Monday, October 31, 2011

Reformation Day!

Note: this post is huge. There is no natural break point. Sorry.

At the risk of over-simplifying world history and religion, 500 years ago, everyone in Western Europe was either a Catholic, a Jew, or a pagan. There weren't too many pagans, the Jews were not always (unfortunately most always) treated well and so kept to themselves, and many of the Catholics weren't all that clear about what they believed nor were they in line with what the official doctrines of the day were. Partially because survival comes before Sunday School and there's no real distinct Catholic way of growing wheat or minding the herds, and those were the main concerns of life. Well, that and keeping the warring king next door from overrunning your warring king and killing you.

Anyway, this led to a great deal of corruption within the religious beliefs and structures of the day. There's probably a dissertation that needs to undergird this, but I think that corruption grows best in prosperous times and second-best in desperate times. In prosperous times, people often overlook anything that doesn't hurt their prosperity: who cares if nepotism is the rule and not the exception? In desperate times, people are willing to overlook many things in hopes that times will improve. Well-fed people are too often willing to ignore things while well-fed, and starving people will do whatever it takes to get to eat---even at great cost to ideals or abstract values.

So, since there were some extremely wealthy folks dwelling in nice homes living off the fat of the land, and meanwhile a great many poor folks wishing for some fat, the behavior of the clergy was often overlooked. Because of a stability of descending lines and no division tolerated, the church of the time acquired a great deal of material wealth and political influence. (Side note: those who fuss that Christians have too much say in American politics need to read some history: Popes of the Middle Ages picked kings, removed kings, and such---no group has that power in America.)

Since the church structures were not completely locked into a small group of families like the nobility was, the church became the place to go for those who wanted wealth and power. While a good many basic priests, monks, nuns, and ordinary Christians worked to get through the days and tried to teach the basic faith to the generations to come, there were  a few that learned to work the system and rise the ranks. These aimed for the positions that lived in opulence that excelled kings.

Except that this opulence required funding. Lots of funding. Keep in mind that the economy of those days was "mixed:" there was some monetary, but a lot of folks lived, raised food, ate most of it and paid the rest as their taxes, tithes, tributes, and so forth. There wasn't much "money" in the hands of ordinary folks. The wealthy had it: the corrupt power-brokers in the church system wanted it. The wealthy, though, weren't parting with the wealth for no reason.

Enter guilt. Guilt is an astounding motivator. Most people know that they've done wrong things and feel guilt for it. Guilt causes people to pay an extra fee when they buy a computer for the computer company to plant a tree---even though the fee far exceeds what the person could pay to plant their own tree. Guilt causes you to buy half of your Christmas gifts. Getting guilt to go away is a big part of life. So, what can make it go away?

Well, this guilt is a psychological feeling. We're not talking forensic guilt: nothing takes away that you are guilty of stealing if you intentionally walked out of Wal-Mart without paying for those 4 flat-screen TVs. We're talking about the "I feel guilty because I haven't done x enough" guilt. And there's always something to feel that guilt about. Yet the emotions can be relieved if we're convinced that we've done something right to balance out the guilt. So, for the meanness to a cat, we adopt a stray cat. For missing an event, we buy a fancy gift.

The religious establishment of the Middle Ages found a way to capitalize on this. The church was in a position to express to people both their guilt and the release of that guilt. Moreover, the church could tell people what caused their guilt. So, the list of guilt-causing behaviors could grow. The guilt-releasing actions could be directed. This became big business---the church's power over guilt extended beyond the grave in people's mind. Guilt meant heaven, hell, or a tormented wait for heaven. You didn't want guilt and you didn't want a loved one to have it.

Enter the indulgence. An indulgence could be earned, but most were purchased and it was a release from guilt. It could even be pre-purchased: got plans for mischief? Stock up. The theology was questionable and the practice grew to abominable proportions. The wealthy would pay for the guilt they felt (probably could have alleviated it by feeding the hungry instead), the poor would pay for their guilt, and powers that held power would keep it.

That is, until the biggest salesman of indulgences hit the town of Wittenberg, Germany. The local pastor-priest was a man fed up with guilt. He had bought indulgences, gone on pilgrimages, and was now trying to teach both young priests and a congregation to alleviate his guilt. When Johann Tetzel, the indulgence salesman hit town, the pastor-priest had enough. He went to the church door, posted a list of things he wanted to have a civil, religious discussion about, and then went home. The list was long, but the statements built on each other to make a clear point.

Yet the civil discussion of theology never happened. The list was put onto a recent invention, the printing press, and spread. As did the pastor's other writings and ideas. These ideas connected with other like-minded men who came to realize that they were neither alone nor wrong. They realized something was wrong with the way things were and times had to change.

The end result was a split unlike the church had seen in about 500 years, but not one that resulted in "you stay on your side of the line, we'll stay on ours" like the Great Schism of 1054. Instead, it was one that affected the political power of the church as "the church" became "the churches" and they had to live side-by-side. No longer could one religious leader elevate or devastate the world. It was not pretty and some of the cure was as bad as the disease, but the end was born a renewed effort to base Christianity at its source: The Bible. The rallying cries of sola Scriptura & sola fide, Scripture alone and faith alone, resound through to today: pure Christianity teaches, based in the Bible, that God paid for sin through Christ and our faith cleanses us from guilt. That our obedience and loyalty are owed to the Only One, the One who died for us, who rose on the third day, and who ascended on high to reign at the right hand of God.

Would we have gotten there without Martin Luther and his 95 Theses on the door at Wittenberg, posted October 31, 1517? Possibly, and possibly not. But we owe a huge debt to the idea that the human conscience is bound captive only to God. That no authority, be it church or state, has the right to monopolize life. This is a good thing.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Sermon Round-up October 30

Here's the morning audio link

There's not an evening link because I wasn't there and didn't want my fill-in to be intimidated by the recording system. Maybe next time.

Text: 1 John 2:15-17

 

  1. We are finite creatures: our ability to focus is limited

    1. Focus in attention

    2. Focus in affection

  2. These two things define our heart:

    1. Attention: what we give our mental strength to

    2. Affection: what we allow to drive our emotions

    3. With these two things, our heart is given

    4. Without them, your “whole heart” isn't really in it

  3. We can give our hearts to a variety of things:

    1. Painful:

      1. Lusts of the flesh or eyes

      2. Boastful Pride

    2. Passing:

      1. Earthly pursuits

      2. Comforts

    3. Permanent

      1. Love of the Father

      2. Will of God

  4. Where is your heart?

    1. Pleasing self at the pain of your soul?

    2. Passive and taking whatever comes?

    3. Pleasing God for permanent joy?

  5. Your choice.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Quick-hits w/e October 29, 2011

1. I own an Amazon Kindle, and love it, but I've realized something: Kindles are not high-tech books. They're fancy scrolls. Well-designed for back and forth, linear activity, but not for jumping about to various places. Apparently, we need to develop the "Kindle Codex" for that. In the meantime, would Bible developers make one for the Kindle Touch that has the old-school jump tabs on the side? Like the thumb-index Bibles for quick changes? Thanks.

2. Saw this week that Vice-President Biden is considering running in 2016. Can we please finish the 2012 election, that started last year, first? Thanks. Also, given what happened last time a VP ran: start training Florida vote counters now. And Florida voters: punch the whole chad out, ok? Thanks.

3. It is time for a mercy rule in College Football and in the NFL for all teams playing against the Colts. After a team is up by 4 touchdowns (28 points), the 22 named starters for that team must sit out. The 11 defensive starters can return if the score becomes tied. The 11 offensive starters can return if their team falls behind. Or when Peyton Manning comes back.

4. Baseball note: umpires make bad calls. This is a fact of life. When the World Series is at stake, replay might be helpful. Even if you just tell them to huddle up, debate it, and sneak a peak at the big screen. It will not slow the pace down too much. That play in Game 3? I could see it was wrong as it was happening. An umpire has two eyes. This umpire was looking at the base, the runner's feet, and the fielder's feet. He was listening for the ball to hit the glove. That's standard happenings, right there---but he could not also watch for the throw, the arm, and the tag. It's not physically possible. Get the man some help.

5. Additional baseball note: shorten the season. Start April 15. World Series ends by October 10—starts October 1. To be a new "Mr. October" you have to play in the Series. Figure out how many games you can play in the middle of those dates. More people will watch them.

6. Economics news: we're all going to die. Or at the very least, we're going to sue ourselves into distress. Apparently, something happened in the stock market when Del Monte did something with their stock, and now they're being sued class-action style. Who's got the wealth in this country? The shady lawyers. Not the honest ones. Those three are as broke as the rest of us.

7. For all the politicians, both D, R, L, and G: grasp this concept, ok? Then don't do it.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Homeschooling part 1

I thought I would take a few posts in the coming days and explain about our family. Most folks that know us know that I am the pastor of a small-town Baptist church (empirically small), and that I am married with three kids who take after their mother in all the good ways. We choose that our kids do their education, right now Kindergarten, 3rd grade, and 5th grade, here at home instead of going down the road to the county school system.

I wanted to give a little bit of perspective on reasons that we made the decision to do it this way. Some of these are fact-based reasons, some faith-based, and some emotion-based. And since none of the rest of you are the Hibbards, you've got to make your own choices anyway, but in case you're pondering what to do, here's part of how we made our decision.

First, let's hit some basics:

1. Homeschooling can be done very, very badly. In some cases, parents use homeschooling as cover for educational neglect and let their kids do nothing all the time. Some parents use it for social neglect and never let their kids interact with anybody ever.

We strive not to be that type of family. It is true that our kids don't have huge peer groups to interact with. They do, however, interact with a diverse range of people. Is it as diverse as it should be? No. We're working on that.

2. Most homeschoolers are well aware of the need to put positive effort into helping their kids overcome the drawbacks in homeschooling. That's why we get a little exasperated the fiftieth time we're asked by someone about our children's needs for "socialization." Because the question is often being asked by someone at a social event, where our children are interacting with people of a variety of ages and backgrounds, and doing so quite well. Then, we get asked "How will they learn to interact with people?" Really? Why do you think we bring them out in public at all hours of the day?

Trust me, most of us know our shortcomings and don't need your help seeing them.

3.Homeschooling should never be used to fake academic achievement. That's one problem I have with some of these "equal-access" pushes to allow homeschool participation in school extra-curricular activities. I know what my kids have done, but I don't know quite how it grades. Would they get a good enough GPA to be eligible? Well, they ought to, but is it fair?

Our version of homeschooling does have requirements and prescribed assignments and subjects. Not everyone homeschools that way, but we do.

4. This is also not about pure religious indoctrination. Yes, we blend Bible and our Christian faith into our schoolwork. It's not impossible, though, to teach your faith to your children without taking them out of school.

Homeschooling is not about building a wall that keeps the world out or blocking all alternative views. It does allow for blending more aspects into education: no one is going to sue us for our kids singing Christmas songs about Jesus in school. That has happened in public schools, and it's sad, because that's putting up a wall and blocking alternative views.

5. Most homeschoolers are not in it for the money. Truth is, we spend as little as possible but as much as necessary, and it runs about $1000 a year so far for books and materials. We could spend less if we wanted to go the library every week and more if we wanted to blow cash on more fun things. That's a cost we're wiling to pay. Most of us wouldn't mind if we got to count our education expenses as a tax deduction like college expenses are, but we can live with what we've got.

And, no, it doesn't bother me that "we pay for a school system we don't use." My parents pay taxes for the Ouachita Parish School System in Louisiana, and they don't use it. Lots of taxpayers pay for schools because of the societal benefit from them, not because of personal use. Now, am I concerned that greater dollar amounts go into schools now than did 20 years ago but we have worse results? Everybody should be concerned with that, and the solution is more complex than adjusting the dollar amount (up or down). But I don't think we're entitled to a refund just because our kids don't use the local school. (But, an income tax deduction would be nice. At the state level, since that's where most of my state income taxes go.)

That's just a few random thoughts on this. More to come later.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

You cannot preserve the status quo

I was pondering what to blog about for the day, and this thought hit me: You cannot preserve the status quo and change the world. Some wise person can probably source that and find it came from other than me. I'm okay with that and would give credit if I knew for sure where it came from. I don't but I will gladly acknowledge it could come from elsewhere.

Think about it for a minute: You cannot preserve the status quo and change the world.

If you're Ray Kroc and making a good living selling and servicing Mixmaster Milkshake Machines and walk into the McDonald Brother's Restaurant and see their operation, you can preserve the status quo: you can keep your good job and let them keep theirs.

If you're Truett Cathy and the world is obsessed with hamburgers and your restaurant is across the street from a seven-day a week manufacturing plant, you can preserve the status quo and cook hamburgers 24/7. You can make a good living, turn a profit, and drive nice cars.

If you're John Adams or Paul Revere, you can assume that kings don't give up, because they never have, and decide to keep your heads and fortunes. You can put your sacred honor safely behind preserving the status quo, and not make waves.

If you're William Wilberforce, you can assume that slavery always has been and always will be. You can see defeat by many Parliaments, and see the good that comes in men like John Newton when individuals are saved from enslaving their fellow men. You can safely preserve the economy, preserve the institutions, preserve the status quo and retire into wealthy obscurity.

If you're a kicked-out Pharisee named Saul, you can see the Way you've joined growing safely in the Jewish world. You can see that there's some movement in the rest of the world, and hope and pray that it goes smoothly and calmly. You can preserve the status quo of a division based on heritage and Law, and simply be a tentmaker in Cyprus.

If you're William Carey or Lottie Moon or Jim Elliot or a Moravian, you can look at the comfortable people sitting in church, and pray that they have good days. You can join in teaching them about the Bible and pray that God's light will shine among “the heathen.” You can preserve the status quo, go about your life, and share the Gospel with your neighbors.

OR...

You can decide to copy a great idea (with appropriate credit), and build a host of restaurants all over the place, where good quality food and friendly service makes job opportunities and wealth for you and many others. (Of course, it doesn't always work that way.)

You can decide to slap a piece of chicken on a bun instead of a slab of hamburger meat. You can close down Saturday night and open up Monday morning and focus on what is truly important to you. In the process, you can find enough income to build foster homes, give employees over $17 million in college scholarships, and still drive pretty cool cars. Oh, and how many fast-food restaurants serve chicken now? How many mall food courts are there?

You can decide that the king is not all he thinks he is and rebel. In time, your efforts for liberty lead to emancipation, women's rights, and a host of other ideas of freedom that no one imagined. An economy that could put man on the moon and, at one time, provide employment to nearly all. An economy and standard of living that astounds the world, where the ones who are poor and struggling here have things the wealthy dream of elsewhere.

You can decide that the world may have always had slaves but that it should not always have them. You can determine that the moral dimension is at least as important as the economic dimension and give your life to fighting for others to have the rights you do. You can wear yourself out fighting for “now” instead of “gradually” and die, just barely knowing the change that you have made.

You can decide that the world must hear of what you know. You can decide that even a great one such as Peter can be confronted and corrected. You can give your life traveling to places you've never seen to show the love of God to people who have never heard it. You can plan on places like Rome and Spain and the extremes of the Empire and see to it that it happens.

You can decide that comfort means nothing if the world is perishing. You can decide that what you have always known, what you have always done, is not going to be enough. You can sacrifice, pray, give, go, and do, you can live out what is most precious to you and give it your last breath.

You cannot preserve the status quo and change the world. So choose. Because you're going to do one or the other. Choose.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

BookTuesday: Has God Spoken?

I spend a great deal of time trying to help people see that the Bible is a trustworthy book. In fact, my effort is to persuade more than mere trustworthiness, but to show that the Bible can be trusted as divinely inspired and without any error. It's a discussion that comes up with people in church, out of church, and even those who are 'in ministry.' Most of the information I tend to use comes from a hodge-podge of sermon notes, lecture notes, book comments, and websites.

The information is good and reliable, but most of what I have is chaotic in nature. Into this scene comes Hank Hanegraaff's new book, Has God Spoken?

Has God Spoken?: Proof of the Bible’s Divine Inspiration

Hanegraaff presents arguments and evidence sets that I have seen in other places and from other writers and speakers. He has some newer material, but most of that newer material is about the critics of the Bible and not about evidence for the Bible. It's interesting to note that the names of the critics have changed, but the answer remains very similar: the Bible can be trusted.

Has God Spoken? has its strength not in the arguments present, but rather in the organization and skill with which they are presented. It is clear that Hanegraaff's main work is teaching people out of an academic environment. His work is not light and fluffy, but it is organized for easy recall. This book utilizes interwoven acronyms to help the reader trace the line of thought.

His overall theme is "MAPS:" that Manuscript c-o-p-i-e-s, the Archaeologist's s-p-a-d-e, Prophetic s-t-a-r-s, and Scriptural l-i-g-h-t-s support the truth of the Bible. The spelled out words are the acronyms for those sections.

This structure makes the work helpful and easy to grasp.

As to shortfalls in this work, I'd raise the question of whether or not the material is dated because I've heard most of it, but I do spend a lot of effort to stay pretty caught up in this field. So, I've probably read or heard a lot of the same basic reports that Hanegraaff based the work on. That's not much of a weakness. Hanegraaff presents the info well, as I've already said.

I think if I were to find one fault, it's this: Hanegraaff gives a fair amount of type and space to those who contradict the Bible. He will spend several pages detailing the faults that, for example, Bart Ehrman finds with the New Testament, and then set out to explain the case for Scripture. That's not quite the type of argument I'd prefer to see. I'd rather see the positive case for Scripture given and then rebuttals to criticisms that arise.

I'd also prefer to present the criticisms without names. Footnotes (or endnotes, but footnotes are better) are the place to cite names and works. Why? What happens if Bart Ehrman recants and joins the Evangelical Theological Society next year? A book that would be useful for Bible students, which Has God Spoken? is, now seems too dated and out of touch. After all, it's a book to counter Ehrman, right?

It's not. Yet some chapters would have the reader thinking it is. The emphasis on critics, especially the current ones, is a weakness here. I would attribute that to Hanegraaff's primary work: radio/internet teaching. He's normally responding to the question of the moment. In this field, Ehrman is the question of the moment. Unfortunately, focusing a book on moment questions gives it a bit of a weakness.

Not enough of one, though, to discard the book. Hopefully this one will still be being read and utilized when the name of Ehrman goes the way of the Colossian Heresy: unknown but for the continuing existence of the rebuttals.

Doug

 

(Note: free book from Booksneeze in exchange for the review!)

Monday, October 24, 2011

Sermon Recap Oct. 23

Morning Audio is in this link

Evening Audio in this link.

(Or you could copy and paste this into iTunes or another Podcast software and get these things automatically: http://feeds.feedburner.com/DougHibbardPodcast
but that’s up to you.)

 

Sunday morning we were in 1 John 2:7-11. Here’s the outline:

1. New commandment/Old Commandment: 

Not a new set of laws or legalistic followings

Yet still a command

Not a novelty or unheard of thought,

But one that echoes from the Beginning

2. The Light is shining

God's people follow it.

God's people follow it together.

God's people follow it together in harmony.

God's people follow it together in harmony without hatred.

The closing challenge was this: write down the names of 3 people:

1. A person in your own household

2. A person in church that you don’t know/are not super-relational with.

3. A person that is not in church anywhere: either never has been or used-to-be way back when…

Once you have those three names, here’s what to do with the names:

Every time you eat this week, pray for those three people. Pray that: 1. God would work in their lives. Nothing more specific is necessary: you don’t have to detail what you think God should do. You probably shouldn’t do that anyway. 2. That God will show you how to show love to that person this week.

That’s it. Every time you eat. Meals, snacks, every time. Pray for these folks.

And when God answers part #2: do it. Don’t pray for God to provide an answer and then ignore Him. That’s not a good plan.

Evening sermon was 1 John 2:12-14. Here’s the outline:

1. Little Children: those who are fresh to the kingdom

2. Fathers: Those who have long been in the kingdom as well as carrying other wisdom

3. Young men: those in the middle.

Fundamentals:

1. All know the Father. All have been forgiven---for the sake of the name of Christ.

2. Young men: have the Word, have strength, and have overcome the evil one

     A. understand "overcome the evil one" as making the first strides towards maturity    

     B. The first target is derailing new or undiscipled believers

3. Fathers: wisdom. From both time in serving the Lord God and from life.

Closing challenge: find people to grow with. People that you can help grow, and seek out those who can help you grow. And do it.

Book Briefs: August 2025

Okay, I have recovered from the dissertation experience as much as I ever will! Now, on with the posts. Instead of doing a single book revie...