An N. T. Wright - kind - of - month

I have my own list of greatest New Testament scholars. If you are into New Testament studies, in-depth, then you are not surprised that N. T. Wright is on my list.

I just finished 45 days of 1-2 hour teaching presentations. Twenty of them. Fourteen of which were at two theological seminaries. It's time for a break! 

I am today beginning an N. T. Wright - kind - of - month. I'm settling in with three Wright books. 

The first is The Lord and His Prayer. He writes:

"The more I have studied Jesus in his historical setting, the more it has become clear to me that this prayer sums up fully and accurately, albeit in a very condensed fashion, the way in which he read and responded to the signs of the times, the way in which he understood his own vocation and mission and invited his followers to share it. This prayer, then, serves as a lens through which to see Jesus himself, and to discover something of what he was about."

The second is Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. This comes in the wake of finishing teaching my "Heaven, the Soul, and the Afterlife" course for Faith Bible Seminary in NYC. Plus, I'll be speaking on the t4heme of hope in NYC this coming January.

The third Wright book (with co-author Michael Bird) is The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians. This book functions as a resource book for me. It... is... amazing... brilliant... and its physical presentation is weighty...  and beautiful. (Purchase the hard cover. When it arrives, you will see why.)

One more book. I just purchased this, to read to my grandchildren this Christmas.

Blessings!

JP

Welcoming and Sometimes Disaffirming

                                         (Redeemer - getting ready to worship!)

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

I was asked the question, "Would a Muslim be welcome in your church?"

My answer is: "Yes!"

And Buddhists and Hindus and atheists, too.

I would be thrilled if people of differing beliefs came to my church. Even atheists. When I was teaching at MCCC, some atheists would sometimes come on Sunday morning to check us out. I was so glad to see them there. And a few atheists became followers of Jesus as a result!

I loved them. And obviously, my love for them did not include affirming the belief that there is no God.

Someone asked me this. "If a Muslim came and asked you to affirm their belief that Jesus was merely a prophet (and not God the Son), and that Jesus did not die on a cross (the Koran says this), would you affirm this?"

My answer is: "Of course not." And, BTW, the serious, practicing Muslim would not affirm my belief that Jesus died on a cross to atone for the sins of humanity. I have dialogued with some Muslims about this, even with a Muslim leader from the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

What does it mean to "affirm" something, or someone?" "Affirm" can mean, to agree with. Or, "affirm" can mean, "I value you." But this does not mean I value all your beliefs. From my Christian point of view, I want to affirm what God affirms. As far as I can tell, God does not affirm the following Muslim beliefs: Jesus was only a prophet, and Jesus did not die on a cross. (Note: If you want to have true interfaith dialogue with a Muslim, you disrespect them if you do not talk about how our core beliefs are different, and expect them to affirm your core beliefs. But there are those who know more about this than I, one of them being my friend J. S.)

Welcome and love people? Yes. Even enemies? Read here. And here. 

Affirm every belief people have? No. To do that is neither loving nor truthful. And, BTW, Jesus didn't affirm all the beliefs the people and religious leaders had.

Is it loving to welcome but not affirm? Of course. To love someone is not equivalent to affirming every belief they bring with them. That would be disingenuous. I have had a few atheists over the years tell me they respect the fact that I can be gracious towards them while not affirming their beliefs. One atheist looked me square in the eye and said, "I respect you for not affirming my atheism. That's why I am interested in you."

The atheist Christopher Hitchens said the same, and castigated both Christians and atheists who mindlessly and hypocritically affirmed everything, no matter what. (See The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World's Most Notorious Atheist.)

The philosopher skeptic David Hume said the same. There's the story of Hume getting up at 5 AM to travel to hear George Whitefield preach. Asked if he believed what the preacher preached, he replied, "No, but he does."

No one affirms everything. Probably, people disaffirm more things than they affirm.

Much depends on a person's worldview. It is within a worldview that affirming and disaffirming find their place. Everyone has a worldview. Even the view that there are no worldviews is a worldview. The question becomes: Is my worldview true? That is, is my worldview the way things really are? This is not the special province of Christians. Everyone believes their worldview represents the way things really are.

Everyone affirms and disaffirms. It is unloving to expect, even force, someone who does not share your worldview to affirm it. But we can try to understand. And then, evaluate. And then, in a civil way, disaffirm. (Unlike life at American universities today, which mostly are disaffirming and not welcoming.)

"Could an atheist teach atheism in your church as something God affirms?" Of course not, for what seem to me to be obvious reasons.

"Could a Muslim be one of your youth leaders and teach your youth that Christ did not die on a cross?" Of course not.

"Would you, John, be allowed to be a youth leader at the Islamic Center of America, and tell Young Muslims that the Koran is wrong, and God is a Trinity of Persons, in One?" Definitely not!

"Could someone teach your people that marriage is not limited to a man and a woman?" No.

"Does that mean you don't love people who have beliefs contrary to the Jesus way?" Of course not!

The idea that we ought to love everyone, even our enemies, finds its most powerful formulation in Christianity.

The idea that we should affirm every belief is unloving, and pop-culture nonsense. If love meant affirming everything people believe, we would love no one, not even ourselves, not even God.

***

For more See my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity. 

Help for Worrying

 

(Cancun sunrise)

I still worry too much. My worry comes from losing spiritual focus. 

I can mentally acknowledge that God is with me. But there are times when this truth does not capture my heart. At that point, I am susceptible to worry.  

Here are things that combat worry.

• Spending solitary praying time with God. This restores my heart to its proper place. In His presence, my agitated soul finds rest.
• Being in community with my brothers and sisters. Authentic Christian community absorbs worry. (Thank God for the small groups Linda and I have been in over the years!)
• Reading Scripture and meditating on it. Scripture escorts my heart into His Kingdom. 
• Listening to experienced Jesus-followers, and learning from them. Many of my mentors and spiritual counselors have dispensed wisdom.
• Remembering how God has been with me.
• Counting my blessings. (I often carry a list of them, looking at them, and giving thanks to God for them.)
• Organizing and doing. Taking action, where I am able and available. 
• Walking in obedience. Living righteously secures my attachment to Jesus.
• Worshiping. When my soul sings, worry flees.

Doing these things recapture my heart. My renewed heart experiences God with me, working through me, assuring me that I am not alone, and that He is with me.

***

My Books

 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

31 Letters tom the Church on Praying

The Great Invasion: 31 Days of Christmas

Conflict Reveals Character

(Downtown Monroe)

I've always thought that who a person really is, is who they are in their home. This is because a home is made of people living under the same roof who are not normal like you. The people in your home, whether old or young, are different. We see who you really are by the way you handle "different."

Differences can attract - that's good. Maybe that's why you married the person you did. She had something you did not have, and maybe you thought she would complete you. 

Differences can also collide. Differences can repel, like positive and negative magnetic poles. Differences conflict. A husband and wife are, in a few ways at least, polar opposites. Husbands and wives conflict, at times. There are no exceptions to this. Many are in denial, or fearful, about this.

From God's perspective, this is very good. Differences can complement. In Genesis we read, "And God created polar opposites, and saw that it was good." And, BTW, God is different from you. God's ways are not your ways. That fact is a transcendent good which we minimally grasp.

Conflict, therefore, is inevitable. Conflict is normal. If there's no conflict in your home, you have a problem. Probably, that problem is you. Or, at least, you are part of the problem. Always consider this possibility, for it reorients you on the road to being a peacemaker.

James van Yperen, in Making Peace, writes:

"Conflict reveals the true character of a leader. Jesus told His disciples, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven…. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?” (Matthew 5:43-46). Who we are is revealed by how we react to persecution." (p. 26)

If differences irritate you, that is your problem. If different approaches and styles "push your buttons," those buttons are yours. Own up to this and you are on your way to character formation.

***
My books are:

The Great Invasion: 31 Days of Christmas

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God (May 2016)

Leading the Presence-Driven Church (January 2018)

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity

31 Letters to the Church on Discipleship

31 Letters to the Church on Praying

Encounters With the Holy Spirit (Co-edited with Janice Trigg)

The Best Evidence for God? Here’s What 100 Apologists Said

Thank you J. H. for sharing this with me.

My choice? The Moral Argument for God's Existence. (See HERE.)

Follower by The Fine-tuning Argument for God's Existence. (See HERE. And HERE.)

Plantinga's Modal Version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence

                                                       

                                                       (Pond, at Monroe County Community College)

In my MCCC Philosophy of Religion classes I taught Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence, and modal version of the Ontological Argument. Here is Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological Argument for God's existence. It is a real head-twister! 

Using modal logic, the following is true: If a necessary being is possible then a necessary being exists. (Think about it, modally.)

Or:

1. There is a possible world in which a necessarily existing being exists.
2. Therefore, a necessarily existing being exists.

Note: This argument avoids the Kantian criticism that 'exists' is not a predicate.

PLANTINGA’S MODAL VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE


The argument goes:

1.    It is possible that there is a being (B) that has maximal greatness.

2.    So, there is a possible being that in some world W has maximal greatness.

3.    A being has maximal greatness in a given world only if it has maximal excellence in every world.

4.    A being has maximal excellence in a given world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in that world.

5.    Therefore, “there actually exists a being (B) that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, exists and has these qualities in every other world as well.”

Needed to understand this argument:

Logical possibilities and impossibilities do not vary from world to world. If a given proposition or state of affairs is impossible in at least one possible world, then it is impossible in every possible world. For example, "square circles" are logical impossibilities in our world. Therefore they are logical impossibilities in every possible world. There is no possible world, no creatively invented world, that could contain a square circle.

• There are no propositions that are in fact impossible but could have been possible. For example, square circles could not exist in any conceivable/possible world.
• And, there are no propositions that in fact are possible but could have been impossible. For example, if there is a possible world in which SpongeBob exists, then there is no possible world in which SpongeBob could not exist.
• Therefore, B's nonexistence is impossible in every possible world. And because B is a maximally great Being, B exists in every possible world.
• Therefore B’s nonexistence is impossible in this world (since this world is a possible world).
• Therefore B exists and exists necessarily.

***

Plantinga's Modal Version Of the Ontological Argument (From Graham Oppy)

(Warren Dunes State Park, Michigan)

Graham Oppy presents Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument as follows.

An entity is "maximally great" iff (if and only if) it necessarily exists and possesses "maximal excellence" (i.e., is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect).

Keeping this in mind, note that a maximally great entity cannot be a contingent thing. As regards contingent things, it is possible that a certain contingent thing exists. E.g., it is possible that a unicorn exists (logically possible).

Therefore, regarding a maximally great thing:

1) Either it is not possible that a maximally great entity exists or it is necessary that a maximally great entity exists.

2) It is (logically) possible that a maximally great entity exists.

3) Therefore a maximally great entity exists. (That is, an entity that is omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect, and possesses these attributes (i.e. is "maximally excellent") in every possible world.)

Oppy frames it this way.

1. There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

2. (Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

Oppy writes: "Under suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible worlds, this argument is valid: from it is possible that it is necessary that p, one can infer that it is necessary that p."

Note:

1) it is possible that it is necessary that p.

2) Either p cannot possibly exist or p necessarily exists.

3) Therefore (from P1 & P2, using disjunctive syllogism) p necessarily exists.

Oppy's essay on the Ontological Argument in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good one. He goes on to offer criticisms of Plantinga's version. And gives Plantinga's further reflections on the status of the argument.

***

The Modal Ontological Argument According to Plantinga

(Sterling State Park)

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article by Kenneth Himma is good on explaining the Modal Version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence.. Here is Plantinga's OA for God's existence, via Himma.

Plantinga defines two properties: "maximal excellence" and "maximal greatness."

P1. A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W.

P2. A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.

"Thus, maximal greatness entails existence in every possible world: since a being that is maximally great at W is omnipotent at every possible world and non-existent beings can't be omnipotent, it follows that a maximally great being exists in every logically possible world." If, then, a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world, to include our actual world.

Is it logically possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world? Plantinga thinks so. To think this is not possible one would have to show that the concept of "maximally great being" is logically contradictory, like "square circle." Therefore, the concept of a "maximally great being" is logically possible; i.e., possibly instantiated. It follows, therefore, that a maximally great being (i.e., God) exists in every possible world.

Himma now formulates Plantinga' argument as follows:

1. The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent.

2. If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

3. Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

4. If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great being (i.e., God) exists in every logically possible world.

As P2 affirms, maximal greatness entails existence in every possible world. If it is possible that such a being exists in one possible world, then it exists in every possible world. Since our world is a possible world, God exists in our world.

See Himma's entire essay for more, including objections.

Covenant

 

                                                                            (In Israel)

I'm now reading Old Testament scholar John Walton's book Covenant: God's Purpose, God's Plan. Anyone desiring to take a very deep dive into the nature and purpose of biblical "covenant" would do well to begin here. It's hard to imagine anyone who knows more than Walton about this subject.

Here's a juicy quote from my readings today.

"Christ as the new Torah fulfills the covenantal Torah in the sense that he carries out all that the former was ever meant to be... 

Christ is the new Torah within the new covenant...

In Christ, the covenant relationship is redefined, but the basic thrust of the covenant has not changed. Now the character of God is revealed not through legislative examples of how a godly person will act, but by God’s Son who came and lived among us. The map has been replaced by a guide. That does not make the map wrong, but a guide makes a map unnecessary."

(Pp. 176-177)

Not Trying to Convert Anyone

                                                             (Happy birthday, Dennis!)

"I have never converted anybody. 

Only Christ can change the course of a man’s life" 

Billy Graham

In my praying time this afternoon I found myself pondering my life, so far, up to the present moment. As I get older I am doing that more and more.

The thought comes to me that I am not trying to convert people to the good news of Jesus. But I am, with the best of whatever I have become, trying to present the good news to others with clarity, depth, and personal testimony. 

Trying to change people's hearts is mostly, if not entirely, undoable. But I can present the lure to the fish, and leave the results to the Lord of the harvest. I can fish. I can invite. I can't force the fish to take the bait. I can lead a fish to the hook, but I can't make them bite.

When, fifty-five years ago, the Holy Spirit came upon me, I became a convert and a witness for Jesus. I desire people to be found by Christ, as I have been found. I can witness to this greatest event in my life. Then, I can leave the converting to God.

Hell Inspires the Abusive Tongue

 

  (Lake Erie)

James 3:3-12 is about an out-of-control mouth that ruins Jesus-communities with untruths. In James, one of the problems is antinomianism; viz., the misguided idea that one can have faith without obedience to Christ. This is why James stresses that faith without deeds is dead. Our hearts and mouths are to be obedient to the ways of Jesus. 

James understands the power of words. He knows that such a small (micro) thing as the mouth can have mega-effects (megala) vastly disproportionate to its size. 

The tongue, writes James, is a fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. Divisive untruths, gossip, slander, flattery, and a critical spirit are rooted in evil.  (Slander is saying something behind a person's back that you would never say to their face; flattery is saying something to a person's face that you would never say behind their back.)

New Testament scholar Scot McKnight writes, "Hell inspires the abusive tongue." (McKnight, James, 286) Words that tear down rather than build up, words of hatred rather than love, words showing favoritism of one person over another, all rise out of a heart in touch with hell.

Why such strong language? After all, doesn't the old proverb apply here? "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." To the contrary, "Far easier to heal are the wounds caused by sticks and stones than the damage caused by words." (Moo, in McKnight, James, 286)

James ramps up the intensity when he writes: "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness." 

For James this is crazy, because it means blessing a person with your words, and then cursing the same person with your words. "Cursing” is a failure to see in one another God’s image. (David Nystrom, James) This is why James adds, "who have been made in God's likeness." 

If you curse a person you are cursing God’s image in that person. Thus, we have the contradiction:

1. I praise God.

2. I curse God (via cursing people who are made in the image of God).

This is the incongruous "double-mindedness" James warns about. He is addressing Christians who praise God with their mouths on Sunday mornings, and on Sunday afternoons brutalize people on social media. Or in their homes. 

Cursing is tearing down the image of God in other people. N. T. Wright writes that if "someone turns out to be pouring out curses – cursing other humans who are made in God’s likeness – then one must at least question whether their heart has been properly cleansed, rinsed by God’s powerful spirit. And if that isn’t the case, that person is getting their real inspiration from hell itself." 

How can our mouth be healed of its abusive ways? The answer for James, and his biological brother Jesus, is by focusing on the mouth's source, which is the heart. To rescue your mouth, focus on your heart. Let your heart align with the heart of Jesus. If your heart is pure, your words will be pure. Nystrom writes:

“Jesus understood actions to be revelatory of character, as the saying “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit” attests. He also believed our speech to be revelatory of character, which is the essential point being made here. Our speech comes from the heart.”

So what can we do? I like how Oswald Chambers directs us. He writes:

"Jesus says that there is only one way to develop spiritually, and that is by concentration on God. “Do not bother about being of use to others; believe on Me” [ pay attention to the Source], “and out of you will flow rivers of living water. We cannot get at the springs of our natural life by common sense, and Jesus is teaching that growth in spiritual life does not depend on our watching it, but on concentration on our Father in heaven. Our heavenly Father knows the circumstances we are in, and if we keep concentrated on Him we will grow spiritually as the lilies."

The message of James 3:3-12 is that, while humanity has failed to tame the human tongue, God can tame our mouth, as we abide in him.

***

My books are:

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

31 Letters to the Church on Discipleship

31 Letters to the Church on Praying

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

***

Anyone remember this?

Truth Excludes (as does every community)

 

Downtown Monroe

Humans are tribal. We need to belong to groups. We crave bonds and attachments, which is why we love clubs, teams, fraternities, family. Almost no one is a hermit. Even monks and friars belong to orders. But the tribal instinct is not just an instinct to belong. It is also an instinct to exclude.

Yale Law professor Amy Chua

From her book Political Tribes

Former USC philosopher Dallas Willard writes:

"There is a certain logical exclusiveness built into knowledge as such, and it must be respected... This is due to the fact that knowledge (not mere belief, commitment, sentiment, or tradition) involves truth. Truth by its very nature is exclusive in the following sense. If any belief is true, that by itself excludes the truth of any belief contrary or contradictory to it. And this “exclusion” is not a matter of what anyone wants or hopes to be true or false. For example, if “Sue’s dress is red” is true, then “Sue’s dress is white” and “Sue’s dress is not red” are false. It does not matter what anyone may think or want. It is simply a matter of the objective logical relations between the beliefs (or statements or “propositions”) involved."
- Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge, pp. 170-171

Truth marginalizes. Truth excludes.

You have a worldview, a set of beliefs through which you interpret reality and experience. Your worldview excludes masses of people. 

Here is an example. 

When I was speaking in India, the hotel I stayed in had an altar in the lobby. Every morning a young Hindu priest, dressed in a white skirt, lit incense sticks on the altar, and offered prayers to the god of the hotel. This scene can be captured in the following statements:

1. There is a god who watches over the hotel.
2. Appeasing this god with the burning of incense and other sacrifices helps ensure that the hotel will succeed financially.
3. Uttering prayers of worship to this god increases the probability that the god will show favor towards the hotel.
4. To not perform #s 1 and 2 may cause the god of the hotel to be angry, and bring harm or disaster to it.

Take statement 1. If it is true, then I, who think it is false, am wrong. Such is the nature of truth. The Hindu priest knows something I do not. I am logically excluded from such knowledge.

I think statement 1 is false. If I am right, then statements 2-4 are false, since there exists no "god of the hotel" to be appeased.

It is not rude or impolite to talk like this. It is not disrespectful. Marginalization is epistemically unavoidable. Willard writes: 

"It is not arrogant and unloving merely to believe that you are right about something and that others are wrong... There have, after all, been many people who were strongly convinced of the rightness of their beliefs, in religious and other matters, without being arrogant and unloving." (Ib., 170)

What if you embrace the belief-system of postmodernism? And you claim, We can't know truth. I have two thoughts about that. 1) You just excluded me and all like me who believe we can know truth; and 2) You just made a truth claim which, on your postmodern thinking, is self-contradictory.

In embracing the truths of your worldview, you have excluded many. That's just the way truth works. 

FORGIVENESS: Some Resources

 

(Leading the Presence-Driven Church students, Faith Bible Seminary, NYC)

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

A QUIZ

Which one is the road to freedom?

a. to forgive

b. to nurture an offense

Linda and I are always talking with people about forgiveness. Here are  links to things I have written about forgiveness.

We all need it, and need to learn it, and practice it. 

For Jesus-followers, this is the heart and soul of the Gospel. 

I bless you all with hearts of forgiveness!

Why Is Self-forgiveness Harder than Forgiving Others?

Confess and Forgive

Self-Forgiveness and Liberation from the Past

To Forgive or to Punish?

Moving From Self-Hatred to Self-Forgiveness

Confession & Forgiveness: The Foundation of All Authentic Relationship

C&F (Confess & Forgive)

Sermon Notes - Forgiveness as a Gateway to Healing

Self-Forgiveness Often Includes Making Amends with Others

How to Forgive Yourself

Forgiving Others - Three Stages

The Best Book on Self-Forgiveness Is...

Are You a Forgiving Person? Take The Forgiveness Quiz

To Withhold Forgiveness is the Core Evil of the Kingdom of Darkness

***

For empirical research on the benefits and power of forgiveness, see Robert Enright's International Forgiveness Institute.

BOOKS

Lewis Smedes, Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don't Deserve

David Seamands, Healing for Damaged Emotions

Everett Worthington, Forgiving and Reconciling: Bridges to Wholeness and Hope

Worthington, Moving Forward: Six Steps to Forgiving Yourself and Breaking Free from the Past

Robert Enright, 8 Keys to Forgiveness (8 Keys to Mental Health)

Enright, The Forgiving Life: A Pathway to Overcoming Resentment and Creating a Legacy of Love

David Augsburger, Caring Enough to Forgive

Timothy Keller, Forgive: Why Should I and How Can I?