I Am Not a Marxist (and Know Why)

                              (I took this photo of a rare two-headed swan at Sterling State Park (Michigan))

I am not a Marxist.

No one, as of yet, has accused me of being a Marxist. 

I'm being cautious here. Because, in these times of heightened irrationality and jumping to unwarranted conclusions, someone, somewhere, will read my first sentence and post, on social media, that I am a Marxist.

Once again, I am not.

The term 'Marxism' is being used today, a lot. I am convinced that the great majority of persons who use this term do not know what it means. That is, if you could get a group of people together in a coffee shop. Sit them down. Drink some coffee. Let's say some of them claim affinity with Marxism, while others despise Marxism. Then, have them put their laptops and cell phones away. This is so they cannot google the answer to the question you are going to ask them. At this point, some will appear to have lost their mind.

The question you put to each of them is this. "On a piece of paper, answer the question 'What is Marxism?"" Most will be unable to answer this. Even though they claim to be either for it, or against it. If that is true, doesn't it strike you as odd? It would be like your doctor telling you that you have a ventricular septal defect. You ask your doctor, "What is that?" Your doctor replies, "I don't know. Let me google it."

As a philosophy professor, I have done this kind of exercise with many students over decades. Not just with 'Marxism,' but with an assortment of hot-button terms. Like 'postmodernism.'

In 1977 my seminary theology professor asked me to teach a seminary class on contemporary views of man (personhood). I accepted. I presented a biblical view of humanity, after teaching philosophies such as postmodernism and, yes, Marxism. (Note: just because I taught the Marxist view of humanity does not mean I am a Marxist.)

Thus began decades of studying, on and off, the competing philosophical anthropologies. This has proven valuable to me, since, arguably, the issue of personal identity is the issue of the day. I have read a stack of books and articles on the matter of human identity. I have taught on this issue. And, I embrace the beauty and supremacy of the Christian understanding of personhood.

Which means,

I am not a Marxist. 

Do you understand just what I am here denying? Without googling it? Maybe. Here I give you the benefit of my doubt.

As for me, as best I can, I keep studying. And, I google things I don't know about or don't understand. I recently finished Eric Fromm's Marx's Concept of Man. Here's an example from Fromm, quoting Marx.

"Marx described his own historical method very succinctly: “The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the reproduction of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather, it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.”

If you understand this, then perhaps you can see why (I say again) I am not a Marxist. 

It seems important to first understand, and only after understanding, to evaluate. Some of you are students. I now encourage you to become students of what you are either affirming or denying. This will mean going slow. It will mean refraining from speaking on a subject that you don't yet adequately understand. It will mean, when you're discussing some hot topic, you may say, humbly, "I don't know enough yet to speak on that."

As for those who think they understand Marxism, Fromm is pessimistic. He writes:

"It is one of the peculiar ironies of history that there are no limits to the misunderstanding and distortion of theories, even in an age when there is unlimited access to the sources; there is no more drastic example of this phenomenon than what has happened to the theory of Karl Marx in the last few decades. There is continuous reference to Marx and to Marxism in the press, in the speeches of politicians, in books and articles written by respectable social scientists and philosophers; yet with few exceptions, it seems that the politicians and newspapermen have never as much as glanced at a line written by Marx, and that the social scientists are satisfied with a minimal knowledge of Marx. Apparently they feel safe in acting as experts in this field, since nobody with power and status in the social-research empire challenges their ignorant statements." (Fromm wrote these words in 1961.)

***

If this post interests you and you want more, you must read Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise. 

Plus, I recently googled "best ways to bake a potato in the oven." Because I did not know (we always microwave baked potatoes). After I just wrote that sentence, I googled 'plural form of potato'. Is it with an 'e', or without an 'e'. Because I was uncertain.

What Is "Progressive Christianity?"

 

Someone asked me this week about "progressive Christianity." I'm glad they asked, because I've read, for decades, authors who are said to be aligned with progressive Christianity.

My brief answer is: Progressive Christianity is not Real Christianity.

Why would I say that?

Because of what authors associated with Progressive Christianity declare. (Note: I am concerned with their core, dogmatic beliefs. Of course someone who calls themselves a progressive Christian can make some good statements, and ask some good questions.)

For example, John Shelby Spong. I read Spong in the 1980s. He got some attention because he denied the historical resurrection of Jesus. For Spong, Jesus was not, in history, raised from the dead.

Pause here. 

The resurrection of Christ is core, essential Christianity. Like C.S. Lewis wrote, the resurrection is Mere Christianity.

Were someone to try and sell me a car that had no engine, I'd say it's not a real car. By analogy, do not try to sell me a "Christianity" without a resurrection." The apostle Paul thinks similarly in 1 Corinthians 15:13-18. He writes:

13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Put existentially, if I did not believe in the historical resurrection of Christ, there is no way on this planet that I would self-identity as a Christian.

And, I have studied the historicity of the resurrection since 1970, when William Lane Craig was my campus pastor. My PhD dissertation at Northwestern University employed German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg's reasoning about the resurrection. 

While I am not to judge, I cannot help but wondering if someone who denies the resurrection is not actually a Christian. Since Paul, again, writes in Romans 10:8-9, If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I've got two of Spong's books on my shelf. I read them, years ago. If this is progressive Christianity, then it's not actual Christianity.

John Hick is another writer often associated with progressive Christianity. Hick is famous (in philosophy of religion, at least) for his argument for Universalism; namely, that there are many paths to God, and that all eventually will be saved. I read his materials in the 1980s, and taught them in my MCCC Philosophy of Religion classes. Also, my friend Bill Craig did one of his two PhDs under John Hick.

Is Progressive Christianity universalistic? It seems so. Here's a website called progressivechristianity.org. The website lists "8 Points of Progressive Christianity."  

Point number 2 is this:

"We affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience “God,” the Sacredness, Oneness and Unity of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom, including Earth, in our spiritual journey."

There are so many things non-Christian in this dogmatic statement that I don't know where to begin. Note how "God" is in italics. Why? Because the word "God" is just one way of pointing to something, whatever, maybe "Oneness," which smells like metaphysical monism, even pantheism.

My academic studies tell me it is foolish to try to conflate the major religions. On this see (the Non-Christian scholar) Boston U's Stephen Prothero's God Is Not One. Prothero convincingly and correctly argues that the idea that the major world religions are different paths leading up the same mountain is sophomoric.

The claim of Christianity is that - like it or not - Jesus is the only Way to God. Any reductionist, or deconstructionist version of Christianity is not, as I see things, the real thing. And, as Prothero admits, even though he is not a Christian, it is insulting to the world religions. Even unloving towards them. 

Walking hand-in-hand with a denial of the resurrection and a belief in universalism is an eisegetical misreading of the Bible. The Bible becomes a pretext for what culture moves one to believe, rather than an authoritative narrative. (On this see, e.g., N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today.) Progressive Christians have a low view of the Bible. I read them as reading into the biblical texts that current "evolving" beliefs of culture. On the other hand, I, and many New Testament scholars, are involved in a renaissance of historical Jesus studies. In many ways, this is a wonderful time to be a New Testament scholar! (And, BTW, the Bible is not just a collection of poems. For example, the four gospels are widely acknowledged as examples of ancient biographies. That is their literary genre, and they are to be read that way.)

Point #5 on the progressive Christianity website is this:

"Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning with an open mind and open heart, than in absolutes or dogma."

As a philosopher, this is puzzling, even eliciting a smile. This belief statement is an absolute. This is progressive Christian dogma. And, no, “questions” are not of “more value” than answers. See, e.g., science. In science, questions may lead to answers. The quest of science is not to simply question, but to discover answers. (Any student of the philosophy of science knows that "dogma" exists in science. See, for example, Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)

I find this entire belief (it's a statement, and statements are beliefs) incoherent, even though flowery and poetic.

More could be said, e.g., about Nadia Boltz-Weber's progressive Christianity and her affirmation of nonmarital sex, attempting to use the Bible to support nonmarital sex. Because, believe it or not, to abstain from sex before the wedding night might make the wedding bed more challenging. As if that was the point of it all, right? 

Bolz writes, "Why do you think it is that the church has tried to control human sexuality so much throughout the ages?" Wow. The fallacy here is that the question assumes the church has tried to control human sexuality through the ages. Such a broad, sweeping claim cannot be historically supported. As if people like myself, who embrace sexual purity before marriage, are doing this because we are trying to control people - ha!

I see progressive Christianity as not fitting into the biblical text, but reinterpreting the Bible through the lens of an ever-evolving culture. "Ever-evolving" seems to be a popular term for progressive Christians. So, because history demonstrates ethical cycles, perhaps Puritanism will one day make a comeback, and be popular. If that happens, I assume some ever-evolving Christians will embrace it. And the Puritan Christians will attack the Progressive Christians as being outdated and controlling. This is possible, since in naturalistic evolutionary theory "evolving" has nothing to do with necessary "progress" towards a desired goal.

If this is at all close to the truth, I confess that I cannot affirm the core dogmas of progressive Christianity. For ethical, existential, and intellectual reasons. 

And, in my study of history, I find nothing "progressive" about it at all.

johnpiippo@msn.com

And, BTW, I have read certain progressive Christians who mock evangelical Christianity. That's people like me. Not very loving, or "progressive," right? So I recommend - go deeper than the labels.

For Jesus-Followers: How to Discuss Same-Sex Unions

 

Friday, September 01, 2017

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

Cloud formation, Monroe County

- 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 agree with? I don't believe so (I do have problems; I'm not always as loving as I should be.)

"I don't agree with your beliefs" does not equal "I am filled with hate." If that were true, all of us would hate everyone, even our own selves. 

How do I think about these two beliefs? 

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 largely irrelevant, except as they find their roots in Christian theism.)

This process is a slow-cooker. In my case it has spanned five 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 - from the Christian standpoint - 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, Michael Brown, 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." 

Me too. 

Pray for America, and the Church

 (I posted this on Sept. 28, 2018.)

Friday, September 28, 2018

Pray for America

Recently I was watching a professional sporting event. One team was not doing well. A few of the players were turning on each other. One player was in the face of the coach, angrily pointing his finger and shouting obscenities. This team is in trouble.

Years ago I did a weekend conference at a church. As I spoke the first evening, the people seemed attentive and friendly. But below the surface there was tension. Some of the leaders were fighting. Anger levels were high. Conflict was losing the day. This church was in trouble, perched on the precipice of ruin.

Linda and I are privileged to meet with many marital couples. Sometimes we engage in healing these relationships. When a marital couple cannot coexist in loving unity (not total uniformity), their marriage is in trouble. Hopelessness occupies their house.

Jesus understood this when he said,

Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, 

and a house divided against itself will fall.

Luke 11:17

It's morning in an America that is deeply divided against itself. If America remains this way, it will be ruined. If America remains this way, it will fall.

To my fellow followers of Jesus: Let us pray for America. For our leaders. 

More specifically, pray for our churches, 

that they would be awakened and revived to exemplify communicating the truth in love, 

that they would seek first God's kingdom before all earthly powers, 

that God would come upon us in heavenly power,

and that the Church would rise up, 

for such a time as this.

***
My two books are:

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God. 

Leading the Presence-Driven Church.

I'm now writing:

How God Changes the Human Heart

Linda and I then plan to write our book on Relationships. 

Devotion to Accumulation Produces Endless Dissatisfaction

(Our back yard)

I have been re-reading political economist Robert Skidelsky's and philosopher Edward Skidelsky's killer book How Much Is Enough? Money and the Good Life. Connections between the Skidelskys' analysis of American money hunger and the words of Jesus pop up all over the place.

Isn't every culture money hungry? The correct answer is: No. There are cultures where more and more money is not the good life. They write:

"Aristotle’s vision of the good life may be parochial, but his assumption that there is a good life, and that money is merely a means to its enjoyment, has been shared by every great world civilization except our own." (P. 78) Read this book and watch the Skidelsky's back this up.

World-historical civilizations followed, largely, Aristotle's idea that life has a telos, a purpose, an "end" beyond which there was not "more" to be sought after. This goes logically with the idea of a contentment, a satisfaction, a resting place in life that is to be enjoyed for its own sake. Relate this to the Christian idea that the telos of life is the love and enjoyment of God, in which the faithful find their rest. "Rest" here is not to be equated with apathy or lethargy or "doing nothing," but rather an active state of being that is no longer wasting its activity in the pursuit of "more."

Skidelsky writes: "it is our own devotion to accumulation as an end in itself that stands out as an anomaly, as something requiring explanation." (p. 78) We Americans are the wacked-out ones who are inseminating other cultures with the seed of greed.

We are the restless, overworked culture. Compare American work hours with, e.g., European work hours to see how Europe is still indebted to Artistotle. Thus "work for the ancient Greeks was strictly a means to an end, so not even a contender for the title of good life. Only activities without extrinsic purpose— above all philosophy and politics, both conceived non-instrumentally— could make it onto the short list. These attitudes were to leave a long legacy, as we shall see." (p. 73)

This legacy was picked up in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, who wrote: “The desire for material things as they are conducive to an end is natural to man. Therefore it is without fault to the extent that it is confined within the norms set by the nature of that end. Avarice exceeds these limits and is thereby sinful.” (Quoted in Ib., p. 79, from Aquinas's Summa Theologica)

In Aristotle, and Aquinas, and in Jesus and Paul, the idea of an "end" or "telos" is precisely not the sort of thing one would ever want "more of." But in a culture of no ends and limitless consumption, such as ours, there can never be "rest" and "enjoyment" and - note this carefully - "fulfillment." In this case the "desire for more" is the enemy of fulfillment.

**
My three 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)

I'm currently writing:

Transformation: How God Changes the Human Heart

Then, the Lord willing, 

Technology and Spiritual Formation

Linda and I then intend to write our book on Relationships.

HOW TO TALK with OTHERS about HARD SUBJECTS

Keep the Sabbath Day Holy

 

                                           (Our church building)

When I was growing up, in the 1950s (!!!), stores closed on Sundays. There was no shopping. No buying and selling. In Rockford, Illinois, even restaurants were closed. There were no kids sports leagues on Sunday mornings. We did sports on the other days of the week. Why not? Because Sunday was called "the Sabbath." This was a different world!

And, we always went to the church building to gather with the church (church = people of God). After all, God's Word says we are to "remember the Sabbath day, and keep it set apart for God" (= "keep it holy"). We did.

This Sabbath idea got deep inside me. It made, and still makes, sense to me. So, Linda and I have always kept the Sabbath. We don't miss gathering when the church meets. Ever. Except, perhaps, if we are traveling on vacation. Or one of us is sick. But even then, "sabbath" is in our DNA. It affects how we live during the other six days of the week.

John Comer writes:

"The Sabbath isn’t just a twenty-four-hour time slot in your weekly schedule; it’s a spirit of restfulness that goes with you throughout your week. A way of living with “ease, gratitude, appreciation, peace and prayer.” A way of working from rest, not for rest, with nothing to prove. A way of bearing fruit from abiding, not ambition. 

As Walter Brueggemann said so eloquently: "People who keep Sabbath live all seven days differently." (Comer, The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry, p. 172)

Prayer and Detoxifying

My book on Prayer is available HERE.

Pastoral Leaders - Let Christ's Mindset Be in You

 

(8/25/20)

This is from Dallas Willard, with slight editing.

LEADERS HAVE THE MINDSET OF CHRIST

• Leaders with Christ know they do not exercise leadership for their own gratification.
• Power is not a prize.
• Position is not for personal gain - in any respect.
• The objective is not to get or hold onto position.
• Leading is not something we need to make us okay.
• My self-esteem is not tied to success as a leader.
• I am abundantly cared for, because I am in companionship with Jesus.
• Who leads is God's business.
• As we follow Jesus, fear of failing to keep our position does not cross our minds.
• We lead, entirely free of this world's ideas about success.

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus. 

Philippians 2:3-5

This is the mindset of Christ. 

Identity # 19 - The Overcomer

 

                                                                 (Grand Haven, Michigan)

In John 16 Jesus tells his apprentices that what he has just taught them (chapters 14 and 15) is to prepare them for suffering that will be coming their way, as they proclaim the message of the gospel.

In 16:1-4 Jesus says,

“All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them."

More precisely, just what has Jesus taught the apprentices? He has instructed them to live an abiding life, a connected-to-Jesus life, as a branch is connected to a vine. As they are connected, their lives will bear much fruit. But, should they disconnect, they are "worthless." (Jesus said this, not me, in 15:6.)

It was a dangerous time to be a follower of Jesus. Yet, the disciples are, in reality, overcomers. God has made his home in them. 

In Galatians 2:20 Paul echoes this reality, as he writes, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." And, Jesus is "the one who overcomes the world." (16:33)

Dallas Willard writes,

"As God’s redemptive work progresses, communion with God advances to union with God. When the progression is complete we can truly say, “It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20 NRSV) and “For to me, living is Christ” (Philippians 1:21 NRSV). When communion advances into union, the sense of “mine” and “thine” may often be absent. There is only “ours.”" (Willard, Hearing God Through the Year: A 365-Day Devotional, p. 224)

Today we face a pandemic, racial tension, economic uncertainties, violence in our city streets, school closings, and more. Yet, in the midst of these swirling, chaotic waters, Christ, the Overcomer, resides in the depths of our being. You, and I, belong to him. He is the Vine, we are the branches. Thus, we share in his being, his character, his glory, his power.

His overcoming.

I am an overcomer. You too, in Christ.

This is what Paul echoes when he says, "I can do all things, in Christ, who strengthens me!"

***

My two books are...

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

I am now writing How God Changes the Human Heart