Some Thoughts on Martin Luther, Christianity, and Spirituality

I recently watched the movie Luther. It is of course about Martin Luther and the Reformation of the 16th century which began out of protest to the heresy of the Catholic church's use of "indulgences." "Roman Catholic theology stated that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man; and that only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man. These good works could be obtained by donating money to the church." Luther's contention against "indulgences" led him to write "the 95 Theses" which in turn began the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation was a defining moment of The Church.

What a reminder that many, throughout the centuries, have suffered, sometimes to the point of death, for the preservation and proclamation of the gospel. This is still happening around the world today. For example I have friends who journey to China once a year to smuggle bibles into the country. The Church there is confined to meet in secret, usually in homes. In some countries, either political ideologies (such as communism) or religious theocracies (Islam) prevent the freedom to worship openly as one chooses. Here in America pluralism affords us the freedom to worship freely and openly, a freedom we often take for granted.

While we do not have "indulgences" as in the 16th century, our own postmodern ethos vexes the church with new challenges. Take for example, how many churches today, in an effort to reach "seekers" watered down the message of the gospel by giving into methods of modernity. Often times method overshadows the message. Pushing the antithesis between Christianity and the alternative is critical for the Church in a time when "being spiritual" is cool; never mind the "sacred/secular"split. The Church also needs to be more than just "people of faith"! "Faith" seems to be such a buzz word these days. "Faith" in what? Christianity mustn't be obscure. It must stand apart from the hodgepodge of "spirituality" so popular in todays culture. The fluff of "faith" (in the Christian world) can especially be seen in recent books.

To be sure, take note of such cultural phenomena's in books like "The Purpose Driven Life", "Your Best Life Now", or "The Shack." The spreading of the Gospel may be the intention of these books, although orthodoxy could be called into question with two of the books mentioned. But what have they done to set Christianity apart from "spirituality"? How do they provide epistemic warrant against Oprah Winfrey? What sets Family Christian Stores apart from my local metaphysical book store in respect to some of the books they sell? Do we, like Martin Luther, long for the purity and the simplicity of the gospel to be preached? Unadulterated and untarnished?

Just as Luther stood up for the gospel in his day so too, we must also stand up for the gospel. We must unabashedly deliver it in our churches, convey it in our apologetic discussions (found in the presuppositional method), choose books that help us love it, and most of all "we must get into the Word of God and get the Word of God into us so that when a counterfeit looms on the horizon we will know it instantly."

In the 16th Century Truth mattered to Luther. In the 21st Century Truth should matter to us. We should be ready to defend it and present as set apart in an culture of "spirituality." We must push the antithesis.

Thoughts

"... the current evangelical disposition to shuck off its cognitive structures and minimize the practical place of revealed truth in the life of the Church means that it has brought itself to the edge of a precipice. It is a precipice precisely because as evangelical faith has chosen to minimize itself in these ways in order to become attractive to postmodern seekers, it is losing what makes it distinctive from all of the other postmodern spiritualities. Today, it trembles on the edge of becoming just one of many spiritualities in the marketplace even as the liberal Protestants much earlier diminished Christianity by making it out to be just one among many religions better than the others, perhaps, but not unique." -David Wells, Above All Earthly Pow'rs,Christ in a Postmodern World

What Should I Wear: Reflections on Style

Style. What is it? Why are we so drawn to it? Pluralism affords us a superabundance of choice when it comes to style; how then should we think about it in the context of clothing?

The next time you're at the mall take notice of the stores there. Stores like Abercrombie & Fitch, Urban Outfitters, Martin & Osa, or Journey's and Juicy Couture, etc.. Interestingly enough, each of these stores intend to provide a particular image to the consumer. This image can allow you to be whatever and whoever you want to be depending on where you decide to shop. In other words, style and image become the efficacious vehicle by which brands deliver to the consumer. Substance is of no consequence because style is the now.

Many brands rely on producing a complete shopping experience. The experience of being in-the-now of style is were the consumer is invited to invest in the "lifestyle" of their choice. This investment gives a sense of belonging to the individual. The individual can then decide what his or her so called individualism will be. To put is differently, these conditions give the consumer the existential freedom to become whoever they want to be. In his telling book Fit Bodies Fat Minds, social commentator Os Guinness, says that "style is a sort of armor for city life. Wear something and walk down the street and you don't just say, 'I like this,' you say, 'I'm like this.'" Style is a "commerce in appearances. It is the surface that we create for ourselves. It is not simply a mater of taste, it can also be for some people, a way of either transforming themselves or even hiding themselves" says theology professor David Wells.

Are you are a biker? There are clothes for bikers. Are you into hip hop? There are clothes for that. Maybe you are in your late 20's or early 30's. Well there are clothes for that too!
Take for example the popular brand Abercrombie & Fitch; they demonstrate the image-experience illustration quite well . Their website says, "the only way to appreciate Abercrombie & Fitch is to live it through our high quality, collegiate-inspired, casual luxury clothing... Our unique lifestyle is felt through the energy of the in-store experience. With great tunes thumping in the background and our Brand Reps there to help you find exactly what you need, our stores bring to life the Abercrombie & Fitch lifestyle."

Urban Outfitters is supposedly for the eclectic who likes shopping at thrift stores and dressing "urban." You could say it's were the "cool kids" shop. UO boast a "DIY" style throughout the store that changes every few months. Every sort of postmodern novelty can be found there from "little buddha" lamps to "Jesus is My Homeboy" t-shirts. They even sell a line of thrift store clothes that of which they replace the original sewn in tags with UO tags. Employes are also told to be "cooler than the customer" as part of selling the image.

Juicy Couture sells themselves as being both anti-establishment, i.e.. "punk," while at the same time "high-brow couture." They use provocative and cliché slogans on their t-shirts like "Go Couture Yourself" and "Choose Juicy." In fact they made popular velour track suits with the word "Juicy" across the butt of the pants. It is as though, if you buy their clothes, you will somehow begin to live a rebel-royalty-lifestyle.

As silly as it may sound "lifestyle," it seems, is completely relative to the brand and of course you being relevant is key. However, this pursuit for relevance is a fast track to nowhere. It can't be kept up with. Not only can the pursuit of relevance lead us to a superficial self, it can also cause frivolous anxiety and emptiness. Manipulation and self esteem are no doubt a marketing ploy to serve the hungry demands of "the empty self."

Guinness continues to give pertinence to the the topic. "Substance is a matter of who or what someone or something is; style is the manner through which that distinctiveness is presented and perceived. No longer expressive of substance or inner character, style is all that matters now. No longer enduring, it is transient, changeable, and fashion-oriented. As a glance at any magazine rack will show, style is the number one mantra of late twentieth-century America. Used more often on magazine covers than even the word sex, style is a leading source of anxiety, hope, and fascinations for millions. To be up-to-date and in touch with one's style is essential; to be out-of-date is unforgivable. At a time when permanence of personality is as forlorn as permanence of place, change is the order of the day. Identity is now a matter of perception and presentation. And style is the art of skillfully presenting illusions as we walk down the corridor of images that make up modern society."

So what do we do as Christians? How should we think about style and fashion? I honestly don't know. How do we escape modernity? Or rather, how do we live in it? If we are looking for our identity in style or the next big brand to tell us how we should look, then we are sure to fail. Our concern however, should be to discover our identity in Christ and not Louis Vuitton.

Thoughts

"...get into the habit of reading books that are somewhat beyond your ability to grasp. If your spend all of your time reading material that requires little intellectual effort, you will not stretch your mind and grow appreciably in your thinking ability." -J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind; The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul

Thoughts

"The obstinate mass of the status quo may be blocking the progress of truth and freedom." -Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance

Postmodernism, Image, and Biblical Text

Amongst the ever expanding plethora of stylized bibles today comes Bible Illuminated: The Book. It is the New Testament (The Good News translation) in a glossy 300 page magazine format which contains no chapter or verse numbers and is arrayed with provocative photography. Inside are photos of celebrities like Bono, Angelina Jolie and Arnold Schwarzenegger along side Mother Teresa and a veiled muslim woman holding her child.

The creator, Dag Soderberg, whom himself is "not particularly religious," is a Swedish advertising executive. He apparently set out to make "a coffee-table magazine... read by the many everyday, everywhere." Soderberg also says that "when you see this, you want to talk about it... it's a discussion bible." According to one news station interviewer "it makes the bible a little more culturally relevant." "The idea is to get the reader to move from the image to the text," says Soderberg.

While Bible Illuminated seems to be nothing more than an innocent and noble attempt to make the bible more accessible to those who would normally not pick up a bible, it will no doubt contribute to a wrong understanding of scriptural interpretation. Allow me to explain.

Reading a book and discovering the authors intent should be the goal of the reader. The author indeed intends to articulate his or her message in what they write. The writers of the bible are no exception. When reading the bible one must condenser such literary devices as genre, hyperbolic language, location, social setting, cultural issues, and the like. Our aim should be faithful, biblical exegesis, "the method by which a student seeks to uncover what an author intended his or her original audience to understand." We also want biblical hermeneutics, "the task of interpreting the Word of God" or as Hank Hanegraaff puts it "the art and science of biblical interpretation. It is a science in that certain rules apply. It is an art in that the more you apply these rules, the better you get at it." This no doubt will take some effort and practice on the part of the reader, but in order to remain true to scripture we must adopt such discipline.

When these disciplines are not put into action it becomes easy to force our own impositions upon Scripture like our experiences, or preconceptions. We then run the likelihood of subjectivising and even relativizing the text. That is to say that when we neglect to read biblical text properly we risk imposing our own ideas of what we want it to say.

For instance, Soderberg's particular selection of pictures, which he uses to tell the stories of scripture, will surely cause one to relativize the text. Social Critic Neil Postman, in his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is quite appropriate to quote at this point. In chapter 5 he laments about the the invention of the photograph at the turn of the 19th century which began a "graphic revolution." "The new imagery, with photography at its forefront, did not merely function as a supplement to language, but bid to replace it as our dominant means for construing, understanding, and testing reality... For countless Americans, seeing, not reading, became the basis for believing." For Soderberg the image gives meaning to the text. For example, in the Gospel of Mark when it reads, "God says, 'I will send my messenger ahead of you to open the way'" (Mk.1: 2) shows photos of Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. However it should be obvious to the student of the bible that this an Old Testament reference to Is.40:3 about John the Baptist preparing the way for the coming of Christ, not Gandhi! Another example is Rev.9:8. "Their hair was like women's hair, their teeth were like lion's teeth," which shows a man at a tattoo expo in Budapest. The images that Soderberg presents are definitely something that when you see them, "you want to talk about it," however he misses the mark.

As far as the comment made by the news reporter, "it makes the bible a little more culturally relevant," this is not true. Scripture is not dictated by the ebb-and-flow of what is considered culturally relevant. The Word of the Lord is timeless and absolute! We would do much better instead to see pictures that remain true to the bible and contribute to the intentional context of the bible's text such as paintings by Rembrandt.

We really shouldn't need any pictures to read the bible. If we want to read the bible for all it's worth, well... we are going to have to do our homework.

Counting the Cost of the Global Warming Hysteria

Some questions on "Global Warming":

1. Does "Global Warming" threaten the planet?

2. Is Al Gore really onto something in his two best selling books "Earth in the Balance" and "An   Inconvenient Truth"?

3. Would the Kyoto Protocol really help to cool the planet?

4. Is "Global Warming" really a bad thing?

"Not Evil Just Wrong" is a "documentary aimed at exposing the true cost behind the 'global warming' hysteria" hopefully coming to theaters in the U.S. in 2009. Check out this article.