Healing of Anger - Sermon by Tim Curry

You can listen to Tim Curry's sermon on "Healing Anger" HERE.

How to Formulate a Christian Perspective on Same-Sex Unions (and a Bit About The Nashville Statement)

Cloud formation, Monroe County

I'm re-posting this for a friend, who wanted to talk with me about The Nashville Statement. Especially, are the signers of the NS filled with "hate?" The answer is: No.

But this article calls the NS a "Manifesto of Hate." As a example, it cites these affirmations to show the signers of the NS are "mean-spirited and intolerant."
-Marriage is only between a man and a woman.
- Sexual relations outside of marriage are immoral.  

I affirm those two statements. Does this mean I am hateful, mean-spirited, and intolerant?

Am I a "mean-spirited bigot, filled with hate in my heart for those I do not understand"? I don't believe so (I do have problems; I'm not always as loving as I should be.)

This article exemplifies the worst of the same-sex dialogue. "I don't agree with your beliefs" = "I am filled with hate." Disagreement equals hate? I don't think so. I don't even feel hate towards the person who wrote this article. We have different beliefs, and different noetic frameworks, that give rise to and justify our beliefs. Anyone want to sit down over coffee and dialogue about that, minus name-calling?

***
What about the morality of same-sex unions? For a Jesus-follower the question is: Does God affirm sex-same unions? Here are the steps to take, as I see things. (BTW - our culture has already decided on this one. But in matters of Christian understanding, the moral pronouncements of the prevailing culture are irrelevant. This remains a discussable issue among Christians.)

This process is a slow-cooker. In my case it has spanned four decades of thinking, studying, researching, dialoguing, and praying. You probably do not have the time to do this. But note this: If you are mostly unfamiliar with the literature, then do not hastily judge me. (Like, "How hateful John is!")

Here's the template. 

STEP 1

On a scale of 0-10, how authoritative is the Bible for you (with '0' being no authority, and '10' being fully authoritative). This is the first matter that must be discussed, without which there will be no meaningful outcome.

STEP 1a

If the Bible has no authority, or very little authority, then the Christian discussion is over.

However, I am interested in the person who gives the Bible little or no authority. I want to ask them:

"What text (narrative) is authoritative for you? Have you thought about this?"

Again, if someone goes to Step 1a, then the intra-Christian discussion is over. But, since everyone has a worldview, a narrative they live by, what is theirs?

After years of teaching philosophy, I have concluded that few people understand and evaluate their worldview. And note: the rejection of all worldviews is itself a worldview. Like, e.g., the rejection of all metanarratives is itself a metanarrative (contra Foucault, et. al.).

STEP 1b

To say that the Scriptures have great authority is to say they guide and influence our faith and life.

STEP 2

We must handle the Word of God correctly, or rightly.

To do this requires study. Two good books on how to interpret the Bible are:

• Grasping God's Word: A Hand's On Approach to reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible
• How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth

That is, to enter more fully into this discussion at this point, one should have some understanding of principles of biblical interpretation. Everyone cannot invest decades of study into this. But it helps avoiding horrendous mistakes in reading the Scriptures. For example, context is important in the interpretation of anything, to include interpreting the Bible. Because a text without a context is simply a pretext to say what you want the text to say.

STEP 3

This is the question for follows of Jesus who give the Scriptures great authority.

As Craig Keener writes, "My primary vocation is as a Bible scholar, and I need to explain the text faithfully."

Correct. The issue here is: what does the biblical text say, as opposed to what we might wish the text would say.

This is why, e.g., what the prevailing cultural wisdom says is irrelevant to the interpreting of the Bible, and any text, for that matter.

STEP 3a

The person who ends up here must justify their interpretation of Scripture, and conclude that God affirms same-sex unions. They might find themselves agreeing with people like Dan Via (presents view #2) and Matthew Vines, et. al., for example.

STEP 3b

The person who ends up here must justify their interpretation of Scripture.

At this point I have long laid out my cards on the table. I'm with Keener (and N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, Tim Keller, Robert Gagnon, Wesley Hill, et. al) when he writes: "I believe that the biblical passages about homosexual behavior are fairly clear... most exegetes, whether they agree personally with Paul or not, still regard Romans 1 as disagreeing with homosexual practice... I would be happy to be persuaded otherwise, but so far it continues to appear to me that this is where the exegesis strongly points."

God Delusion #13 - The Ontological Argument

Way back in 2006 I made close to fifty posts on Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion. I mentioned the book tonight in my philosophy of religion class, in reference to Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence. 

Here's what I posted in 2006.

Dawkins' handling of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God shows that he does not understand the argument. Even his response that comes from his misunderstanding is poorly written and logically incoherent.

Here, briefly, I will show that and how Dawkins seems not to have a clue about OA. 

And note: to show that Dawkins' criticism of OA fails miserably should not be construed 

as my arguing that OA proves there is a God. To really enter into the philosophical dialogue 

re. OA, begin here.

Then, go here.

Then, here.

Now, some thoughts on Dawkins and what he writes about OA.

He calls OA an "infantile argument." But Dawkins does not understand OA (as we shall see). 

And note: Dawkins is an emotivist who loves ad hominem abusives. Such abusive 

emotivism adds nothing to his "argument" against OA.

Dawkins quotes Bertrand Russell as once saying, "Great Scott, the OA is sound!" 

What Dawkins misses is precisely why Russell would think this.

Dawkins quotes philosopher Norman Malcolm as critical of OA. It is true that Malcolm 

agreed with Kant that "existence is not a predicate." But Malcolm himself put forth 

a version of OA which can be attributed to Anselm. Anselm, says Malcolm, had two 

versions of OA, the second of which puts forth "necessary existence" as defeating 

Kant's objection. Dawkins "quote mines" Malcolm for his own purposes, perhaps not 

realizing that Malcolm actually supports Anselm's second version of OA as proving the 

existence of God. 

But all of this is simply common knowledge to philosophers, of which Dawkins is presumably 

ignorant.

Dawkins cites Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo, who offered a criticism of Anselm's OA. 

Dawkins then cites the supposed refutation by Douglas Gasking, which is similar, says 

Dawkins, to Gaunilo's objection. Gasking's idea that a most perfect being would be even 

more perfect if it created a universe without itself existing is a non-logical possibility, 

like "square circle." This because Anselm argues that it is greater to exist in extramental 

reality than in the mind alone. "Existence," for Anselm, is a great-making property; thus, it is 

more perfect to exist than to not exist.

Gaunilo thinks Anselm believes we can just imagine a most perfect 

"anything" and that thereby that thing must exist. Such as, e.g., a "most perfect island." 

But of course "existence" is not an essential attribute of "most perfect island," but arguably 

it is of "a being a greater than which cannot be conceived." Both Gaunilo and Gasking miss

 the point of Anselm's argument. Kant understood Anselm; they do not.

Dawkins closes his "refutation" of OA with some "funny 'proofs'" of God's existence. 

But no matter how entertaining Dawkins is, these add nothing to his "argument" against OA.

Dawkins, in arguing against OA, has set up a straw man, knocked it down, 

as his colleagues stand in awe of just how "bright" people can really be without God.

ONE-HOUR SEMINARY TONIGHT - Is Jesus the Only Way to God?

ONE-HOUR SEMINARY

"Why I Believe Jesus Is the Only Way to God"

Presentation followed by Q&A

Tonight, August 29

9-10 PM EST

Facebook Live

God Has Not Given Us a Spirit of Fear (Sermon)

Maumee Bay State Park, Ohio

My sermon - "God Has Not Given Us a Spirit of Fear" - can be heard HERE.

My Powerpoint notes are included.

Let Go (of What?) and Let God (Do What?) - The Presence-Driven Church

Saugatuck, Michigan

A key to the presence-driven life and presence-driven leadership is, simply, let God lead, and follow. This is easy to understand, hard to do, counter-controlling, and rare to find. This is because so many cannot handle the uncertainty and unknowing that is required (faith and trust).

This is crucial, because unless the Lord leads, we are going in vain, building in vain, doing in vain, speaking in vain.

Let go and let God. "Let go"... of what? Control! "Let God"... do what? Lead! Get your hands off the wheel and let God steer the ship.

Thomas Merton understood this. he wrote:

"This is my big aim—to put everything else aside. I do not want to create merely for and by myself a new life and a new world, but I want God to create them in and through me. This is central and fundamental...   I must lead a new life and a new world must come into being. But not by my plans and my agitation. (Merton, A Year with Thomas Merton, Kindle Locations 4356-4359)

***

I am nearing completion of my coming book Leading the Presence-Driven Church.

My first book is Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God.

Laptops and Texting Banned In My Classes

This fall I'm teaching one class in MCCC's Philosophy department: Philosophy of Religion. (I'm done teaching Logic after doing it for eighteen years.)

On my syllabus I put a skull and crossbones, with the words: No texting or laptops allowed in this class!

I am Bilbo Baggins, standing against the social media orcs. 

Most students do not know what to do if they cannot text while in class. This feels like a violation of their human rights. It's like I am cutting off body parts.

My response is: no one can learn philosophy as one of a multitude of ongoing tasks. In fact, no one can learn anything, to a deep degree, by multitasking. Multitasking is the enemy of all learning and all relationship.

Obsessive multitaskers are shallow people, hollow people. (See T.S. Eliot, "The Hollow Men.") Addicted to neural linking, they cannot go to the depths learning requires. (Call this omnimultitasking which, like the zika virus, produces tiny-headed offspring.) For example, no one can multitask Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological Argument for God's existence.

Nicholas Carr supports me here, nicely. He writes:

"A pair of Cornell researchers divided a class if students into two groups. One group was allowed to surf the Web while listening to a lecture. A log of their activity showed that they looked at sites related to the lecture's content but also visited unrelated sites, checked their e-mail, went shopping, watched videos, and did all the other things that people do online. The second group heard the identical lecture but had to keep their laptops shut. Immediately afterward, both groups took a test measuring how well they could recall the information from the lecture. The surfers, the researchers report, "performed significantly poorer on immediate measures of memory for the to-be-learned content." It didn't matter, moreover, whetrher they surfed information related to the lecture or completely unrelated content - they all performed poorly. When the reseachers repeated the experiment with another class, the results were the same." (Carr, The Shallows, Kindle, 2,236-43)

Blessed are the mono-taskers, for they shall see God. And, perhaps, learn some philosophy on the side.

My Philosophy of Religion Class at MCCC

Fisherman, on the river off my back yard.

Tonight I begin another Philosophy of Religion class at Monroe County Community College. I've stopped teaching logic (after seventeen years), and will enjoy backing off to one class.

This class excites me. I'm teaching material very familiar to me. My ongoing growth includes continuing study in this area.

I'll begin section one of the class, on Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God. Tonight - the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. I'll present Anselm's version, and may introduce students to the Modal Version of the Ontological Argument. Which is...

1. God is, by definition, a necessarily existent being.

2. A necessarily existing being is possible; i.e., it exists in some possible world, W.

3. Since it is true in W that this necessarily existing being exists, it is true in W that this being exists in every possible world.

4. The actual world is a possible world.

5. Therefore, a necessarily existing being exists in actuality.

Heads will be twisting tonight as I explain such things to my students. In this class I will teach students to think!

(For another version of the Modal Ontological Argument, see E.J. Lowe, "A Modal Version of the Ontological Argument," in Debating Christian Theism, Moreland, Meister, and Sweis, eds.) 

Why Do So Many Ministries Finish Poorly?

Downtown Monroe

Why do so many pastors, and ministries, finish poorly? Dallas Willard describes the sad process this way. (From The Great Omission, Kindle Location 1419. I'm mostly just quoting Willard - it's such good stuff.)

• Intense devotion to God by the individual or group brings substantial outward success.
• Outward success brings a sense of accomplishment.
• Outward success brings a sense of responsibility for what has been achieved - and for further achievement.
• For people looking on, the outward success is the whole thing.
• The sense of accomplishment and responsibility reorients vision away from God, and onto what we are doing and are to do. This happens usually to the applause and support of sympathetic people.
• The mission becomes the vision. It becomes what we are focused on.
• The mission and ministry is what we spend our thoughts, feelings, and strength upon.
• Goals occupy the place of the vision of God in our hearts. We find ourselves caught up in a visionless pursuit of various goals, to keep the thing going.

"This," writes Willard, "is the point at which service to Christ replaces love for Christ. The inward reality of love for God, and absorption in what He is doing, is no longer the center of the life, and may even become despised, or at least disregarded." (Ib.)

The effects of the initial fire of God are valued over the fire. "The fire of God in the human soul will always look foolish to those who like its effects but do not understand where those effects come from." (Ib.)

• At this point a pervasive consciousness of one's rights and perks may set in.
• The mission and its goals have replaced the original vision.
• The initial success of the movement has slowly replaced the treasure of Christ as the center of attention and devotion in their lives.
• The fall is complete.

Bob Sorge - God Could Have Left Job Alone

I'm re-posting this for N.