5 Guidelines for Civil Discourse

Flicker, in my back yard

I'm re-posting this to keep it in play. We who are followers of Jesus need to be reminded of these things, right? I know I do.

This is about how someone who claims to follow Jesus should conduct themselves, in any medium, in all human interaction.

Guidelines for Civil Discourse

#1 - Love People

If you are a follower of Jesus, this is for us. 

Though the world fails in civility, we must engage in civil discourse.

Our foundation for civil discourse is love. We are to love others, in our behaviors. With the love of God, exemplified in Jesus. We must love like Jesus loves.

This includes those who disagree with us. It encompasses our enemies. They are among our "neighbors."

Love is the sign, the mark, that we are what we declare we are; viz., Christians. If we don't love, we have nothing. (See 1 Corinthians 13) If we don't love, we don't have our identity, at least in the eyes of others. People don't care how much we know until they know how much we care.

Jesus affirms the call to love in John 13:34-35:

“A new command I give you: 

Love one another. 

As I have loved you, 

so you must love one another. 

By this everyone will know 

that you are my disciples, 

if you love one another.”

People will know that you and I are with Jesus as we love one another. If we fail to do this, we will be far from Jesus. Others will think of Jesus through the lens of our rudeness and incivility.

When Christians hate one another on social media, they fail to display what is supposed to be their distinguishing mark; viz., love. When we get disgusted, show irritation, demean, mock, slander, ridicule, or bully, we dishonor people made in God's image. And bring shame upon our Lord.

Francis Schaeffer, in his classic The Mark of the Christian, writes:

"We are to love our fellowmen, to love all men, in fact, as neighbors. 

All men bear the image of God. They have value, not because they are redeemed, but because they are God’s creation in God’s image. Modern man, who has rejected this, has no clue as to who he is, and because of this he can find no real value for himself or for other men. Hence, he downgrades the value of other men and produces the horrible thing we face today—a sick culture in which men treat men as inhuman, as machines. As Christians, however, we know the value of men. 

All men are our neighbors, and we are to love them as ourselves. We are to do this on the basis of creation, even if they are not redeemed, for all men have value because they are made in the image of God. Therefore they are to be loved even at great cost." (Schaeffer, pp. 15-16)

It is clear, is it not, that in all our discourse with people we are to love them. This is the higher ground, where Jesus was suspended on a cross.

#2 - Never Mock People

Followers of Jesus are never to mock or ridicule other people.

Never. Ever. 

Mockery and ridicule are opponents of agape love. They reside in the camp of conditional love. ("If you agreed with my position, then I would not show my disgust towards you.")

Every person is made in the imago dei, the image of God. To mock and ridicule a person, no matter who they are or what they believe or disbelieve, is to mock that person's Maker. If you mock someone's children, you also mock them. This is how it is in tribal communities.

Slow-cook in the book of Proverbs and apply.

How long will you who are simple 

love your simple ways? 

How long will mockers delight in mockery 

and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 1:22

He mocks proud mockers 

but shows favor to the humble and oppressed.

Proverbs 3:34

If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; 

if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.

Proverbs 9:12

The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, 

but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.

Proverbs 14:6

Penalties are prepared for mockers, 

and beatings for the backs of fools.

Proverbs 19:29

The proud and arrogant person

—“Mocker” is his name— 

behaves with insolent fury.

Proverbs 21:24

Drive out the mocker, and out goes strife; 

quarrels and insults are ended.

Proverbs 22:10

Mockers stir up a city, 

but the wise turn away anger.

Proverbs 29:8

How shall we live the command to love our neighbor? By mocking them?

How shall we give witness to the sign that we belong to Jesus? By mocking one another?

How shall we be blessed as peacemakers? By ridiculing those who disagree with us?

Is mockery among the fruit of the Spirit?

Shall we build up the body of Christ using the spiritual gift of ridicule?

Is not any fellowship with the company of mockers called wickedness? (Psalm 1:1)

To mock and ridicule others that do not think like you is non-redemptive, only causing existing divisions to separate further. 

(In logic, mockery and ridicule are types of informal fallacies, called ad hominem abusives. To verbally abuse someone not only adds nothing to an argument, it diminishes the argument.)

#3 - The Other Is Not Your Enemy

The apostle Paul writes:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, 

but against the rulers, 

against the authorities, 

against the powers of this dark world 

and against the spiritual forces of evil 

in the heavenly realms.

Ephesians 6:12

So, if it has flesh and blood, it is not our real enemy.

Our real enemies are "the powers of this dark world" and the "spiritual forces of evil." These are the spiritual forces Jesus came to defeat.

Jesus did not come to defeat people. He came to rescue them. In the rescue, the powers of darkness are defeated.

If you are a follower of Jesus you must not demonize others. Even if they anger you. To do that is to wrestle with the wrong adversaries. 

Discuss? Yes. Agree, or disagree? Of course. Wrestle with? That would be like leaving your true opponent on the wrestling mat and climbing into the bleachers and trying to pin the captive onlookers.

If we view and treat one another as enemies, we are engaged in vain warfare.

If an army starts to shoot its own, waging war within itself, this is not only a pseudo-battle, it's going to lead to defeat by the real enemy. If the actual enemy can get us to self-destroy,  it has won.

You and I are not enemies, because we are flesh and blood. If something has flesh and blood it cannot be our enemy.

Sadly, Christians can be tempted, deceived, and even used by the dark powers. (see Eph. 2:2; 4:14) As Ben Witherington writes: “It is all too easy to mistake the human vessel of evil for evil itself.” Pray that we never make that mistake, for if we do the days of hating and hurting and hiding from one another have arrived.

Our struggle is essentially a spiritual one. 

Wage war on that level.

Wage peace with one another.

#4 - Never Insult a Brother or Sister

When Linda and I were campus pastors at Michigan State University, we were teaching Matthew 5:21-24 to our students. In the midst of the discussion, one of our students, Naomi, who was from Malawi, said: "If we followed the words of Jesus here very few of us would be worshiping today. We would all get up and leave, go to the brothers and sisters we were demeaning, and ask for forgiveness."

²¹ “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, 

and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 

²² But I tell you that anyone who is angry 

with a brother or sister 

will be subject to judgment. 

Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 

‘Raca,’ 

is answerable to the court. 

And anyone who says, ‘

You fool!’ 

will be in danger of the fire of hell.

²³ “Therefore, 

if you are offering your gift at the altar 

and there remember 

that your brother or sister 

has something against you,

²⁴ leave your gift there in front of the altar. 

First go 

and be reconciled to them; 

then come and offer your gift.

"Raca" is an Aramaic term of abuse. It means "idiot." (See R.T. France,The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 120)

Anyone who calls a brother or sister in Christ an idiot is answerable to the Sanhedrin. (Greek synedrion.) France writes: "Jesus here threatens ultimate divine judgment on anger, even as expressed in everyday insults." (Ib.) 

If I call someone an idiot am I really relegated to the garbage heap where Israel's rubbish was burned? No. Jesus is using exaggeration, as he often does, to make a point. (This is called Semitic hyperbole.) But the point is important. This is "an injunction to submit our thoughts about other people, as well as the words they give rise to, to God's penetrating scrutiny... We cannot worship God with grudges unsettled."

Anger is no excuse for insulting people. It is non-redemptive and alienating.

If you are a Jesus-follower, and you ridicule a brother or sister, your worship is inauthentic, and unacceptable to God.

#5 - Fear Speaking Badly of Others Made in God's Image

Have you ever met a Christian who never spoke badly of another person? I have met a few.

Apparently, Bill Johnson is one of those. Thank you, C.H., for posting this.

"In a recent meeting, someone said to Bill Johnson, "I notice that you never talk about people. You never talk badly about people. And I'm just wondering what's going on in your heart? How did you discipline yourself to NEVER speak negatively of other people, even people who are sometimes a pain?"

Bill, with tears running down his cheeks, said, "I fear Jesus in them. That I would speak badly about someone made in the image of God, that is so valued by God that Jesus died for them. And that I would portray them as something less valuable than that. I fear how God would deal with a person who would betray the people made in his image."

AND...

Let your conversation be always full of grace, 

seasoned with salt, 

so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Colossians 4:6

***

My books are...

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Encounters with the Holy Spirit (co-edited with Janice Trigg)

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity

31 Letters to the Church on Discipleship

The Great Invasion: Thirty-One Days of Christmas

31 Letters to the Church on Praying

A Minimal Introduction to Theological Minimalism

 

Here is a minimal introduction to something that continues to grow in me.

Leadership and Theological Minimalism

(Cancun - 2/25/19)

Pastors should do two things.

First, they should focus on their own ongoing connectedness to Jesus. They should live the abiding life.

Second, they should teach their people how to do this, how to be branches living in connection with Jesus, the Vine.

As you and your people do this, discernment will come. Your lives will bear much fruit.

That's it. No more steps. No "50 rules of leadership" to follow. No strategizing, just discerning.

Just...  follow... the Holy Spirit. Put all your theological eggs into this basket.

This is "The Lord is my shepherd." This is "He leadeth me."

This is minimalist leadership, minimalist theology. 

I pay a monthly fee to be able to access and listen to every music cd that exists. I listen to multiple genres of music. One of them is minimalism. I listen to Steve Reich and Philip Glass and Brian Eno and their like.

I like minimalist repetition. I like the breathing room it gives me. Mostly, I do not care for over-production. I have a musical suspicion of over-production, and tend to see it as a cover-up for poor musicianship.

The apostle Paul was a minimalist. As Paul traveled from church to church across the first-century Roman Empire, he was not dragging a production team with him. In First  Corinthians 2:1-5 Paul says he did not come to visit the Jesus-followers in Corinth with fog machines, black lights, powerful preaching, great intellectual arguments, stacks of Marshall amps, perfectly timed studio production, quality music, a fair trade coffee bar, tight jeans, stage lighting, creative videos, clocks, and full color glossy programs.

Instead, Paul came minimally, so that God might be worshiped maximally. He writes:

When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.² For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. ³ I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. ⁴ My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, ⁵ so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.


Paul came with two things:

1. Proclamation
2. Demonstration

Paul showed up with 1) his testimony about God; and 2) a demonstration of the Spirit's power. Nothing else. Because anything more would subtract. Because crowd-pleasing techniques would compete with Christ and him crucified. People might rest their faith on the coffee bar and the jeans and the fog and the volume rather than God's power.

In a Presence-Driven Church there is no need to "put on our best" for the visitors, because God always brings his best whenever two or more are gathered. If God leads you to bring out the special drama, or the kids choir, or the pancake breakfast, then do it out of obedience. Otherwise, God's earth-shattering presence will be more than enough.

Do church as usual. Worship, preach, and pray. Recently at Redeemer I preached about knowing Christ and the power of his resurrection. We prayed for sick people who were there. As far as I can tell, the man who came with the hip out of his socket, which caused him a lot of pain, experienced a healing. As someone told me afterward, "Did you see the smile on his face as the pain had left him? Did you see him walking, carrying his cane but not using it?"

Presence-driven churches are minimalist in these ways:

• They worship
• They experience God
• The gifts of the Spirit are manifested
• God demonstrates his power
• Everyone gets to participate
• Every Sunday is Easter

Beyond that, what more could there be?

***
I develop Theological Minimalism in my two books:

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

***

Jesus Was a Minimalist

(Wildflowers in our yard)

Christianity. It's not complicated. It was never meant to be.

It is deep. But "deep" is not the same as "complicated."

Jesus spoke simply and spoke deep. He is going after the human heart. Change the human heart, and behavioral change will follow. Jesus reduced all moral commands to one moral command.

Jesus was a theological minimalist. 

So was the apostle Paul.

For Paul, there was only one thing to know: Christ crucified and the power of the resurrection. Minimalist Theology is "One-Thing Theology." (1 Corinthians 2:2) Resolve to know nothing but this.

Jesus' theological minimalism is seen in his simple (not simplistic) counsel for us to become like branches, connected to him who is like a Vine. Everything follows from this. 

Do I like complexity? My PhD (Northwestern University, 1986) is in Philosophical Theology. That should say it all. My studies have taught me many things, one of which is: If there is a God who created us and loves us as his children, and who desires to communicate to us, all of us, then it has to be simple.

I think Karl Barth understood this. In seminary I took a class on Barth's theology. We were assigned portions of Barth's Church Dogmatics to read. One of the assignments was to read a twenty-page footnote. The footnote was in a font half the size of the main text. I see Barth's footnotes like nodules on a vein of a leaf attached to a twig connected to a branch attached to a limb that abides in the trunk whose roots go deep into the earth. For Barth the whole point was really about the trunk and the roots, which were "Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so."

It all comes down to Jesus, and his death and resurrection, which are demonstrations of his love. 

This is not complicated. It is simple. It is not simplistic. It is deep. "Jesus loves us" is the abundant, lavish, fruit-bearing, fertile Minimum. It is the Trunk, in which we as branches are called to abide. From this, all blessings flow.

***

The Apostle Paul was a Minimalist

(World Trade Center 1, NYC)

This is from my book Leading the Presence-Driven Church.

***
The apostle Paul was a minimalist. As he traveled from church to church, across the first-century Roman Empire, he did not drag a production team with him. In 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, we see that Paul did not visit the Jesus-followers in Corinth with fog machines, black lights, powerful preaching, great intellectual arguments, stacks of Marshall amps, perfectly timed studio production quality music, a fair-trade coffee bar, tight jeans, stage lighting, creative videos, click tracks, and full color glossy programs. Instead, Paul came minimally, so that God might be worshiped maximally. He writes: 

When I came to you, 

I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom 

as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you 

except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 

I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 

My message and my preaching were not with 

wise and persuasive words, 

but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 

so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, 

but on God’s power. 

Paul arrived with two things: 
1. Proclamation 
2. Demonstration 

Paul shared his testimony about God, and gave a demonstration of the Spirit’s power. Nothing else. No crowd-pleasing techniques would be allowed to compete with Christ, and him crucified. Because if it turned into a production, people might rest their faith on the coffee, the jeans, and the fog, rather than on God’s power.

***

Two-Step Leadership (The Presence-Driven Church)

(I gave these flowers to Linda on Mother's Day.)

The Presence-Driven Leader does not know where they are going. For the most part. This is because they are being led, by God's Spirit.

The Presence-Driven Leader has a long-term strategy, for themselves and for their people. It is simple: abide in Christ. Dwell in God's presence. Resolve to know only one thing: Christ, and him crucified.

Out of the abiding relationship comes The Call. This is a call to follow. The Presence-Driven Leader is the consummate follower.

Presence-Driven Leadership is Two-Step Leadership.

• Step 1 is: Abide in Jesus.
• Step 2 is: follow Jesus.

Then, teach your people to do the same.

That's it. (This is Theological Minimalism.)

In Hebrews 11:8 we read that Abraham went out, not knowing where he was going. Oswald Chambers comments:

"Have you ever “gone out” in this way? If so, there is no logical answer possible when anyone asks you what you are doing. One of the most difficult questions to answer in Christian work is, “What do you expect to do?” You don’t know what you are going to do. The only thing you know is that God knows what He is doing." (Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest)

Linda and I had never been to Israel. One day the opportunity was provided, as a gift. When we arrived we immediately got on a bus, and headed north from Tel Aviv to Mount Carmel. We had an excellent tour guide in the great Bible scholar Hal Ronning. Hal knew the land, we did not. Hal led us. We followed, willingly.

Presence-Driven Leaders lead by following. And teach their flock to do the same. This is more like adventure, a redemptive expedition, a clash of kingdom civilizations, led by the One who holds the future in his hands.


***

My leadership book is: 

Leading the Presence-Driven Church.

Inference to the Best Explanation & the Fine-Tuning Argument

Bangkok

In my Logic class I taught the form of reasoning known as "inference to the best explanation." I used our textbook (Vaughn), then give the Fine-Tuning Argument for God's Existence as an example of using inference to the best explanation in a philosophical context.

Here's the notes I gave the students. None of them have heard something like this, so went slow and did my best to explain.

***
The Fine-tuning argument for God’s existence reasons for God’s existence using “inference to the best explanation.” (IBE)


In IBE “we reason from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs.” (Vaughn, The Power of Critical Thinking, 344)

The premises, in IBE, are statements about observations or evidence to be explained.

An explanation is a claim about why the state of affairs is the way it is.

So, given some state of affairs, what is the best explanation for the existence or nature of that state of affairs? “The best explanation is the one most likely to be true, even though there's no guarantee of its truth like there is in a deductive argument.” (Ib.)

IBE has this pattern:
1. Phenomenon Q.
2. E provides the best explanation for Q.
3. Therefore, it is probable that E is true.

THE FINE TUNING ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE

Imagine we finally arrive on Mars, and find a clear domed structure containing plant and animal life. Suppose the environment inside this biosphere is perfect for life. The temperature is 80 degrees F; the relative humidity is 50%. The biosphere has an oxygen-recycling system and a system for the production of food and water.

Call this state of affairs Phenomenon Q. What is the best explanation of its existence? Consider these two alternative explanations:

a. The biosphere came about as a result of natural processes alone.
b. The biosphere was made by an intelligent designer.

Clearly, using IBE, a is so unlikely and improbable that we would not consider it. Alternative explanation b, if true, makes Phenomenon Q unsurprising.

This example forms an analogy to our universe. Our universe is “just right” for life to exist. “It is, in effect, a biosphere with an environment fine-tuned to render life possible.” (Stairs and Bernard, A Thinker’s Guide to the Philosophy of Religion, 40) Phenomenon Q is: Our universe is fine-tuned to render life possible. The fine-tuning argument, using IBE, then looks like this:

1. Our universe is fine-tuned to render life possible.
2. The two explanations for this fine-tuning are:
a. Atheism: The fine-tuning came about by natural processes alone (and therefore by chance or coincidence).
b. Theism: an intelligent designer fine-tuned our universe for life.
3. If explanation a is true then our fine-tuned universe seems wildly improbable.
4. If explanation b is true then our fine-tuned universe is not improbable.
5. Therefore theism is probably true.

Crucial to this argument is the truth of premise 1. (P1) P1 is affirmed by atheists and theists alike. For example, atheists Hawking and Mlodinow, in their book The Grand Design say: “Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way.” (Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, 162)

Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has said: “There are many lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules.” In short, life as we know it would be impossible. (Quoted in Stairs and Bernard, 41)

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies claims that, with regard to the structure of the universe, “the impression of design is overwhelming.” (In Ib.)

There are many physical examples of the fine-tuning, to include:

1. The strength, or value, of gravity must be just right. If the gravitational constant were a little weaker, all stars would have been blue giants, which burn too briefly for life to develop. If the gravitational constant were slightly stronger, land-based animals the size of humans would be crushed. If it were even greater, all stars would have been red dwarfs, which are too cold to support life-bearing planets.
2. The strong nuclear force must be just right. Just a 1% increase would result in almost all carbon being burned into oxygen. A 2% increase would preclude proton formation from quarks, preventing the existence of atoms.
3. By some counts there are over 100 physical, fine-tuned constants. (See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence,” 4.1 – “Cosmic Fine-tuning.”)
4. Hawking and Mlodinow write: “Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that of they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life.” (op. cit., 160)
5. Hawking and Mlodinow, once more: “Were it not for a series of startling coincidences, in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. The most impressive fine-tuning coincidence involves the so-called cosmological constant in Einstein’s equations of general relativity.” (Ib., 161)

So, to repeat, Phenomenon Q is: our universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of life.

On atheism this state of affairs is wildly improbable, and would be like explaining our Martian biosphere as having naturally formed by chance.

On theism this state of affairs is very probable, and would be like explaining the Martian biosphere by postulating an intelligent designer.

Our existence is highly improbable on the atheistic hypothesis, but not improbable on theism.

Another way of putting this is:
1. The existence of the fine-tuning is a surprising state of affairs.
2. But if theism is true, the existence of this state of affairs is not surprising.
3. Therefore, there is reason to suspect that theism is true. (See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, op. cit.)

For these reasons I find it rational to believe in God. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, in regard to this: “Barring any viable alternative, cosmic fine-tuning via deliberate agency seems to many to constitute a live candidate for a design argument.” (op. cit.)

(Note: for objections to the fine-tuning argument Stairs and Bernard [op. cit.] is good.)