The Reason for the Silence

I usually hate excuses. I once had a boss who said that excuses only satisfy those who make them. I think that’s generally true. So I won’t make an excuse — I’ll offer a reason! I haven’t posted in sometime, but it’s not because I haven’t wanted to. The reason is that I’ve been very busy writing, and now I’m happy to offer the fruits of my labor. Here are three philosophy papers I have written in the past few months. Of the very few of you who choose to read any of them, I welcome your thoughts, comments, or questions on any of them, if you are so inclined to share. You can reach me at johnfraiser (at) gmail (dot) com.

Plato’s Theory of Representation in the Phaedo and the Cratylus and Its Similarity to Anti-realist Theories of Scientific Modeling

A Priori and A Posteriori Methods for Identifying Verbal Disputes in Metaphysics

Aquinas on Divine Freedom without Passive Potency

These papers will also be cross-posted in the “Online Papers” sections.

The Future Story of American Christianity

No doubt you’ve heard stories of people defecting from the Christian faith. Get used to it. You are going to hear many more. Hordes of people who grew up in the American church — many who were quite devout — are going to hang it up never to return. I, like others, think that it will eventually happen by the millions. Most of what you know of as Christianity in America will end, and you can’t stop it either.*

Sure, you can blame the New Atheism, the gays,  the rising tide of secularism, or multi-culturalism if you want. But most of the blame rests squarely with churches, probably much like the one to which you belong (I know, I know, not YOUR church). Churches and church leadership are responsible for it, and they are simply unprepared to handle what is coming. They’ll eventually wake up to it, but whatever they do will be too little, too late. The train has already left the station. The best we can hope for is to mitigate the damage. 

A Quick and Dirty Argument for Infant Baptism

1. Infants inherit original sin and thus need salvation.

2. Throughout the history of the church several means have been proposed by which the work of salvation can be applied to infants: baptism, salvation for (elect?) infants who die, a gift of adult-like rationality to understand propositional statements about the gospel.

3. The Scriptural, theological, and church traditional support for the baptism of infants is greater than the other proposed means.

Holy What?! Piper on Hero Worship

This post comes to us from guest blogger Kevin Regal and addresses an issue that seems to be particularly problematic in evangelicalism where the movement seems to surround around megapastors and popular leaders. What results is often nothing less than the worship of these leaders which is manifested in name-dropping, autograph-seeking, mimicking preaching styles, and defending one’s hero under almost any circumstances (to name a few). For those who might wonder whether this blog has become an anti-Piper blog in light of the recent frequency of posts pertaining to Piper let me say two things: 1) Kevin was working on this post before Piper wrote his statement about the tornado that hit the ELCA convention. It was mostly a matter of coincidence that I decided to write a post responding to his statement about the ELCA; 2) whatever part isn’t coincidence is owed to the fact that Piper has of late put out a rash of unusually outrageous and unbiblical statements. Since I find that so many evangelicals take his ideas so seriously, it is worth the time to respond to them.
________________________________________

One of the things that bothers me most about Evangelicalism is the abundance of praise, adoration, and exultation which many Evangelicals direct toward prominent pastors, radio speakers, authors, etc. Because of that frustration, I was very interested when I heard that John Piper had written an article addressing the topic of hero worship (“Hero Worship and Holy Emulation”). A statement—any statement—discouraging the worship of men is long overdue from most Evangelical leaders, and I very much hoped that was what Piper was up to. I generally appreciate much of what Piper writes and says, and I believe that, should he endeavor to, he could make a powerful case against the evangelical tendency to worship its leaders.

John Piper’s God, Liberal Lutherans, and Suffering

“That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened.” - Martin Luther in “Heidelberg Disputation”, Disputation #19.

This blog was never designed to be a theological and ecclesiastical current events source. It’s unlikely that you’ll ever read late-breaking church news here. As I stated from the beginning in the purpose statement for this blog, the purpose is submit ideas and practices to the authority of Christ and to let Christ’s word rule above all else regardless of who the idea belongs to or how absurd the conclusion may strike us against the background of our conventional views.

From time to time, then, something takes place in contemporary theology and culture that intersects with a broader theological point, and provides a unique opportunity to explore that broader theological point in connection with that contemporary moment.

Several weeks ago, Christians around the world watched as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) held its biennial convention in Minneapolis to vote (among other things) on a proposal on human sexuality that would approve of monogamous homosexual relationships and allow active, monogamous homosexuals to serve as recognized clergy in the ELCA. The consideration of (not the vote on) the proposal was scheduled to take place at the fifth session of the convention at 2 PM on Wednesday, August 19, 2009. But the events wouldn’t take place as scheduled. A tornado hit downtown Minneapolis around the time the consideration of the proposal was scheduled. The tornado hit the convention center where the convention was held as well as Central Lutheran Church across the street from the convention center resulting in damage to both buildings. According to weather reports, the tornado was not expected. It seemed to come out of nowhere. It was an odd serious of events to be sure.

Chaos Interviewed on Internet Radio on Nondenominationalism

Fellow blogger and friend, Uriesou Brito, interviewed me for his radio show Trinity Talk on the phenomenon of nondenominationalism. The podcast can be found here. As it turned out, it isn’t simply a rehashing of my post “The Nondenominationalists that Weren’t”. I include some new thoughts on nondenominationalism. Largely through the benefit of the discussion in the comments on that post.

Btw, check out other Trinity Talk broadcasts. They range over many different topics on culture and theology with excellent discussion by the hosts and guests.

The Nondenominalists that Weren’t

Calling oneself nondenominational is en vogue, but what does it mean exactly? I doubt many have given it much thought. As I have talked to those who use this term for themselves or for their church, I find that they think that there’s something magnanimous about not being part of a denomination. That it’s primitive and Jesus-like to just call yourself a Christian and not be so sectarian as to be denominational. It’s appeal is that it gives those who use the term a feeling of being a pure Christian, but what does it mean to be nondenominational? Here’s where the trouble comes in. I can’t get a meaningful answer to this question from those who use it. This is because it is an entirely meaningless term. It is meaningless in the sense that there is no group to which it can refer. This makes the use of the term is worse than useless, it makes it misleading and inaccurate. No group of Christians is non-denominational.

 

Do you or your church have a view on baptism? Do you baptize only those who can articulate their faith and only after they have confessed their faith? Or do you baptize infants? Is Baptism a unique means of grace or is it only a public confession?

 

What is the Lord’s Supper? Is it the physical body of Christ? Is it a visual symbol by which we act in obedience to Christ when we eat it? Is Christ only spiritually present in it?

Sometimes Alcohol IS the answer

Most of the conversation between Christians regarding alcohol consists in whether it is permissible within Christian ethics to consume alcoholic beverages for recreational use. I’ve lost interest in that debate. It’s an easy win. I imagine that the writers of Scripture would laugh at a twenty-first century Christian who mandated that one cannot drink alcohol. Still, there’s another view that Christians often hold that I want to address.

Many Christians, I think, reject teetotalism because it’s possible for someone to drink alcohol and it have no discernible effect on the person. From this fact, they conclude: surely it’s acceptable to drink alcohol since doing so can be entirely innocuous. But there is something in this thought that is misleading. It suggests that when one drinks alcohol, it should have no visible effect on the person. The idea is that it permissible to drink alcohol not because alcohol is a good thing, but because it isn’t always a bad thing. This view is similar to someone who begrudgingly admits that sex is acceptable in cases of procreation. This person is, of course, permitting that sex is acceptable, but they aren’t really thinking of sex as a gift of grace to be enjoyed for its own sake. What I wish to challenge here is the claim that alcohol should never have a noticeable effect on our behavior.

Blackberry Files, vol. 3: The Agnostic Edition

[We've all been there. A thought strikes you at a moment, but it's fleeting fast. Get it down somewhere fast or you'll lose it. I grew so tired of this happening to me that I began making a point to stop whatever I was doing and record it. I usually record it on a BlackBerry Storm. I noticed that I had a little collection of random thoughts piling up and thought I'd post them here on occasion. Sometimes these thought will be half-baked. You'll notice that the development of these thoughts come in varying degrees. Sometimes you might think, "I think that one should've sat in the hopper a little longer..." If so, tell me. No bother, these ideas are in development. What follows is one of those ideas that I put down as it came to me.]

It is often supposed that the scholarship of believing scholars is less credible because they have a vested interest in their own claims and thus are not in a neutral position to assess historical data. As the old adage goes: if the Pope says there is a God he’s just doing his job but if August Comte says this he may be on to something. Granted, believing scholars have a vested interest and that they are not neutral, but it is not true that their claims are less credible. It is no more possible for the unbelieving scholar to assess historical data from a neutral position. The claims of Christianity are the kind of claims about which one cannot possibly be neutral. They are life-governing claims that if true demand one way of perceiving the world and if not true demand other ways of perceiving the world. It is impossible then that even a skeptic should occupy a neutral position on looking at the biblical data and assessing its truth since she makes his assessment on the judgment of a worldview that is either Christian or non-Christian. She may be agnostic with regard to his conclusion about the accuracy of the biblical data, but she is not neutral in the means by which he assesses the truth of it since she is not agnostic or neutral to her methods of evaluation. Agnosticism and neutrality are not methods of evaluation. They are at best attitudes about the outcome of evaluation. Thus it is not possible to evaluate agnostically or neutrally. People can only do any evaluation because they have principles and convictions on which they must stand in order to make an assessment.

A Sermon for Palm Sunday

[Here is a condensed version of the sermon that I preached this Sunday, April 5, 2009. I don't think that I'm a particularly great preacher but I think that I do fairly well at it. I try to preach what I think I would need someone to preach to me. Hopefully I'm enough like other people so that what I need to hear is similar to what they need to hear. The sermon, you will notice, is largely influenced by Luther (yes, I know I just opened myself up the charge that I should be largely influenced by the text). His explanation of Philippians 2:5-11 in "Two Kinds of Righteousness" is, in my estimation, one of the greatest theological treatises ever written. I don't plan to regularly post sermons here, but I thought some might be interested in reading it and I get a blog post out of it...win, win.]

Grace, mercy, and peace be to you from God our Father and from Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Our text today is the epistle lesson.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

There’s a theory in ethics called egoism. It’s a pretty simple theory really. It essentially says that all ethical decisions whether good or bad are ultimately for personal gain and benefit. It claims that there’s only one motive for all your moral actions: self-interest. It’s easy to see how self-interest is behind wrong moral actions.

Does Your Church Encourage Homosexuality?

Undoubtedly, many who read this title are members of churches where homosexuality is considered morally wrong. These people will think: “No, my church doesn’t encourage homosexuality. We are against it.” Determining which churches promote homosexuality and which do not may seem obvious, but it isn’t.

Three Churches that Encourage Homosexuality

There are several ways that churches can encourage someone toward homosexuality.

The Blackberry Files, vol. 2

As I was walking the campus of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, I heard one of two middle-eastern women in conversation say: “Jesus f***ing Christ” which made me wonder why there isn’t more religious sensitivity in American society toward Christians the way there is toward Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. I can think of two reasons.

One reason is that Christians are the majority religion in American society. It is hard to take seriously the oppression of the majority. No one entertains the belief that there is a plight of the majority. If I make a comment in front of two middle-eastern women (say they are Muslim) to the effect of “F*** Muhammad” I can reasonably expect that this is perceived in a way that the parallel statement by the two women is not. Society tires of the majority as the majority in a way that it does not the minority and so we tolerate insensitivity toward the majority in a far greater way.

The second reason I can think that there isn’t more religious sensitivity in American society toward Christians is that Christians have reasons to tolerate it that others do not. Islam is not taught to endure those who hate you and speak evil of you as Christians are taught by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). There is no command (that I can find) in the Q’uran to love your enemies. Consequently, I do not see that people fear violent repercussions from Christians either on an individual level or on organized level. There is within Christian teaching the idea that the world’s attitude toward us has already been established in it’s attitude toward our Lord. We share the same fate. So Christians should not be surprised at this. And the Christian response is to be the same as Christ’s. When he was reviled, he did not revile back but kept entrusting himself to God who judges justly.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Why Do We Need Ongoing Forgiveness?

One of the questions that I’m asked from time to time, and one that I also have asked many times concerns why a Christian needs to continually confess our sins if we have already been forgiven. Many of us have the vague notion that we need to confess our present sins, but don’t really know why. Sure, 1 John 1:9 (a letter written to believers) encourages confession of post-conversion sin, and certainly Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses…” but many people do so without any clearer reason than that they are commanded (Of course, doing something because God has commanded it is never an insufficient reason, but it is better if we can also know the reason for the command). 

 

Various reasons for confessing sin have been given.

 

A common answer that I’ve heard throughout my years in the church is that we must continually confess our sins to stay in fellowship with God. That is, if we sin and don’t confess it, God won’t answer our prayers and we will feel in our souls that we are distant from him. The verse commonly cited in support of this view is Ps 66:18 – “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.”

Any asset that this answer is in providing a reason to confess sin becomes a liability in a host of other areas for theology and Christian living.