Philip: On How to Treat a Woman. I believe I read that book, or large parts of it, many times. Shedd taught me never to talk negatively about Linda to others. Of course, we have had arguments, disagreements, and fights between us. But we work those out without others around. I still inwardly cringe when I hear a husband do that to his wife in front of me. I feel sorry for her, and for them.
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #3
#2 of Rick Renner’s 10 Things Every Husband Should Never Do is this.
2 - Never point out your wife’s weaknesses to others. Husbands often do this, not realizing how disrespectful they are being to their wives. Talking in public about your wife’s weaknesses will embarrass her. Do you want her to point out all your flaws to other people? You would prefer that she speak to you privately about such matters, so show her the same courtesy.
When I hear a man talk about his wife’s shortcomings as a way of complaining about her or making fun of her I feel certain that this man and his wife have a poor marriage. And, I’ll add this. Not only should a husband never do this. But even worse, far worse, is sharing your wife’s shortcomings with another woman. That’s fuel for an adulterous affair.
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #4

Renner’s third thing a husband should never do is this.
3 - Never tell your wife there isn’t enough money in the budget for her to buy a new outfit - and then turn right around and spend a lot of money on yourself, your fishing trip, your hobbies, etc. When she sees you do this, it communicates to her that you love yourself more than you love her. Do you want your wife to perceive you as a selfish person who is more in love with yourself than concerned about blessing her?
I’ll add that the Christian idea about money in marriage is that: all the money a couple has belongs to God; the couple is to seek God about how to use God’s money; thus the money is not really to be talked about, literally, as “his” money or “her” money. If he makes a million dollars a year and she makes one dollar a year, then collectively they have a million and one dollars, and are together reponsible to God as to how to spend it, use it, give it, etc.
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #5

Renner’s fourth thing a husband should never do is this.
“Never tell your wife that you don’t have time for her. Even if your schedule is packed, look for time to be with her. She married you because she loves you and wants to be with you. When you consistently make time for everyone in your life except your wife, you are making avery big mistake. If needed, cancel something in your schedule so you can give attention to this most important relationship in your life.”
Years ago I made my life priorities these:
1 - First, love God and stay in close relationship with God.
2 - Love Linda next.
3 - Love my children.
4 - In fourth place is my job/work.
5 - all other things fall below #s 1-4.
I was once counseled to never let #4 or anything below it get ahead of #s 1 - 3. I have tried my best to do that. I find it a wonderful way to live. To live with priorities 1 through 3 solidly in place is to have a successful life. ”Success,” in marriage, is coming to the end of your life and having your wife and children with you and love you, and you them. At that time all the other stuff and things one has accumulated in life and all the other accompishments of life fade into relative insignificance, which is their proper and actual place.
Focus and work on life’s most important things; viz., your relationships with God and spouse and family.
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #6

Renner’s fifth thing a husband should never do is this.
“Never walk in front of your wife. Husbands are notorious for walking in front of their wives, and their wives detest it. Too often men act as if they are racing when they walk, usually leaving their wives to walk five to fifteen feet behind them. Now, I understand that you may think your wife walks too slowly, but what is the use of racing in front of her if you must stop, turn around, and wait for her to catch up with you? It takes the same amount of time to get to your destination, whether you walk alongside your wife or you walk ahead and then wait for her. So take your wife’s hand, and discipline yourself to walk by her side. You’ll shock her by doing this!”
I have found that most couples, early on in dating, do this. They walk hand in hand all the time, and they walk slower. Just being with one another is a great joy. Commonly, this experience fades. The antidote is: keep tending the fires of marriage. For example, Linda and I (in our 35th year of marriage) still date. Last Friday night our date was at Weber’s in Ann Arbor for prime rib! Husbands, be creative in the ways you can express your constant and abiding love to your wife. Do life together.
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #7

Renner’s sixth thing a husband should never do is this.
“Never compare your wife to another woman. She wants to be the one and only woman in your life, so comparing her to another woman is not wise and shows disrespect. Do you want her to compare you to other men? I don’t think so.”
While I am far from perfect, I do not believe I have ever done this to Linda, publicly or privately. Linda and I, on the other hand, have met a lot of women who are trying to lose weight or wrinkles or whatever to “get their husbands to love them.” A common explanation for ths is that the husband has compared his wife unfavorably to another woman. Wives, there is really no way to “get your husband to love you” if he does not. The Christian standard here for husbands is high: “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave his life for her.” (Ephesians 5:25) In marriage, the only valid comparison a husband or wife is to make is to Christ. And in that, we all fall short; and in that, we have the highest standard to shoot for in our marriages.
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #8

Renner’s seventh thing a husband should never do is this.
“Never make sexual innuendos about your wife in front of others. This is not only disrespectful, it is deeply offensive to a wife. Your sexual relationship is a time of intimacy that is to be shared only between the two of you. Therefore, when you make jokes about it or talk about it in front of others, you are humiliating your wife and making her feel cheap. This is certainly not a way to cherish her or to treat her like a treasure!”
The word “intimacy” is often translated, accurately I think, as “into me, see.” In marriage the physical act of sexual intercourse is, at its best, the tip of an iceberg (sorry for the ‘cold’ metaphor!) that is 10% physical and 90% spiritual and emotional. The sex act in marriage is greatest when grounded in a marital lifestyle of voluntary self-revealing between husband and wife. Husbands, your wife wants you not simply as some sex object but wants you as her best friend and spiritual companion. Spending time sharing the depths of your heart to her and listening to what’s going on in her heart will make the marital sex-act far more fulfilling to her, and to you as well.
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #9

Renner’s eighth thing a husband should never do is this.
“Never lie to your wife or tell a half-truth to cover your tracks. Honesty must be the foundation of your relationship. If you violate her trust by lying to her and she discovers it, your act of deception will affect her ability to trust you in the future. Therefore, if you really love your wife, always level with her and be honest. It may be difficult for her to hear what you have to say, but at least she will know you are being honest with her. If she discovers you have been lying to her, this will result in a far greater hurt than if you honestly admit what you have done wrong.”
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #10

Renner’s ninth thing a husband should never do is this.
“Never dishonor your wife in front of your children. She is their mother, and they need to be taught to respect and honor her. If you treat your wife like a joke in front of the kids, they will treat her in the same way. Dishonoring her and arguing with her before the children discredits her in their eyes. Do you want her to scold you and rebuke you in fron of your children? Wouldn’t you prefer that she express her disagreements with you in private? Then show her the same consideration that you want her to show you.”
When Linda and I meet a man who disrespects women it is almost always the case that he saw his own father openly disrespected his mother.
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #11

Renner’s tenth thing a husband should never do is this.
“Never forget your wife’s birthday or wedding anniversary! Excuse me for repeating this point, but it’s important. Men who consistently forget these two important dates and yet expect their marriage relationship to stay healthy are either ignorant or stupid. These are special dates in your wife’s mind. Remembering her birthday tells you that you are thinking of her. Remembering your wedding anniversary tells you that you deeply care about your relationship with her.”
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage CAN be Saved: #12

If you were to ask Linda or myself as to what’s one of the most important things to do in marriage we would answer: to confess to one another and then to forgive one another.
Up until the age of 21 I “confessed” very few things to other people. As a little child, and even in my early teens, I occasionally admitted that there were things I was wrong about. But from my mid-teens on I stopped doing this. I never told another person I was wrong, and never told another person the words “I am sorry.”
This all changed for me when I became a follower of Jesus. When I began dating Linda and realized I was falling in love with her, there was one night when we argued. It was our first significant disagreement (and neither of us can remember what it was all about). In my own small mind I viewed myself as a very powerful arguer. After all, I was studying logic and philosophy! I was angry at Linda, because she didn’t agree with me!!
And then something happened. God told me “John, you are wrong, and you know it.” I thought, “God, you are right about this.” But since I was not the sort of person to ever admit I was wrong, that being a weak thing to do, I just kept on arguing against Linda. As I think back on this I remember how I was arguing and verbally beating her down and then a new thought came to me, which was: why not just admit you are wrong? This was, for me, the equivalent of - why not just go and get ten root canals?
Stop here for just a moment. Why not just do that? What could possibly stop a person from doing that? The answer: pride and/or fear. In my troubled state of mind I thought that if I admit I am wrong she will disown me and leave me, and I did not want this to happen because I “loved” her. But then the thought came to me that, if I admit I am wrong and she does want anything more to do with me, then I need to find this out now before we get married.
So I said words that were by me rarely spoken: “Linda, you are right and I am wrong about this thing. I am sorry. Will you forgive me?” And she said, “yes, I forgive you.” And then we laughed. I laughed until I cried and it was like a release inside me. It was like entering into a whole new world where pride and ego means nothing and all that counts is speaking the truth in love. She forgave me. Like God in Christ has forgiven us. And we only remember the laughter, and have let go of the offense.
If your marriage is in trouble, why don’t YOU begin by identifying things in you that are causing pain to your spouse. Make a list of them. Be specific. Then go to them, and enumerate them, and after each one ask your spouse for forgiveness. If they give it to you (which they should), you are moving in the right direction. If they withhold forgiveness from you, then I invite you to come to my church this Sunday morning as I speak about this stuff. Or go and talk with your pastor and ask for help. Or, finally, call the best marriage counselors in the area - Person to Person Resources in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Your Marriage CAN Be Saved: #13 (Dealing With Anger)

In every good marriage there are feelings of anger between husband and wife. I once had a person tell me, “I never get angry.” My thought was this: here is a person out of touch with what’s going on inside of him. Even God feels anger; even Jesus felt anger. There’s a healthy anger everyone should experience when faced with injustice; there’s an unhealthy and even destructive anger that creates injustice.
When angry, evaluate your anger. Here are some suggestions.
1. Recognize your anger. “Anger” is the emotion a person feels when one of their expectations has not been met. In other words, every time you feel angry it’s because you have an unmet expectation.
2. Identify the unmet expectation. Think: “I feel angry because my expectation was ___________.”
3. Evaluate the unmet expectation. Is it either: a) godly, reasonable, good, fair; or 2) ungodly, unreasonable, bad, unfair.
4. If the unmet expectation is godly/fair, then ask: Have I communicated this to the person I am angry with? If not, commnicate it. If the expectation has not been communicated then your anger is unjust since they are not responsible for something they did not know.
5. If you have communicated it clearly to the person you are angry with, then speak this way, using these kind of words: ”I feel angry because my unmet expectation is __________________.
In the midst of interpersonal conflict use “I” words rather than “You” words. That is, begin your sentence with “I feel angry…” rather than “You make me feel angry…”
Get rid of irrational or ungodly expectations. As you get free of these things you’ll find yourself less angry.
Remember that from the Christian POV, “anger” is not sin. Ephesians 4:26 says, “In your anger do not sin.” We are not told never to feel anger. There is a righteous anger, and that is not only appropriate but necessary. But when we feel the emotion of anger we are never to sin. In marriage, we are never to be harsh, demeaning, vindictive, or abusive. But in every marriage anger is felt by both husband and wife.
Finally, the second part of Ephesians 4:26 says, “Don’t let the sun go down on your anger.” Which means: deal with anger quickly, and in a loving and truthful way. The goal is always restoration of relationship and reconciliation. Regarding this idea, I am thankful that only two, may three times in our 36 years of marriage, have Linda and I fallen asleep angry with each other. The reason for this is not that we’re some special couple. We do this because we were taught to do this by godly people who spoke into our lives. We were sufficiently warned about the cancerous bitterness that arises when anger is “swept under the carpet.”

Your Marriage can Be Saved #14: Monogamy Vs. Serial Monogamy

Linda and I are still married. Our wedding was August 11, 1973. I have done, I estimate, a few hundred weddings (at least) as a pastor. My all-time favorite was my own.
I wrote my own vows to say to Linda. I knew I would never, ever be unfaithful to her. Nor she to me. For us both, it was “until death do us part.” That’s the way it is for all the couples I have ever married. But all the outcomes have not been the same.
As a pastor I have counseled many in both premarital and marital situations. I’ve also counseled many who have been divorced, and I’ve met with a lot of children of divorce. I have seen my share of marital unfaithfulness out there, and the devastating emotional rubble left behind. (By the way, it’s a myth that, in divorce, “the children are going to be OK.” If you doubt this then you must read this book.) I see many unfaithful, dis-integrated people who, apparently, did not really mean it when they stood before God and one another and their families and friends and “promised” to stay together “for better, for worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” (For divorce statistics see here.)
I find this sad. In nearly all divorce situations I have been personally acquainted with there is not really a good reason to divorce. Few, if any, differences are actually irreconcilable. The God-perspective on marriage is that, when “irreconcilable differences” happen, instead of this being a signal that “we weren’t made for each other” the reality is that it’s growth time for the couple. In my own marriage Linda and I have found that we are two very imperfect people who have been broken, stretched, taken apart and put back together by not our own talents but by the mercy and grace of God. The breaking process has shown us that a long-term monogamous relationship between two not-so-together people is a wonderful thing. One has to learn humility and other-centeredness or the whole thing will break down. Marriage not simply helps a person do that, it forces one to do it or die. Unfortunately, a lot of people get out before the real marital stuff happens.
The serial monogamist who goes questing for the perfect soul mate will remain forever stunted in their character. Character is mostly forged through conflict. A long marriage in itself does not guarantee this. But a long marriage where husband and wife grow in their love for one another is always a sign that a whole lot of personal brokenness has happened along the way. You can’t find that in a series of short-term noncommittal relationships that split when the disagreements start to happen.
Finally, if you are a divorced person I am not writing this to condemn you. I have found that divorced people can relate to what I am saying and are often willing to take responsibility for their own part of the marital failure. They want to hear a voice that goes counter-cultural to the local village wisdom that says, “It’s not working out - so you have to divorce.” Often, such words come from the mouths of people who have themselves failed maritally. If we give our children that message, guess what may happen when, in marriage, they have their first real fight? I have met many divorcees over the years whom I believe could have made it in marriage if only they had someone to disagree with such cultural pessimism and who could guide them, mentor-like, through the conflicts and on to greater character growth.

Your Marriage Can Be Saved #15: The Myth That Divorce Won’t Hurt Your Children

If you are married with children, contemplating divorce, and have been told that “divorce won’t hurt your kids - they will be all right,” stop! That is simply not true. The expert on “children of divorce” is Dr. Judith Wallerstein, professor in the School of Social Welfare at the University of California-Berkeley. Years ago I read her ground-breaking longitudinal study of children of divorce, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study. I have handed out occasional copies to men and women who told me they were getting divorced and believed the kids will get through it just fine.
Read Wallerstein’s book to get the full picture. And, her work is cited all over the internet.
Wallerstein states: `The delayed impact of divorce in adulthood is a revolutionary finding and a stunning surprise. We thought that children would be able to work through issues related to divorce by the time they reached late adolescence or left home. We advised parents that if they refrained from fighting and arranged their schedules so that the children could see both of them often, then the children would do well. But these policies were based on adult needs and perceptions of divorce. We failed to realize that living in a post-divorce family is an entirely different experience for children as opposed to adults. The story of divorce is far more complex and the impact more far-reaching than we had ever imagined.”
Wallerstein discovered that growing up in a divorced family creates a consistent pattern of behaviors and expectations in young people when they set out to form their own adult relationships. Otherwise well-functioning adult children of divorce, now in their late twenties to early forties, must fight to overcome:
Expectations of failure, based on an “internalized image of failure;”
Fear of loss, due to earlier anxiety about abandonment by one or both parents;
Fear of change, since experience has shown them it is usually for the worse;
Fear of conflict, because it leads to explosions or the impulse to escape;
Fear of betrayal, because they have seen so much of it;
Fear of loneliness, sometimes leading to self-destructive choices in partners.
It’s not surprising that Wallerstein discovered that adult children of divorce lack a healthy “Couple Template.” They don’t have a model of what healthy marital partnership is. “They carry the template of the relationship between their parents into adulthood and use it to seek the image of their new family. The absence of a good image negatively influences their search for love, intimacy, and commitment. Anxiety leads many young adults into making bad choices in relationships, giving up hastily when problems arise, or avoiding relationships altogether. Ominously, they also say that they will not support their parents, especially their fathers, in old age.” (Cited here, as with the two preceding paragraphs)
Children of divorce have the deck stacked against them. Yet I have seen some of them grow into healthy adulthood in spite of this. I am especially impressed by a faith in God some of them acquire. This allows them to find blessing and a foundation rooted in God as an experiential reality. This compensates for parents who, in their divorce, cut the familial foundation out from under them.

Your Marriage Can Be Saved #16: Forgiving Your Own Parents

Years ago I read a quote from Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in the Chicago area. Willow Creek is one of the largest churches in the nation. Hybels is someone I have always admired. They have a lot of staff, and Hybels was writing about how to hire staff. He advised: never hire a person who has not worked out things between themselves and their own parents. Especially, never hire someone who does not love their parent and has not forgiven them.
I think this can be applied also to marriage: never marry a person who has not worked out things with their own parents. Put another way: never marry a person who does not, from their heart, love their own mother and father. Why?
First - if they have not gotten things right with their own parents they will bring the bitterness of unforgiveness and pain into the marriage. As their spouse, it can happen that they will take it out on you, as if you are their mother or their father. Persons unable to truly love and forgive often view themselves as victims. Never marry someone who has a victim mentality.
Second - if they do not love their own parents - even if their own parents are not very lovable - they will send a strong message to their children. I have seen this come back to get them, as their own children adopt a relational model of unforgiveness and nonreconcilation.
Third - they will find it harder to forgive you when you hurt them. And hurt them you will. This is inevitable. In Christianity, to forgive means to release the other person from indebtedness towards you.
But how can you do this? Men can begin by reading John Eldridge’s book Wild at Heart, especially his chapter on “The Wound.” Women - read Captivating, by Stasi and John Eldredge, especially their chapter called “Wounded.” Make no mistake about it, unhealed wounds ooze, and what oozes is not good for a marriage. The good news is that there is a road to healing and reconciliation.
When I was a young man I disliked my own father, for a few reasons, among them being that I viewed him as someone who could never admit he was wrong. I saw the way this affected my mother, and it angered me. My dad had a lot of good qualities, but this was not one of them. One day, I had had it with him, and I raged at him. For me, relationship with my father was now over. Emotionally, I hated him. When I became a follower of Jesus I saw that I had to face this and deal with it, and that the anger inside me was not good. So - to make a very long story short - I forgave my father. I told him one day that I loved him. He was not a great communicator, but I know this affected him. Our relationship was healing. I saw him as a brother in Christ. I also was beginning to see that I was no easy person to relate to either.
What really feels humbling to me is that my sons have me as their father. Realizing this, I have many, many times asked them to forgive me for misunderstanding them or being too harsh with them or being unloving and unkind to them.
Finally, and from my Christian point of view, the heart of my faith is the cross of Christ and the resultant forgiveness. I often think that if God, in Christ, can forgive me and love me, how can I not extend such forgiveness and love to others? It’s not always easy, but it is the doorway to freedom and relationship.
(Over a period of 37 years Linda and I have counseled several hundred marriages in a variety of situations ranging from “need a tune-up” to “in cardiac arrest.” While we have at times wondered if a certain marriage would make it, we admit to having never met a marriage that we thought could not be saved and made better.)

Your Marriage Can Be Saved #17: Letting Go of Control

In the best marriages I have seen neither husband nor wife try to control each other. This is not easy. Indeed, as Gerald May wrote in his brilliant book Addiction and Grace, there are people who are addicted to control in the same way some are addicted to drugs.
I don’t know about you but I don’t like being controlled by someone else. However, this isn’t true of everybody. Wherever there is a “controller” you will also find a “controllee.” Marriages that have this dynamic are master-slave relationships. Such marriages are deeply troubled and in need of help.
If you are in this kind of marriage and feel controlled by your spouse my recommendation is that you get help for the “controllee” part of you. What is it in you that allows yourself to be manipulated? Discover what this is, and with God’s help it can be healed. It will, however, be a shock to your controlling spouse when you begin to use the word “no.” And note this: the one who needs help is YOU, not the controlling person. I mean this in this way: you will never need to complain again about being controlled and manipulated once you learn how to set boundaries to this happening. You can’t change your significant other anyway, so you can be free to stop doing this.
If you are the controlling person, recognize how destructive such behavior is in marriage and get help with it. In marriage, control and manipulation reduce your partner to a prisoner (or a slave). Is that what you really want in marriage? If so, then realize that it will be impossible to experience love. Get help to identify the roots of your controlling behavior. Learn to see this behavior, not as freedom for you, but bondage. The good news is that you can be free of the terrible burden of always having to get things your own way. Yes, I said “terrible burden.”
I remember reading, years ago, the chapter in May’s book on addiction to control. I underlined entire pages as I read. Why? Because God, through May’s writing, was showing me how attached to controlling others I really was. When I began to see this, I know I did not like it. And this was good for me, since inner dissatatisfaction and personal brokenness are always the first steps to relational freedom.
In my marriage to Linda I never feel she is trying to manipulate or control me. If she is upset by something I do (and it does happen!) she states this to me. In fact, it happened again today! This is different from nagging. I’m saying this because some think that if they let go of control marital chaos will happen. Actually, controller-controllee marriages are the ones in chaos. Someone has to begin to let go of the control. Someone else has to begin to stop being controlled. Why not you? And when both do this, the result is trust.

Your Marriage Can Be Saved #18: How to Communicate In the Middle of Conflict

In my second year of marriage Linda and I were invited to be in a couples’ marriage discussion group with one of my seminary professors and his wife, Dr. David and Nancy Augsburger. We said yes, we’d love to join. David was one of my favorite all-time professors. In fact, he is still on the “top 5″ list of persons who have positively influenced my life. I learned so very much from him.
We were a part of this couples group for two years. One of the things that happened in the group was that, on occasion, marital conflicts between spouses emerged. David and Nancy taught us how to handle it by evaluating our expectations, setting correct standards, and communicating truthfully and lovingly. David is a great scholar on managing and dealing with anger, and has written a number of books on it.
David’s communication-in-conflict theory was based on Ephesians 4:15, which says: “therefore speak ther truth in love; so shall we fully grow up into Christ.” In this brilliant bit of wisdom there are two communication points: 1) when you speak, the speak the truth; and 2) when you speak the truth, speak it in love. Truth without love can be destructive; love without truth can be avoidance and denial.
I have been told more than once that “We don’t argue in our marriage. We don’t have any conflict.” I never believe this. Because every marriage has conflict. In fact, conflict is a necessary part of a healthy marriage. In conflict, marriages grow stronger. Try to avoid conflict and “sweep it under the rug” and the marriage weakens.
In my next marriage-saving blog post I will share with you just how speaking the truth in love is done and why it can be a marriage-saver. (David’s very readable book on how to do this can be purchased here for under $10.)

Your Marriage Can be Saved #19: 5 Communication Options When in Conflict

Dr. David Augsburger, in his excellent and readable book Caring Enought to Confront: How to Understand and Express Your Deepest Feelings Toward Others, shows us how to effectively communicate when we are in conflict with someone. Linda and I were, years ago, mentored by David and his wife Nancy in this, and we will always be grateful for what we learned and how it has helped us in marriage.
David is a follower of Jesus and bases his communication theory on Ephesians which says: “therefore speak ther truth in love; so shall we fully grow up into Christ.” Truth without love is destructive; love without truth is avoidant. Combining truth + love in communication-in-conflict and the results can be positive.
The way David puts this is: be both confronting and caring at the same time. Practice “care-fronting” with others. Or, care enough to confront when you’re angry with one another. If not this, what would the other options be? Augsburger gives us 4 other options when in conflict that mostly are ineffective, even causing more damage.
Option #1 - “I’ll get him!” This is the I-win-you-lose-because-I’m-right-you’re wrong” position in conflict. Augsburger writes: “This “win-lose” stance uses all power and little or no love. Goal is valued above relationship. ‘My way is the only way,’ the person feels.”
Option #2 - “I’ll get out.” If #1 1 is “fight,” #2 is “flight.” This is the I’m-uncomfortable-so-I’ll-withdraw stance toward conflict/ Augsburger writes: “The viewpoint here is that conflicts are hopeless, people cannot be changed; we either overlook them or withdraw. Conflicts are to be avoided at all costs. When they threaten, get out of their way.” This is a lose-lose option in which everyone loses, including the relationship.
Option #3 -”I’ll give in.” This is the Christian doormat position, the “I’ll-yield-to-be-nice-because-I-need-your-friendship approach. Augsburger writes: “As a rule, [this approach] falls short. You become a doormat. A nice guy or gal. Frustrated. Yet smiling. The more tense and tight on the inside, the more generous and submissive on the outside.”
Option #4 - “I’ll meet you halfway.” This is the I-have-only-half-the-truth-and-I-need-your-half approach in conflict. This is working toward compromise. Sometimes this is good, but Augsburger cautions: “When we begin with a decision to compromise, we run the risk that my half of the truth added to your half may not give us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We may have two half-truths. or the combination may produce a whole untruth. Only when we care enough to tussle with truth can we test, retest, erfine and perhaps find more of it through our working it out seriously.”
Augsburger then gives us the stance that usually works best when in conflict. This is:
Option #5 - “I care enough to confront.” This is the I-want-relationship-and-I-also-want-integrity position. I’ll spell out exactly what this means in my next marriage-saving post.


Your Marriage Can Be Saved #20: How to Care-front When in Conflict

David Augsburger, in his excellent little book Caring Enough to Confront, teaches us how to effectively communicate in marriage and relationships when we are in conflict. He sees four communication options in conflict and finds them all lacking even though they are much used.
He gives us a fifth option, using Ephesians 4:15, which says: “therefore speak the truth in love; so shall we fully grow up into Christ.” Here we are told, in communication, to be both truthful and loving or, in Augsburger’s words, both confronting and caring. Practically, here’s what this means.
Work at communicating both caring and confronting in the middle of marital or relational conflict. Here are the attitudes to have and hold to.

CARING & CONFRONTING

I care about our relationship & I feel deeply about the issue at stake

I want to hear your view & I want to clearly express mine

I want to respect your insights & I want respect for mine

I trust you to be able to handle my honest feelings & I want you to trust me with yours

I promise to stay with the discussion until we reach an understanding & I want you to stay with me until we've reached an understanding

I will not trick, pressure, manipulate, or distort the differences & I want your unpressured, clear, honest views of our differences

I give you my loving, honest respect & I want your caring-confronting response

For more explanation Augsburger’s book can be purchased on amazon.com for about $10 - a great investment! Why not get the book and read it with your significant other? Discuss, learn, grow.

Finland's Genetic Disconnect from Europe

Today's nytimes.com has an interesting article called "The Genetic Map of Europe." Of particular interest to me is the genetic distance between Finland and the rest of Europe. My ancestors on both parents' sides are Finnish.

The article says: "The map... identifies the existence of two genetic barriers within Europe. One is between the Finns (light blue, upper right) and other Europeans. It arose because the Finnish population was at one time very small and then expanded, bearing the atypical genetics of its few founders.

The other is between Italians (yellow, bottom center) and the rest. This may reflect the role of the Alps in impeding free flow of people between Italy and the rest of Europe."

See blue Finand on the left-hand "genetic map?" As a Finn, words come to me now like... isolation, alone-ness, a liitle bit of Derrida-ean "differAnce," "ek-sistence," the need for "sisu"...

My 35th Wedding Anniversary!

Today is my 35th wedding anniversary with Linda, the love of my life. We’re going to spend part it at Maumee Bay State Park sitting in beach chairs soaking up sun reading books and talking.

Last night we kicked off our 2-day celebration by going to the Monroe Jazz Festival (picture).

The Isaiah Scroll Moves People to Tears

(I took this shot of the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem last February)

"Some Israelis have described being moved almost to tears by a rare viewing of the Great Isaiah Scroll, the best preserved and most complete Dead Sea biblical scroll, on special exhibit this summer at the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum for the first time in 40 years."

So begins the nytimes article on the Isaiah scroll display happening this summer in Jerusalem. When I was there in February we visited this phenomenal museum. The "Shrine of the Book" is designed to represent the cover of the canisters that contained the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The nytimes article especially talks about the concern some Jews have about the growing disconnect modern Hebrew and ancient, biblical Hebrew. "In a country suffused with religious and historical symbolism, the linguistic link to the past has always evoked feelings of national identity, vindication and pride. Any erosion is bound to stir unease. “The Bible,” said [Hebrew language expert Ruvik] Rosenthal, “is first of all our connection to the land.”"

Think About Death

(I took this picture of an Orthodox priest walking down a Jersusalem street.)

N.T. Wright, in Suprised By Hope, writes: “From Plato to Hegel and beyond, some of the greatest philosophers declared that what you think about death, and life beyond it, is the key to thinking seriously about everything else - and, indeed, that it provides one of the main reasons for thinking seriously about anything at all. This is something a Christian theologian should heartily endorse.” (6)

I agree. Answer the question “What happens after I die?” and you have answered the question “What is the meaning of my life.”

A Darrell Bock Essay on The Kingdom of God

I ran across this essay by Darrell Bock called "The Kingdom of God in New Testament Theology: The Battle, The Christ, The Spirit-Bearer, and Returning Son of Man."

The KG is now and will be the dominant teaching theme in my church for the next year and beyond, including in our new Ministry School.

America's Worship of (All-too-human) Superheroes

Vanity Fair has an interesting essay written by Julian Sancton called "Why America Worships Superheroes."

Currently superheroes are big. Nytimes film critic A. O. Scott calls it the "superhero surge." Why the surge?

For one reason, says Sancton, we humans can relate to them. Sancton writes: "the heroes themselves have become more, well, complex. The films still pit good against evil, but with character actors like Robert Downey Jr. and Heath Ledger taking more risks, good has gotten more ambiguous and evil more unsettling."
Further, just as we are struggling economically and politically and globally, so are our superheroes. "Hancock’s a drunk, Tony Stark’s a war-profiteer, and Bruce Wayne’s a rich jerk. Wouldn’t you be messed up if you were fighting, respectively, L.A. crime, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda in clown makeup?"

And then there's Hellboy. "Hellboy’s inner demon is that he’s an outer demon. O.K., that’s not quite as easy to relate to, but he’s nonetheless an irritable, cynical hero, and audiences like that."
Superheroes portray the ethos of the time. When Superman arrived to help us the world was simpler and black and white. Good was good and evil was evil. Now, there's a lot more ambiguity and complexity. And this I believe is true. As we Jesus-followers like to say it's a post-Christian world that we live in. The spiritual "air we breathe" is highly polluted.

But what about the whole superhero thing anyway, in itself? Sancton's observation is that we need them. Quoting Hellboy's director Guillermo del Toro: "There is still a longing for mythos, for a spiritual Pantheon. And in an era where we have enshrined materialism to such a degree and we have killed off every conceit that seems to be weak and based on religion—New Age, all those types of things—the only sort of acceptable mythology, I think, is superhero mythology.”

In short - superheroes are our gods and goddesses. It's not that people actually believe Hellboy exists or that the Joker is around the corner and we'd better hope the psychologically struggling Batman sees the bat-signal we throw up and is in an emotional state to respond to it. It's that most of us, arguably all, have this deep, inner need for someone or something more to come to our rescue. For me, it's the Jesus-story, with the main difference being Jesus actually came to deliver the oppressed. Perhaps, as C.S. Lewis thought, the superhero stories, and even his own Narnia books and his friend Tolkien's trilogy, were reflections of a hope God placed in each of us and responded to in history.

The Persecuted Church in China - Live Tonight

Tonight at 8 PM Voice of the Martyrs and Charisma Magazine will be talking with Bob Fu, a Chinese pastor who experienced persecution himself inside China, and now leads a group helping the persecuted church in China.

You can watch, listen, and join the discussion here.

EPS's Blog

The Evangelical Philosophical Society has a blog.

Antony Flew's Thinking Is Actually In "There Is a God"

After Antony Flew wrote There Is a God he was criticized by some who thought Flew didn't actually write the book, but his co-author Roy Varghese did. Here's Flew rebuttal of this accusation.

"I have rebutted these criticisms in the following statement: “My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I’m old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking.”"

Clifford Orwin's (& Hitchens) Misunderstanding of Christian "Compassion"

Clifford Orwin's essay on "compassion" troubles me because it misrepresents the Christian take on compassion.

Orwin says that compassion is an emotion. Orwin writes: "As even or precisely those who take compassion for a virtue acknowledge, it is an emotion. Can an emotion be a virtue? Yes, if the keynote of virtue is naturalness in the sense of spontaneity or authenticity. No, if what defines virtue is the perfection of our nature through the triumph of reason over passion." Orwin seems to say that "compassion" is the human default setting. Greek rationalism corrupted this.

Ancient Greek rationalism (esp. Plato and Aristotle) viewed any emotion as inferior to reason. Plato, e.g., saw passion and feeling as positively misleading when it came to the issue of truth. Orwin writes, correctly: "the classical view was that the virtuous must master their pity even as they do their other passions, indulging it only insofar as it is just and reasonable to do so (Republic 516c, 539a, 589e, 620a). Reverence for pity there was none."

Moving swiftly, Orwin writes that paganism then submitted to Christianity, and the result was an even further move away from natural human compassion. He says, "it would be mistaken to suppose that what Christianity taught was compassion."

Here's where my troubles begin. Jesus often looked on people"with compassion." What happened then is that some (not all) forms of "Christianity" submitted to Platonic otherworldliness. It's incorrect to say, as Orwin does, that "Christianity" did not teach compassion. Keep this in mind as you read on.

Orwin writes: "A single and omnipotent God who, having become flesh, suffered all that flesh can suffer; a morality that begins in the contemplation of the Passion of this God-man, an injunction to universal charity as the supreme virtue — this was far indeed from the humanistic and aristocratic rationalism of the pagan philosophers. At the same time, Christian charity was also far from what we mean by compassion, so far, in fact, that the latter emerged only by way of a profound critique of it."

What does Orwin mean by this? He goes on to explain.

"Charity, then, was not a (merely) natural virtue such as those taught by the ancients, but a “theological” or “infused” one. As such, moreover, it necessarily aimed not only or even primarily at the relief of our neighbor’s earthly suffering but at his eternal salvation. Salvation alone was the good (and damnation the evil) beside which all others paled. [I.e., Platonic other-worldliness.]

So while Christianity may indeed have multiplied soup kitchens, it never confused happiness with the absence of hunger pains. Truer to say that while modern compassion seeks to eliminate suffering, Christianity, recognizing its inevitability for mortal and sinful beings, sought to make it meaningful. It sought to teach us to grasp it as that suffering in and with Christ on which salvation ultimately depends. When, then, Christopher Hitchens excoriated the late Mother Teresa for not being a true “humanitarian” at all, he was perfectly correct: she could not be a mere humanitarian because (as she made no secret) she strove to be a true Christian. compassion."

Orwin reasons:

a. Compassion is a natural human disposition; Christian "love" is not. It's "theological" or "infused." [I.e., Platonic/Aristotelian.]

b. Christian "love" has as its aim, not relief of hunger or suffering, but a person's "eternal salvation." [Platonic other-worldliness]

c. For Orwin, compassion seeks to eliminate suffering; Christian charity does not. More than that, Christian charity makes human suffering a virtue in that, as Christ suffered, we ourselves suffer and that's a Christ-like thing.

It's true that certain realms of Christian theology made suffering a virtue and defined "salvation" as a Platonized future-only thing. But it's untrue that such a theology describes actual Christianity. I think it's not, as Orwin claims, that "paganism submitted to Christianity," but that certain elements of Christianity submitted to paganism. This is essentialy where his reasoning goes wrong, and why it's essentailly false for him to claim that "Christianity does not teach compassion."

Conisder the Christian idea of "salvation." There's an abundance of recent non-Platonic Christological material that argues for the meaning of "salvation" as including release and rescue for the poor and needy and sick and marginalized. Salvation has an inextricably social component. Here it's precisely the influence of Greek rationalism that got mixed with theology and created the dispassionate, other-worldly view of salvation. See, e.g., N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church; and the stuff by "Red Letter Christians" such as Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, and Shane Claiborne. And see especially Donald E. Miller's Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement for examples of many current examples of Jesus-followers who do not have Platonic views of salvation, and for whom "salvation" is holistic.

As for Hitchens, he famously has written that Mother Teresa "was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction." Mother Teresa was, says Hitchens, a "fraud." This, written from a man who, as far as I know, hasn't given his real life over to helping the poor but who was recently faux-waterboarded to experience being tortured.[Did we really need Hitchens to do this so: 1) we would know waterboarding was torture {as if we didn't already know this}; and he could write about it in Vanity Fair?]

I suggest reading Red-letter Christian Shane Claiborne, who spent time as an intern in Calcutta with Mother Teresa. You can read about Shane's views of MT in his The Irresistible Revolution. Claiborne looks at her life, not her theological reflections on that life.

I don't think Mother Teresa was a great theologian. She tried to make Christian sense of the suffering she sought to eradicate. To critique her for this and call her fraudulent is absurd. She inherited a pagan-tinged Christian theology. It would be like critiqueing Hitchens for being an atheist and still trying to find meaning in this life.

Orwin's error is that he only critiques a certain Platonic "Christian" theology of suffering and conflates this to "Christianity." All Orwin can see is what he calls "Christian otherworldliness." This causes him to fail to see the many visceral acts of true compassion happening through followers of Jesus.

I Ate a Big Brownie Today!

(Linda and I, experiencing joy after we ate the Big Brownie)

Today is Linda's birthday! I took her and Del and Josh after church to eat at Mongolian BBQ in Ann Arbor. For dessert I split a "Big Brownie" with her. But I want you to know I only did this because I felt God tell me to eat a Big Brownie. Here's how this happened.

After church I was talking with some of our young guys. I told them where I was taking Linda, and IMMEDIATELY Tom White said "You should get a Big Brownie!" OK. It definitely sounded good to me, but in no way did I think God was speaking to me.

Then, a bit later, I was in the office area talking with Jen Newman and Sugeily Pinero-Soto. I told them where I was taking Linda and IMMEDIATELY Jen said "You should get a Big Brownie!" Now this really got my attention. Could it be that I was supposed to eat a Big Brownie today? So I put out a "fleece" in front of Jen and Sugeily. I said, "That's two people today who told me I should eat a Big Brownie. If a third person, such as Sugeily, should tell me the same thing then I'll take this as a sign that I'm supposed to do it." And then (I'm not exaggerating) IMMEDIATELY Sugeily said "You should get a Big Brownie!"

Well, that was it for me. I may at times be dense, but it was now clear that I was supposed to do this. So we went to M BBQ [the "BB" in "Mongolian BBQ" refers to "Big Brownie]. I decided to pass on the salad bar to make room for the BB. Planning ahead. I had only one bowl of food to keep room for the BB. Then, at just the right time, I said to Linda, "Would you like to split a Big Brownie with me?" She said... "Yes." She said yes!!!

It was huge, cold, creamy, sugary, chocolaty, big (as the name indicates), brown (again, the name), delicious. Now I'm sitting on our back deck with my birthday wife realizing I hear another voice that tells me "You are to eat nothing else until tomorrow morning." I know that's true. But the BB was worth it, and I'm glad I obeyed the signs that led me to it.