Nine Common Cognitive Disorders, and Taking Thoughts Captive

 

                                                                     (Our back yard)

I am interested in connections between Pauline thinking and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The apostle Paul writes:

"Finally, brothers and sisters,

whatever is true,

whatever is noble,

whatever is right,

whatever is pure,

whatever is lovely,

whatever is admirable

-- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy

-- think about such things

and the God of peace will be with you."

Philippians 4:8

Examples of Pauline thinking include the "declarations" given by Steve Backlund of Bethel Redding Church, and the identity statements of Neil Anderson. Both are about thinking on identity truths, using verbal repetition.

For example, I am God's child and deeply loved by him. As followers of Jesus, that's true, right? So, why not meditate on that truth so that, as Henri Nouwen says, it might descend from your mind into your heart.

In The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt advocate Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) as a cure for maladies such as anxiety disorder, depression, OCD, anger, marital conflict, and stress-related disorders. CBT is uncannily similar to Paul's instructions in Philippians 4:8.

CBT treats cognitive distortions, such as "I'm no good," "My world is bleak," and "My future is hopeless." (Lukianoff and Haidt, 36) CBT breaks disempowering feedback cycles between negative beliefs and negative emotions.

They write:

"With repetition, over a period of weeks or months, people can change their schemas and create different, more helpful habitual beliefs (such as "I can handle most challenges" or "I have friends I can trust.")" (Ib., 37) This is remarkably like Backlund's identity declarations. (See also James K. A. Smith's excellent You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit.)

Cognitive distortions empower negative emotions. Put in a Pauline way, repetitive thinking on "whatever is false" distorts our emotions. Lukionoff and Haidt are concerned over our universities and the cognitive distortions they produce in our students. While to my knowledge neither Lukionoff nor Haidt are Christians, they refer to CBT as the "thinking cure." I see the Pauline "thinking cure" of Philippians 4:8 as combating these distortions in ways that are similar to CBT.

They list nine such distortions. Here they are, direct from the book, with my comments on logical fallacies added. (38).

NINE COMMON COGNITIVE DISORDERS PEOPLE LEARN TO RECOGNIZE IN CBT

EMOTIONAL REASONING

Letting your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.

"I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out."

(In logic this is an example of the fallacy of false cause.)

CATASTROPHIZING

Focusing on the worst possible outcome

and seeing it as most likely.

"It would be terrible if I failed."

(This is similar to the slippery slope fallacy in logic.)

OVERGENERALIZING

Perceiving a global pattern of negatives

on the basis of a single incident.

"This generally happens to me.

I seem to fail at a lot of things."

(In logic this is called the fallacy of hasty generalization.)

DICHOTOMOUS THINKING

Also known as "black and white thinking,"

"all or nothing thinking," and "binary thinking."

Viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms.

"I get rejected by everyone," or

"It was a complete waste of time."

(In logic this is called the fallacy of false dichotomy. But note: logic is the reaqlm of binary thinking. Which is good, and true, even beautiful as related to simplicity.)

MIND READING

Assuming that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts.

"He thinks I'm a loser."

LABELING

Assigning global negative traits to yourself or others (often in the service of dichotomous thinking).

"I'm undesirable."

"he's a rotten person."

NEGATIVE FILTERING

You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives.

"Look at all of the people who don't like me."

DISCOUNTING POSITIVES

Claiming that the positive things you or others do are trivial, so that you can maintain a negative judgment.

"That's what wives are supposed to do - so it doesn't count when she's nice to me."

"Those successes were easy, so they don't matter."

BLAMING

Focusing on the other person as the source

of your negative feelings;

you refuse to take responsibility

for changing yourself.

"She's to blame for the way I feel now."

"My parents caused all my problems."

Lukionoff and Haidt claim that universities encourage students to use the distortions listed above. (40)

GOD’S COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY

Meditation on truth transforms the human heart. It breaks lies, and heals.

I have discovered that, when I carry my 3X5 cards with me, on which I have written what God thinks of me, the truths of God slowly descend from my mind into my heart. They become my heart.

This is a Henri Nouwen idea, a James K. A. Smith idea, a Dallas Willard idea, and a Pauline idea. Philippians 4:8-9 reads: 

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

I view this as a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, supernaturally empowered by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, mind-of-Christ Behavioral Therapy.

"Cognitive" - how we think; what we set our mind on. 

"Behavioral" - what we do; how we live and experience life. 

"Therapy" - from the Greek word therapeuo, which means "to heal."

What is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?

"Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a common type of talk therapy (psychotherapy). You work with a mental health counselor (psychotherapist or therapist) in a structured way, attending a limited number of sessions. CBT helps you become aware of inaccurate or negative thinking so you can view challenging situations more clearly and respond to them in a more effective way.

CBT can be a helpful tool in treating mental health disorders, such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or an eating disorder. But not everyone who benefits from CBT has a mental health condition. It can be an effective tool to help anyone learn how to better manage stressful life situations." (From the Mayo Clinic.)

When we add the Holy Spirit to this, we have an effective therapy that transforms and heals. I'm calling this God's Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. This involves two biblical concepts: 

1) Intentionally think on (meditate on) whatever is true, right, noble, lovely, and admirable. 

2) Take captive whatever is false, wrong, ignoble, unlovely, and unworthy of praise. 

Paul writes: 

We do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 

Defeat falsehoods by intentionally meditating on God's truths. The Holy Spirit champions and empowers this. We are promised that "the God of peace" will be with us. This means an invasion of peace into our hearts. God's truths, which you mentally acknowledge, become your heart, your way of being, your way of seeing things, and even seeing yourself. Our thoughts become "obedient to Christ." All this is healing, transforming, and liberating.

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity: The Myth and Ideology of "Progress"

 

 

(I'm re-posting this for a friend. For a more complete presentation, see my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity.

For the meaning of 'deconstruction' (because it is NOT what you think it is), see HERE.

You can throw some 'ex-vangelicalism' into this mix too.

And, sprinkle some liberalism over the entire thing.

Garnish with postmodernism.)

ABOUT ME

I am a husband (to Linda, since 1973). A father. A father-in-law. A grandfather! A pastor (since 1970). A professor (taught at several seminaries around the world). A philosopher, and a theologian. (PhD, Northwestern University, in Philosophical Theology, 1986).

I have studied people, and biblical and theological issues, and culture, for over fifty years. I am a constant reader and observer. 

A final note before I begin this first post. I have read, as a theologian myself, several of the theologians who are usually associated with progressive Christianity. (Postmodernism, deconstruction, critical theory, linguistic semantics and philosophy of language [my dissertation was in this area], and, yes, political progressivism.) Some of them have written books and articles that I have benefitted from. But then, along the way, some of them turned away from some core beliefs that I see as important to our faith. Some of them were "deconverted" from evangelical Christianity. That has saddened me. 

There are many theologians and biblical scholars, such as myself, who have not departed from what we see as essential. We could never be "exvangelicals." This is not out of ignorance. We are familiar with, and have wrestled with, all the questions progressivists raise. And wow! We see things differently. Which means: we disagree with each other. Which means: we think each other is wrong about some things. (For example, see Brian McLaren's vicious disagreement with The Nashville Statement, where he even brings in the KKK, implicating the 24,000+ theologians and biblical scholars, and even Francis Chan, J. I. Packer, and people like me, who agree with the Statement.)

For a more complete repudiation of progressive Christianity see my recent book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity. 

Blessings!

John Piippo

Redeemer Fellowship Church, Monroe, MI

johnpiippo@msn.com

***

The term 'progressive,' as a modifier linked with 'Christianity', is misleading, even false.

“Progressive” is not a word that fits into a Christian eschatological worldview.

Humanity, throughout history, has not morally and spiritually progressed.

The term "progressive" implies some kind of advancing, a moving forward towards some goal. My understanding of Christianity is that, while individuals and even communities can improve morally and spiritually (= Christ's character being formed in them), there will be nothing morally new under the sun until Christ returns.

This is because of the human sin problem. Every new generation has to deal with this. The next generation, and the generations beyond that, will not have progressed beyond this. (Note: I read one self-identifying progressive who thought humanity has progressed and will further advance so much that we can question whether or not we even need a Savior.)

Let's look more closely at the idea of "progress." Progress only makes sense in relation to a "goal." Such as: "I have made progress in my weight loss strategy. I am closer to my goal weight of 180 pounds." 

There are countless examples of this kind of progress. Someone’s goal is to play guitar like Eddie Van Halen. They take lessons. They practice. They are improving. They are making progress towards this goal.

“Progressive” implies “advancement”; “moving forward.” Towards some goal.

Someone else is constructing a house. Today they began digging the foundation. Next week they pour the cement. They are making progress toward the goal of building a house. That can be good. (It depends on what the house is used for.)

But "progress," in itself, is not always good. For example, I am overweight. My doctor has advised me to lose twenty pounds. But instead, my goal is to gain even more weight. This morning I step on the scale, and see I gained ten pounds over the holidays. Progress! Let us all cheer, and celebrate and affirm John's story! But, arguably, that’s not a progressive story to be celebrated. (FYI – I did not gain ten pounds over the holidays!)

Someone else researches the internet. Their goal is to build a bomb that will destroy buildings in downtown Nashville. Today they began constructing the bomb. They are making progress. They are moving forward. They are advancing toward their goal. Remember that 'forward' and 'backward' only make sense in relation to a goal.

What is the goal of progressive Christianity? And who sets this goal? In reading the literature of those who self-identify as progressive Christians, it’s not always clear to me that it is Christ. Perhaps, the goal for humanity is Love? For a Jesus-follower, it’s true that love is great, and greater than faith and hope. But I see the goal of history as Christ, not Love. Love is not greater than Christ. (See here.) 

My understanding of Christianity is that, in the lifetime of every person, the goal is the formation of the character of Christ in us, individually and collectively. As I read and talk with some who refer to themselves as progressive Christians, I hear them elevating Love and Desire-fulfillment to heights that should be reserved only for Christ. (For Desire-fulfillment as a "progressive" idea, and how this has come about historically, see especially Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.)

I see every generation of humanity as having a sin problem, which can only be addressed by the cross of Christ. My studies and observations indicate that humanity has not progressed, and will not progress, beyond that. And, my sense is that some progressive Christians are not thrilled about talking of sin. Affirmation? Yes! Desire-fulfillment? Yes! Sin? Meh...

I do not see the word 'progressive' as being part of what N.T. Wright describes as the "five act play" that is the Bible. Yes, in eternity we shall be like Jesus. But, in this present age, we are not progressing morally and spiritually. I view it as phenomenally difficult to demonstrate moral progress, over the years. Have we gotten better? Are we getting better?  The term “progressive” implies that we are. 

Yes, I know that Steven Pinker thinks that humanity, over time, has gotten kinder and gentler. I, and many others who have reacted to Pinker, do not. (See here.) Violence has declined, says Pinker, because humanity is getting less and less violent. 

This reminds me of what was perhaps the height of progressive optimism, in the early twentieth century. The Enlightenment belief was that human reason was now progressing to make a better world. And then came World War 1. And theologian Karl Barth was moved to write his commentary on Romans, with its teaching that all humanity sins and falls short of the glory of God. And then, Germany changed (progressed?) from a democratic republic in 1932 to a racist tyranny in 1934. And then, according atheist and scholar David Berlinski, the 20^th century progressed into being the most murderous, violent in human history. (See Berlinski, The Devil’s Disciple: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. See also footnote [1] below.)

But… we have massively progressed technologically, right? Correct. But it is still humans who use and wield technological artifacts. A hammer is a piece of technology. Its appearance advanced us, assisting in doing things like building furniture and ships and homes and you name it. But the human being holding the hammer could also use it to hurt and destroy. I see morally unadvanced, non-progressed humanity as still doing that, only with greatly advanced artifacts with massive destructive capabilities.

I don’t think progress is necessarily good, in itself. When you hear the word "progressive" you should not automatically think "positive." Yes, we seem programmed to think that way. But truthfully, it all depends on the goal. And here is where the word “progressive” is of no help to me, because it functions as a euphemism that should not be attached as a modifier to the term 'Christianity'.  

I know the word "progressive" is politically popular. But I don't like it, because I see it as mythical at best. Jeffrey Burton Russell, in Exposing Myths About Christianity, writes:

“The predominant superstition of our times is Progress. Belief in lower-case ‘progress’ is reasonable, for progress can be made toward definable goals in specific fields, such as electrical engineering, plumbing or surgery. But people often believe in upper-case Progress, as in “The Progress of Humanity.” This is a superstition. Upper-case Progress implies moving toward an undefined capital-G Goal.”

One of the myths about Christianity that Russell exposes is that progress was something Jesus was trying to bring about. Scholar Terry Eagelton calls this the “ideology of Progress.” Russell writes that “the natural goodness of humanity is an illusion based neither in history nor biology, and the empty center of most Progressivism is the delusion that radical evil does not exist. Progressivism can become utopianism, which always sacrifices liberty for its ends, as Stalin did. Those who deny evil will be overtaken by it.”

Ahhh... the natural goodness of humanity. What an anti-Hobbes idea! What an anti-Freud idea! And, what an anti-Christ belief. From such a belief comes the ideology of affirmation. But, I ask, who in their right Christological mind could believe that Christ came, not to rescue us out of bondage to sin, but to affirm us?

Progressive Christianity is too utopian for me. Many, including me, believe that we are “regressing” in our humanity. To call progressive Christianity too utopian is to locate its roots in Hegel and Marx, who both thought humanity was inexorably progressing, but who disagreed on the engine driving the progression, as well as the goal or outcome.  Anyone want to join me in a "Regressive Christianity" movement?

Again, if the goal of life is to embrace the Lordship of Christ and have his character formed in us, I think one can view our time as one of regression, division, and polarization. In fact, I, and many others, see progressive Christianity as divisive (e.g., I am aware of some young people who identify as progressive Christians and tie this in with their newfound belief that the Old Testament is just a bunch of made-up stories. I'll say more about this in my third post.) 

Is humanity progressing? Or regressing? Or decadent and stagnant? (See New York Times writer Ross Douthat's recent The Decadent Society.) You need to know this has always been a topic of discussion among scholars. The answers are not obvious. If we are talking about moral and spiritual development or regression, it is far from obvious that some kind of progressive movement is actually happening. I submit to you that it is not. And I can see, without much effort, that progressive Christianity is aiding the regression. (See footnote [2] below.)

In all this I am saying that I could never refer to myself as a progressive Christian because it commits a mistake… a category mistake… when the two words are placed next to each other. This is not a matter of mere semantics. The kingdom of God, said Jesus, was "not of this world." Therefore, the kingdom of God was not the end-result of an ever-progressive earthly kingdom.

I have a suggestion. I began following Jim Wallis in the early 1970s, when he began publishing what was to become the magazine Sojourners. Wallis is one who is often cited as a "progressive" Christian. But in the Times interview, Wallace says he would rather be called a "follower of Jesus."

Me too.

It's time to get rid of the term "progressive Christianity." And self-refer as "follower of Jesus." This would lead to interesting discussions, to include the morality of Jesus (see here, e.g.) and the relationship between Jesus and the Old Testament. Some progressive Christians, many of them unthinkingly, are on the "dismiss the Old Testament" bandwagon. Let's just focus on Jesus." The problem is, when you focus on Jesus, you see Jesus as not dismissing an authoritative Old Testament.  

Finally, in the term “progressive Christianity,” the word ‘progressive’ is a modifier. It modifies the word ‘Christianity.’ ‘Progressive’ is a euphemism. It puts a happy spin on Christianity. It also feels like a judgment on those who are not “progressive.” which provides another reason as to why I could never call myself a progressive Christian.

[1] On atheism (esp. atheistic existentialism) there is no goal in life. Thus, humanity is not progressing towards anything, nor is it regressing away from anything. Nor is it decadent. This leads to things like Theatre of the Absurd, and Camus’s Sysiphus, and Becket’s Waiting for Godot.

[2] For an interesting, illuminating article on whether or not humanity is "progressing," see atheist John Gray's excellent review of The Evolution of Moral Progress: A Biocultural Theory, by Alan Buchanon and Russell Powell. 

FIVE SIMPLE SECRETS TO A HEALTHY MARRIAGE

 

#1 - COMMUNICATE AND COORDINATE

 

                                                                     (At Toledo Zoo)

(I'm re-posting this to keep it in play.)

In August Linda and I celebrated our 52nd wedding anniversary. We are both thankful for having these wonderful years of life together!

We're not the perfect marriage. Acknowledging this helps us be better life partners.

One thing that has helped us is that we communicate about and coordinate our busy schedules, meetings, desires, and obligations. We do this every day, usually in the morning, or the evening before.

We ask each other questions, such as...

"What is your schedule today?"

"What do you want to get done today?"

"How can I help you today?"

"What time will we have together today?"

"Are you OK with me doing this (_______) today?"

"What do we need to do together today?"

"What commitments do we have this week?"

"What shall we do for dinner tonight?"

"What do you need to talk about?"

We ask questions like these. Because we do this all the time, responding to them often takes little time.

We want to share expectations, and be on the same page.

We let each other know what we are up to. For example, Linda might tell me, "I'm doing laundry this morning. Do you have clothes that need washing?"

I always let her know where I am going. Today, e.g., I said, "I'm going to Panera Bread to get a coffee." And later, I said, "I'm going upstairs to work in the office."

This is not rocket science. We always let each other know what we are doing and where we are going, even if it's just going outside to water the flowers. And, we are willing to give up our agendas for the sake of the other.

Linda is excellent at keeping a datebook. We meet together, and she brings her datebook with her. She says, "Remember, John, that we have the graduation party this Saturday at 1."

We communicate like this because we are not single anymore. We are doing life together. 

Coordinating our schedules is a way of honoring one another. In doing this, expectations become clear. Uncommunicated expectations breed marital conflict.

For us, this is one secret to a healthy marriage.

#2 - Say "Thank you" (Often)

 

                                                       (Saugatuck, MI)

In summer 2024 Linda and I celebrated our 51st wedding anniversary. We drove four hours to a Michigan beach town and spent four days together.

We walked, talked, sat on the beach, read books, had some good meals, sat by the pool, browsed, shopped, ate some fudge, and I had cherry peach pie. On the way home Linda led us in a praying time.

We gave gifts. And said the words, "Thank you."

"Thank you" is part of our marital arsenal. "Thank you" is a super weapon. We say these words, to each other, a lot.

"Thank you for the gift."

"Thank you for mowing the lawn."

"Thank you for the tuna salad sandwich."

"Thank you for doing the dishes."

"Thank you for finding my phone."

"Thank you for the reminder."

"Thank you for washing the clothes."

"Thank you for making the bed."

"Thank you for vacuuming." 

"Thank you for the flowers."

"Thank you for all you do for me."

Thank you, thank you, thank you...

When people fail to say "Thank you" it can come off as entitlement. We see the entitlement disease in Luke 17:11-19.

11 Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy[a] met him. They stood at a distance 13 and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!”

14 When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” 

And as they went, they were cleansed.

15 One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. 16 He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.

17 Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? 18 Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” 

19 Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”

When you stop saying "Thank you," often, you are taking the other person for granted.

Saying "Thank you" places you in a vulnerable position. This is why some don't say the words.

We don't have the perfect marriage. But we have both told God "Thank you," countless times, for bringing us together. We spoke these words again, both to God and to each other, as we celebrated 51 years.

Saying "Thank you" is one of our little secrets to a healthy marriage.

#3 - ALL WE HAVE TOGETHER BELONGS TO GOD

 

When I married Linda I had some debt. I had student loans to cover tuition and housing for my freshman and sophomore years

I spent the money. I also flunked out of college at the end of my sophomore year. 

I eventually got back in college. But I had to pay off the wasted student loan. 

When I married Linda, we both understood that we were now "one flesh." We were a team. We did not believe that she had her money, and I had my money. Instead, all that we had, collectively, was God's, with us as the stewards of what we have.

And of what we owed. My loan indebtedness was now Linda's as well.

For us, it goes like this. If I make a dollar a week, and Linda makes $1000 a week, together we make $1001. And it all belongs to God. We are then called to be good stewards of what God has given us.

A huge part of this stewardship was, and still is, keeping a budget. That we both look at together, and both agree on.

This means we agree on how the money is to be spent. In addition to a mortgage, car payment, utilities, food, clothing, insurance, and other essentials (the loan!), we sometimes had extra money. We did not spend this extra money without talking together about it. Early in our marriage, we both agreed that neither of us would make a purchase over $50 without asking the other if this seemed right to them.

We continue this to this day. This has served us well in our fifty-one years of marriage!

The key principles are:

1) Everything we have belongs to God.

2) We are the stewards of what God has given us.

3) We have a monthly budget.

4) We communicate about finances.

#4 - FORGIVE ONE ANOTHER

 

1971.

I had been a Jesus-follower for a year. 

God had led me to not date anyone, for the purpose of focusing on knowing Jesus. What a great and important year that was for me!

1972. That's when I met Linda, and slowly, carefully, began to fall in love with her. 

Our relationship was Jesus-centered. This included abstaining from sexual activity, even kissing. We were not trying to use each other to get personal pleasure. Were we "dating?" If so, not in the usual cultural way. It was beautiful! And, I still had so much to learn about how to love another person as Jesus loves them.

It was going so well that I thought we would never disagree and argue. That bubble eventually got burst. We had our first argument.

I cannot remember what it was about. I do remember engaging in some powerful logical reasoning. Surely, I thought, Linda will see that I was right, and she was wrong. But that bubble also got burst, when God told me, "John, she's right. You are wrong."

As I heard those words, I knew they were correct. I'm wrong. This knowledge created another problem, which was: I never admitted it when I was wrong. So, I kept arguing.

I have the powerful gift of defending myself and attacking the other person, even when I know I am wrong. I had taken and aced the "Argumentation and Debate" class at Northern Illinois University. When the class was over the professor, who led the university Debate Team, invited me to be on the team. I chose not to, but my overconfident ego was expanding.

As I was pressing my argument against Linda, God told me this. "John, not only are you wrong in your argument, you also are wrong in continuing to argue when you know you are wrong."

That's when I came to my senses. I had two things to say to Linda.

1. I am wrong, you are right.
2. I kept arguing even though I knew I was wrong and you are right.

And then, these words came out of my mouth: "Would you forgive me for doing that."

That was new territory for me. I thought Linda might exit our relationship. Who would want to be with someone who, when they were wrong, could not admit it?

Linda said, "John, I forgive you."

And then we laughed. A lot. 

We've been married fifty-two years, this coming summer. Admitting we are wrong when we are wrong is built into the DNA of our marriage.

We have both said, to each other, these words, countless times.

"I was wrong."

"You were right."

"Please forgive me for talking that way to you."

"Please forgive me for not listening to you."

"I love you."

"I forgive you."

FOR MORE HELP SEE:

Forgive, by Tim Keller

Caring Enough to Forgive, by David Augsburger

Forgive and Forget, by Lewis Smedes

#5 - SERVE ONE ANOTHER

 

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Ephesians 5:21.

In doing life, Linda and I do not compete against each other. Because...

we are on the same team.

We do life together.

We don't keep score. 

For example, when I had my hip replacement surgery, I recovered at home. We rented a surgical bed, where I slept. During my rehab, Linda waited on me. And kept the house clean. And did the shopping. And meal planning and making. With love and joy.

When there are times when Linda is sidelined with illness, I do the same for her. I serve her, and do not keep a mental record of all the hours I am putting in. We don't owe each other anything. That's how it is, when you serve one another out of love, and for the team.

'Entitlement' is not in a servant's mental lexicon.

"Who serves the most?" We have never entertained this question.

We are not perfect. And yet, we defer. We are always asking questions like these.

"Can I get you anything?"

"How can I help you?"

"Is there anything I can do for you?"

"Let me do this for you."

And, always humming in the background, is this: "How can we help each other flourish?"

An Argument for the Existence of the Soul

  

                                                                                      (NYC)

One of my Cru campus ministry leaders, when I was an undergraduate at Northern Illinois University, was Stewart Goetz (along with William Lane Craig). I am so thankful God placed me in such a high-powered intellectual environment. (Add John Peterson to this environment, too.) 

Stu is a brilliant theistic philosopher, the author of many publications, to include his commentary and critique on metaphysical physicalism in Naturalism. 

J. P. Moreland cites Stu's argument for the existence of the soul. Here it is.

"Stewart Goetz has advanced the following type of argument for the nonphysical nature of the self, which I have modified:

(1) I am essentially an indivisible, simple spiritual substance. 

(2) Any physical body is essentially a divisible or complex entity (any physical body has spatial extension or separable parts). 

(3) The law of identity pertains (if x is identical to y, then whatever is true of x is true of y, and vice versa). 

(4) Therefore, I am not identical with my (or any) physical body. 

(5) If I am not identical with a physical body, then I am a soul. 

(6) Therefore, I am a soul."

From Moreland, The Soul: How We Know It's Real and Why It Matters (pp. 118-119). 

I'll be presenting this argument in my Faith Bible Seminary class in October.

Living for a Fullness That Is Beyond Ourselves

Bangkok

Miroslav Volf's A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good is a beautiful read! Chapter 1 is worth the price of the entire book - on the nature of "prophetic religion," with the double-movement of "ascent" and "descent," both of which are needed, and needed in a certain way. 

In Ch. 2 Volf writes of the meaning of labor, of work. Volf ties work in with the existential matters of life's meaning and purpose. 

"There are many possible ways of construing the meaning of work. One purpose that immediately comes to mind is to put bread on the table—and a car into the garage or an art object into the living room, some may add. 

Put more abstractly, the purpose of work is to take care of the needs of the person who does it... But when we consider taking care of ourselves as the main purpose of work, we unwittingly get stuck on the spinning wheel of dissatisfaction. 

What we possess always lags behind what we desire, and so we become victims of Lewis Carroll’s curse, “Here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.” 

In our quiet moments, we know that we want our lives to have weight and substance and to grow toward some kind of fullness that lies beyond ourselves. Our own selves, and especially the pleasures of our own selves, are insufficient to give meaning to our lives. When the meaning of work is reduced to the well-being of the working self, the result is a feeling of melancholy and unfulfillment, even in the midst of apparent success." (Kindle Location 639)

The antidote to the "rat race" and boredom of work is to live for "some kind of fullness that lies beyond ourselves."

For example, live for this cause.

Top Ten Books (My List)

Special Mention

• Almost any book by Dallas Willard.
• Almost any book by Flannery O'Connor.

The Historically Christian View of Marriage: Part 1 (Preston Sprinkle)

Part 2 is HERE. ("Arguments Against the Historic Christian View")

To Abide in Christ Is to Trust Him

(Store in Soho, NYC)

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

***

Abiding is a type of trusting. 

I bought a new chair for my home office. I had the previous chair for twenty years. I trusted it. I knew it would hold me. Therefore, I had no anxiety about it. It would be contradictory to say, “I trust the chair I’m sitting in, but am afraid it won’t hold me.” 

To abide in Christ is to trust him. I “put my trust in the Lord.” Which means, 

• If God was a chef, I would eat his cooking. 
• If God was a shepherd, I would listen for his voice and follow. 
• If God was a rock, I would stand on him. 
• If God was a fortress, I would make my home in him. 
• If God was a river, and I a tree, I would send my roots to him. 
• If God was a vine, and I a branch, I would attach myself to him. 
• If God was a fire, I would be consumed by him. 
• If God was water, I would drink of him.
• If I was a cup, I would be filled to overflowing by him. 
• If God was a hidden treasure, I would seek him. 
• If God was a word, I would read him. 
• If God was my Lord, I would obey him. 
• If God was a chair, I would sit on him. 

I would do these things every day… after day… after day. 

There is a cumulative effect that results from a lifetime of trusting in God. A psychological confidence, a certitude, emerges. It is like the confidence I had because of sitting in the same chair for twenty years, and finding that, through it all, it still holds.

Self-Contradictory Statements (e.g., subjective relativism)

 

Self-Contradictory Statements (e.g., subjective relativism)

                                                              (Downtown Monroe)

In my Logic classes at MCCC one of the teachings was on the irrationality of subjective relativism and cultural relativism. This is a handout I gave students, to illustrate. 

LOGIC: SELF-CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS

My brother is an only child.

John is a bachelor and his wife’s name is Linda.

There is no such thing as truth.

             1. There is no such thing as truth.

             2. Therefore, premise 1 is not true.

 All the statements I make are false.

             1. All S are F.

             2. Premise 1 is S.

             3. Therefore, Premise 1 is F.

1. We cannot know truth.

2. Statement 1 is true.

All human behavior is determined.

            1. All human behavior is determined.

             2. Making statements is an example of human behavior.

             3. Premise 1 is a statement.

                  4. Premise 1 is determined.

                  5. Therefore whoever believes Premise 1 is determined to believe Premise 1.

I only believe things that you can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

1.    I only believe things that you can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

2.    I believe statement 1.

3.    Therefore, I believe something that cannot be

 seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled.

There is no such thing as free will.

             1. There is no such thing as free will.

          2. Statement 1 was not freely chosen. 

           3. Any person who believes Statement 1 does not freely believe Statement 1, but was causally determined to believe Statement 1.

           4. Therefore, there is no good reason to believe that Statement 1 is true.

*****

PERHAPS THE MOST FAMOUS 20TH-CENTURY 

PHILOSOPHICAL EXAMPLE OF SELF-CONTRADICTION

IS "THE VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE."

The "verification principle." (VP)

             1. A statement is true IFF (if and only if) it : a) can be empirically verified; 

             or b) is mathematical (tautological). (This is called the VP.) 

            2. The VP is a statement. 

             3. The VP itself can be neither a) empirically verified; 

              nor is it b) mathematical (tautological; redundant; definitional ).

            4. There the VP is false (by its own criteria).

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: "Most propositions and

questions which have been written about philosophical matters are not false, but

senseless. We cannot, therefore, answer questions of this kind at all, but only

state their senselessness. Most questions and propositions of the philosophers

result from the fact that we do not understand the logic of our language."

All truth is relative.

                1. All truth is relative to individual knowing subjects.

            2. Statement 1 is true.

            3. Statement 1 is relative (and thus, by definition, is not 

            universally applicable).

            4.  Therefore Statement 1 is false.

Which is absurd.