The Five Points of Taylorism

Posted on 4 February 2015 by Seth Meyers

Recently, an influential evangelical, Justin Taylor pulled some reasons together that we should doubt young earth creationism. By Young Earth, as I’ve mentioned before, we do not mean 6,000 years, but rather no macroevolution. If we have no macroevolution, we will have an earth that is relatively young. There may be some gaps in the genealogy of Genesis 5. There may be an undefined period of time that Adam and Eve lived in sinless perfection.

But what there will not be is any death before sin. There will not be Cro-Magnon man. There will not be a hermeneutic guided by secular scientists.

Here are his arguments.

His Introduction:

Taylor: 

Contrary to what is often implied or claimed by young-earth creationists, the Bible nowhere directly teaches the age of the earth.

The issue is not the exact number of years, but whether or not we are giving any respect to evolution.

Taylor

It is commonly suggested that this is such a “plain reading” of Scripture—so obviously clear and true—that the only people who doubt it are those who have been influenced by Charles Darwin and his neo-Darwinian successors. The claim is often made that no one doubted this reading until after Darwin. (This just isn’t true—from ancient rabbis to Augustine to B. B. Warfield—but that’s another post for another time.)

  1. The five men he quotes from are after Darwin, except for Augustine, and including B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) whom he implied was before Darwin.
  2. Augustine’s supposed comment was treated in the comments. Historically, before Darwin, who ever held to an old earth?
  3. Two, possibly 3 of the 5 “stalwarts of the faith” were men who couldn’t see the errors of ecumenism (Young and Henry). Like all men, they were not always discerning, or if they were, they were afraid of giving offense for the truth.

Taylor

I fear that we’ve built an exegetical “fence around the Torah,” fearful that if we question any aspect of young-earth dogmatics we have opened the gate to liberalism.

Because of the repeated compromises in evangelicalism we are rightly concerned that questioning “young-earth dogmatics” again is in fact opening the door to evolution.

And now to his five points.

1. Genesis 1:1 Describes the Actual Act of Creation Out of Nothing and Is Not a Title or a Summary

How exactly does this damage young earth creation? It is possible that God formed matter in 1:1 and formed it throughout the rest of the story. It is possible that 1:1 stands as a summary. But either way, how does that weaken YEC or strengthen OE?

He mentions the perfect tense and the vav conjunction, but that sounds like trying to squeeze more out of the grammar than the author intended. For example, a verse he’ll use later Ex. 31:17, has God’s resting in the perfect tense. So does that mean God’s resting is now done? Well, he’s going to argue in point #3 that God’s resting is not done. Don’t make grammar do more than it was intended to do.

Even if those observations are what the author intended, its not clear how that casts a shadow on YEC.

2. The Earth, Darkness, and Water Are Created Before “The First Day”

This could refer to matter being created in an unformed state before God formed it each day. It could also be part of the summary. Either way, this doesn’t weaken YEC in any way that I can see.

His comments about “let there be” should be understood more by the immediate context than by jumping to a cross reference. If there is nothing in Gen. 1 to tell us what the phrase means, then lets go elsewhere, but the first chapter of the book is not opaque unless you bring that opaqueness with you, like Boromir brought a dark heart into Loth-Lorien.

3. The Seventh “Day” Is Not 24 Hours Long

Doubtful is the best thing that could be said for this observation. He sees that there is a rest belonging to God in Psalm 95:11. He then assumes that it is the same rest as Gen. 2:3. He then assumes that the seventh day is longer than 24 hours. As D. A. Carson has said, before I form an opinion on an important doctrine I want to see it more than in an obscure passage. Do you think we could introduce Carson and Taylor?

Using that hermeneutic, we could say the Peter’s call to Jesus while he was sinking, “Lord, Save me!” (Matt. 14:30) is a proof text for the sinner’s prayer because he said the word “save.” “We shall judge angels” (1 Cor. 6:2) contradicts Jesus’ teaching, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Then again, if God is resting, then why did Jesus say I work and my Father works (John 5:17)? Just because we see the word “rest” used twice referring to God does not mean that they are the same rest or that the first rest endured chronologically to the second rest.

But of all five points, I think this is his strongest one.

4. The “Day” of Genesis 2:4 Cannot Be 24 Hours Long

Fine. It’s not a 24-hour day. The normal laws of language allow everyone to see that it refers to time periods. Young earthers prefer normal usage, not necessarily literal since we all acknowledge figures of speech.

Since normal language allows this to be a figure, there is no problem at all with consistency.

Hosea 6:2 seems to be an exception to the general rule that numbered yom is a 24-hour day. But isn’t Hosea 6 referring to a type of Christ’s death and resurrection? If so, there is another tie to a literal day. However, put this in perspective: Scripture uses yom with an ordinal scores of times, and each time it refers to a 24-hour day. Once, probably, in Hosea it refers to a time period, yet the overwhelming usage says, yom with ordinals are literal days.

Specifically, the context of Gen. 1 does not need anything other than literal days to be understood by any reader unless he has a PhD.

5. The Explanation of Genesis 2:5-7 Assumes More Than an Ordinary Calendar Day

This is as pretty a picture as the first observation. The logic no more implies a long day than it implies a short day. Ordinary providence (italicized by Taylor) could fit a YEC explanation. God created everything in 6 days, and we were still going to wait until man and God’s ordinary providence brought all the beauty of the shrubs and crops. But if you quote a PhD from a Reformed seminary and if you mention the covenants, you’ve really proved your point, I guess. In some circles at least.

Why did Taylor write about this?

What would motivate an article like this? Notice his last line of the article: “But I see no reason to insist that they were only 24 hours long.” Nothing? Not even weaker arguments? There’s no danger in evolution? You can’t possibly be wrong? He is totally committed to OE and whatever evolution must come with it. Nice, open-minded position on a “secondary” issue, eh?

We not only know he’s confident, but he thinks its really important because:

  1. He knew it would be controversial, yet he still clicked “publish.”
  2. Its on the Gospel Coalition website which supposedly centers on the most vital issues to Christianity and overlooks the minor debates.
  3. He can’t even concede that there is any support for a firm 24-hour day position.

Mr. Taylor thinks it is critical for Christians to loosen their grip on Young Earth Creationism. Why? Because he wants to argue for an old earth model, and old earth means evolution. Now, why would he want to give any support to evolution? More cynical (or realistic) minds than mine can go in print on that question, but that is where the debate should be.

When I first read this article, I didn’t think: We’ve really got to respond to him point by point because his arguments are so trenchant! I thought rather, What would make a committed brother in Christ sell out the faith and the Word of God to worldly philosophy on this vital point?

When atheist Gordon Stein tries to derail Greg Bahnsen in the Great Debate by asking him about immoral actions in the OT, Bahnsen rightly ignores his specifics and goes for the root of the tree: “In an atheist universe, why is that wrong?”

I would say to Justin Taylor, In a Christian universe, who needs evolution? If no one, then take that divisive post off the Gospel Coalition which is supposed to be about unity around the essentials? If he really is jockeying for evolution, then speak up. Let’s have no gamesmanship. Let the lines be clearly drawn so we can see what we are debating over.

Gullibility is no fruit of the Spirit, and evolution is no fruit of true exegesis.

 

Posted in Pastoral | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

6 Reasons to Love Young Earth Creation

Posted on 3 February 2015 by Seth Meyers

Last year I made a list of Biblical reasons to hold to a Young Earth. By that term, I mean thousands of years not millions. No one knows precisely the age of the earth, but that’s not what is being debated by, for example, Justin Taylor. What’s at stake is evolution. Since I’ve posted some negative things recently, here’s a positive list of pure love for YEC—which of course implies hatred for evolution.

  1. YEC is the only view of Creation that removes all forms of macroevolution. Day-Age, gap theory, and framework hypothesis all need millions of years for the sake of evolution.
  2. YEC is the overwhelmingly dominant view of the church until Darwin. Who can you find before Darwin to talk about millions of years? Not even Augustine. Church history, if we read before the 20th century, is not on the side of any Christian who thinks fondly of evolution.
  3. YEC supports perspicuity. Once upon a time, the Reformers actually thought the clarity of Scripture was a vital point in the spiritual war.
  4. YEC naturally supports the global flood of Noah rather than some local spillage. By getting Genesis 1 right, you are set up to get chapters 2-9 right. That’s 9 chapters for the price of one. Or you lose all 9 if you somehow find millions of year lurking between “the evening and the morning were the first day.”
  5. YEC keeps the antithesis clear. Especially these days, YEC says, “There are two sides that cannot be reconciled. One is founded on the authority of Scripture and the other is founded on the authority of man. Choose you this day.” Sure, maybe other views can try to use Scripture, but it takes more work for a theistic evolutionist to demonstrate to an unbeliever that he is really loyal to the Bible not merely the latest book.
  6. YEC fits the scientific record. The lack of missing links, tree fossils through multiple geologic “layers,” and animals that can only mate within their kind is just the tip of the iceberg of evolution’s difficulties.

 

Posted in Hermeneutics, Lists | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Betrayed by a “Legalist”

Posted on 30 January 2015 by Seth Meyers

When I googled “every square inch” I came up with about 17 million hits. Many of them were Christian websites launching off of Abraham Kuyper’s famous quote about conquering every square inch for Christ.

That well-phrased line of his reflects Paul’s teaching, “He has put all things in subjection under His feet.”, or the return of Christ on the white horse with power and glory to rule the world in Rev. 19. It is a biblical, God-honoring image.

In his Lectures on Calvinism Kuyper unpacks that line in four different areas of society. I have heard evangelicals quote him to support the idea that they can be faithful Christians while working in a casino or as underwear models. Would the author support that application? Was Kuyper one of the modern culture-engagers?

At the end of chapter 2, where Kuyper treats religion, he has several pages of which these comments are merely examples. Ask yourself if he is “engaging the culture.”

Kuyper on playing cards:

[Christianity] placed a barrier against the too unhallowed influence of this world by putting a distinct ‘veto’ upon three things, card playing, theatres, and dancing.

[Christians] could not help loathing a game which poisoned [the sensation of God’s ever enduring presence].

Kuyper on theater and drama:

That which offended our ancestors was… the moral sacrifice which as a rule was demanded of actors and actresses for the amusement of the public.

This low moral standard resulted partly from the fact that the constant and ever-changing presentation of the character of another person finally hampers the moulding of your personal character; and partly because our modern theaters, unlike the Greek, have introduced the presence of women on the stage, the prosperity of the theater being too often gauged by the measure in which a woman jeopardizes the most sacred treasures God entrusts to her.

The prosperity of theaters is purchased at the cost of manly character and female purity. And the purchase of delight for the ear and the eye at the price of such a moral hecatomb, the Calvinist, who honored whatever was human in man for the sake of God, could not but condemn.

Kuyper summarizing his case:

Our fathers perceived excellently well that it was just these three: dancing, card-playing, and theater going, with which the world was madly in love. In worldly circles these pleasures were not regarded as secondary trifles, but honored as all-important matters: and whoever dared to attack them exposed himself to the bitterest scorn and enmity. For this very reason, they recognized in these three the Rubicon which no true Calvinist could cross without sacrificing his earnestness to dangerous mirth, and the fear of the Lord to often far from spotless pleasures. And now I may ask, has not the result justified their strong and brave protest?

Have the New Calvinists even read that section? This is an important part of what Abraham Kuyper meant when he said:

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!

You are as dishonest as an Arminian who uses Spurgeon to oppose Calvinism if you use Kuyper to oppose separation from sinful cultural practices. Though we are saturated with advanced degrees in theology, we are confused and awkward about the Christian sensibility of hating sin–possibly there’s a connection between the increase in one and the rise in the other. If you are one who loves quoting Kuyper, but eagerly devours the current cultural fare, you’ve been betrayed.

Posted in Book reviews, Inconsistency, Orthopathy, Quotes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A 13 Word Review of Disney’s Frozen

Posted on 29 January 2015 by Seth Meyers

Only a post modern could make a movie as bad as Disney’s Frozen, and only a post modern could enjoy it. In 12 points I’ll try to prove the first assertion, and in the final point the latter.

Quickly, a few disclaimers: I have no new categories of criticism for Frozen for which examples cannot be easily culled from many other movies. Yet even though the fruit is easy to pick from most popular art, this latest offering from Disney studios moves further down the road than its predecessors. Also, I love fiction and fairy tales as long as they are good, true, and beautiful. Positively, of course, the animation is world class.

However, Frozen is flippant, crude, contemporary, immature, pointless, hopeless, inconsistent, unbelievable, perverse, sensational, antinomian, narcissistic, and subtle.

1.     Flippant

Anna is trite and ditzy throughout even when in life and death situations. She and Kristoff exchange one-liners while they are in mortal combat with the wolves and the huge snow monster. When romancing Hans at the beginning she babbles along like a foolish girl who has not been trained by a loving father and mother. Whether thinking about choosing a mate or fighting for her life, lines rolls off her lips like nothing really matters that much. Maybe the writer actually thinks that deep down?

How can a society ever hear the gospel in piercing calls like Whitefield and Baxter used to give in England, if they are subconsciously immersed in flippancy at all times? C. S. Lewis warned us through Screwtape’s letters that this is the most dangerous aspect of humor. When the greatest realities should have been occupying their minds, they—like all modern heroes—are funny.

2.     Crude

Jane Austen knew that morals are communicated to generations through manners. She wrote classic novels where the characters demonstrated dignity and respect to each other as a society. There is no bathroom humor because her society hadn’t crossed those lines (or dipped that low). Doesn’t the image of God in each man deserve social dignity?

If so, then why did the writer of Frozen spread at least four (that I caught) crude jokes throughout? Anna sings about passing gas, the Trolls talk about Kristoff relieving himself, and Kristoff and Olaf also join in. Importantly, Kristoff brings up picking your nose to a member of the opposite sex only a few minutes after having met her because apparently there is no need to have any fear or decorum anymore.

How bad are these jokes? They stand as one more indicator of the mindset of the producers: “Manners are bad; being raw, open, uncut, and real are the great virtues.” How did such vices get to be included in the dialogue of a story supposedly set in ancient times? The script could only have been written by a post-modern.

3.     Contemporary

By contemporary I mean carrying all the non-spoken, non-propositional sentiments of the 21st century. The movie’s dominant musical style must be pop rock; the ladies have to be portrayed as equally valiant as the men; the exciting scenes must push the edge of sensationalism. Anna wields the knife in a flash to cut the rope when the snow monster will presumably kill them both. They fall “200 hundred feet” into a foot of snow and yet are not hurt. The first words after their fall are a joke. Death, sobriety, and danger have no words or character in this film—just like modern life. Nearly any sensibility that built Facebook is found in this movie.

4.     Immature

The poetry is agonizingly youthful and current. Poetry by definition is supposed to be exalted language, but in the songs the writers offer numerous phrases like, “It’s funny that…” or “’Cause like / I’ve been searching my whole life…” and again, “And it’s nothing like I’ve ever known before!”

The songs can be enjoyed immediately without reflection, meditation, maturity or growth saving a slight exception in “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” where some values from folk music snuck in. There is no reaching upward. Olaf’s character in general and song in particular are childishly stupid.

Anna is boy crazy who gives her heart away as if she never saw a human exercise self-restraint. Maybe that’s because the writers and prospective viewers haven’t chosen that as their “word of the year” recently. When we all see Anna sacrifice herself for her sister, they have to spell it out for the not-quite-bright audience with an explicit line from Elsa.

5.     Pointless

What is the conflict? Elsa wants to run away and live by herself. The kingdom has a lot of snow. There’s nothing else on the line. Sure, once Anna starts out, she gets herself in danger, but there’s little tension and no stable enemy. Are they supposed to defeat Elsa? Nature? The snow monster? Hans? The skinny guy from Wiselton? Maybe the big problem at the beginning is Elsa’s powers. But she conquers those by wearing gloves. Maybe the big problem is global cooling. But plenty of people live and thrive in the snow.

But is there a constant enemy in the 21st century? Islam? Homosexuality? This movie mimics the producers’ mindset that there is no absolute evil like there is no absolute good.

6.     Hopeless

Ultimately, this movie is hopeless. Elsa does not know how to cure the weather, nor does she know how to restore the relationship with her sister. The fact that we end up happily celebrating ice sculptures in Arrendelle does not satisfy at all when we consider that it was a stab in the dark or a helpless existential dash from Anna that somehow made everything right again. Superficial reviewers may rejoice in the “Christian” implications of Anna’s sacrifice, but the metaphor has been gutted of most Christological affections. The heroine before and after the sacrifice is a silly youth motivated by love for her sister with no hope that her sacrifice will do anything other than express her desires—like she’s been doing through the whole story. The movie might have ended happily, but there was nothing about the world they created that made a happy ending necessary.

7.     Inconsistent

The snow queen who supposedly loves her sister creates a snow monster who forcibly ejects Anna and Kristoff. Through the legs of the threatening monster, we see Elsa callously close the palace doors on her sister’s fate. At a whim, she creates a monster that attempts to kill two innocent people. Thankfully, they can joke their way through these sister-sponsored attempts at culpable homicide. This plot twist is vital to prolonging the length of the story which is the only reason I can think why Elsa does not immediately create another snow monster when the goons with cross bows try to take her. Elsa remains the queen and co-heroine of the tale.

In the same category, are the physical laws of this imaginary world. It would seem that we are in a world that generally operates the way the real world does with the slight exception of Elsa’s ability to create ice. Then she has power to change the entire atmosphere and change it back. The movie assumes that moral laws and scientific laws are consistent with the real world, but Elsa can be an accessory to attempted murder and then change the atmosphere without any explanation of the previous assumptions.

8.     Unbelievable

Anna is a normal girl, right? But yet she rides through the snow without a coat or covered shoulders, runs through icy water without serious consequences, and punches a 200 lb. man hard enough to send him over the side of the boat. At a key point in the movie, Olaf unlocks a door with a carrot. Hans calls Elsa a “monster” for defending herself against murderous intent. One of the duke’s men still tries to shoot a crossbow at Elsa even while he is about to be speared to death. His single, misfired arrow severs the ice strand holding up a chandelier. The following chandelier does not hit Elsa, but she suddenly blacks out for a number of hours. This is like the story teller who can’t figure out how to solve the problem, so he slips “magic” into his story to save his imagination. How different is Elsa anyway? She walks many miles through deep snow without any need to eat, sleep, or get warm. The snow melts out from under them, and they’re not afraid. Then a ship comes up out of nowhere.

And for the champion jump-the-shark moment, there is no good reason why the parents and Elsa did not simply explain the terrible situation to Anna. The entire plot is made up of a false dilemma since no parent would cloister their children from each other rather than simply explain the problem. Again, it may fit the messy family scenarios of today who have lots of complicated tensions, but its bad writing.

Something can be unbelievable because we did not expect it (like Sidney Carton’s heroism in A Tale of Two Cities) or because the laws of the universe in which the story takes place wouldn’t support those events (everything cited above). Great fiction writers copy the real world to a degree and follow meticulously the metaphors that God has placed behind all reality. Post moderns write like Frozen.

9.     Perverse

In the song with the trolls they sing about Kristoff’s relationship with the reindeer that is “against the laws of nature.” Arguably the most dominant moral message of the film is that Elsa was “born with it.” She is told by society to “conceal, don’t feel.” She finally and fearlessly belts out “Let it go!” and “slam the door” of the closet from which she is emerging. She is unjustly segregated, denounced, and condemned, yet at the end of the film, who is left without a spouse? Show me that value meal of ideas in Dickens, or Melville, or Bunyan’s allegories. Writers from the halls of time don’t make their characters like Elsa because they don’t feel like producers in Hollywood.

10.  Sensational

The two heroes leapt across a 6-8 meter gorge while running up hill in the snow being chased by wolves. The thin young lady paused while retreating to attack the enormous snow monster. Even the love scene between Hans and Anna played off the most thrilling, captivating stimuli such as flashing skirts, quick romance, and witty repartee. The modern man wants thrills, and modern writers will move Arrendelle to create them. In the school room of the movie theater we have all dutifully learned our lesson to love the adrenaline rush, and Frozen is a typical example of extreme adventures. I wonder why Johnny can’t focus at his lessons like his great-great grandfather?

11.  Antinomian

“No right, no wrong, no rules for me I’m free!” Thus, the battle cry of the post moderns has finally been crystallized into an explicit ballad where both music and words blend like yin and yang. The musical style was already telling us to trash rules and live by passion, but for those of us blinded by the ubiquity of pop music, they helpfully put it in words this time around.

When movies cost $150 million and have the potential of grossing well over a billion dollars, every comment, tone, and color is intentional. Stately and classic is Elsa’s wardrobe at the beginning of the song, but as she finishes “Let It Go!” she slits her skirt—twice, reveals her shoulders, swaggers her hips, and personifies glamour. No one could mistake her for a Victorian princess though that is the most likely historical setting of the story. She walks like an anorexic model on the runway.

The “rules” learned through God’s law in the heart and the Bible have been solidified over centuries in Western society, and the Hollywood elite have spoken loudly via their cheeky blonde spokeschic that, “We’re done with Law!” Psalm 2 comes to life even as the King looks down and mocks their puny insurrection.

Ah, but what about that great moment where Elsa tells Anna, “You can’t marry someone you just met today.”? That’s really conservative, isn’t it? Nope, because that was the old, stodgy Elsa who doesn’t “feel.” She repents of all such wisdom as she walks up the mountain belting out her new anthem of lawlessness. The Elsa at the end of the movie would not have offered such advice, she would rather tell Anna to marry Kristoff whom she has also only known for about 24 hours. The writers are giving us the mature Elsa as the picture of virtue who doesn’t care how long Anna knows the man as long as she is really following her heart. Laws are out, and heart is in. What could be more modern than that?

12.  Narcissistic

Sinful hearts are selfish hearts so narcissism is a classic problem seen through all human history. But in the 21st century mushrooming wealth has helped turn the pursuit of pleasure into either a viable goal or a celebrated virtue. Since Frozen’s producers are thoroughly committed to the values of Now, it is no surprise to see Anna sing, not about the dignity of a prince marrying a princess, but the existential personal pleasures that a girl experiences when desired by a boy. The shift is away from the goodness of marriage (which then can easily move on to something ultimate), and rather to the titillation girls and boys feel when Anna’s bare shoulder flirtatiously rotates during “For the First Time in Forever.” The same sensibilities are in play when Anna’s dialogue sounds like Facebook status updates rather than dialogue from Emma.

Hans and Anna experience a brief romance which is notable, not for its being rebuked by Elsa, but for the glamour and pleasure that the girls will feel as they consume “Love Is an Open Door.” Even the title preaches the existentialist leap of faith toward your desires.

If there is a plot, it centers around Elsa running away from her duties because she doesn’t like them, but when Caspian tries to do the same thing he is rebuked by the Great Lion. In Narnia, letting it go was not allowed, but Frozen was apparently set in a world with no Aslan. Why would anyone want to write fiction against Him? Deeper still, why would Christians enjoy visiting a world where He and His laws are assumed out of existence?

13.  Subtle

The previous observations should stand to demonstrate the convictions of the writers and underwriters of not merely the film in question, but any works of “art” that share similar characteristics. This movie was made by die-hard post-moderns whose only hope is a spiritual lobotomy affected by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. The stench of contemporary values wafts incontrovertibly and repeatedly from beginning to end of this movie.

But the final category is almost a paradox. There is a kind of subtlety to this movie and many others. Reviewers will look for superficial redemptive values like Anna sacrificing for Elsa and then rejoice in the unwitting Christian message even while the real creators may hate God implicitly or even explicitly.

Reviewers who look for worldviews are on the right track, but even those who talk about worldview miss the point if they have already committed themselves to the sensibilities of modernity. Friends to whom I’ve spoken have answered that children won’t pick up the categories listed above. “I didn’t even pick up on those things,” they’ll sometimes say. Neither do fish know they’re wet.

Visual media work on us like the sun works on a sunrise—usually without observation. Because our affections are tuned more by environment than propositions, constant exposure to grand houses of worship teaches us that our Father is infinite and transcendent. Sober worship music teaches us (quite apart from propositions) that the Subject is as terrible as an army with banners.

The chill of Frozen seeps into the mind a few drops at a time like all other visual forms so that even though watching it once can be shrugged off, the industry is fatal. Who wants to eat a French fry dripping with grease just because one won’t kill you? If you love grease, you can expect to be testing Obamacare pretty soon.

A Christian can justly watch this movie as long as he doesn’t enjoy it because taking entertainment pleasure from worldly sensibilities is the subtle toxin in modern media. There may be good reasons to go through the trash, but there’s a loose wire somewhere if we imagine dirty bins are clean. If worldliness is following the world’s values, Anna and Elsa’s 15 seconds of fame have given us crystal clear examples of what that looks like in a movie.

 

Posted in Definitions, Inconsistency, Rewarding mediocrity | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Why Missionaries Need to Read History

Posted on 25 January 2015 by Seth Meyers

In the last 60 years nearly every country on the continent of Africa has received its independence from the previous colonial powers. In almost every case, the countries have tended to disaster. Now, to write that you need historical proof, and that is what Martin Meredith supplies in The State of Africa (2005), updated as The Fate of Africa (2011).

He does not offer solutions (Should a historian?), but I’m OK with that since I have a worldview to bring to these facts. Meredith journals with memorable detail the sad stories in every chapter. Mobutu steals the immense wealth of the Congo. Idi Amin in Uganda is eventually dispatched only to be replaced by a man just as bad, but not as famous. Julius Nyerere in Tanzania is the soft socialist who damages his country with less flair. Only Nelson Mandela sounds like a hero in this book, and even he has feet of clay.

Missionaries in Africa need to read this. Why? Because they need to have concrete examples that bad religion produces the bad fruit of endemic poverty and rising infant morality rates. Some foolish studies are trying to find causes for Africa’s suffering outside of the spiritual realm. And some believers are arguing that Africa is having a “vital explosion” of genuine Christianity. Read Meredith’s account and try to make that argument again.

Africa’s problems are terrible because African traditional religion is terrible. And while all false religions tend to impoverish and even kill their adherents, some religions have even less in common with the one true religion than others. Judaism for example, borrows many Christian ideas from the OT such as a hard work ethic and a linear view of time. African religions do not have either of these and many other basic beliefs that are vital for wealth creation. The further you stand from the fire, the colder you feel. Jews have no hope of Heaven without repenting, but they can live a lot better here on earth by taking to heart the wisdom of Proverbs. Satan has worked for millennia, however, to keep even that temporal wisdom from the hands, hearts, and heads of Africans.

Those whose job it is to make disciples of all nations should read history to further entrench their hatred of the false religions that damn the people they love. We should read history to make us understand their plight with more color and empathy. We should read history to enliven our sermons with fresh and poignant illustrations. We should read history in hopes of changing the future.

If you live or work in Africa, read Martin Meredith’s The Fate of Africa.

 

Posted in Book reviews, Missions, Pastoral | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

2014 Booklist

Posted on 25 January 2015 by Seth Meyers

I grade books in five categories so that the maximum score is a 10. Each book can get a zero, 1, or 2 according to the grid below. My scores follow the book title in the list below.  Under each title is a summary of the book’s main point in a sentence.

Awards:

  • Book of the Year: Martin Meredith, The State of Africa
  • Surprise of the Year: Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren
  • Worst of the Year: Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert, When Helping Hurts

Scoring:

0     The book was notable for lacking this category repeatedly.
1     The book dipped into this category at times.
2     The book consistently demonstrated this category.

Non-Fiction Categories:

  • Weight: Did the book ask and answer the most germane questions about an important topic?
  • Research: Did the writer demonstrate a thorough command of the subject?
  • Style: Did the theme, vocabulary, and composition represent an enduring standard?
  • Logic: Did the book model logic in definitions, formatting, and focus?
  • Affections: Was some truth presented powerfully to the affections?

Non-Fiction Books of 2014 (29)

  1. MacArthur, John. Strange Fire. 2013, 331 pages. 10
    Charismaticism is a deep well of theological errors. Filled with good bad examples and Biblical insight.
  2. Boers, Ted. Demons of Poverty. 2012, 188 pages. 7
    An American businessman tries to fight poverty for a decade in Haiti and discovers that their poverty has spiritual causes.
  3. Jones, Doug and Doug Wilson. Angels in the Architecture. 1998, 215 pages. 9
    Comparing the culture of modernity with medievalism, the past provides a better blueprint for an ideal Christian culture than the present.
  4. Beynon, Graham. Isaac Watts. 2013, 196 pages. 8
    Watts labored as a pastor and author for 50 years writing hymns as well as theology, devotion, logic, science, letters, etc. I’ve read 2 of his books and a booklet of poems, but I’d like all his works.
  5. Wilson, Doug. Father Hunger. 2012, 218 pages. 9
    Masculinity comes to maturity in fatherhood. His writing seems effortless with metaphors in nearly every paragraph.
  6. Makujina, John. Measuring the Music. 369 pages. 9
    Makujina starts with mature exegesis and then discusses performer appearance, musical meaning, aesthetics, psychology, and history. Heavily footnoted, saturated with examples. 60 pages of appendices.
  7. Clowney, Ed. Preaching Christ in All of Scripture. 189 pages. 6
    A collection of sermons with a pair of introductory essays. Any element in the text that strongly moves our passions is a signpost to Jesus either positively or negatively.
  8. Wilson, Douglas. A Primer on Worship and Reformation. 72 pages. 7
    Many insights around the major topics stemming from worship, especially preaching.
  9. Mouw, Richard. Abraham Kuyper. 136 pages. 5
    Kuyper tried to apply Christianity to all areas of life, and Mouw tries to use him to support his moderate-liberal views of culture, politics, and economics.
  10. Platt, Richard. As One Devil to Another. 190 pages. 8
    A retelling of Lewis’ Screwtape Letters for a modern audience. Second reading.
  11. Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. 199 pages. 9
    In 6 lengthy lectures, Kuyper identifies Calvinism applied to every area of life as a Christian worldview and the only path for success. Not much Bible; lots of history and philosophy.
  12. Murrow, David. Why Men Hate Going to Church. 248 pages. 3
    Men don’t go to church because it is effeminate these days. His solutions are marinated in pop culture and marketing studies. The Bible is not important to this book.
  13. Helms, Randall. Tolkien’s World. 167 pages. 6
    Tolkien’s Middle Earth is classic and enduring fiction because it is based on a Christian perspective of heroes, history, and creation.
  14. Morecraft, Joe. How God Wants Us to Worship Him. 225 pages. 7
    Christian worship should be restricted to those elements that are in Scripture. Debatable points throughout the book, but plentiful references to Scripture and history.
  15. Murray, Iain. The Life of Arthur Pink. 2004, 350 pages. 8
    Pink was insightful, hardworking, and lonely. The last few chapters were the best.
  16. Kimball, Roger. The Long March. 2000, 326 pages. 8
    The cultural forces unleashed from 1958-1974 represent the greatest causes of decline in societal goodness, truth, and beauty. Conservative Catholic with no Scripture.
  17. Armstrong, John, ed. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. 2007, 222 pages. 7
    The Baptists are right.
  18. Meredith, Martin. The State of Africa. 2006, 752 pages. 10 BOOK OF THE YEAR
    Since independence in the 50’s, Africa’s problems have multiplied in nearly every social, economic, and political sphere. The history implies that the African worldview cannot discover goodness, truth, and beauty.
  19. James, Joel. Expository Studying. 2008, 177. 7
    Good preaching comes from good studying. He also presents a method for sermon preparation that includes two tools for developing a thesis and outline: block diagramming and plural noun summary.
  20. MacArthur, John, et. al. Rediscovering Expository Preaching. 1992, 410. 9
    A score of essays about preaching where the main goal is to teach the Bible. MacArthur’s essays are the best.
  21. Campbell, Iain, ed. Engaging with Keller. 2013, 200 or so. 8
    On 6 key issues Keller’s teaching varies between mushy and dangerous. Convincing. (inerrancy, sin, hermeneutics, hell, evolution, and social ministry)
  22. Zinsser, William. On Writing Well. 2006, 321. 5
    A guide for writing about personal interest topics like “people and places” that is overtly and repeatedly modern. Except where it is postmodern.
  23. Schaeffer, Francis. How Then Shall We Live. 1976, 288. 8
    The glory of Western culture springs from its Christian roots though the foundation is greatly weakened today.
  24. Edwards, Brian. God’s Outlaw: The Story of William Tyndale. 1976, 170. 10
    “[O]thers in the castle [where Tyndale was held for his trial and execution] confirmed that if Tyndale was not a true Christian, then there was no such thing.”
  25. Corbett, Steve and Brian Fikkert. When Helping Hurts. 2012, 274. 5 WORST OF THE YEAR
    How Christians can reduce poverty around the world without evangelism or making the poor feel too bad about the culture that produced their economic misery.
  26. Verduin, Leonard. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, 1964, 292. 9 SURPRISE OF THE YEAR
    The Anabaptists were Biblical Christians who opposed the “statism” of the Reformers. All of the differences between these two groups stem from their respective definitions of the church.
  27. Smith, Graeme. Triumph in Death. 1987, 128. 9
    The first missionaries to Madagascar were kicked out after 17 years of ministry, but the persecuted believers have stayed strong and even grown.
  28. Wilson, Doug. Black and Tan. 2005, 122. 7
    Southern slavery in the US was not always a sin, nor was it as bad as modern writers say it was.
  29. Swanson, Kevin. The Tattooed Jesus. 2014, 160. 6
    Pop culture isn’t Christian culture.

Fiction Categories:

  • Biblical: Did the author honor Scriptural truth or a Christian worldview even if unwittingly?
  • Creative: Did the author grip the imagination by inventing characters, situations, or other aspects of reality?
  • Style: Did the theme, vocabulary, and composition represent an enduring standard?
  • Credible: Were the characters, plot turns, and relationships believable?
  • Affections: Was some truth presented powerfully to the affections?

Fiction Books of 2014 (6)

  1. Tolkien, J. R. R. The Lord of the Rings. 10
    My seventh reading.
  2. Michener, James. The Covenant. 1980, 1125. 5
    South Africa’s 300-year history fictionally retold from a liberal perspective. An engaging way to learn about history, especially important for us.
  3. Hugo, Victor. Les Miserables. 7
    Grace is more powerful and beautiful than law, but since he doesn’t have a Christian perspective, the picture is often skewed. He missed a number of good chances to put down his pen.
  4. Lewis, C.S. The Chronicles of Narnia. 10
    My sixth reading, I think.
  5. Paton, Alan. Cry, The Beloved Country. 1948, 238. 6
    The blacks of South Africa were degraded, violent, and impoverished in 1948 largely because of the whites’ colonial policies.
  6. Austen, Jane. Persuasion. 8
    Big surprise: Girls really want to get married. And guys want it too. Almost like they were designed for it.

If you made it this far and want the chart that breaks each book’s scoring down per category, I can send it to you.

Posted in Book reviews, Lists | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Can a Godly Man Lead His Family into Danger?

Posted on 25 January 2015 by Seth Meyers

Two Fences Not to be Crossed

If any provide not for his own, and specially those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Paul’s first letter to Timothy

But also,

I endure all things for the elect’s sakes that they may also obtain salvation. Paul’s second letter to Timothy

If a father of three little girls lives in an area with a publicly visible criminal record including half dozen sex offenders in the immediate vicinity, should he make plans to move elsewhere? Maybe there are some situations when he should stay, but is it always wrong to leave? No, we can easily imagine a scenario with a certain level of danger and a certain family in which the most godly choice would be to move to another community.

There are at least some circumstances where Jesus urged his followers to preserve themselves: “When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another.” And Solomon taught his son that a wise man will foresee evil and make a plan to avoid it. The goal of our prayers for politicians should be that we lead a “quiet and peaceable life.”

So, is the first principle Biblical? Yes.

But the second principle is undoubtedly in Scripture as well. Jesus taught us to move away from self-preservation. “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. … He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”

After his bruises had healed from multiple beatings, after he had been stoned, after every kind of physical stress, the apostle Paul refers to this entire class as a “light affliction which is but for a moment.”

The believers in Madagascar today trace their roots back to a 30-year period of imprisonment, beating and martyrdom from 1837. Neither could our Lord accomplish his mission without planning to move himself into danger—he set his face to go to Jerusalem.

The second principle is solidly grounded in Scripture as God’s will for His people.

Reconciling these two requires us to first of all have a firm commitment to both of them. We must unflinchingly prepare for suffering, persecution, and death for the joy that is set before us. A godly husband will also love his wife and children by planning for them to live in peace.

Guided by Gifting
Our Father’s unique calling for each of His children can probably best be seen through the lens of the gifts He has given. Those gifts can probably best be seen through our desires especially in light of slow, but steady Christian growth. A man who is able to live with joy in a hard place for the sake of the gospel and a woman who can live with peace in like conditions may actually be called to do it. But God has not made the elephant to fly, nor should it feel guilty if it doesn’t.

God’s calling varies by person because He did not choose to create everyone the same. The Creator who made earth tones also has a place for pastels on His canvas.

A husband needs to consider the gifting represented by all his family members in relationship to the level of change, difficulty, and risk that is involved with the opportunity before him.

Cultural Elasticity
Speaking stereotypically, how far can we expect the average personality to stretch before it snaps? People who were born after 1970 in the USA or other rich societies have had their expectations set for two decades to a high level of comfort. For that person so programmed to live for an extended period of time in the village areas of Chad would be unconscionable to him. That difficulty I have nicknamed “cultural elasticity,” and I don’t think it’s all sinful selfishness.

Part of the hardness that the average modern evangelical would find in such a dramatic switch seems to come from the nature of the human soul. Our routine provides security and emotional stability. Yes, I am speaking generally. There are people who are made with greater flexibility both men and women. That flexibility is part of the call to churchplanting in hard places.

If we overlook this element, the mysterious subjectivity of the call will place even greater hindrances to self-evaluation than it has to.

The Spectrum of Safety-Risk
The frontlines of war during South Sudan’s conflict with the Islamic north was too dangerous for a wife and children. But outside open war, there are so many various factors that have to be settled that the best we can offer is a tool: a linear graph measuring the safety and risk of any situation.

Safety                                        Risk
1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10

Some risk has to be taken by Christians in general and missionaries in particular because it is not possible to live outside Heaven without risk. And also because taking risks demonstrates that we love Jesus more than peace and comfort. However, deciding exactly where on the scale to place your family requires a weighing of husband and wife’s gifting along with the poverty and danger of any given situation. Because personalities and countries can offer a nearly infinite variety of nuances, then each husband must decide in light of his situation.

Is there, then, no objective truth in this matter? Are we hopelessly lost in post modernity with Peter Jackson’s feckless Frodo and Sam? The objective truth consists in the pair of principles offered at the beginning. Each family must be able to look at the talents on loan to them and honestly demonstrate at the final day that they were endeavoring to both provide for their family’s physical and emotional needs as well as fight with all their strength in the holy war.

Can a husband lead his wife and children into danger? Until Heaven, he can’t lead them anywhere else.

Posted in Ethical dilemmas, Hermeneutics, Missions | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

When Hurting Helps 5: What Does That Title Mean?

Posted on 3 November 2014 by Seth Meyers

Read Part 1: A Popular Call to Some Good Things

Read Part 2: Ignoring Churchplanting and Evangelism

Read Part 3: Redefining Poverty

Read Part 4: Refusing to Confront Culture

The Cause of Poverty

Outside of natural disasters like hurricanes and car accidents and cancer, the real cause of poverty is sin—and even natural disasters find their roots in sin. It is that simple. All over the world, in each culture, sinful decisions have been calcified into systems of thought and behavior. These days, those systems are called worldviews. The system of thought described in Scripture is a Christian worldview and is responsible for the wealth of the world.

Notice that the sinner responsible for the poor person’s poverty may be a politician or a criminal. A poor person in the Congo may be poor because of his own sin, or maybe because of those in his government or the criminals that the government should have stopped. But what is always sure is that poverty comes from sin.

Suffering may be allowed by God as in the case of Job, but poverty is a state of lack in a world sufficiently stocked by the Creator. If sin is the most common cause of poverty, then a book on poverty alleviation should talk about the precious remedies against this poison. You won’t find much discussion of repentance, Bible study, evangelism, or the means of grace in When Helping Hurts though.

Even in the 16-page discussion of poverty, they make sure we know that worldview “transformation is often insufficient to alleviate poverty for several reasons. … Even if all humans had the correct worldview, Satan would still be on the prowl, attacking us and the rest of creation, thereby causing ‘poverty’ in many manifestations.” (83) Having our minds renewed by Scripture is insufficient because Satan will still cause poverty? Did he really mean to write that? (After all, as a good amillennialist, doesn’t he believe that Satan is bound right now?) I think he did mean to write it that way because throughout the book, he does not act as if sin causes poverty. Except for one full page (76), he does not treat evangelism, and churchplanting does not show up in the entire book. So apparently, poverty alleviation does not require new hearts or new churches; it might be nice to have some Christianity, but according to the authors, it’s not necessary.

Painful Advice

In When Helping Hurts Fikkert and Corbett aim to help rich Americans do a better job alleviating poverty around the world. Of course, they make some good recommendations regarding short term mission trips and personal responsibility, but the main point of their book is too weak to really lift the huge weight of poverty from the shoulders of those struggling around the world. Unfortunately, the authors are more concerned with keeping the temperature of the discussion comfortable than with actually eradicating poverty.

“What is wrong with you? How can I fix you?” … Starting with such questions initiates the very dynamic that we need to avoid, a dynamic that confirms the feelings that we are superior, that they are inferior, and that they need us to fix them.

Fikkert and Corbett, When Helping Hurts, 119

But what if this is the truth? What if “they” have something terribly wrong with themselves that is trapping them in poverty? What if they desperately need to be fixed so that they can get out of the downward spiral of generational poverty?

The truth is that inferior cultures have always been conquered and ultimately helped by superior ones. In ancient times, the loser found better weapons and farming techniques from the victor. Today, American Christians may offer a superior understanding of work, time management (The discussion of time management on 152-153 makes me cringe, possibly the most naïve section in the book.), personal responsibility, planning, education, and theology.

But in order to accept these strengths, the poor person needs to recognize that his culture, his way of doing things, and his worldview are wrong. Ouch. No one likes to admit he’s wrong, but you’ve got a choice: keep your pride and your poverty, or grasp after humility and hopefully catch enough wisdom to get you out of the miserable hole of material want.

Of course, poverty alleviation also includes changing the government as well as cultural values of the whole community. But each person must take responsibility at the very least for himself and his family. And yes, that’s a Western idea that we have been borrowing from Moses, Jesus, and Paul for many generations. There was a time when America was poor too.

Why did I call this set of reviews, When hurting helps? Because as Spurgeon told us at the beginning, “If you really long to save men’s souls, you must tell them a great deal of disagreeable truth.” He also said, “Why carry your head so high that it must needs be cut off?” Truly helping the poor means telling them the painful truth, that their religious beliefs are terribly wrong. And these beliefs bear the greatest responsibility for the iron shackles of poverty that they and we so desperately want to break. The poor are released most entirely from their fetters by preaching, evangelism, and churchplanting just like the book of Acts says. All other efforts are nice add ons, like repainting a car with no engine.

Now why couldn’t Fikkert and Corbett have given us 250 pages of painful, healing truths like that? Maybe they think we can’t take it, or maybe they couldn’t take it.

Posted in Book reviews, Missions, Multiculturalism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

When Hurting Helps 4: Refusing to Confront Culture

Posted on 3 November 2014 by Seth Meyers

Read Part 1: A Popular Call to Some Good Things

Read Part 2: Ignoring Churchplanting and Evangelism

Read Part 3: Redefining Poverty

American whites should feel guilty. And all cultures are filled with goodness, truth, and beauty. You haven’t read well if you didn’t get these two points from When Helping Hurts. We’ll follow the author’s thinking on these two tracks before looking at the real cause of poverty and then closing with some painful advice.

White Guilt

We all use stereotypes, and language would be difficult without them. A stereotype is a summary of dominant characteristics. It is not meant to be an exhaustive catalogue just like saying that Toyotas are dependable is not false because of the occasional Toyota that may be a lemon. They are illustrations, which are meant to communicate at least one point. Stereotypes may be wrong, but using them is not necessarily wrong.

And Fikkert does that with us throughout this book. On 247 he says there is “one step that is more important than” anything else in the book. What is it? “It is the step of repentance … our repentance.” (italics and ellipsis in original) The book is filled with “like us” and “we too” or as this final example shows (only 3 pages from the end), the most important thing we could remember about helping the poor is to repent ourselves.

Who is the “us”? And what did they do? He’s talking about the average reader of this book in American evangelicalism. The average reader is an evangelical white male. He needs to repent. He has capitulated to a modern worldview (90, 248), has a god-complex (60, 62, 248), is a syncretist (248), and is—amazingly—guilty of the prosperity gospel (66). For those who are theologically in tune, Fikkert even takes a swing at someone who sounds suspiciously like a dispensationalist whom he accuses of “replacing the biblical Jesus with ‘Star Trek Jesus’.” (44, 248)

I have searched the book and found only the mildest comments directed toward the poor themselves. They certainly are not told to repent as “we” are told is the most important step for helping the poor. Whenever anything negative is said about the poor or their worldview, “we” are included. Repentance is needed when someone is guilty, and apparently, that guilty party is “us.”

So, let’s get this straight:

  1. A lot of people are desperately poor in the world.
  2. The most important thing that can be done for them is for us to repent of our pride. (63, 247-248)
  3. We should not tell the poor about the problems with their thinking. (112-113)
  4. Therefore, we are guilty for their poverty, but they are not.

Multiculturalism

The authors subscribe to a popular, but faulty view of culture. When Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, was debating a Mennonite on the topic of culture, the Mennonite summarized the two views brilliantly with the following lines: “Mouw views culture as fallen, but still created. I [the Mennonite] view culture as created, but fallen.” That’s it. One side starts with the tendency to find good things in the cultures of the world, and the other side looks at the various cultures through a negative lens.

Notice Fikkert’s attitude toward poorer cultures, “Hence, as we enter a poor community, there is a sense in which we are walking on holy ground, because Christ has been actively at work in that community since the creation of the world!” (122) “While sin has brought enormous brokenness, Christ has been sustaining all of creation—including culture—since the dawn of time and is in the process of reconciling all of it.” (129) It is not hard to find this language and reasoning throughout the book. I’m sure he would acknowledge that things like suttee in India (the cultural practice of burning widows alive) were bad, but stereotypically, when he looks at a people group’s way of doing things, he is going to focus on the good, not the bad. He is not modeling Biblical love in this way, but unbiblical gullibility. In case, we have forgotten Proverbs being simple is a vice not a virtue.

What if Christ’s work in a poor culture has been a work of reprobating judgment such as we read in Romans 1:21-25 “They became foolish in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools. … Therefore, God delivered them over…”? Even though the authors by default assume that the cultures of the world are filled with goodness rather than badness (123), many societies have been so mastered by their own sinful lusts, that they are being eaten from the inside out.

Abraham Kuyper’s brilliant line about every square inch of creation being under the control of Jesus Christ has been commandeered by evangelical postmoderns who don’t want to admit that the entertainment of their current culture in 2014 is a degraded mess, or that 200 years ago thinking was closer to Scripture on things like amusement, meditation, and evangelism. Therefore, they have to swallow the largest unchewed bite ever: the lie that all cultures are equally good, true, and beautiful. The one exception to the multicultural motto is of course, that classic Western culture is rife with rot.

Fikkert and Corbett do discuss worldviews on 79-94, but the section is startlingly weak, like watching a man play at boxing with his 5 year old, no punches actually land. What do I mean? They urge American Christians to “repent of [their] modern worldview” (90), but they never call on the poor to do the same. Rather, according to the authors, a poor black in America needs to see that he “is also a victim of powerful systemic forces.” (85) Why don’t they address the cultural values of initiative, hard work, planning, humility, and delayed gratification? Why not discuss the need for fathers and the material devastation that happens without them?

Again, “people have more confidence to face an unknown future if they are bringing forward positive elements of their past.” (129) Why are we spending our time trying to find out good things about their culture, when several bad things make up the pack of jackals that is stealing their wealth?

And the third shall suffice to stand for all the rest in the book. A pastor in a poor country was given a free house by an American ministry, but he doesn’t want to live in it because he doesn’t like it. (135) In a section on worldview, they should talk about how that man should be grateful for grace and eagerly trying to learn how this other group could have so much disposable income.

I can close this section by saying that at least Fikkert and Corbett were consistent with their views on culture. They never raised their voices at the cultures of those in poverty, and they never missed a chance to sneak in a kick at those with Western culture.

Posted in Book reviews, Missions, Multiculturalism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

When Hurting Helps 3: Redefining Poverty

Posted on 23 October 2014 by Seth Meyers

Read Part 1: A Popular Call to Some Good Things
Read Part 2: Ignoring Churchplanting and Evangelism

When Helping Hurts bases all of its practical tips on the first third of the book. It is refreshing to read a book that starts logically with clear definitions—much more difficult to critique if you can’t understand. Chapter 1 defines the mission of the church in light of Christ’s mission as “making all things new.” The error here is to broaden the definition so wide that anything becomes mission (or missions) rather than the more narrow emphasis of the NT and especially the book of Acts on planting churches in lesser reached areas.

Fikkert’s grasp of the church’s task fits hand in glove with chapter 2: What is poverty? And the stakes are high, “Defining poverty is not simply an academic exercise, for the way we define poverty—either implicitly or explicitly—plays a major role in determining the solutions we use in our attempts to alleviate that poverty (52).” I agree.

The plot thickens with a chart from an academic source published by a Catholic press (58). And this chart is vital to explaining that there are many kinds of poverty: “a poverty of spiritual intimacy, a poverty of being, a poverty of community,” etc. (59). That list follows on the heels of the only definition of poverty stated in the book (that I could find), “Poverty is the absence of shalom in all its meanings (59).”

How did he get here? Mainly just assertion, but he did use that most favorite hermeneutical friend of the 21st century exegete: Biblical theology (54). Rather than citing proof texts (Is anything less fashionable?), these various kinds of poverty are derived from a loose comparison of the grand narrative of the Bible with our contemporary experience. If this sounds like the primary means of interpreting the Bible to you, then you just scored an A on the “Am I a post-modern?” quiz. By blending relationships and story, they may have hooked their target market, but they have not accurately interpreted the text of Scripture.

And why would they try to base their definitions on something as illustrative as the story of redemption? Three reasons come to mind that have already been hinted at. First, stories provide more wiggle room than propositions. People can hold multiple views without being clearly wrong when we are proving points with stories. Second, the spirit of the age wants warm, feeling narrative, not cold, cutting logic. Third, it takes some of the sting away from being poor. If the first two observations above are right, then we are all poor in some sense. So, no one has to feel ashamed as if they are in a category by themselves being poked and examined. The authors are very concerned that poor people do not have hurt feelings (53, 61, 62, 64, 75, 101, et. al.).

But we haven’t even looked to see if the sting is necessary to actually helping the poor. Guarding the feelings of the poor is such a major part of the book and recurs so repeatedly in little phrases that the majority of the final post will treat this reflex of the authors.

Back at the definition though, who talks that way? Other than academic evangelical authors who want to be published by friends of the Magisterium. In short, “poverty of being” is pop psychology eisegesis, not something that should be lauded by speakers at T4G as foundational for ministering among the poor.

They did tell us in advance that their definition would effect their applications. And just a few pages later, we have this shocking example of Biblical interpretation, “Poverty alleviation is the ministry of reconciliation [spoken of in 2 Cor. 5:18-20] (74).” Here is that passage:

18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Having bolded the relevant phrases, if one of my students had interpreted Paul’s words as “poverty alleviation” I would have filled his paper with red ink and asked him to rewrite. Do I need to point out the obvious? This passage is about freedom from sin, not poverty. “Not counting their trespasses against them” is one among several clues. The verse before and the verse after are two of the most powerful gospel, regeneration, justification verses in the whole inspired corpus. There is zero evidence that Paul was thinking of raising the standard of living for the poor at Corinth when he wrote this.

Unfortunately, this is the usual kind of exegesis that the book carries on each text it dissects. See the discussions of Luke 4 (31-32) and Colossians 1:15-20 (33).

Still within the same bowl of stew is the term “the poor.” Who are these people? On 40, Fikkert says,

“Indeed, throughout the New Testament, care of the poor is a vital concern of the church (Matt. 25:31-46; Acts 6:1-7; Gal. 2:1-10; 6:10; James 1:27). Perhaps no passage states it more succinctly than 1 John 3:16-18:

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”

Again, the first principles of Bible interpretation tell us to ask who is writing and to whom. “Our brothers and sisters” are to be the primary objects of our compassion ministries. The same holds true when we look at the OT. The passages about the poor in the Law refer almost entirely to those within the nation of Israel. The Jews were not responsible to go around the world eradicating poverty. The parallel in the NT is explicitly stated in the NT “especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”

Before we draw up big plans, shouldn’t we find out if the people are brothers in Christ? And shouldn’t we ask what effect our poverty alleviation plans will have on creating fake converts? We’re right back to the gospel again. Evangelism and church discipline should be at the forefront of poverty-fighting ministries. Without those tools, how will you know who the brothers are? And each of the passages cited above has that inside-the-family wording.

But this book does not have time for such basic distinctions. Let us tell the truth about poverty even if it hurts. Yes, we can talk about a “poor imagination” or those who are “poor in spirit,” but the most common way this term is used when referring to the differences between people groups today is material or economic. Therefore, poverty is a relative material lack due to sin or acts of God.

Acts of God refers to the devastation of tidal waves, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Sin refers to that person’s or someone else’s failure to obey the law of God. If everyone obeyed the Bible, the poor would not exist. Zimbabweans are poor in part because their government is full of corruption, laziness, and lying. Yet, they are also poor in part because of their own moral choices.

A really interesting book would explore the balance between those two categories answering questions such as, How can we determine if this man’s poverty is caused by himself, his society, his government, or other men? But this book is not that interesting. In fact, as disturbing as it is to those of us who live among the poor, sin as a cause of poverty was barely even mentioned.

And to that most crucial argument, I shall now attend.

Posted in Definitions, Hermeneutics, Missions | Tagged , , | 3 Comments