A number of American evangelical leaders, among whom I count several friends, recently wrote an open letter to President Bush urging a Middle East policy that includes “a viable, independent, secure state.” Indeed, they say that their support for such a state is a matter of mere “historical honesty” and is “the only way” to end violence in that region.
I have to raise two cheers for this declaration, but not three.
John G. Stackhouse (1935-2006): A Life Abundantly Lived
July 26, 2007
John 10:10b: “I have come that they might have life, and have it abundantly.”
Here at Regent College’s Summer School, I was asked recently to preach in the daily chapel service and to preach on something “personal.” So I spoke about John Stackhouse: not me, however, but my father, after whom I was named. Today is the first anniversary of his death, so today I offer this remembrance and celebration .
The “Win–Win–Win” Scenario of Christianity
July 21, 2007
A friend writes to ask whether God “needs” us in any way, or if he remains loftily remote from us, or something in between.
Another friend writes to ask about altruism, and whether we are somehow supposed to lay aside all concern for ourselves to care for someone else.
Fundamental to the Christian ethos is what I call the principle of “Win—Win—Win.” Shalom is an all-embracing life of mutual contribution and benefit. Therefore, individuals and groups are never finally in a situation of choosing whether to benefit themselves or others, never finally in a situation of choosing to honor God over their own well-being. Much Christian piety and preaching, I daresay, has been importantly misguided and misleading on this account, so let’s expand on this theme.
I recently heard yet another sermon (no, it wasn’t in my home church) telling the congregation that “statistics show” that North American evangelicals are just as worldly as everyone else: just as quick to fornicate and divorce, just as tight with their charitable dollars, just as reluctant to volunteer in their communities, etc., etc. In short, evangelicals are hypocrites and worthy of a sound scolding, which the preacher was only too happy to provide.
I’ve heard this “fact” a dozen different times over the last few years, and it has become what I call a “church myth,” resembling an urban myth in ubiquity and plausibility.
And, like urban myths, it isn’t true.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m an evangelical, and I’m not especially holy. I know lots of evangelicals, and we all struggle with sin.
But if, cumulatively, our evangelical convictions do not cash out into a measurable difference of lifestyle, then they can’t be worth much. If evangelicals do not, in fact, tend to have less promiscuous single people, more faithful marriages, higher rates of charitable giving, higher volunteerism, and so on, then what are we preaching? Literally, what in the world are we doing?
Books & Culture recently published my investigation into the statistics that purportedly show that evangelical convictions mean so little–statistics proffered by the likes of George Barna, George Gallup, and others. Perhaps you’d like to take a look here.
Pope Benedict XVI continues to make things as clear as he can for his own church and for everyone else. So now we have another document from his pen, following on the “Dominus Iesus” document of 2000, that makes sure we all know that there is only One True Church. And a predictable uproar has followed.
But I think we kinda already knew Rome thought that, no?
Terminology Time: What Is an “Inclusivist”?
July 8, 2007
A friend recently read my piece mentioned below, “A Bigger–and Smaller–View of Mission,” and asked this good question:
“You say you are an inclusivist (salvifically speaking). Isn’t the inclusivistic position really a gentler approach of the exclusivistic position (in the eye of a non-follower) since, at its core, it really believes that only through Christ people are ultimately saved even if they come through another religion (akin to J.N. Farquhar’s position on Christianity being the crown of Hinduism)? Or are these salvific positions to be viewed on a spectrum of pluralist, inclusivist, exclusivist? I would consider myself an exclusivist because I believe that only the true and living God ’saves’.”
There is much confusion about terms here in the scholarly literature, so no wonder my friend isn’t sure what is meant! Let’s see if what follows can help:
Recently, a friend wrote about a problem at the high school he serves as a teacher. Apparently, a staff worker with a well-known Christian organization (let’s call it “Jesus Youth,” since I’m pretty sure there is no such group) has been volunteering at the school. Trouble arose, however, when this staffer volunteered to drive some kids to a drama festival some distance away for the weekend, and sent home permission slips to parents emblazoned with the logo of “Jesus Youth,” and not the school. A parent (whom I’m calling “Mr. Fraun”) complained that he didn’t want some missionary taking his daughter on a school outing.
I was asked to comment, and I would be interested to know what you think of the issues involved. Here it is, with all of the particulars changed to protect identities.
