DC

Author Archive

[240] Marijuana

The pro-pot advocates have essentially won, and that is a big deal of campuses—Christian and secular.  Marijuana has long been regarded by its advocates as basically harmless.  In fact, I have been hearing that marijuana is harmless since I was in college, more decades ago than I choose to count.

But that is nonsense. It is not harmless.

First, as with alcohol, marijuana use impairs functioning.  Hence, driving, and other mind-body activities, become less certain—more dangerous.

But let me go in another, less cited issue.  A psychotherapist friend of mine once said something to the effect of, “Show me a marijuana user and I will show you an emotional midget.”

Powerful words, but ones containing much truth.  We develop mental and emotional maturity by engaging problems, whether they be intellectual, personal, spiritual, whatever.  Our personality gets stronger through problem-solving.  Marijuana does not help us do that.  Instead of taking on cognitive challenges, it is a form of withdrawal, opting out.  Put the problem aside and get high.

This avoidance behavior of dropping out becomes, for many, a consistent pattern—a habit.  When it does, mental and emotional development is retarded.

Although there are some compelling arguments to be made for the medicinal value of pot, recreational use is not without potential consequences.  “Pothead” connotes many things, but mental and emotional maturity are not among them. DC.

[239] Veer

Remember four years ago when Republicans were skeptical about Trump, concerned that he would be too far to the left of the party?

Well, to reword an old saw, “The more things change the more they become different.”  Not only has Trump positioned himself safely inside the Republican foul lines, but that position, coupled with his less than diplomatic style, has pushed the Democrats to the left.

Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Bernie Sanders are a long way from Dems like Al Gore, Bill Clinton—both Baptists, and Joe Lieberman, a practicing Jew, and should any of these candidates be elected the nation is likely to change quickly.  I suspect it will continue to veer in the direction of Western Europe and its secular culture, only at an ever faster pace.

Let’s be careful here.  The concern is not about basic Republican or Democratic ideology—small vs. large government for example, or even capitalism vs. socialism.  It is about a Judeo-Christian foundation vs. a secular progressive agenda, with the latter dominating the far left of the Democratic Party.  I don’t think I need to tell you that not every Republican is God-fearing or that no Democrat is, but we are not talking about individuals here.  We are talking about a spiritual clash here, one that will do much to determine the basis of our national moral values and our hospitality toward matters of faith.

DC

[238] The Reality

Amid the furor over the Trump presidency, something is lost: the current national political paralysis is not about Trump—his style, his wall, or his showdown strategies.

It is about power.

Over a half century ago John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage detailed members of congress who sacrificed politically to do what they believed was right for the country.

I see few if any such profiles now.

Instead of people who place the best interests of the United States above party affiliation or personal ambition I see people in serious combat for power–on both sides of the aisle.

Over a decade ago Mitch McConnell made clear his goal to make Obama’s presidency unsuccessful.  This was before Obama had even settled in the Oval Office.  Democrats were promoting impeachment before Trump’s first national address.

Why?  Because servanthood is being sacrificed on the altar of power.  Servanthood is about listening and working toward consensus, the common good.  Power is about domination of the vanquished.  When the vanquished are members of the opposite political party we are vanquishing our own citizens.

DC

[237] Deception

One thing stood out to me after the deaths of Sen. John McCain and President George Herbert Walker Bush.  The Democrats and the liberal media treated them with respect, even trumpeting their careers and service.  This in a time in which neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to find any redeeming value in any member of the opposite party.

So what do we make of this?  This anomaly is not about people wanting to speak respectfully of the dead.  It is about celebrating McCain and Bush’s resistance to Trump.  Surprise!  It is all about politics.  It is all about advancing the party’s agenda by citing these two figures for their refusal to support the now undisputed leader of the Republican Party.

And it’s disgusting.  Neither McCain nor Bush got much respect from the Dems during their lifetimes.  The Dems unloaded on McCain in his presidential run in 2008 and in his campaigns for the senate.  Bush was vilified by Clinton in 1992 and his son was the political punching bag of the Obama campaign.

If you are reading this as a swipe at the Democratic Party you are missing the point.  I expect Republicans would do the same if given similar circumstances.

No, this is about something as old as Genesis 3.  It is about deception, the toxin of democracy. DC

[240] Stewardship

Whenever you hear the word stewardship you immediately think of tithes and offerings.  Stewardship is the tag used to fill the collection plates.

It is, however, a wonderful word that needs to be looked at more expansively.  Recently I watched the 20/20 segment on the fall of Jim and Tammy Bakker.  We can do all the forensic examining we want to determine just what went wrong at PTL and I believe we will land in one place.  Jim and Tammy believed they were the ministry.

PTL and they were one. They were accountable to no one, not even God in many ways.

But Jim and Tammy are easy targets.  I am currently watching an urban church commit ecclesiastical suicide in slow motion.  The pastor badly wants to align his church with the local community, if only to make it relevant, but the landed gentry (almost none of whom live in the local community) want to keep the status quo.  It is their church, not the church of the unwashed in the community nor that of the pastor, who they happened to call.  I don’t hear God mentioned much as the real owner by this crowd, and stewardship seems to be confined to the offering envelopes.

How about the Christian colleges?  Many are filled with fiefdoms—departments, powerful professors, and administrative structures–squabbling over control of the larger enterprise.

In each of these instances, no one is talking about stewardship; that these entities belong solely to God.  That he owns 100% stock in each, and those people he has—by his grace—put in charge, have a one-item job description: to do his will..  They are too busy tearing up his kingdom to consider that. DC

[239] Academic Freedom

There is always tension in the Christian college, particularly in the departments in which thorny issues like that of liberal theology, evolution, and postmodernism are often on the plate.

By nature, Christian college faculty members are usually more liberal in their thinking than the organizations that own their institutions.  Good scholars are curious.  They want to explore new things and be receptive to new systems of thought. Nothing is off limits to the curious mind.  Furthermore, institutions of higher education affirm academic freedom—the right to study and investigate phenomena without restriction.

And it is right here that the issue is joined.  Often professors will present various philosophies, theories, and theologies for study, the purpose of which is to expose the student to the range of thinking that is out there.  Occasionally, however, there will be pushback.  Complaints will come in that a given professor is advocating a non-creation evolution, or a liberation theology, for example. The only way around this is for the professor to make clear her non-advocacy of “objectionable” views.

This, however, creates another problem.  For some professors, a didactic advocacy means doing the thinking for the student, rather than having him grapple with ideas.  Such instructors opt for the question-oriented Socratic method.  In doing so, however, they elevate the risk level if the student is not clear where the professor stands amid these murky matters .  The result can be unwanted campus controversy, bad publicity, and the possible loss of students and financial support—a near lethal combination for institutions often struggling to survive.

There is no easy end run available here, and political tempests rear their head regularly in avowedly Christian institutions.  In this context, there are a few simple things academic administrators can do.  First, they need to be sure they have clear faith statements from their faculty.  They also need to have continual dialogue with faculty on their views with respect to controversial issues and systems of thought.  Further, they need to charge their faculty to be clear about their Christian stance on difficult issues, at least to the extent of not unintentionally undermining faith. DC

[238] College Names

In a recent blog, I talked about the trend of churches to drop their denominational affiliations from their name in hopes of making those churches more appealing to seekers.  Christian colleges rarely change their names.  Some have names that make clear their denominational identity.  Notre Dame, Calvin College, Pacific Lutheran, and California Baptist come to mind.  Others have never incorporated their affiliations into their name.  Boston College, Grand Canyon University, Spring Arbor, Wheaton, and Gordon College are examples.

The issue for colleges is different from churches.  People go to churches—once, twice, fifteen times—and then can stay or move on without consequence.  It costs money to go to a college, a lot of money.  There is also an indelible academic record involved once a class is taken.  The issue for the colleges is exactly the opposite from that of the churches.  Christian colleges need to make clear their spiritual identities.  Students need to know what decision they are making when they choose a Christian college, and perhaps more important, they should get what they are paying for.

Here is where we run into other problems.  There are three types of Christian colleges.  First, there is the pseudo-Christian college, one that goes to the marketplace wearing the Christian label in hopes of attracting students from Christian families, all the while being little more than secular institutions that do not challenge Christian faith among their students and faculty.

Second, there is the biblically sound institution that falls short of teaching a Christian worldview in the classroom.  The chapel program is solid, bible studies and spiritual growth opportunities abound, and faith statements are required from the faculty, but the actual instruction in the classroom is almost indistinguishable from that in the nearby state university.

Finally, there are those that make their Christian identity known, and attempt to integrate the faith into every aspect of its existence, particularly the classroom.  These are the ones that offer a truly Christian education.  DC

[237] Church Names

Over the past decade we have seen more and more churches drop the denominational label from their church name, a trend about which G. Shane Morris of BreakPoint has written.  Instead of Alexander Methodist Church we are likely to see Alexander Community Church.  Community is a nice, soft word that seems among the most popular of substitutive choices.  There is range here, when it comes to names, with some rebrands choosing names running from Dream City and Destiny City Church to Submerge Church and The Foundry.

You can make an argument on both sides of this trend.  On the plus side, denominationalism has for decades been receding in importance.  Much of it has its roots in the doctrinal controversies of nearly a century ago, a time in which church attendance was common and the culture was more Christian friendly.  We live in a more hostile social environment now, filled with biblically illiterate people, who desperately need to meet Christ in a transforming way, long before they concern themselves with matters like infant baptism.  In short, being Methodist, Lutheran, or even Baptist may send a more line-drawing, theologically focused message, one that casts a narrow net in a time in which we need to welcome the masses of unchurched into a healthy experience with Christ.

On the other side, there is concern that the church is caving in to secular culture, trying not only to shed the tag of intolerance (what is more warm and fuzzy than community?) but perhaps their very beliefs as well.  Here the concern is that the church is cowering in the face of a culture that has little use for what is termed absolute truth.

According to the available research, the jury is out on whether this naming trend works.  There is a near even split on its effectiveness as a marketing tool.  I like it–though I stop a bit short of The Foundry–as I do not want what are traditional styles and minor theological nuances standing in the way of a person’s comfort in entering the church.  What is important, however, is that the message from the pulpit is biblically centered.  One that speaks truth, irrespective of that truth’s level of acceptance in contemporary culture.  Without that truth the church may as well be a foundry. DC

[236] Spiritual

I don’t like the word spiritual.  It has to be among the most postmodern words in the English language. It connotes a non-material reality, but nothing more.

What makes it postmodern is that to be merely spiritual requires no commitment to truth.  Furthermore, it is highly individual.  What is spiritual to the Muslim is substantially different from that of the Christian, the Hindu, or the non-religious mystic, and all are equally acceptable.

Nonetheless, it is “in” to be spiritual in contemporary society.  It is a bit like being creative—a good additive to other personal characteristics.  It is a trait that suggests open-mindedness, leaving one open to a possible spirit world, should there be one out there.

But that is as far as it goes.  No spirit world is defined and no real truth is affirmed.

It is all an individual phenomenon, and one person’s spirituality is as good as another’s.

That single doctrine–that one person’s spirituality is as good as any other’s—makes the contemporary concept of being spiritual so lethal.  It superficially conveys openness and tolerance, while subtly being wholly closed and militantly intolerant to the notion of spiritual truth, and especially the notion that there is one spiritual truth for everyone.

In 1 Corinthians 15:19 Paul tells us that if Christ was not raised from the dead we are of all people most miserable.  In brief, he is telling us that our very life is founded on that fact, that truth.

Paul is saying all of spirituality is encompassed in Christ.  For everyone.

DC

[235] Celebrity Deaths

I have a fascination with notable deaths in each calendar year.  I recently happened on to a website on celebrity deaths in 2018.  Suicide was a common cause.  So were drug overdoses and heart attacks at early ages (possibly related to cocaine use).

Remember, these are celebrities—people our culture celebrates as symbols of success—people held up as superior to the masses of people who venerate them.

But in many cases it is all a sham.  They are failures, by their own standards.  The suicides tell us there was not enough of substance to sustain life.  In the drug deaths it is the same story.

My mother had a trite plaque in our home.  It read, “Only one life, ‘twill soon be past; only what’s done for Christ will last.”

Those who decide to do that are celebrities, people who live a life worth celebrating. DC

Subscribe to this site
* indicates required