Albert Einstein, A/theist

The faith of Albert Einstein is a conundrum indeed, and in the course of reading, two contradictory views have come to my attention, both of which offer opinions as to his faith. Often in the course of an argument, assertions will be made about a certain historical figure's faith or lack thereof to build a case for faith. Einstein's faith is one that has been grappled with through several writers' works and there is no dearth of opinion on what stripe Einstein was. Was he a theist or an atheist? Susan Wise Bauer, in The Well-Trained Mind, and Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, hold conflicting opinions about Einstein's faith, yet both use his faith, or lack thereof, to support their views.

To be fair, Mrs. Bauer does not claim Einstein was a Christian, but a theist, that he believed in one God, with more of a penchant toward deism than a personal, relational God. Einstein believed, Mrs. Bauer implies, essentially in a cosmic clockmaker, who wound the clock, and then left it to run down on its own with no outside intervention. She says in a chapter ironically about religious fallacies,

Don't ignore the faith of many of the West's greatest scientists. The theism of scientists and mathematicians, from Pascal to Einstein, deeply affected their professional and intellectual pursuits (p.416).

Mr. Dawkins however, asserts that the claims for Einstein's "faith" are based on faulty extrapolations from primary sources and that proponents of faith "cherry-pick" quotations to support the hypothesis that Einstein was a man of faith (whatever that "faith" was). Mr. Dawkins says this on Einstein's faith:

There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic (p.18).

Pantheism, Dawkins aptly demonstrates, is merely (in his words) sexed-up atheism. He goes on to argue that Einstein, like Stephen Hawking, used the word 'God' in a purely poetic or metaphorical sense and that all scientists are sometimes guilty of slipping into the language of religious metaphor, though he wishes that scientists would refrain from using the word 'God' at all. Because of Einstein's use of religious language only as descriptive, Dawkins' conclusion is that Einstein was an atheist.

Nevertheless, one thing is certain, and that is that Albert Einstein was of course a brilliant man, contributing much to the scientific field. Whether or not his religion or lack of it had anything to do with his intellectual pursuits is not clearly known. Einstein was like any other man, a recipient of God's common grace, the grace bestowed upon all to be and to do all that God has appointed him or her to be, even apart from saving grace. Dawkins would vehemently disagree with that statement and would contend that Einstein was a product of his own design and machinations, but alas, I am not an atheist.

Homeschooling Quote from Susan Wise Bauer

Tangential to several discussions hosted on this blog and elsewhere in the blogosphere, I came across this quote reading today. I thought some might benefit from it.

In the effort to offend none, the public schools have managed to offend practically everyone--either by leaving religion and ethics out of curricula altogether or by teaching them in a way that satisfies neither believers nor skeptics. In sympathy, we'll say that the public schools are in an impossible situation. They are legally bound to avoid the appearance of promoting one religion over another. And in a mixed classroom, how can you take one religion seriously without antagonizing those who don't share it? The inevitable result is summed up by a character in P. D. James's mystery Original Sin:

"There were a dozen different religions among the children at Ancroft Comprehensive. We seemed always to be celebrating some kind of feast or ceremony. Usually it required making a noise and dressing up. The official line was that all religions were equally important. I must say that the result was to leave me with the conviction that they were equally unimportant."

When you're teaching your own child, you have two tasks with regard to religion: to teach your own convictions with honesty and diligence and to study the ways in which other faiths have changed the human landscape.

Mrs. Bauer's comments are balanced and fair. She does not treat each and every faith as valid pathways to the same God. Neither does she promote neglecting (or avoiding altogether) teaching about other faiths. What she does affirm is that our children should know how to respond to those of differing faiths and convictions and how to address them with grace and humility. That cannot be done if we know little to nothing about other faiths and convictions.

Also, she does not ignore the simple fact that people of faith have influenced history at every turn and to avoid the study of religion and ethics is catastrophic. Until a student is able to soberly and comprehensively address the influence various faiths have had on the history of humanity, his study will be woefully incomplete.

Source: The Well-Trained Mind, by Susan Wise Bauer, p.414.

Valentine's Day at LifeWay: Love Like Jesus

Back during the Christmas season, I wrote a post about the apparent silliness of LifeWay's "pray while you shop" campaign. Leave it up to LifeWay to outdo themselves, and outdo themselves they have. For all you over-enamored, starry-eyed, twitterpated lovebirds, you can go to LifeWay and learn to love like Jesus! The link takes you to LifeWay Store's main page with a second link that will take you to peruse the online catalog of their new "Love Like Jesus" line of novelty gifts (just in time for Valentine's Day). You can get the Love Like Jesus embroidered pillow. Or the Love Like Jesus divided heart tray (no irony here). Or the Love Like Jesus tote bag. Maybe your darling heart would like the Love Like Jesus plush bear with a photo holder.

LifeWay is promoting the new line of gifts with Jesus' words from John 13:34, "Love one another;" of course, that is LifeWay-ese for "come go shopping." To take one of the most profound, life-altering statements Christ ever made and turn it into a selling point is deplorable. I shudder to think that this is what Jesus really meant when he said those words, especially the context in which He said them.

After He had just denigrated Himself to that of a foot-washer, acknowledged who His betrayer was and loved Him anyway, and knowing that He was only a few heartbeats from the ignominy of the cross, He gave each one of His disciples a little memento of His coming: a heart-shaped coffee-mug with a matching coaster. Jesus' timeless message to His disciples, us included: Go shopping.

Oh, and sorry to let the cat out of the bag, but I thought I would give you the dirt on LifeWay's upcoming selections. For the doctor in your family, there will be the Heal Like Jesus set of medical equipment, replete with a Heal Like Jesus examining kit. For the teacher, the Teach Like Jesus chalk and board set. For a modest price, you can get a Sermon on the Mount or Sea of Galilee backdrop. For the prayer warrior in your family, you will certainly want the Pray Like Jesus prayer shawl, mat, and knee-pads. And for the lawyer, the Litigate Like Jesus matching coat, tie, vest, slacks, and cummerbund.

I think I need a good dose of Pepto-Bismol for the soul.

Insight from an Atheist

Religion as free enterprise?

Dr. Richard Dawkins, noted atheist claims so. Currently I am in the midst of his book, The God Delusion, and am immensely enjoying it. Though Dawkins has assuredly declared a war on faith of any stripe, there is significant insight contained in this tome, even though you must sift through his jaded sarcasm and biting British wit.

...the religiosity of America stems paradoxically from the secularism of its constitution. Precisely because America is legally secular, religion has become free enterprise. Rival churches compete for congregations--not least for fat tithes that they bring--and the competition is waged with all the hard-sell techniques of the marketplace. What works for soap flakes works for God, and the result is something approaching religious mania among today's less educated classes. In England, by contrast, religion under the aegis of the established church has become little more than a social pastime, scarcely recognizable as religious at all.

This quote also broaches another topic that came up in the comment thread of my last post, and that is of historical revisionism. Revisionism takes place essentially when a historical fact does not necessarily line up with your supposed worldview and then the meaning of those facts are changed to suit your purported belief

In the aforementioned quotation, Dr. Dawkins patently asserts that the founding fathers of America were secularists, yet Drs. Dobson and Falwell, and many others representing the religious right, would assert that America was founded on Christian principles. Who then is correct? That would be my question of the hour.

Yet Another Reason...

...to consider homeschooling your children.

Homeschooling is a priority in our home is because our children are precious gifts from God. They are my responsibility; not anyone else's, especially not the government. Yet the government would like to think that children are just pieces of property to be farmed out to the highest bidder. Bob Allen, writer for EthicsDaily.com, quotes a Stanford professor's criticism of the homeschooling endeavor in this January 16th article:

Stanford Professor Robert Reich said he is skeptical of studies showing homeschooling to be superior, because most are based on research done by homeschool advocacy groups. He also argued the state has an interest in knowing its children grow up to be well-rounded citizens [emphasis mine].

Say what, Dr. Reich? Where did I ever get the funny idea that my children belong to me? And besides, if well-rounded citizens is the best the state can do, I think I'll just keep them, thank you very much. And if you think pro-government educators like Dr. Reich do not feel threatened by homeschooling, think again:

"If parents can control every aspect of the kids' education, shield them from exposure to things that the parents deem sinful or objectionable, screen in only things which accord with their convictions, and not allow them exposure to the world of democracy, well the children grow up then basically in the own image of their parents, servile to their own parents' beliefs," he said.

It is very naive of Dr. Reich to make a statement like this, because I, a stalwart homeschooler, agree with him. Really, this is not a criticism of homeschooling, but simply a straw man Dr. Reich has constructed. Are not the government schools' agendas mirror images of what he criticizes homeschoolers of doing? Do they not intend to shelter "their" kids from what they deem objectionable, a firm faith in God? Do they not intend to have "their" kids grow up in "their" own image, servile to the efforts of the state?

Could I get a little clarity in here?

My wife and I have been criticized by well-meaning public school teachers on numerous occasions. My response has always been a trite maxim, "The proof is in the pudding." If homeschooling was turning out weak-minded, blathering brats unable to articulate a coherent, complete sentence, I could understand his hypersensitivity. Nevertheless, homeschooled children typically outperform their public schooled neighbors in every area.

And are not state standardized tests tailored so as to get the best possible results, yet government schooled children still do undeniably worse on standardized tests than homeschooled children? If there is a testing bias, it is certainly on behalf of government schooled children. This is the marked difference between homeschooled and government schooled children and why homeschooled kids out perform their government schooled friends: homeschooled kids learn; government school kids are educated.

Dr. Reich, I love my children, enough to give them my very best. That I intend to do, until I no longer have breath. And no, neither you nor the state can have them.

Scriptures I Won't be Preaching From Sunday

"I take my text," Charles Spurgeon said, "and make a beeline to the cross." Somehow I think with the following Scripture passages, that beeline might not be quite so straight. What do you think?

• Genesis 38:1-10
• Exodus 4:24-26
• Leviticus 18:19
• Deuteronomy 21:18-21
• Judges 11:30-35
• Song of Solomon 4:5
• Mark 14:51-52

Are there any you might add?

This is Unconscionable

A Connecticut toymaker has manufactured and is now distributing an action figure of Saddam Hussein, deposed dictator of Iraq, dangling from the end of a rope. I refuse to place a picture of the toy on my blog that is so very wittily being publicized as the "Dope on a Rope." The toy smacks of misplaced values and an abuse of capitalism.

This is not the first such undertaking for this toymaker, who claims the toys are essentially novelties targeted at adults. They have marketed more than 100 satirical figures, including Tony Blair as an Action Man in combat fatigues, George Bush as a superhero, and Michael Jackson holding a baby over a balcony.

This further confirms my suspicion that in America, everything is for sale. If you can make a buck off of it, then go for it. Morals or simply good taste and common courtesy are not issues for some. Some in America may make a mockery of Saddam, but his ghost will taint history much more so than his actual life. FOX News ran this blurb laden with false humility:

“Of course, it’s not gonna be received well by everyone," the company's president, Emil Vicale, said on Monday in a phone interview with FOX News.

I have said before, Saddam was a bad man; he probably deserved to die. Nevertheless, he should not be the butt of sick jokes. Even though he does represent all America stands opposed to, at least allow the man some dignity in his death. The situation in Iraq is much too grim to turn their deposed leader into a laughingstock. Not now; not ever. It is regrettable in America that no one even blinks when a man's death is used to make a dollar. This is capitalism at its finest.

You can click here if you want to see a picture of this sordid little curiosity.

A Pertinent Question

Are we missing the point? Raborn out at Ray's X-Change asks and answers a tough question that I myself have been arguing for a couple of months now here on my blog. His post reads off the hip yet hits the mark dead-on. Here is a brief snippet to whet your appetite:

While much of the thrust of the contemporary church is on understanding, mentally assenting to and defending the right doctrinal positions, the thrust of Jesus' ministry (both then and now) seems to be more focused on helping and healing hurting people.

[...]

At times, we have interpreted the phrase "and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" to mean "don't cuss, don't drink, don't chew and don't run with those who do". But, could it be that not allowing ourselves to be polluted by the world rather means refusing to play the worlds game of "loving those who love you", and instead choosing to give to those who can't give back and choosing to love those who would even be considered our enemies? Have we really bought into the pollution of the world while seemingly refusing to give into it?

Parts of his post read similarly to an article I have been pondering before I bailed on it and decided to go in a different direction, plus the contested post I published a few days ago on the Christian intellectual did not really garner the feedback I had anticipated, which Raborn's post strangely answers that question; the one implicit in my post from January 2. I quote myself from that same post:

We have invested so much time in determining what the Bible says we have accomplished this to the exclusion of how to respond to what it says. There are many out there who know what the Bible says. However, evangelicals are woefully inadequate at extrapolating what God expects out of us from that same text.

Can we get beyond this detriment as the Body of Christ, cease allowing Hollywood superstars to fill the obvious void left by the church, and as Raborn says, begin being Jesus to hurting people? Or are we missing the point?

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also, faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-17

Ugh!! He Got Me!

Or, I've been tagged! This is a first for me, so it should be relatively painless. Its not often somebody wants to get to know you better, so brother Steve, thanks for tagging me! The game goes kind of like this...I have to answer "Five(ish) Things I'd Like to Know about You." Hey Steve, do I get any lifelines; phone a blogger, ask the blogosphere, 50/50??? ;)

OK, here goes...

0) What’s your name and website URL? (optional, of course)

Hope the questions aren't this hard all the way through! My name is Tony, and my blog is http://ramblingprophet.blogspot.com. If you are wondering about the name, I wrote a whole 'nother post addressing that issue, if you're interested!

1) What’s the most fun work you’ve ever done, and why? (two sentences max)

Only two sentences? You will probably think I'm crazy, but I worked at a little restaurant called Our Daily Bread on the SEBTS campus; I was chief cook and bottle washer. What made it so great was the man I worked for; Brian Lasure. We had a synergy that got work done, pleased the clientele, and we had fun doing it. I sit at the Huddle House and sometimes wish I could jump back there and cook!

2) A. Name one thing you did in the past that you no longer do but wish you did? (one sentence max)
B. Name one thing you’ve always wanted to do but keep putting it off? (one sentence max)

A. Sigh...exercise regularly. (Steve, I don't think I like this game anymore!) I used to play racquetball, basketball, and golf frequently; now, well...anybody care to hear my excuses? Anyone? I didn't think so.

B. Learn to play a musical instrument (piano, guitar) and I REALLY want to go back to school.

3) A. What two things would you most like to learn or be better at, and why? (two sentences max)
B. If you could take a class/workshop/apprentice from anyone in the world living or dead, who would it be and what would you hope to learn? (two more sentences, max)

A. I would like to learn to be a great daddy. I have four children, expecting number five (I know, all those loud sounds I just heard are all of my readers falling out of their chairs.) and they are the most precious gifts God has given me, besides my wonderful wife. And, golf! I just love a good game of "pasture pool."

B. Oh boy...I know the real spiritual answer would be to talk with Jesus, but I'll do that in heaven, so, golfing lessons from Payne Stewart, philosophy from Francis Schaeffer, cooking from Alton Brown, and flying lessons from Superman (my favorite superhero).

4) A. What three words might your best friends or family use to describe you?
B. Now list two more words you wish described you…

A. Organized, tender-hearted (my wife suggested this one), and helpful.

B. Handyman (helpful does not imply this) and laid back. I can't fix anything and oh yeah, my wife suggested handyman, too. Sigh.

5) What are your top three passions? (can be current or past, work, hobbies, or causes– three sentences max)

They are my family (ESPECIALLY my young'uns), ministry, and learning.

6) Write–and answer–one more question that YOU would ask someone (with answer in three sentences max)

Wow! This is a toughie.

Are you where God wants you to be in your life right now? My answer: Yes and no! I know beyond the shadow of a doubt I am where God has called me to ministry. However, my life is not where He wants me personally. How can I be a better disciple, minister, husband, daddy, student, friend, etc.?

[Bonus: What is one question you wish people would ask themselves?]

Am I treating this person the way I would like to be treated?

Now, if I understand this little game correctly, I am supposed to tag a few others for this. OK, here is a shout-out to:

My new blog friend at Along the Shore, Geoff Baggett; Cameron Cloud at Nephos; Jill, the HeadMistress at Homeschrewling, and Heather at Barefoot in the Garden. If you are interested, do your own post and leave a comment here so we can get to know one another better!

Thanks Steve! It was nice to do a "not so serious" post.

Blessings to all!

Go to the House of the Rechabites

In Jeremiah 35 is the telling story of God's command to Jeremiah to go and see obedience modeled. The Judeans, whom Jeremiah had been ministering to for many years, were poor examples of what obeying God meant. However, the Rechabites modeled godly behavior better than the Judeans, and they were God's chosen children. I saw a parallel in this CNN news blurb, Muslim congressman seeks out critic on House floor:

On his first day in Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress, finally met the Republican who criticized him for his decision to use the Koran at his ceremonial swearing in.

Ellison asked another Democratic member to introduce him to Rep Virgil Goode, R-Virgina, who spoke out against Ellison in a letter to constituents last month. Ellison told CNN that he approached Goode on the House floor and the brief meeting went well.

"I shook his hand and he shook mine. We greeted each other." Ellison asked Goode to grab a cup of coffee with him soon and Goode accepted.

Asked if he was felt singled out as the first Muslim member, Ellison said no and added, "By reaching out to Congressman Goode I'm not trying to be accepted, I'm trying to build bridges. In this world there are too many misunderstandings. I want to put a human face on things."

There has been much said about Congressman Goode's behavior toward Ellison, which his behavior was marked with bigotry, prejudice, and a thin veneer of "patriotism." My prayer is that Congressman Ellison's outstretched hand spoke to Congressman Goode in a way that shows Goode Christianity modeled better by a non Christian. Too often Christianity has to take its cues from outsiders. "Go to the house of the Rechabites, speak to them, and bring them into the house of the Lord..." Jeremiah 35:2

(HT: Street Prophets)

Differing Perspectives on the Death of Saddam

A January 2nd Baptist Press article, Debate over Hussein execution extends beyond Iraq, into capital punishment, while adequately treating the execution of Saddam Hussein, offered several different perspectives that showed a very interesting progression of thought throughout the article, culminating in a dogmatic assertion by a Southern Baptist ethics professor. I find it shameworthy that all the other faith traditions consulted in this journalistic enterprise displayed a modicum of grace and mercy toward the doomed dictator; with the notable exception of Southern Baptists. A few excerpts, beginning with a Catholic statement:

Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI's lead clergyman on justice-related issues, said Hussein's execution punished a “crime with another crime.”

“The death penalty is not a natural death. And no one can give death, not even the state,” Martino said.

The Vatican's press office also issued a more lengthy statement, condemning the execution as “tragic.”

A second excerpt, from the Anglicans, represented by the Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury:

He told BBC radio that Hussein deserved punishment, but not the death penalty. “I think he deserves punishment and sharp and unequivocal punishment.... But I would say of him what I have to say about anyone who has committed even the most appalling crimes in this country, that I believe the death penalty effectively says there is no room for change and repentance,” Williams said.

And now for the Southern Baptist take on the issue:

But a Southern Baptist ethicist told Baptist Press that the Iraqi people had the right to execute Hussein with a process governed by the rule of law. “Romans 13, where the Apostle Paul wrote that God has instituted human government to restrain evil, allows for capital punishment. And Paul was writing this about a government hostile to Christianity,” said Craig Mitchell, professor of Christian ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

“God has given the state the authority and power to carry out punishment,” Mitchell said. “He has given them the sword. You don't spread butter with the sword. The sword is used to kill. This execution was something that was long overdue. Saddam Hussein did deserve a trial. The rule of law did have to be carried out. And while we shouldn't rejoice that a man is dead, we should rejoice that justice was served for the Iraqi people who suffered under Saddam Hussein's boot for nearly three decades.”

And finally, a quote from Dr. Richard Land:

“Simple justice demanded Saddam Hussein be found guilty by his countrymen and executed in the manner that befits such a war criminal, by hanging rather than a firing squad,” Land said. “The justice that demanded his execution, however, was cheapened by the less-than-dignified manner in which the execution was carried out.”

The Southern Baptist response really troubles me, especially Dr. Mitchell's intellectual arrogance. Every work I have read about Romans 13, commentary and otherwise, carries with it some weight of intellectual honesty, that the sword could also be deemed a deterrent as well as a killing weapon but Dr. Mitchell has dogmatically and unequivocally declared that the sword is an executioner's weapon. I mean, you don't spread butter with that thing.

Dr. Land's blood lust also carries with it a very troubling sentiment; that Hussein rightly died by the hangman's noose instead of the more quick, painless, less violent method of death by firing squad. I am not saying that Hussein did not deserve to die but I am saying that this should give us a few moment's pause before jumping to so many conclusions.

Land noted that “despots around the world who are so dismissive of other human beings lives will now have to now take into account the fact that there is the very real possibility that they will be held accountable for their crimes against humanity and also will be dealt with justly and swiftly.”

Yes, Dr. Land, but not everyone shares your opinion. This from Robert Fisk of the London Independent, via Covenant News:

At first, those who suffered from Saddam's cruelty will welcome his execution. Hundreds wanted to pull the hangman's lever. So will many other Kurds and Shia outside Iraq welcome his end. But they - and millions of other Muslims - will remember how he was informed of his death sentence at the dawn of the Eid al-Adha feast, which recalls the would-be sacrifice by Abraham, of his son, a commemoration which even the ghastly Saddam cynically used to celebrate by releasing prisoners from his jails. "Handed over to the Iraqi authorities," he may have been before his death. But his execution will go down - correctly - as an American affair and time will add its false but lasting gloss to all this - that the West destroyed an Arab leader who no longer obeyed his orders from Washington, that, for all his wrongdoing (and this will be the terrible get-out for Arab historians, this shaving away of his crimes) Saddam died a "martyr" to the will of the new "Crusaders".

Tragically, this reveals much of who we are. I am no ecumenist, but Samuel Kobia of the world council of churches adequately summed up how we ought to feel.

"We pray that those who hold power in Iraq now and in the future will create a new heritage of government for its people," said the Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia. "May Iraq’s leaders pursue reconciliation and mutual respect among all its communities."

"While holding a leader responsible for his crimes is significant," Kobia said, "each taking of a person’s life is a part of a larger tragedy and nowhere is this more apparent than in a land of daily killings."

Where are the Christian Intellectuals?

Having been in the blogosphere for a little while now, I have come across an interesting trend. Engaging in discussion with many evangelicals is roughly akin to getting hit in the head with a brick. Sound argument, reason, and thorough discussion often are jettisoned in place of (insert sarcasm here) a favorite argument of mine, which is absolutely a conversation stopper; "The Bible says what it means and means what it says."

Don't misunderstand; I am a conservative evangelical. I believe the Bible to be inspired by God, completely sufficient, and (gasp) inerrant. Nevertheless, an unintended consequence of the battle for the Bible is a dearth of modern Christian literature. We have invested so much time in determining what the Bible says we have accomplished this to the exclusion of how to respond to what it says. There are many out there who know what the Bible says. However, evangelicals are woefully inadequate at extrapolating what God expects out of us from that same text.

Often, I hear that the Bible is simple. Is it? Conservatives often use this maxim as an intellectual scapegoat. Wed this idea to the equally disturbing notion that the "Bible is all you need" (another fretful argument) and it culminates in a shallow intellectual tradition. Why proclaim that the Bible is simple when it says of itself that it is not?

"However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:6-8

No matter your opinion, this faith is an incredibly complex one. Turning it into a simplistic easy reader has invited men such as Bono to step into the obvious vacuum unfulfilled by deep Christian thinkers. Blog friend Streak said this in a month-old post on the same subject:

Simple was the way to avoid tradition, training, intellectual rigor, etc. No need for "book learning" and all you needed was a lay preacher who could read the Bible. Wow, that has really served us well, hasn't it? Given us slavery, segregation, anti-feminist rants, capitalism masked as faith, and even a cottage industry eschatology that has spurred a horrible foreign policy.

Sir Isaac Newton made an important discovery in the 18th century. He noticed that a beam of white sunlight, passing through a glass prism could be split into its constituent colors--red, orange, yellow, blue, indigo, and violet. The prism did not impose those colors on the white light; it allowed them to be discerned. What had beforehand been taken to be a simple color--white--was indeed a menagerie of different colors; a complex unity.

The same is true of Christian theology; the message of the cross is a unity; but it is a complex unity. To dissolve it down to some simplistic drivel is an insult to the mighty God who gave it; a failure to pursue God with all one's mind is to be disobedient to the very Scripture some claim to be so simple.

Jesus said to him, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." Matthew 22:37

The church should not fear raising up intellectuals the likes of Francis Shaeffer, Dietrich Boenhoffer, Helmut Thielicke, and C. S. Lewis. Christians have become insular in their faith--so much so that we do not even read outside of our own tight circle anymore; we settle for some thin aesthetic and call it theology. We chuckle at the shallowness of the mavericks of Christian publishing; Lucado, LaHaye, and upstart Osteen. (Don't get me started on Warren.) Yet, these are what are flying off the shelves at the local Christian bookstore.

Do pastors even ask why? Has our preaching and teaching so mirrored these mavericks that we have unconsciously adopted their style because its what sells? Should we always put the cookies on the bottom shelf, so to speak? I am persuaded differently. God's people are hungry. Who will feed them? Pastor, if you are reading, do not be afraid to use big words. Teach them to the people you serve; cease teaching monosyllabic, watered-down Sunday School lessons about Noah and the ark, David and Goliath, and Joshua and that big wall.

Dan Edelen out at Cerulean Sanctum is blogging an interesting series right now which was the inspiration for this post. In Busting Myths about Christianity, Dan says this:

So whither the Christian intellectual? Do any still exist?

Say what we will about history, but it's loaded with Christians (and people who mentally assented to Christianity) who drove the arts, philosophy, literature, and science—and in large numbers.

But what happened to them all? Where did they go? Sure, you see a Plantinga here, and a…uh, hmm. I'm not coming up with any names for contemporary Christian lit authors. Artists? Nope—no one comes to mind. In fact, I suspect that most Christians, even if their lives depended on it, couldn't name one contemporary Christian intellectual or artist.

Are we so bereft today that all we can remember are those great Christian intellectual luminaries of the past? Christianity nurtured Western civilization into being, yet in the 21st century we Christians gave it all away.

[...]

That this ignores most of the rest of Scripture, and also makes a fine distorted case for tearing all the wisdom books out of the Bible, eludes far too many people. In the end, Christianity never calls anyone to turn off his mind. To insist it does only results in the kind of brain-dead emotionalism that leads to error. Hoisting godly wisdom by its own petard makes the Church look vacant in the cranium.

And unfortunately, that is how the conservative, evangelical church looks--vacant in the cranium; sinfully inadequate at addressing some of the world's most distressing needs. The Christian world needs some deep Christian thinkers to help her comprehensively address such world needs as poverty, the AIDS pandemic, the environment, and greed. Right now the Christian response is...well, is there one? So, to continue on the present course, proves Dr. Alister McGrath's words in his book about Christian myths, Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths, perfectly true.

Christianity is not a verbal religion; it is experiential. It centers on a transformative encounter of the believer with the risen Christ. From the standpoint of Christian theology, however, that experience comes before the words that generate, evoke, and inform it. Christianity is Christ-centered, not book centered; if it appears to be book-centered it is because it is through the words of Scripture that the believer encounters and feeds upon Jesus Christ. Scripture is a means, not an end; a channel, not what is channeled.

I would by no means consider myself an intellectual, but I am trying desperately to get a foothold in the vastness of this God. Ultimately, the solution does not rest in finding the right words for the most accurate persuasion, but just real, honest-to-goodness, believers in Jesus, convinced that God can and does work in and through them to accomplish His great purposes, and then putting that argument to work. Change will come indeed.

Santa's Closets: When Consumerism Collides with Deception

I said I wasn't going to post anything until the new year, but I just cannot help myself; I must publish one more Christmas post. Perusing through the paper while relaxing at my in-laws, children playing in the floor with various assorted and miscellaneous pieces of soon-to-be dumpster fodder, I came across this AP gem: Self-storage Units become "Santa Closets" to Hide Holiday Gifts.

If Americans did not buy their children too much junk at Christmas anyway, now the self-storage industry is more than happy to rent a unit so you can store all the flotsam your kids don't need at a nominal price. I must admit, I was really concerned as to what to address first in this analysis; the obvious consumerism blatantly endorsed or the deception on the part of untrained children.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt here. Some folks may genuinely not have the storage space for some large items while they await the gifting process; the article mentioned the big-screen TV, a recliner, or a bicycle, and for someone living in a condo or apartment that may be a legitimate concern. But to rent a storage unit because of sheer volume of Christmas glee? A close reading of The Gift of the Magi would be beneficial. Christ has definitely taken a back seat to consumerism and greed. People simply relish having lots of stuff, and not just at Christmas.

One in 11 households currently rent a self-storage unit, compared with one in 17 in 1995. Self-storage facility gross revenues for 2005 were about $18.5 billion, according to the Virginia-based Self Storage Association.

"They treasure these items and keep them for a reason, but they don't want them underfoot," said James Overturf, spokesman of Extra Space Storage, which operates more than 425,000 units in the U.S.

Wow. U-Haul sure is making a lot of money to keep our stuff. Nevertheless, the deception eminent is also overwhelming. The fact that parents need to rent a storage unit outside of their home to hide Christmas gifts staggers me. Is deception a virtue to be lauded? I'm not trying to be too judgmental here nor throw cold water on holiday fun, but when I was growing up I didn't snoop for my Christmas fare. That was a sure way to ensure I wouldn't receive it and that the jolly old elf wouldn't slide down my chimney. However, instead of training junior to actually benefit from the virtue of delayed gratification, you can nurture that greedy spirit by renting a Santa Closet.

Missy Phillips knew she had a big problem on her hands when her boyfriend's 18-year-old son ransacked their house looking for the stash of unwrapped Christmas presents.

To keep the nosy teenager from finding the stereo, video games and hunting bow she and her boyfriend bought him, Phillips had to go out of the house ---- and into a self-storage unit ---- to hide the gifts until Christmas Eve.

[...]

Terri Sibbett and her husband manage A-A-A Storage in Nashville and recently posted a listing at craigslist.com that asks, "Wanna keep the Christmas gifts away from those sneaky little ones?" It offers to "Hide the toys from the kids. Hide the boat from your husband."

Yet another way to capitalize on greed and deception. Christmas is all about making money anyway, isn't it?

The 12, uh...14 Days of Homeschool

This will be the last post of the year for me. We are going to spend some much-deserved time with family and resting. Hopefully I will post something of substance when I am back January 1st, 2007! I have thoroughly enjoyed getting to know all of my blogging friends and I wish the best for you this Christmas season. To all of my regular readers and those not so regular, friends I have made halfway across the world (you know who you are!), and family members who refuse to comment, thank you for taking time out of your schedules to spend time rambling with me.

One of our homeschooling friends emailed this to us and it's hilarious. I do not know the source, so if you do, drop me a note and I'll be glad to update the post. Sing it to the tune of the Twelve Days of Christmas! Enjoy!


On the first day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "Can you homeschool legally?"

On the second day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "Are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?"

On the third day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "Do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?"

On the fourth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "What about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?"

On the fifth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "YOU ARE SO STRANGE! What about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?"

On the sixth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "How long will you homeschool, YOU ARE S0 STRANGE, what about P.E. , do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?"

On the seventh day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "Look at what they're missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE!, what about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, do you homeschool legally?"

On the eighth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "Why do you do this, look at what they're missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE, what about P.E. do you give them tests, are they socialized, do you homeschool legally?"

On the ninth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "They'll miss the prom, why do you do this, look at what they're missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE!, what about P.E. do you give them tests, are they socialized, do you homeschool legally?"

On the tenth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "What about graduation, they'll miss the prom, why do you do this, look at what they're missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE!, what about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?"

On the eleventh day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "I could never do that, what about graduation, they'll miss the prom, why do you do this, look at what they're missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE, what about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?"

On the twelfth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "Can they go to college, I could never do that, what about graduation, they'll miss the prom, why do you do this, look at what they're missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE, What about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?"

On the thirteenth day of homeschool I thoughtfully replied: "They Can go to college, yes you can do this, they can have graduation, we don't like the prom, we do it 'cause we like it, they are missing nothing, we'll homeschool forever, WE ARE NOT STRANGE!, we give them P.E., and we give them tests, they are socialized, AND WE HOMESCHOOL LEGALLY!

On the fourteenth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, "How can I get started, why didn't you tell me, where do I buy curriculum, when is the next conference, WILL PEOPLE THINK WE'RE STRANGE? I think we can do this, if you will help us, can we join P.E. and we'll homeschool legally."

May God bless in 2007!

UPDATE: HT to Jube Dankworth at Texas Home Educators for the citation. Its amazing how things get circulated around the Internet and via email with little or no acknowledgement. Thanks Jube!

Another War on Christmas Volley

There continue to be grenades lobbed into this farcical battle that is the war on Christmas and Streak points us to a moderately genteel approach that spoofs conservative attitude toward the hijacking of "their" holiday.

When I'm not sure, or when I'm addressing a group, I say, "Happy Holidays."

I don't say this to slight Christmas, but to be polite and sensible. Wishing "Merry Christmas" to someone who doesn't celebrate Christmas is like wishing someone "Happy birthday" when his birthday is six months off --- it's not so much rude as it is weird.

At the same time, however, wishing someone "Happy Holidays" when you have good reason to believe that he celebrates Christmas is also weird.

It comes off as prissy, and, intentionally or not, it carries with it the suggestion that you, the speaker, feel "Christmas" is a word that polite people avoid.

This suggestion, in turn, feeds a fear that modern secular culture is out to remove Christ from the winter holiday season one greeting at a time, if necessary.

I get that. I happen to think the fear is baseless. Observing the Nativity remains the overwhelming reason most Americans celebrate at this time of year, and their freedom to do so is vast. But I see how "Happy Holidays" can sound like a cold dismissal of that observance.

At the same time, I see how "Merry Christmas" as a blanket greeting carries with it the suggestion to the non-Christian that those who don't celebrate Christmas are misfits; oddballs whose strange beliefs don't command even a tip of the verbal cap.

The writer of the original story also called for a balance where there isn't any regarding the usage of "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays."

If there's any way to break this absurd logjam in seasonal pleasantries, it lies in each of us making a reassuring effort to use the appropriate greeting with the appropriate people.

Don't assume, but don't chicken out, either. And for goodness' sake, don't take offense when none is intended.

If Christmas really is that time of year when peace on earth and goodwill toward men ought to reign, how about we see a little bit more of that? Personally, I just wish everyone a Merry Christmas; not meaning to offend, but this is one place where I see an appeal to tradition isn't that far off base.

My family has received a plethora of Christmas cards from church members, each one with different greetings on them. Season's Greetings, Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas; some have a nativity, some a snowman, and heaven forbid, some have Santa Claus. Christmas has a lot of trappings associated with it and many, try as we might, we cannot avoid. But steps can be taken in the general direction. There are a lot of things I like about Christmastime, a lot of things I utterly despise.

But if Santa really does plan on riding this year, perhaps he could bring each of us a generous dose of humility, a moderate splash of tolerance, and a smattering of reason and common sense.

An Atheist Wishes Everyone "Merry Christmas!"

In the last post, I asserted that this "war on Christmas" is a fabrication; the next logical question is what end does the fabrication serve? I think atheist Richard Dawkins provides the answer. If you are not familiar with Dr. Dawkins, he is an evolutionary biologist, rational apologist, and atheist evangelist from Oxford University. His recent book, The God Delusion, has caused quite a stir in the evangelical community.

If there was a war on Christmas, evangelicals lost the battle before it even started. It is my conjecture that the war is a fabrication because essentially evangelical Christianity is wholly missing the point regarding the Christmas season. In order to reclaim some kind of spiritual relevance back to the holiday, the war was invented to perpetuate the claim that somehow evangelicals are being robbed of the holiday's significance. If Christmas has been divested of its meaning, it is not because the secularists and non-believers jerked the rug out from under the evangelical conception of the holiday; it is the greedy materialism, lavish programs, and consumer mentality driving it, which Christians shamelessly promote.

Richard Dawkins, in a statement about his own Christmas philosophy, made the implicit, provocative claim that Christians are at fault for the American misunderstanding regarding the holiday.

“But of course [Christmas] has long since ceased to be a religious festival. I participate for family reasons, with a reluctance that owes more to aesthetics than atheistics. I detest Jingle Bells, White Christmas, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and the obscene spending bonanza that nowadays seems to occupy not just December, but November and much of October, too.”

He added: “So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone a Merry Christmas.”

There is truth in the atheist's words. I share the article's author, Randy Kennedy's sentiment regarding Dr. Dawkins statement and the "war":

Such obliging feelings toward Christmas will undoubtedly serve as another piece of evidence for those like Mr. O’Reilly and conservative Christians who feel that the holiday has been hijacked — so much so that even atheists are now comfortable getting into the spirit. But to listen to Mr. [Sam] Harris and other nonbelieving Christmas celebrators, you sometimes get the feeling that their accommodation stems from the fact that Christmas — no matter how religious it still is or is not — has become such a juggernaut that it is simply impossible to ignore entirely. So why not grin, bear it and have yourself a double eggnog?

Unfortunately that is the way most conservatives will interpret Dr. Dawkins correct prophetic pronouncement and will regrettably fail to see the handwriting on the wall. Christmas is certainly a juggernaut; Americans typically spend $6 billion dollars a year on the season's greetings. Is Jesus the reason for the season? I am beginning to question the legitimacy of the holiday myself.

Frankly, the evangelical community gives too much fodder to its critics. The total lack of sincerity is what motivates men like Dr. Dawkins to strongly criticize Christianity. I respect Dr. Dawkins, and though I do not agree with his position, at least he is sincere in his beliefs.

The irony of the war on Christmas is that we are fighting ourselves.

(HT: Nephos)

More on the War on Christmas...Now I've Seen Everything!

I think Nancy Reagan is owed an apology for this one. If this does not convince conservatives that the war on Christmas is nothing more than political and marketing rhetoric, then nothing else will. The OPERATION: JUST SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS website states that it "is a campaign designed to encourage Christians nationwide and around the world to PROUDLY proclaim The Christ Child as the center of the Christmas Season once again."

For only $2.00 apiece (plus S & H) you can pick up one of these novel little bracelets and show those secularists and liberals that are trying to steal Christmas right out from under our noses that YOU MEAN BUSINESS.

This is nothing more than a cheap marketing ploy, borne of manipulation, aimed at inattentive and gullible Christians caught up in the irrelevant. Their website makes that patently clear:

"The enemies of Christmas have succeeded in making Christians feel as if we are bad and intolerant to wish someone a "Merry Christmas". This is political correctness run amok. We have reached an all time low point in our nation's history when human sensibilities are elevated above offending Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. People are telling us they cannot find appropriate Christmas cards, nativity sets, etc. It is long past the time for Christians to stand firm in our faith."

Forgive me, but I think standing firm in our faith is a bit more than wearing a cheap bracelet. If Christ is not the center of the Christmas season, somehow I think the overt focus on materialism, greed, and sensationalism thrust Him out of the limelight. Political correctness has had nothing to do with it.

And if you aren't satisfied with just the bracelet, you can get the Just Say "Merry Christmas" ornament to proudly display on your holiday tree.

Yep. I've seen everything.

(HT: wasp jerky)

As an aside, blogging buddy Les Puryear out at Crucified with Christ is taking a blogging hiatus for the remainder of 2006. God bless you, my friend. Drop by and see his final post of the year, a picture of a real manger, possibly similar to the one Christ lay in that wonderful night so long ago.

The War on Christmas...The Saga Continues

Dr. Jerry Falwell said it; I believe it; that settles it.

Sigh.

What will it take for conservative evangelicals to stop taking this man's words at face value and start dissecting what he is saying?

In Dr. Falwell's latest wartime dispatch from the Moral Majority headquarters in Lynchburg, VA he is yet again espousing that there is a war on Christmas. Frankly, I am getting just a tad confused on this whole issue because no one else seems to think that there really is a war on Christmas except Dr. Falwell, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and...well, that's about it.

Yet Dr. Falwell seems to continue to engender fear and aggravation in the heart's of God's people over a non-issue. No one has kept Christians from doing anything this Christmas. No one has barricaded the door to the church I serve, no one has kept any church from performing their living Christmas trees, there have been numerous ads in the local papers inviting folks to living nativities (my family and I attended one this evening and there was no armed militia), and there was a manger scene in the local Christmas parade this year.

If there is a war, the battle has yet to have been waged here in our part of the state. Dr. Falwell's evidence is confusing because he is assuming that "secularists" and non-believers should act differently than their nature implies they should. This quote is fascinating:

This week, Alan Colmes, co-host of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity and Colmes,” attempted to convince my buddy Franklin Graham that this war did not exist. Thankfully, Franklin shrewdly countered this notion by noting that there is indeed an accelerating effort by secularists in America to annihilate expressions of Christmas and Christianity.

Note the effort is by secularists. Did not Jesus Himself say that in this world we will have trouble? Frankly I am glad that this war on Christmas is really all Christians have to deal with. Note the tender touch of sorrow in Dr. Falwell's sentiment in this quote:

Meanwhile, people across America continue to be harassed because of their faith.

Just harassed? What about Christians across the world who cannot openly practice their faith? There are Christians in China, Korea, and in the Sudan who would love to have a fraction of the freedom we have in America. My blog friend Streak sums up this fallacious thinking quite nicely.

Christians had enjoyed a false sense of ownership of the public square for much of our history. Of course, they belong in the public square, but just as conservatives do not own the flag, Christians do not own our public square, and that is how conservatives are acting now that others want in. Nothing, of course, is stopping any conservative (or liberal) Christian from participating in Christmas as a form of worship. Not one thing; nothing stopping them from having Christmas services, Festivals, Parties, huge, lavish programs, etc.

Just some people suggesting that in the public square, the rest of us--liberal Christians, non-Christians, etc.,--have just as much right.

Dr. Falwell was disparaging CBS because they ran an episode of a sitcom "Two and a Half Men," which I have never watched nor intend to, where the lead character, played by actor Charlie Sheen in Dr. Falwell's words, turns the beloved Christmas hymn Joy to the World into a "sex romp." I'll admit, this inspires in me the same frustration as it does Dr. Falwell, but like it or not, CBS and Charlie Sheen have the right to do it.

If I infringe on their rights just because I don't like it, then I invite the same infringement upon my rights as an American citizen. Whatever happened to America as the great "melting pot?" I misunderstand how Christians are mistreated in America. If we are it is by devices of our own making, not by the "efforts of the secularists in America." Dr. Falwell always falls back on arguments like this instead of hard factual evidence:

Further, imagine CBS reworking the inspiring words of Dr. Martin Luther King or a portion of the Koran with a character proclaiming he will soon be having a sexual romp.

Here is my conjecture, for whatever it is worth, on the zealous right-wing view about this war on Christmas. Is it possible because of the belligerence of such radicals as Dr. Falwell, that the "media" turns conservative Christianity into a parody and they invite the network moguls to work such abominations into their scripts? You have to admit, conservative Christianity can be an easy target, primarily for its lack of sincerity. Therefore, conservative Christians must fall back on a fabrication such as the war on Christmas to turn the attention back to the "secularists" and fail to take responsibility for their own shallow behavior.

Dr. Falwell concludes his dispatch with these disheartening words.

No War on Christmas? You’d have to be “the Grinch” himself not to see it. There is indeed such a war and Christians are in the cross hairs. We must continue to stand up for our rights, my friends. If we don’t, it is readily apparent that they will be quickly eradicated.

Somehow, this looks like putting the cart before the horse. If there genuinely is a war on Christmas, can we as Christians really expect secularists and non-believers to treat Christmas with the respect and admiration that it deserves given that we have offered them no better? Why would we want them to celebrate this holiday with us when what we offer really looks no more than defection to the enemy?

So, to Bill, Sean, Jerry, and all those other Christmas culture warriors who want to battle on behalf of us Christians: thanks, but no thanks. I won't be joining you in the foxhole. You have all gone the way of the proselytizer, the moralist. We already have a Savior, and you are not Him. And until He comes again (we are in Advent after all), would you please practice enough decorum not to foul things up any further?

Oh—and happy holidays!

Thou Shalt Have A Quiet Time

Through seminary, I was successfully indoctrinated that a quiet time or personal devotional time was mandatory in the life of a committed Christian. It is supposed to be a concerted, consistent time of prayer and Bible reading, reflection, and meditation. It should at times be accompanied with singing and other means of worship. One professor's mantra regarding the personal devotional time was, "If you don't do it here, then you won't do it there." Another professor quipped, "A quiet time is quite a time."

Most professors, chapel addresses, and other seminary students loudly proclaimed the sinfulness of failing to have a daily quiet time. I would often be asked by my well-meaning seminary brothers, apparently trying to hold me accountable, "Brother, did you have your quiet time today?" May God have mercy on your soul if you slept late that morning.
Nevertheless, Chris Ortiz out at The Chalcedon Foundation, blogging on an interesting perspective by Martin Selbrede on this issue, makes a provocative claim.

I thought I'd look up some representative claims regarding a personal quiet time and see if anybody--anywhere--supported the notion with anything other than what I said they were using (to wit, making a weak, out-of-context inference from a verse concerning Jesus praying away from the crowds that pressed on Him). None of the sources provide a single command in Scripture concerning the doctrine of a personal quiet time. The Great Commission says we are to teach the nations "all things whatsoever I have commanded." Where God did not command, we have no imperative to teach (especially to teach something as a binding obligation!). Teaching the necessity for a personal quiet time is to teaching something that God has not commanded (since no command in Scripture concerning it exists -- anywhere).

Frankly, I have toyed with the notion of whether or not a personal quiet time is an absolute spiritual necessity. To oppose the practice or even question the legitimacy of it invites rancor of the cruelest sort, that "you just aren't spiritual." Does failure to have a daily quiet time equate to the most abominable sin and does having a quiet time make you more obedient?

Often, in my counseling with other Christians, I use the daily devotional time as a litmus test for that person's spirituality, and I wonder if it is such an effective barometer anymore. What about obedience? Faith? Serving others? Confrontation of personal sin?

Ortiz makes a broad, sweeping assertion that the quiet time is not commanded anywhere in Scripture, nor does Christ really give Christians an example to follow. He cites Mark 1:35 and its parallel, Luke 5:16, and refutes that these verses teach a quiet time.

The text does NOT teach us that Jesus had a quiet time, and He certainly did NOT have a quiet time in the sense that people would, because He didn't lack for intimacy with the Father ("I and the Father are One"), and He elsewhere states (John 11) that His open prayers are for the benefit of those around them hearing His words, and not for His own benefit at all.

Ortiz also quotes from, interestingly, an article from the Southern Baptist Conservatives of VA, A Personal Quiet Time with God:

"[The article] provides a similar inferential scripture (not a command or instruction) when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane: "Jesus went alone to be with His Father (Matthew 26:36), and so should we." There are several surprising things about this citation. Jesus's time with His Father was anything but quiet (He sweated blood and cried out to God in anguish), it wasn't private (a stone's throw from his disciples was about 20 yards so they could hear Him)..."

The events of the Garden of Gethsemane are nothing but proof-texts to give credence to, as Ortiz points out, an unsupported doctrine.

However, Ortiz's article is far from comprehensive. The one Scripture that popped into my mind that was totally avoided in the article was Matthew 6:6.

But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.

It is surprising that Ortiz overlooked this passage of Scripture, because this is typically the verse that I have often heard quoted in defense of a personal devotional time. It is easy to see how one could extrapolate having a quiet time from this passage because Christ is teaching in contrast to the way the hypocrites pray, standing in the synagogues, babbling so as to be heard by all and have their apparent spirituality "approved" by passers-by. So, having a quiet time may not be unbiblical, it certainly could be classified as extra-biblical.

Ortiz cites several sources that offer Scripture-less defenses for maintaining a quiet time, and I confess my evidence is purely anecdotal. Nevertheless, it seems that Ortiz may be simply parsing words or jumping through semantic hoops to decry this spiritual discipline. As Ortiz notes, we are commanded in Scripture to pray and study the Word, but the modern notion of a quiet time is not commanded...or is it?

Sincerely,
Tony

Merry Christmas...Yeah, Right

It is difficult to hide my sarcasm and utter disdain, but this is the most transparently self-serving piece of promotional journalism I have seen in a very long time. In light of my Monday post on the "war" on Christmas, Baptist Press had this quaint little diddy come out yesterday that is a caricature of the scam that is the war on Christmas: LifeWay Stores point to Jesus amid Christmas season bustle. As you run around looking for another gift for another relative who doesn't need another gift from another relative, just don't forget that Jesus is the reason for the season.

With tight budgets, overwhelming schedules, frustrating traffic and politically correct retailers replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays," LifeWay Christian Stores is aiming to put the focus of Christ back into Christmas shopping.

As I pointed out Monday, the replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" is nothing less than a red herring to divert the attention of a harried shopper from the real issue, which is selfish greed dipping into their inattentive pockets. It is a nauseating attempt to divest Christians of their pocketbooks, laced with the supposed nobility of shopping at LifeWay because they really have put Christ back into Christmas shopping. Richard Mencer, manager of a LifeWay store in Texas, has some not so salient advice.

"As in everything, pray before you shop," Mencer suggested. "Ask God for direction on what to buy and for guidance in your shopping."

Don't forget to pray, but make sure you pray and shop. While you are praying don't forget to lift up LifeWay's burgeoning bottom line. If rampant commercialism does not convince the frenzied Christian shopper of LifeWay's true motivation, then maybe the hypocrisy of saying we don't focus on materialism at Christmas will.

Whether ministering to customers in the store or helping shoppers select gifts with a spiritual emphasis, LifeWay employees see the potential for eternal impact in Christmas shopping and giving in addition to increased opportunities to witness and encourage customers.

The self-centered, self-seeking, worldly focus of this article detracts from the true meaning of Christmas. As we become familiar with the truth, it becomes so commonplace to us that we become desensitized to pathetic attempts such as this to espouse the Scriptural commands of giving and helping the poor. Minister to LifeWay customers, ensuring they have a pleasant shopping experience, but what about those little kids who will not have a Christmas this year? It seems to me that LifeWay could have an even greater impact on eternity if they would broaden their target shopping base.

Just the other day in Belk's, I was buying a white shirt for my wife. A lady, wearing a "Jesus is the reason for the season" lapel pin, cut in front of me at the check-out line, without even a backward glance.

Nevertheless, I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Revelation 2:4

Sincerely,
Tony