
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Only Legacy Worth Leaving

Thursday, October 29, 2009
My Love-Need

(Monroe)
I was recently sitting in a restaurant reading John chapters 14-17, looking closely at the verses where Jesus tells us to love one another with the kind of love Father, Son, and Spirit have in the perichoretic union. Then a person walks in that I have not seen in many years. When I saw them a feeling of hatred towards them arose inside of me. I remember the things they did a long time ago that hurt a lot of people. I know these things because, though they did not come to my church, they were pointed my way and came for help. This particular person rejected my counsel and continued to make choices that devasted many people. They crucified a lot of people, including their own family members.
Now, coming though the restaurant door, was this person. Inside me there is this feeling. I'll call it hatred. I am sure no one would have been able to tell what was happening inside of me. But I knew. And God knew. The God-thought that came to me was: "I have a problem with love." I know. I've known about it for a long time. In my recent times with God my love-problem has been focal, especially over the last six months. Add to this the fact that we are now preaching John 14-17 on Sunday mornings and it all adds up to me being unable to get away from the centrality and supremacy of love.
Love, for Jesus-followers, is not optional. It is, simply, the "greatest" (1 Corinthians 13). Without love a person is "nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:2). Jesus said: "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command" (John 15:12-14) It does not take a rocket scientist to understand this logic.
But, I rationalize, this person is not my friend! To this Jesus says, "I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you." I hear you Jesus. So just what kind of love do You want from me? Jesus said, "Righteous Father..., I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
I am swimming in the thick, rich teriyaki sauce of God's deep Triune Love, and gasping for breath, wanting more of it because I have so little God-love in me and because, cognitively, I know that the love of God is the answer for this world today. In Christian theology love comes before power; indeed, before all things. Mercy wins out over judgment. Power-freaks take note: love is the greatest. Power without love is halloween-scary.
I'm asking God to remove the love-mask from my face and transform my heart into His heart. The answer as I now see it is: abide in Him, dwell in Him, trust Him. Jesus' promise in John 14-17 is that, even though my "love" falls short, He wants to give me His love. "In order that the love you (Father) have for me (Jesus) may be in them (you and me)."
Monday, October 26, 2009
Freedom Over Quantitative Worrying

Sunday, October 25, 2009
Dawkins, "Facts," & "Theories"

Saturday, October 24, 2009
"Drawing Closer" Bullet Points
Thanks and blessings to all the couples who came!
DRAWING CLOSER
Discover how two different persons can overcome their differences and partner together to advance God’s Kingdom.
Y A wedding is a welding (Matthew 19:6)
YLeave, Cleave, Weave (Genesis 2:24_
YTo “leave” means: emotionally, financially, & spiritually
YHumility (James 4:6)
Y Mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21-33)
Y Serve one another
Y Understand one another (Proverbs 20:5)
Y Perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18)
Y Confess & forgive (James 5:16)
Y To forgive means to cancel the debt
Y Speak the truth in love/care & confront (Ephesians 4:15)
Y Be angry but don’t sin (Ephesians 4:26)
Y Clarify expectations
Y Prioritize – 1) God, 2) spouse, 3) kids, 4) job, 5) other
Y God uses godly marriages to advance His Kingdom
Friday, October 23, 2009
"DRAWING CLOSER" Marriage Conference Details
From I-75, take North Dixie Highway to Algonquin Trail (which is just north of the corner of N. Dixie and Nadeau Rd); Turn Right on Algonquin Trail; Turn Left on Chippewa Trail; Turn slight Right on Iriquois Trail; Follow Iriquois Trail to the Lake Erie shoreline; Indian Trails Lodge is the log building with the large parking lot, on the lake shore.
HERE'S OUR CONFERENCE SCHEDULE:
DRAWING CLOSER: A Marriage Conference led by John & Linda Piippo
Discover how two different persons can overcome their differences and partner together to advance God’s Kingdom.
Friday night, October 23 (7-9:30)
"Our story – How God brought two very different people together"
- Linda and John
"Marriage Is About Opposites Who Have Been Welded Together"
"Ground Rules for Understanding One Another"
"Mutual Submission"
Saturday Morning, October 24 (10-1)
"Our story – How God brought two very different people together"
- Josh & Beth Bentley
"Sustaining Intimacy In Marriage"
"Transparency & Hiddenness in Marriage"
"How to Work Through Conflict in Marriage"
Saturday Afternoon (1-4)
"FOCCUSING on Your Relationship"
Saturday Evening (4-7)
"Sharing a Purpose That Is Greater Than Your Marriage"
- John & Linda
- Josh & Beth
"Humility: The Foundation of a Fruitful Marriage"
Dinner
Worship & Prayers of Blessing
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Religion & the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

(Masada)
I'm preaching this Sunday on John 14:15-17:
Jesus said: "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."
This week I'm marinating in the teriyaki sauce of these Jesus-words. Here's one thought...
"If you love me, you will obey what I command," is a conditional statement. Like, e.g., "If it rains, the ground gets wet." Both these statements are true. But note this: this statement is not necessarily true - "If the ground gets wet, then it's raining." In logic this is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. So also this statement is not necessarily true: "If I obey what Jesus commands, then I love him." Maybe. But not necessarily. One could obey, e.g., like the Pharisees obeyed; viz., in some religious sense. The Jesus-idea here is that when one dwells in Jesus (lives within the perichoretic triune-Godhead), then it inexorably follows that one will "obey" what Jesus commands. This is huge, it being all the difference between relationship with God and religious law-abiding duty.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Bruce Cockburn Sings In the Shack

Objective Truth & the "W-Word"

In my MCCC Logic classes I tell the students that, in philosophy, "logic" is about:
- 1. evaluating arguments
- 2. arguments are composed of statements (or propositions)
- 3. a "statement" is a sentence that is either true or false 4. an argument has only one conclusion
- an argument has one or more premises 5. for an argument to establish (either deductively or inductively) the truth of the conclusion, there must be a "claim of inference" from the premise(s) to the conclusion. That's the "logic" part of logic.
- 6. then, if the premises are true, the conclusion follows either deductively (necessarily) or inductively (probably)
Here's where the trouble begins. My use of the 'w' word ("wrong") strikes a chord of offensiveness. For some of my students it is wrong to say that anyone else is wrong. W-language comes from another planet. The w-word marginalizes people into two groups, and that's wrong to do. On the planet where some of my students live it is wrong to say anyone is wrong because they might not be wrong and how could someone ever know for sure that another person is wrong and maybe I am wrong about the other person being wrong and besides telling someone "You are wrong" is so very, very wrong. My experience, on the other hand and from the POV of the planet I live on, is that when I say (3) above, and use the words "So if you were to think that the statement The lights in this room are now on is false when, objectively, they are on, then you would be... wrong."
Every semester I have students who cannot bear to hear that. They think I am arrogant to call someone else wrong. They think I am wrong to do such things, and some of them walk me to the parking lot letting me know how very wrong I am to talk like that. When I try to tell them that they are using the w-word against me, it is as if they are placed in a position above me and thus can use the w-word in a non-offensive way to let me know how offended they are. Logically, I get ad-hominized.This kind of response happens within the minds of some, not all, students. Yet it seems to be a moment of stunning revelation to a number of them to hear a professor utter words like "true" and "false."
Welcome to the world of philosophical logic, which caters not at all to human felings and desires. It is only after truth. Truth is a function of statements. Statements are sentences that are either true or false. You have just finished reading this. Arguably, that is true.Monday, October 19, 2009
Drawing Close to God This Week

(*Dim Sum, in New York City. Nov. 2008)
Here's what I'm doing this week to enter into greater intimacy with the Triune God.
- Setting aside time for just me and God- Praying “Draw Me Closer, Lord”
- Reading & meditating on John chapters 14-17
- Listening – when God speaks to me I’ll write it in my journal
- Obeying (“If you love me obey my commands”)
- Welcoming the Holy Spirit into my spiritual house (i.e., my heart)
* literally, "touch the heart"
Witherington's Withering Critique of Pagan Christianity

Sunday, October 18, 2009
Prayer: Asking Anything In Jesus' Name

Friday, October 16, 2009
Preaching This Sunday On...

Kenneth Miller on Why Evolutionary Theory Does Not Explain All of Reality

First, some do claim this. Those who do are, usually, evolutionary naturalists. That is, they espouse a form of philosophical naturalism, or physicalism, that states that matter is all there is; there are no non-material realities.
Second, theistic evolutionary theorists such as, e.g., Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, affirm evolutionary theory but not as explanatory of all reality. Here, e.g., is Miller, in his debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens. After Hitchens sets up a caricature of "faith" and demolishes his straw man, Miller responds:
"In the end you have no answer to why science works, why the physical logic of natural law makes life possible, or why the human mind is able to explore and understand nature. And I agree that there is no scientific answer to such questions. That is precisely the point of faith–to order and rationalize our encounters with the world around us. Faith is human, and therefore imperfect. But faith expresses, however poorly, a reality that includes the scientific experience in every sense, and therefore has become more relevant than ever in our scientific age." (Emphasis mine.)
Here Miller expresses a point that is often made and hugely discussed by philosophers and scientists who ask the meta-questions like "Why does science work at all?" Miller understands that science, qua science, cannot answer this kind of question. Miller the theist admits of realities that evolutionary theory, as wonderful as it is in explaining aspects of physical reality, cannot explain because these realities are not of the kind to be scientically explained.
Here is Miller in his NOVA interview:
Q: Does science have limits to what it can tell us?
Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science. (Emphasis mine.)
So Miller the theist evolutionary theorist agrees there are limits to what science can tell us. I think he is correct. So evolutionary theory does not explain "all of reality."
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Being Like a Child Does Not Mean Perpetual Intellectual Toddlerhood

(Manhattan, Nov. 2008)
In Matthew 18:3 Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Part of this is one of those upside-down-kingdom things, since children approached to lower levels of human expendability. To understand Jesus one must give up all self-pretension and all self-aggrandization. It's instructive to note that this does not mean that one remains, mentally, as a toddler.
C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, writes:
"Because Christ said we could only get into His world by being like children, many Christians have the idea that, provided you are 'good', it does not matter being a fool... Christ never meant that we were to remain children in intelligence: on the contrary. He told us to be not only 'as harmless as doves', but also 'as wise as serpents'. He wants a child's heart, but a grown-up's head."
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
A Few Thoughts About the "Amputee Argument" Against the Existence of a God Who Answers Prayers

(Warren Dunes State Park in Southeast Michigan)
I recently had someone add to my web-post on The Best Arguments Against God's Existence. The addition, for this person, was The Amputee Argument Against the Existence of God. Here are a few thoughts I have re. this argument, not necessarily in order.
1) I have clinical evidence where cancer has completely gone away (therefore it's not "in remission"). The order has been this: 1) Person A has cancer and is being treated for cancer. 2) Person A receives prayer. 3)Tests show that Person A no longer has cancer. Using abductive reasoning (inference as the best explanation), I conclude that probably God answered prayer and healed Person A. NOTE: I've been in touch with two scholars who are writing forthcoming books on divine healing, where these kind of healings following prayers will be documented.
2) Of course "cancer going away" is not a "definitive" answer, since all such examples are only either inductively or abductively probable. The same holds for the amputee argument. While it may seem more obvious in the amputee example, it's still only a probableistic argument, and not a deductive (logically necessary) argument.
3) I simply do not know that there has never been a healing of an amputee. I don't think it's true that if an amputee was healed, somewhere and sometime in the world, it would thereby be "major news." Perhaps a secular press would not report it, but a religious press would? Of course this offers no proof that an amputee somewhere, sometime, received prayer and was healed. Yet it remains true that I don't have epistemic access to the truth value of the statement: No amputee has ever received prayer and was healed. Because I do have epistemic access to a number of healings in response to prayer (as I see it) I resist affirming such a claim, much as, I think, an atheist resists saying that something super-natural happened. But that, then, has to do with noetic frameworks (see below).
4) Surely it's not true that the only instances "where the hand of God could be truly verified" are like healings of amputees. Precisely because all such "verification" will only be probable and not necessary.
5) I think the amputee argument is only convincing to those who already believe there is no God. Note that if that's true, then the argument begs the question. Probably that's why someone like myself who studies, in-depth, philosophy of religion issues such as the problem of evil, remains essentially undeterred by this argument. And, this is probably why some remain unconvinced in the face of my Person A example above. And one is able to remain unconvinced precisely because it's only probably, more or less, that Person A was healed. One's noetic framework comes into play. Mine is theism, and I still find theism more coherent than atheism.
6) Which leads to my last thought: atheism (philosophical naturalism) is fraught with more conceptual problems than theism. I find atheism contains incoherencies that surpass the amputee example such as, e.g., the issues philosopher J.P. Moreland raises re. philosophical naturalism in his Consciousness and the Existence of God. Note that my noetic framework holds even in the face of putative counter-evidence, just as a philosophical naturalist's noetic framework holds in the face of putative counter-evidence. The discussion then becomes over adjudicating between noetic frameworks, which is the kind of work Moreland does in Consciousness, and Stu Goetz does, e.g., in Naturalism. For myself, and I think for others, these are the only meaningful alternatives. (I'm not open, e.g., to Hindu pantheism or Buddhist monism.)
The Flaw in Richard Dawkins's "Greatest Show on Earth"

"Air-Guitar" Religion

Monday, October 12, 2009
John 14:11 & Perichoresis

· John 15:4 – “Abide in me, and I in you.”
· John 14:12 - I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. ·
· John 14:13 - And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
· John 14:17-18 - But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
· John 14:23 - "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
· John 15:9 - As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love.
· John 15:15 - 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
· John 16:13-15 - When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
· John 16:26 - the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
· John 17:5 – Jesus says… “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”
· John 17:20-23 - I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Preaching Tomorrow on...

...John 14:8-11
“Jesus manifests God’s presence and work through his signs and in his words.” (Marianne Meye, The God of the Gospel of John, 233)
“The story of God’s “indwelling” in ancient Israel is taken up and extended in the Gospel of John. The Gospel does not merely use the language of indwelling, but of mutual indwelling or mutual immanence, and does so in an extensive way.” (Jurgen Moltmann, “God in the World – the World in God: Perichoresis in
Trinity and Eschatology,” in Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser, The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, 372)
“What is at stake here is nothing less than Jesus’ ability to provide firsthand revelation of God (cf. 1:18).” (Andreas Kostenberger, John, 431)
(Andrew "Rublev’s icon gives us a glimpse of the house of perfect love” -Henri Nouwen)
Friday, October 09, 2009
Mysticism as Non-Discursive Experience
This makes sense of classic texts as The Cloud of Unknowing and The Dark Night of the Soul. These works speak of a "dark knowledge" that is "dark" precisely because the 5 senses shed no light on the experience. By the 5 senses one cannot know God as one can when these senses are "darkened." Thus the "dark night of the soul" does not essentially refer to something like "going through a really hard time in life," but instead refers to finding God non-discursively. Going through a really hard time can issue forth in dark knowledge, but the dark knowing is not to be equated with the difficult time.
As a theist I find this sensible since the God I believe in transcends human sensibilities and rationality. God cannot be fully captured in our experience and in our reason. It is at this point that, if one speaks at all, one resorts to poetic-figurative-fictive discourse which, by the way, is not equivalent to "untruth." (My doctoral dissertation dealt with this; viz., issues of "literal" vs. "figurative" language and their referential capacities.)
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Espresso Royale and Salvation Is Free

Wednesday, October 07, 2009
John 14-17 - on DVD

Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Scientism's Self-refuting Nature
Monday, October 05, 2009
Moreland's Consciousness and the Existence of God

Sunday, October 04, 2009
Another Week With John Chapters 14-17

(Ann Arbor)
I'll be spending another week, in my individual God-times, with John chapters 14-17. I'll read these chapters through, probably, two or three times. Slowly. In a listening way. When I read Scripture like this it often happens that a particular thing Jesus says stands out to me. When that happens I write in in my journal. Then, I meditate on that verse, assuming that God wants to say something to me through it. It has happened to me many times that I will write the verse on a 3X5 card, carry it with me, and pull it out to read it again. When God speaks to me about the verse, I write it in my journal.
This will be another week of the living voice of God in my life, and in your lives too, because I know God has much to say to you this week. Listen for His voice to you! I will be especially focusing on John 14:8-11, since I'll preach on these amazing Jesus-words next Sunday morning. What will God do? It will be wonderful and Kingdom-rich. Be very blessed this week as you embrace and know Jesus who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Internet Cut-&-Paste Polymaths

(I have no idea what this diagram means, but the fact that I pasted it here is impressive and, if you're not reading this, you'll probably assume I'm quite the polymath!)
Recently I was looking at a conversation in a chat room in my local newspaper's website. Some logical issues were being discussed by some people who did not understand logic. I entered the cyber-room and made a comment that I thought was clarifying. After all, I teach logic. There are logicians who know more than I do, yet I felt certain I knew more logic than these chat-roomers. I made my point. Then, I suffered an attack. The attack consisted of a veritable feast of informal logical fallacies, some of which I quickly harvested for illustrations to be served up in my logic classes. And, between my comments, I heard the sound of much cutting and pasting as feverish internet intellects scuttled like spiders across the web looking for something, anything, that would prove me wrong.Here's what I think about this kind of internet "wisdom" (= the ability to scuttle across the web until you find an answer that you want to hear). The Internet backbone is made up of many large networks which interconnect with each other. These large networks are known as Network Service Providers or NSPs. Some of the large NSPs are UUNet, CerfNet, IBM, BBN Planet, SprintNet, PSINet, as well as others. These networks peer with each other to exchange packet traffic. Each NSP is required to connect to three Network Access Points or NAPs. At the NAPs, packet traffic may jump from one NSP's backbone to another NSP's backbone. NSPs also interconnect at Metropolitan Area Exchanges or MAEs.
Sorry... I didn't know how to develop my argument any further, so I scuttled over the Web to find these very cool sentences from this website. Do I understand what it means? Not at all. But if you think I'm a smart person for cutting it and pasting it here, so much the better for me. Thanks to the Internet we no longer need to learn, or all we need to learn is how to find what we want to hear on the Internet whether we understand it or not.
Deepak Chopra Misconstrues Infinity

(The geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper.)
"If the universe is infinite, then wherever you are you are at the center of the universe." I just heard Deepak Chopra say that on ABC News, in response to a question the ABC interviewer asked him as they were walking down a NYC street. Chopra had just said "infinity is all around you." The interviewer asked him what could that mean?
What can we say to this? First, the universe is not "infinite." It's very, very big. But not infinite. The universe is expanding, and will expand forever. But "forever-expansion" is only a potential, not actual, infinite.
Because the universe is not infinite we are not at the center of the universe. And, of course, everything is not at the universe's center, which it seemingly would be were the universe actually infinite spatially.
So these ideas of Chopra are, physically, nonsensical. Perhaps they come out of his Hinduism, which holds that the universe has temporally existed forever?
Philosophy of Religion Oral Exam #1
Your oral exam will be given in room A-153.
The Questions are:
1. Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's existence
2. Gaunilo's criticism of Anselm, followed by a criticism of Gaunilo
3. Kant's criticism of the Ontological Argument; Norman Malcolm's counter-response
4. Craig & Moreland's Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence
5. Paley's Teleological Argument for God's existence
6. Hume's criticisms of the Teleological Argument
7. Robin Collins's Fine-Tuning Argument for God's existence
(I evaluate my students' understanding of the material by giving three 10-minute face-to-face, individual, oral examinations. I have found that this allows me to effectively evaluate what the students know. They have the questions in advance. My class lectures give the answers to these questions, so students know exactly what they will be evaluated on.)
Friday, October 02, 2009
Grief

(Door, in Jerusalem)
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Logicomix


