Aaron and Keith have done a good job bringing life to our blog by commenting on some recent events, both far and near. Thanks guys. I can’t help but reply to some of the recent comments.
First, the case of Steve Irwin’s death is certainly sad. He leaves behind a wife and two very young children. He died in a needless accident wrestling with a creature that, while not the most dangerous he had ever encountered, was certainly not your barnyard variety of critter. It strikes me as strange, Aaron, that Steve Irwin’s model of connecting with the natural world would be held out as exemplary to children and to Christians. I find it quite the contrary. I have never watched Steve Irwin’s programs, but it sounds as if the thrill of danger was as much or more a part of his “show” than nature. This wasn’t Jacques Cousteau who was motivated by his delight of nature. This was a guy who loved and marketed danger as much as nature. So to me it is like wanting to motivate my kids to ride a bike by having them watch a guy race down I-65 at a 100 miles an hour on a motorcycle without a helmet. I would like my children to like nature, but not necessarily scorpions as playthings. This is the same guy who held his baby in one hand and a dead chicken in another hand over a crocodile in 2004. I take some umbrage that this kind of behavior should be held out as a rebuke to me and other Christians. I think that because the world has lost any sense of meaning about the natural world that it takes the thrill of danger to arouse interest.
And Bro. Keith. For the record, I have nothing against football. I find it entertaining at times. I have something against saying that it is the greatest sport. Your only defense to me about it is that the players have to learn a handbook of over 100 plays. How hard is that? Play#1, run into each other at full speed. Play #2, run into each other at full speed, but slide at the last minute. Play #3, run into each other after having made a quarter turn. Play #4, run into each other after having run 20 paces. 100 plays equals 100 variations on the theme “how to run into each other” while the one person who has the brains figures out how to get the ball to the other end of the field. I think this local guy who was injured should take this as an opportunity to do well in his classes this fall. Maybe he will get into a better graduate school as a result. If he still wants to wear tight pants and have contact with others, he could try out for ballet.
Hey Keith, the Kairos Journalhad the same reaction you did to the death of Steve Irwin. Note the KJ-Quick Take below:
Crikey! The Earth Is the Lord’s
The death of the conservationist Steve Irwin is widely reported in the world media.1 Irwin was a larger than life and controversial character who for many years championed the cause of crocodiles in Australia. Along with his wife Terri he founded “Australia Zoo” in Queensland,2 and such was their devotion to the cause of endangered species that they even went in search of crocodiles on their honeymoon.
One aspect of Irwin’s life stands out. He was unashamedly enthusiastic about the wonders of the natural world. Children adored him because he showed them what it might mean to love animals whether great or small. The sight of Irwin wrestling a mammoth crocodile or running in the desert to catch a scorpion was almost guaranteed to implant in children a playful delight in living beings. Tragically there is no indication that Irwin was a Christian, indeed, he and his wife welcomed their children into the world with Buddhist ceremonies. Yet his life is one long rebuke to Christians who take little delight in their Father’s world. If a man could love the creation this much and not know the Creator—how much more should those who love God take delight in the work of His hands?
Footnotes :
1
Paul Tait, “Crocodile Hunter Killed by Stingray,” The Washington Times, September 5, 2006, http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060905-120419-8737r.htm (accessed September 5, 2006).
2
The Crocodile Hunter Website, www.crocodilehunter.com
Maybe you do, maybe you don’t. David Brooks, writing at the New York Times(subscription required) has a great column about the popularity of tatoos. Basically arguing that where they once were a statement about nonconformity they are now just the opposite–mainstream:
What you get is a culture of trompe l’oeil degeneracy. People adopt socially acceptable transgressions — like tattoos — to show they are edgy, but inside they are still middle class. You run into these candy-cane grunge types: people with piercings and inkings all over their bodies who look like Sid Vicious but talk like Barry Manilow. They’ve got the alienated look — just not the anger.
And that’s the most delightful thing about the whole tattoo fad. A cadre of fashion-forward types thought they were doing something to separate themselves from the vanilla middle classes but are now discovering that the signs etched into their skins are absolutely mainstream. They are at the beach looking across the acres of similar markings and learning there is nothing more conformist than displays of individuality, nothing more risk-free than rebellion, nothing more conservative than youth culture.
Another generation of hipsters, laid low by the ironies of consumerism.
Overall, I think he is right. Do you want to know what is “edgy,” what is “hip,” and what is “counter-cultural”?
Being made in the image of God and singing songs of praise to your Maker.
Doing what Greg preached in the sermon this morning and obeying Christ out of joy and not shame.
Being honest with people about why you are doing what you are doing with your life–”I am going to school . . . I am going to this church . . . I married this person . . . I am seeing this person . . . because I have been transformed by Christ.”
Caring less about what you wear than Whom you worship
Going to church on Sunday evening and sharing with others how Christ has changed your life
Standing in the rain (or humidity) and passing out church cards on campus
Remaining faithful to your spouse (with your mind as well as your body)
Volunteering at a Crisis Pregnancy Center and encouraging women to keep their unborn babies
Keith, I don’t know why I didn’t reply to your question the first time, but I can’t pass it by this time. If you, Greg, or Aaron preached the sermon that Piper did from that text I would rebuke you sharply. Murder isn’t the main point of that text. Murder is but an example of the outcomes of the impure desires and as such, abortion should only have been discussed as one example of the outcomes of evil desires today. I may still quibble with that though. Taking the life of the unborn is really not done because one desires what the unborn has. James seems to be describing situations where conflict and “murder” arise because of conflicting desires between parties that can combat each other. I guess one could say that the desire for life on the part of the baby is conflicting with the desire for freedom on the part of the parents, etc.
The principle that I would assert and that Piper violates is that the main point of the text is really not the main point of the sermon. He has taken one possible present day application and made it the main point. That is unacceptable to me and I would not countenance that in a church where I had oversight. I am not saying that a preacher shouldn’t address present day ills/sins, but don’t make them the main point when they are not.
Furthermore, did the people at Bethlehem Baptist in 1998 struggle with wanting to abort their babies? Didn’t that text have anything to say to the people in the pews that he was looking at, versus the folks — out there — somewhere who were aborting babies? It is a tiresome thing to hear sermons railing against sins that no one in the congregation is likely to commit. Again, I would grant a role for societal applications from a text, but it shouldn’t be the primary application of the text. The primary application of the text is for the poeple who are there listening. My guess is that those listening to Piper’s sermon that day weren’t struggling with a desire to abort a fetus, but were struggling with some form of envious desire that may have caused difficulties in their fellowship. I could say more, but are you satisfied Bro. Goad?
Richard Watson Gilder (1844-1909) was an American poet and editor of Scribner’s Monthly (later, Century Magazine) an early competitor of Atlantic Monthly and Harper’s Monthly. He lived in Manhattan with his wife where they were known for their Friday evening gatherings of writers, artists, and musicians. Many of his poems have religious themes, the following does not. It is a bold love poem:
“My Love for Thee Doth March Like Arméd Men”
My love for thee doth march like arméd men
Against a queenly city they would take.
Along the army’s front its banners shake;
Across the mountain and the sun-smit plain
It steadfast sweeps the steadfast rain;
And now the trumpet makes the still air quake,
And now the thundering cannon doth awake
Echo on echo, echoing loud again.
But, lo! the conquest higher than bard had sung;
Instead of answering cannon comes a small
White flag; the iron gates are open flung,
And flowers along the invaders’ pathway fall.
The city’s conquerors feast their foes among,
And their brave flags are trophies on her wall.
Over the summer Keith Goad has been preaching for us Sunday mornings from James and leading us Wednesday evenings in a Bible study from John 17. Keith preached an excellent sermon today but ends the series without finishing the book. He’s left us at a cliff hanger. The Wednesday evening Bible study will continue in John though, and as Keith said in a recent post on this blog, there are some important questions hanging from last week’s discussion.
The primary question we were wrestling with last Wednesday was how should we engage with the culture even though we were are not to be “of” the world. My response to that question is what should we be doing? If we have been sent as Christ was sent into the world, what does that mean for us? Surely there were things that Christ did that were unique that we are not here to do. What are those things, and what are the things we should be doing? I think that part of the difficulty we have deciding how “missional” or indigenous to be comes from the complexity of deciding what we are to do as “little Christs”, what is for the church, and what was uniquely Christ’s to do? Are we to be feeding the poor, engaging in healing ministries, incarnating as Indie rockers . . . You can only answer these questions it seems by deciding what specifically we are to do as we are sent.
