Brothers, let us love with our words

When it comes to sin, Christians often get the most exercised about avoiding the “biggies.” For many in the conservative wing of Christianity, that means a preoccupation with certain behaviors that should be avoided. Those behaviors are summed up in the familiar rhyme:

I don’t smoke, drink, cuss, or chew
And I don’t go around with people who do.

Yet the reductionism of this formula (whose biblicity will have to be discussed at another time), like many other kinds of behavior modification theories, fails to shed any light on some of the darker corners of our hearts that we don’t like for anyone to see. It is these cherished and concealed peccadillos that truly threaten to destroy us as individuals and as a fellowship of believers.

One such sin that often slips in under the radar unnoticed is gossip. To engage in gossiping means to give “a report (often malicious) about the behavior of other people.” The Bible has many terms for this kind of behavior: slander (Ps 15:2; Mk 7:22), gossip (2 Cor 12:20); backbiting tongue (Prov 25:23), to name a few. All of these describe one’s using their words to speak out against another in a way that defames, belittles, or misrepresents them, and it is roundly condemned by God (Lev 19:16; Prov 10:18; Ps 140:11). Indeed, the wise man knows that, “He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip” (Prov 20:19).

Yet gossip is one of those besetting sins that ensnare all of us at some time or another. The reason for this indulgence often emerges as willingness to capitulate to the worser angels of our nature. Proverbs 18:8 says, “The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body” (cf. Prov 26:22). This text simply means that we like to hear the whisperings of a gossip. We like to “get the goods” on other people, especially when there’s dirty laundry involved. Somehow it makes us feel really good to listen to and to dole out “the dainty morsels” that defame others.

In our relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ, this evil proclivity accounts for much of what is wrong with our churches. When we get offended by a brother or are scandalized by the behavior of a sister, we immediately gather others around to tell them about the grievous misdeeds of the wayward so that we can “pray” for them.

Yet this is clearly not the ethic that Jesus commended for us. One of the ways that we love each other is to follow strictly the mandates of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17:

“15 And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.”

Jesus sets forth very plainly a three-step process for what we are to do when we are offended or scandalized by the behavior of a brother or sister. The first step in that process consists in going and confronting the offender in private. Notice that Jesus does not say, “Go gather a bunch of other believers together and tell them your beef with your brother so they can pray for you.” No, the directive is to keep the matter private for as long as possible so that you can “win” your brother. The sad thing is that we often ignore Jesus in our relationships. We like to go public first by gossiping, and then to put off as long as possible the confrontation with the offending brother. This is the opposite of what Jesus commands, and it is the opposite of love.

So my exhortation is that we love one another with our words. Often, love calls us to hold back our words, to keep back those would-be “dainty morsels.” Sometimes the best thing to do is to just keep quiet. “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise” (Prov 10:19). At other times, it will be necessary to say the words in love to the brother who has offended, even if the words bring confrontation. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov 27:6). In any case, the question that governs our behavior is not, “What do I want to do?,” but “What would love have me do?”

So brothers, let us love with our words.

6

The Purpose-Driven Resurrection

I am reading The Purpose-Driven Life along with other members of my church in a 40-day study of Rick Warren’s blockbuster book. The book contains both positives and negatives. On the positive side, no serious Christian could argue with the main points of the book, which are but a summary of what every Christian should be about: worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and evangelism. Rick Warren is right on target with these as they are clear imperatives that appear in different ways throughout scripture.

There are, however, certain drawbacks to this best-seller that one would do well to pay attention to. Warren’s frequent proof-texting sometimes runs roughshod over the context of the verse in question with the result that one is sometimes left with a less-than-accurate understanding of the biblical writer’s real intention.[1] The use of paraphrased versions of the Bible (New Living Translation, The Message) also leaves much to be desired.[2]

In this essay, I would like to focus on one particular area of concern. Warren appears to embrace a kind of dualism that is frequently heard in popular evangelical preaching today. In chapter 4, Warren explains that people are “made to last forever,” and he embarks upon an explanation of the nature of the eternal state. He writes: “One day your heart will stop beating. That will be the end of your body and your time on earth, but it will not be the end of you. Your earthly body is just a temporary residence for your spirit” (p. 37). This passage seems to suggest that our non-physical self (the soul) is eternal while our physical self (the body) is only temporary. A mind/body dualism emerges here that is foreign to the Bible. Warren quotes 2 Corinthians 5:6 to explain the different mode of existence which believers have in “heaven”: “Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.” From Warren’s explanation of this text, one is left with the impression that our future mode of existence in heaven is non-physical, being characterized by not having a physical body.

Yet this is not at all what Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. In fact, Paul is teaching quite the opposite. Paul is arguing that our ultimate hope is that God will resurrect the bodies of believers after they die. The eternal state is very much a physical state. In the eternal state, Christians will not be “unclothed” (2 Cor 5:4), but will have put on the clothing of a new resurrected, glorified body.

This hope of resurrection is actually the center of New Testament hope. Christians are supposed to look forward not only to heaven, but to resurrection. That is why Paul urged the Thessalonians who were burying their loved ones who had died: “13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess 4:13-16 NIV). Paul encouraged the Thessalonians who were grieving the death of their loved ones by telling them that God would resurrect their bodies just like He resurrected Jesus’ body.

One of God’s purposes for Jesus’ resurrection is that believers should look to Christ’s resurrection as an example of what He will do for them in the future. Consider Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:16-22: “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 to be pitied more than all men. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Paul’s argument is that if Christ has not been resurrected then believers won’t be resurrected either. He simply assumes that resurrection is what all Christians should be looking forward to after death.

In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 Paul uses the doctrine of resurrection to refute those who say that the physical body is morally irrelevant to God. Paul argues that the believer’s body is not for immorality but for the Lord because the Lord will one day raise up the believer’s body just as Jesus’ body was raised. Indeed, the physical body is called “the temple of the Holy Spirit.” No dualism here. In fact, Paul is arguing against the very kind of mind/body dualism that has become so prevalent in the modern day.

We would all do well to keep in mind a purpose-driven resurrection. God’s ultimate purpose for the believer is that they should glorify Him forever in resurrected physical bodies. He wants us to believe His promise that we will be raised just as Jesus was. We won’t be like Casper the friendly ghost, disembodied “spirits” roaming to and fro upon the clouds. We will be ourselves again, as God always intended for us to be: whole, physical, sinless, perfected, glorifying him. Until we fix our eyes on that hope, we are hoping in something less than what God purposes for us.
__________________________
[1]In chapter 4, Warren completely misinterprets 1 Corinthians 2:9, which he quotes from the Living Bible: “No mere man has ever seen, heard or even imagined what wonderful things God has ready for those who love the Lord.” Warren uses this verse to make the point that the human mind cannot comprehend what heaven will be like (p. 38). Yet when considered in context, 1 Corinthians 2:9 is clearly not talking about heaven, but about the cross of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:24). Indeed it is the wisdom that is “hidden” from the rulers of this age (1 Cor 2:7). Yet this wisdom has been revealed to believers “through the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:10). Paul’s point is not that something has been hidden from Christians but that something has been revealed to them that is not revealed to others. Christians can see and enjoy the wisdom of God in the cross. So Warren has completely misunderstood this text. Christians do in fact understand “what wonderful things God has ready for those who love the Lord.” As a matter of fact, this is what distinguishes believers from unbelievers. Believers “get it,” and unbelievers don’t.
[2]There are many examples throughout the book. Consider Warren’s argument in chapter 12 on “Developing Your Friendship with God.” In this section, Warren claims that a healthy friendship with God includes “accusing” God when one is not pleased with what God does. Warren uses Moses’ words in Exodus 33:12-17 from The Message to bolster his point: “‘Look, you tell me to lead this people but you don’t let me know whom you’re going to send with me. . . . If I’m so special to you, let me in on your plans. . . . Don’t forget, this is YOUR people, your responsibility. . . . If your presence doesn’t take the lead here, call this trip off right now! How else will I know that you’re with me in this, with me and your people? Are you traveling with us or not? . . .’ God said to Moses, ‘All right. Just as you say; this also I will do, for I know you well and you are special to me.’” (quoted on pages 93-94). Does The Message really capture the content and tone of the conversation between God and Moses in this text? Compare that translation to the one found in the NASB, the translation widely regarded by scholars to be the most literal English translation: “12 Then Moses said to the Lord, ‘See, Thou dost say to me, “Bring up this people!” But Thou Thyself hast not let me know whom Thou wilt send with me. Moreover, Thou hast said, “I have known you by name, and you have also found favor in My sight.” 13 Now therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found favor in Thy sight, let me know Thy ways, that I may know Thee, so that I may find favor in Thy sight. Consider too, that this nation is Thy people.’ 14 And He said, ‘My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest.’ 15 Then he said to Him, ‘If Thy presence does not go with us, do not lead us up from here. 16 For how then can it be known that I have found favor in Thy sight, I and Thy people? Is it not by Thy going with us, so that we, I and Thy people, may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the earth?’ 17 And the Lord said to Moses, ‘I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight, and I have known you by name.’” The Message makes it sound like Moses disrespects God, a notion that does not appear in the NASB.

8

Mohler Blasts McLaren and the Emergent Church Movement

I don’t know if you saw TIME magazine’s recent issue on the 25 most influential American evangelicals, but a pastor named Brian McLaren made the list. I saw McLaren interviewed on Larry King after the issue came out. The more McLaren talked, the more peeved I became. He was absolutely ridiculous in his inability to articulate any conviction on any important issue—except to say that other evangelicals are too hung up on dividing people with their beliefs.

R. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, just reviewed McLaren’s book A Generous Orthodoxy, and gave it the raking-over-the-coals that it deserves. He also comments on the so-called “Emergent” church movement and its insistence on a rejection of propositional truth. Therefore, I commend Dr. Mohler’s essay to you for your enjoyment and edification (see link below).

“A Generous Orthodoxy”—Is it Orthodox? – by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

0

Review of “Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates”

Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier, eds. Justification—What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004). ISBN: 0830827811. $23.00.

The ten papers appearing in this volume are selections from the conference on Justification held at Wheaton College Graduate school in April of 2003: “The Gospel, Freedom and Righteousness: The Doctrine of Justification.” One would think that a book such as this one, published at the time that this one was, would be all about the current debate over the so-called “new perspective” on Paul. This collection of essays, however, demonstrates that there is much more to the Justification debate than the quarrel about the character of first century rabbinic Judaism and its influence on the apostle to the Gentiles. These papers take up the question whether imputed righteousness is “fictive, forensic or transformative” (p. 7). The book divides into four parts: (1) Justification and Biblical theology, (2) Justification and the Crisis of Protestantism, (2) Justification in Protestant Traditions, and (4) Justification and Ecumenical Endeavor. Continue Reading →

3

Review of “Making Sense of the New Testament”

Craig L. Blomberg, Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2004). ISBN: 0801027470. $14.99.

Craig Blomberg’s Making Sense of the New Testament is published as a companion volume to Tremper Longman’s 1998 book, Making Sense of the Old Testament: Three Crucial Questions. In the current volume, Blomberg sets out to identify “three crucial questions” that must be answered by anyone who wishes to consider the truth-claims of the New Testament. In chapter 1, he sets out to answer the question of whether the New Testament presents a reliable historical portrait of Jesus. Here he takes up the old question of whether the Christ of history resembles the Christ of the scriptures. Blomberg concludes that the historicity of the Gospels and Acts is confirmed by sound evidence and that accepting their historical claims does not require a leap of faith. Blomberg does a good job of taking the reader step-by-step through the evidence, and in the end produces a very convincing apologetic for the veracity of the Gospels and Acts.

In chapter 2, Blomberg takes up the controversial question whether Paul was the true founder of Christianity. He queries whether the teaching of Jesus can be reconciled with the teaching of the great apostle to the Gentiles: “Was Paul, in fact, the second founder, or perhaps even the true founder of Christianity as it has developed down the centuries?” (p. 15). In this section, Blomberg responds to the skeptical charge that Paul’s letters reveal a radical revision of the teachings of the historical Jesus. Blomberg does well to point out that Paul is aware of the Jesus traditions that were current in his day and that some of these traditions appear in his letters. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, for instance, Paul makes use of a tradition that was handed down to him by word of mouth. This tradition looks remarkably similar to Luke’s version of the Jesus’ words at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19-20). Paul and Luke’s use of a common oral tradition shows the antiquity of Paul’s theology of atonement and that he was concerned with the historical Jesus. Blomberg wrestles with other texts in Paul that allude directly or indirectly to Jesus’ teachings. Blomberg says that, “Theological distinctives between the two men remain, and the differing purposes of the Gospels and the Epistles must be taken into account” (p. 106). Thus, there is more evidence of continuity between Jesus and Paul than is commonly acknowledged by New Testament scholars, and the points of discontinuity can be explained by the different purposes of Paul the letter writer and the evangelists who wrote the Gospels.

In chapter 3, Blomberg considers how the New Testament applies to the modern day. He explores the various principles that govern the interpretation of the New Testament’s diverse literary forms. These include (1) determining the original application intended by the author of the passage, (2) evaluating the level of specificity of those applications to see if they should be or can be transferred across time and space to other audiences, (3) if they cannot be transferred, identifying broader cross-cultural principles that the specific elements of the text reflect, and (4) finding appropriate contemporary applications that embody those principles (p. 108). He then works out these principles in relation to the different sections of the New Testament canon: the Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, Hebrews and General Epistles, and the Revelation. The principles that Blomberg elucidates can provide a good starting-point for developing legitimate implications out of the author’s original meaning. One notices, however, that it is still unclear how one is to know when it is appropriate to move beyond the intention of the biblical author in applying the scripture. For example, on page 140 Blomberg says that the interpreter needs to “recognize that Paul lays down principles which could not be fully implemented in his world but which challenge later Christians to move even further in the directions he was already heading” (emphasis mine). This “further” idea sounds remarkably similar to William Webb’s “redemptive movement hermeneutic,” to which Blomberg refers in an extended footnote on pages 172-173. Webb’s hermeneutic appears to the present reviewer to be highly unstable and, in Webb’s application of it, favorable to an egalitarian reading of Paul.

In sum, Blomberg has produced a handy little primer on some of the basic questions that face the reader of the New Testament. There is not much new here for specialists in the field, but this book will be useful for beginning students of the New Testament at both the college and graduate levels. It is also useful as an apologetic tool for anyone who might be interested in evidence concerning the historical claims of the New Testament.

0

My Mentor John Piper and Romans 12:1-2

John Piper discipled me in my car when I attended Dallas Theological Seminary. I used to listen to his sermons as I would commute to and from work and school. Throughout my career in seminary, the Lord used John Piper to shape my thinking about God and the scriptures more than any single teacher that I ever had. I know of no preacher who combines exegetical, theological, and devotional depth like Dr. Piper. His ministry, which is called “Desiring God,” makes all of his sermons (manuscripts and audio) available for free at http://www.desiringgod.org/.

I am teaching on Romans 12:1-2 in a Sunday morning bible study at my church. As is normal for me, I draw on a number of different resources in preparing for my teaching. Five of John Piper’s sermons in particular have been tremendously helpful to me, stimulating not only my mind but also my heart. Therefore, I heartily recommend these sermons to you.

Build Your Life on the Mercies of God – by John Piper
Present Your Bodies as a Living Sacrifice to God – by John Piper
Do Not Be Conformed to This World – by John Piper
The Renewed Mind and How to Have It – by John Piper
What Is the Will of God and How Do We Know It? – by John Piper

5

State of the Union Address 2005

Article II, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution says that the President, “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Tonight, President Bush did just that, setting forth his vision and plan for the nation in a 53 minute address to the Congress.The most poignant moment in the speech occurred when he recognized the mother of slain soldier Byron Norwood, who was killed last year in Iraq during the attack on Fallujah. In an unscripted but emotionally powerful moment, the mother of the slain soldier leaned forward to embrace an Iraqi woman whose father was killed by Saddam Hussein. Even the President fought back tears as he watched this scene unfold in the gallery above him.

The most ambitious item on the President’s domestic agenda is his intention to overhaul Social Security. He irritated his opponents in Congress in this section of the speech, drawing loud heckles from the Democrat side of the aisle. The palpable tension in the room portends a gigantic political battle that is certain to unfold in the coming months. The President said tonight that benefits for people who are now 55 years old and older will not be affected by any of the proposed changes. The Democrats will ignore this in the coming months and will try to frighten seniors into thinking that Bush desires to cut benefits to current recipients of social security. This will be a bitter fight indeed.

I was encouraged to hear the President’s clear resolve to support a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex “marriage.” This commitment has been called into question of late. In an interview with the Washington Post last month, President Bush seemed to indicate that the amendment would not be a priority as long as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act stands unchallenged in the courts. The amendment was noticeably absent from the list of top-10 legislative priorities that Senator Bill Frist released on January 24.

A group of prominent religious conservatives (including James Dobson and Gary Bauer) responded to these developments by sending Karl Rove a letter threatening to withhold support for Bush’s social security plan if he doesn’t make the gay marriage ban a priority. The President’s spokesman came out shortly after and reaffirmed the President’s commitment to traditional marriage. I think he did well again tonight to reaffirm his support for the amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

I wish that the President would use the bully pulpit more effectively in defense of the unborn. I understand the political calculation that goes into his not attending the annual “March for Life” in person. What I don’t understand is why he doesn’t try to use speeches like the State of the Union to try and win Americans to the pro-life cause. At the “March for Life” on January 24, 2005, Bush phoned in his remarks and said that “a true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts.” If he really believes that hearts have to change, then he has to use the bully-pulpit to make the case for the pro-life cause. People will not change their minds on this issue unless they are compelled to do so by force of argument. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t done that yet.

Overall, this was a great speech.

0

My New Favorite Album: “Soul Still Remembers”


Pictured above: The Critics’ CD release concert in Shreveport, LA.

I’ve just posted a review of the the Critics‘ debut CD on the “CD Baby” website (click here). “Soul Still Remembers” really is my new favorite album, and the Critics are my new favorite band.

Musically, “Soul Still Remembers” deserves a place among the all-time greats. I am a fan of bands like Counting Crows, Vertical Horizon, and Train, and this album surpasses them all. A written review cannot do justice to the Critics by way of description. You simply have to buy this album and listen to it for yourself.

To enjoy the album as it was intended, you really have to buy the CD. The songs are not arranged willy-nilly, but actually appear in an intentional sequence. The CD jacket is printed like a book, complete with chapter divisions and endnotes. Each song comprises a chapter (or “canto”) in what is supposed to look like a book of poetry. And the lyrics are indeed poetry.

The lyrics portray the ruminations of an individual who is grappling with the issue of repentance, and each chapter opens up new vistas into the human condition before God. All of this is mixed with a profound understanding of the Word of God and how it describes our plight and salvation. Every time I reread these lyrics, there is a new insight that I hadn’t seen before.

One of my favorite songs of the album is “To Jeremiah,” a poem about the prophet and the Biblical book bearing his name. This song illustrates what is true of the rest of the pieces on the album; the lyrics can stand alone by themselves as poetry. Here’s “To Jeremiah”:

Sing to me, Jeremiah,
of pickled skin and cracked bones,
of wrists rusted by chains
and feet cut by the stony road
where lion and bear wait
to kill your view of faulty Zion,
stripped down from her hill.

Tell me, Jeremiah,
about this town with no King,
where you, pressed face-long to the ground,
taste your teeth broken down
for the least of these.
Women eat salty skin
boiled and baked within them,
in their own hands,
and the prophets lie
and see clever fantasies
to calm the captives.

Let me, Jeremiah,
bear the yoke while I’m young
that I might sit down and shut up
disgraced in my own ashes—
a “harlot-town’s son”—
so I can better know your hope
because, sir, I’ve seen your King.
Oh, Jeremiah sing,
for your King, at last, has come.

A new kingdom has come.

Do not delay. Make haste and add this album to your collection.

(When you visit the CD Baby website, listen to the following songs: “A Floor Below,” “Worse Than I Thought,” and “Soul Still Remembers.”)

Pictured below: Me (left) and the lead singer Myles Roberts (right) after the CD Release concert.

1

The Gender Wars and Harvard University

President of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, has gotten himself into a catfight because of comments he made recently at a session on the progress of women in academia organized by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass. Although there is no transcript of his remarks, he reportedly claimed “that the shortage of elite female scientists may stem in part from ‘innate’ differences between men and women.”[1]

He shared an anecdote about his daughter to illustrate the point. He once gave his daughter two trucks in an effort at “gender-neutral parenting.” His daughter soon began referring to one of the trucks as “daddy truck” and the other as “baby truck.”[2] The event led him to ponder whether there was any truth to the notion that certain proclivities are connected to gender. For his daughter, at least, despite his best effort it seemed clear that something inside her compelled her to play what little girls are often wont to play. His is the kind of observation that many parents make when they actually deal with reality and not with ideology. Boys and girls are different.

Not surprisingly, Summers’ concurrent analysis of the shortage of women in math and sciences was not received well by the dogmaticians of political correctness that inhabit the halls of academia. Indeed, at least one listener received his words as a personal vote of no confidence with respect to the role of women in the academy. Nancy Hopkins, a biology professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, actually got up from her seat in the middle of the speech and walked out. She said, “I felt I was going to be sick . . . My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow . . . I was extremely upset.”[3]

A faculty committee of Harvard University has responded to Summers’ remarks with a reprimand, saying that his words “did not serve our institution well. Indeed, they serve to reinforce an institutional culture at Harvard that erects numerous barriers to improving the representation of women on the faculty, and to impede our current efforts to recruit top women scholars. They also send at best mixed signals to our high-achieving women students in Harvard College and in the graduate and professional schools.”[4]

Dr. Summer’s remarks were hardly an assault on women or modern feminism. He has subsequently said that he did not mean to imply that women were mentally inferior or somehow less apt for scholarship in math and sciences than men are. His words were merely an observation concerning the differences between men and women. Yet the storm of controversy that has erupted reveals the extent to which feminist dogma has gripped the popular consciousness. One cannot even make the suggestion anymore that there are innate differences between boys and girls without causing an uproar.

It never ceases to amaze me how anti-feminine the feminist movement has become. At least in some of its more radical wings, the movement encourages females to pretend that there are no differences between men and women beyond the biological accidents of their anatomies. The practical effect of this ideology has not really been a thoroughgoing egalitarianism, but a suspicion of everything male. Ironically, women are encouraged to act less and less like women, and more and more like men. Who would have thought 100 years ago that the feminist movement would result in a suppression of traditional femininity? Yet this seems to be what has happened.

The controversy surrounding the Harvard President’s remarks reveals that there is still a pitched battle going on over the meaning of gender in our culture. Ultimately, this conflict can only be resolved by a willingness to listen to what the Creator of gender has to say about who we are and what he intends for us. As long as the feminists keep up their effort to shut Him out of the conversation, however, the fight will have to continue.
_________________________
[1]Washington Post, Wednesday, January 19, 2005; Page A02, accessed on-line: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html.
[2]Washington Post, Wednesday, January 19, 2005; Page A02, accessed on-line: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html.
[3]Ibid.
[4]New York Times, Wednesday, January 19, 2005, accessed on-line: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/education/19harvard.html.

0

The Demise of Sloan and the Fortunes of “Baylor 2012”

After the Board of Regents fell short by one vote last May to oust the President of Baylor University, opponents of Robert Sloan finally got their way on Friday without firing a shot. It was announced on Friday that Sloan would step down from the position of President and CEO of Baylor and move into the position of Chancellor. Though the public face of the transition appeared very amiable, it is an open secret that this transition was the result of pressure from opposition both within and without the University.

Sloan had become a lightning rod of sorts, advocating a vision for Baylor University that would make it a top-tier academic institution while maintaining a distinct Christian mission and identity. This vision is called “Baylor 2012.” In Sloan’s words, “Baylor University has the opportunity to become the only major university in America, clearly centered in the Protestant traditions, to embrace the full range of academic pursuits.”

In the November 2004 issue of First Things, Richard John Neuhaus expressed precisely what was at stake in this vision:

“The crux of the conflict at Baylor is over the nature of truth, and whether it is possible under evangelical Protestant auspices to build a world-class research university and thus provide a counterforce to the dreary history of the declension of Protestant (and Catholic) higher education from Christian seriousness, a declension powerfully narrated by James Burtchaell’s The Dying of the Light. . . . The cultural and intellectual influence of Christian higher education in this society has a lot riding on the bold, and predictably embattled, experiment underway at Baylor” (First Things, November 2004, pp. 71-72 ).

I fear that the vision of “Baylor 2012” will have a whole different character or be perhaps entirely lost without Sloan at the helm. However, I am reminded by a good friend that the glass may not be half empty, but half full. He writes:

“Don’t forget that the board is pretty well Sloan’s board. The chairman is a member of Prestonwood. Wouldn’t it be ironic if a greater than Sloan was elected President? Also, remember the Provost, who will run the school in the interim, is Dr. David Jeffrey, a Wheaton grad who has hired about half the present faculty, all of whom are conservative evangelical Christians who know how to integrate faith and learning. If this is a movement of God, not just of Sloan, who can stop it?”

I will be hoping and praying that my friend is right.

0

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes