Pence // Nashville Shooting // Office Politics Humor

 Great article and interview with Mike Pence in the Wall Street Journal. Pence/DeSantis 2024!

Great article on the Nashville shooting. Did you know Hale shot out a stained glass figure of Adam during the rampage?

Christian Behavior by C.S. Lewis - a review

Christian Behavior by C.S. Lewis
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I found a first edition printing of C.S. Lewis’ second series of radio addresses during World War II, in a used bookstore in a tourist town near me. Delivered in 1943, published in 1945, Lewis reviews Christian ethics by looking at each cardinal virtue in turn.

The chapters are each exactly 6 small pages long, as he had 10 minutes to deliver each. This makes for easy reading.

Lewis first surveys morality, generally. It involves fair play between people, harmony within oneself, and the purpose of life. He then reviews the classical virtues of prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice. Then two fascinating addresses on psychoanalysis and its relationship to ethics, and sexual morality. An insightful chapter on marriage, likening the relationship to a violin and bow, making up one instrument. And finally Christian virtues: forgiveness, humility, charity, hope, and faith.

Lewis is so bracing. Simple, clear, and direct. I was struck by how out of sync his emphases are with my own conservative circles today. In a world of platforming and building your brand, even by the people we agree with, Lewis was the unassuming opposite. He spoke of the fledgling New Testament Christian Church as possibly leftist and socialist. Perhaps he was wrong, or perhaps he wasn’t constrained by political orthodoxies like we are today. His chapter on Hope calls us to look to the next world, in order to do the most good in this one. My anti-Gnostic friends would cringe, but Lewis is right. While we can and should enjoy the blessings of this world, we should even more be hoping for a better world.

Ironically, Lewis wrote in his day that we need to read old books, to balance our modern view. Now, we need to read Lewis’ old book, to balance our contemporary views on Christian living, whether you are a long time Christian, or considering the faith afresh.

View all my reviews

Minister of Mercy: The New Testament Deacon - review

 

The New Testament Deacon: The Church's Minister of Mercy by Alexander Strauch
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

A good survey and exposition of what the Bible says about deacons. Strauch exposits Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3 thoroughly. At times it is overly academic and pedantic, but it is solid. Usually predictable, but now and then there are gems in the exposition. Here’s one example:
1 Timothy 3:13 says that deacons who serve well will obtain “great boldness in the faith.” Strauch: “as deacons faithfully serve, they also develop their spiritual lives, particularly their faith in Christ” (pg 151). There is a lot of spiritual insight, there.

I’ve noted a stark difference between my church experience and Scripture in this way: in Acts 6 the deacons are given authority for a field of activity, and then left to do it, while the elders pray and teach the Word. In the church today, deacons don’t do anything unless the elders tell them to! This is as often the fault of the elders being disorganized as it is of negligence on the part of the deacons. Deacons are a key link in the structure of the church, receiving authority from elders to serve, and then coordinating and delegating some of that authority to the body of believers.

The main point Strauch makes topically, in applying to the church scene today, is crucial. At the beginning and end of the book he asserts this:
Most churches make deacons either rulers of the church or janitors. The Bible makes them neither. They are agents of mercy with real authority under the elders, to provide for those in need.

May our deacons aim for this purpose, serving God’s people faithfully.

View all my reviews

A Political Exercise

I took a moment this afternoon for a political exercise.

Feel free to follow what I did below if you'd like.

Step 1: This is in my email from the county Republican party leadership

"Two bills are coming before the Michigan House of Representatives that pose a serious threat to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in Michigan. HB4474 and its companion bill, HB4475, which both aim to criminalize hate speech. These bills, if passed in to law, would be used to criminalize any vocal opposition to the democrats woke agenda. For example, vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills became law. Simply put, if passed, it would make it a felony for any one of us to speak out against the LGBTQ community, causing "mental anguish" to a protected class as outlined by the expanded Elliot Larson Act. If found guilty, one could face inprisionment for not more than 5 years, a $10,000 fine, or both. These are dangerous pieces of legislation that seek to interfere with the God-given freedom of speech and freedom of religion that are ours in Christ Jesus.

We are asking that each of you write a letter addressed to State Representative Jennifer Conlin urging her to vote "NO" on this legislation."

At the end, they include the actual legislation documents.  Helpful!

2. I go to read the summary, which is here.  I'll pause while you go and read...

3. I'm confused, and a bit disturbed.  The legislation does not look to ME like it criminalizes my next sermon on Romans 1, as claimed above.

4.  I send the following to my esteemed local party leaders:
Hello,
I'm a conservative pastor in Howell, and just read your letter, and the document summary of HB4474.
I believe you are mistaken to claim that 
"vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills became law."

Any opposition to CRT/LGBT should be done respectfully, without threats that intimidate anyone.  We should oppose the idea, but not threaten the person.  The language I read doesn't allow prosecution just because someone feels threatened.  See especially the definition of intimidate on pg 2, allowing constitutionally protected speech.  "I felt traumatized because they said something I disagreed with" doesn't seem allowed, here.
The law is mistaken to categorize trans people as ethnicities, and should be opposed.  And adding "intimidate" IS a bad idea.  But it should be opposed because it is unnecessary.  It does not criminalize my sermon from Romans 1.

I'm asking you to reconsider your rhetoric and rationale - sending the rank and file to state reps with questionable objections to a bill, is a tactic that will backfire in the long run.



5. After sending and thinking about it for 2 minutes, I realize.  "Huh.  If I'm going to critique their approach, I'd better show them how I think it should be done."  So I write and send a letter to our State Representative, thusly.
"June 15, 2023
Dear Representative Conlin, 
I am writing to ask you to vote NO on HB4474 and 4475.
Including gender identity and expression alongside sexual orientation is unnecessary.  The former is included in the latter phrase. 
Adding the behavior of “intimidate” to a hate crime is dangerously ambiguous.  Expressing an opinion in anger is enough for many to feel intimidated, today.  Can they sue, now?  I see some guardrails in the law: “cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, etc.”  “Intimidate would not include constitutionally protected activity.” 
But that makes adding “intimidate” to the law unnecessary, and unwise.  Hate crimes should be limited to violence and specific threats of it, not expanded to include FEELING intimidated.
Thank you for your consideration.

6. This is what sane political interaction looks like, in my mind.  NOT mimicking the antics and over-the-top rhetoric of your favorite entertainer-podcasters online.  I'd love to know if you think I'm off base.