Knockoffs, part 2

In one of my recent posts on Christian knockoffs, I pushed the buttons of a few folks (Craig, Stephanie, EG, and Zeb were most vocal). We all seem to share some distaste for Christian knockoff products.

Something resonated within me when Zeb wrote, “I think we should preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the unbelieving world. The gospel is pure, it's powerful and it saves. These [Christian knockoffs] do not.” I don’t want to put words into Zeb’s mouth, but there is something appealing about refusing to borrow from the non-believing world around us and simply sharing God’s word. After all, the stuff of this world is tainted and useless compared to the Bible, right?

Yet, I still felt something missing from this approach, too. It reminds me too much of those who would try to counsel people using nothing but words from the Bible. (My students know that I find value in some of the work of non-believing psychologists and therapists.) I don’t think it wise to reject, simply on principle, from borrowing anything from non-believers.

So I began pondering again the legitimacy of borrowing from a non-believing culture to communicate the truth of the gospel. And then I remembered Amenemope.

The Instruction of Amenemope is an example of wisdom literature from ancient Egypt. Most biblical scholars, conservative ones included, believe Instruction of Amenemope serves as background and foundation for Proverbs 22:17-24:22. The two passages are not identical, but they are very similar – in some places they are so similar that there is little doubt one source directly influenced the other.

Curious? Read some excerpts for yourself…

Proverbs 22:17-18
Pay attention and listen to the sayings of the wise;
apply your heart to what I teach,
for it is pleasing when you keep them in your heart
and have all of them ready on your lips.

Instruction of Amenemope, Chapter 1
Give your ears and hear what is said,
Give your mind over to their interpretation:
It is profitable to put them in your heart,
But woe to him that neglects them!


Proverbs 22:20-21
Have I not written thirty sayings for you,
sayings of counsel and knowledge,
teaching you true and reliable words,
so that you can give sound answers
to him who sent you?

Instruction of Amenemope, Chapter 30
Mark for your self these thirty chapters:
They please, they instruct,
They are the foremost of all books;
They teach the ignorant.
If they are read to an ignorant man,
He will be purified through them.


Proverbs 22:24
Do not make friends with a hot-tempered man,
do not associate with one easily angered,

Instruction of Amenemope, Chapter 9
Do not fraternize with the hot-tempered man,
Nor approach him to converse.


Proverbs 23:1-2
When you sit to dine with a ruler,
note well what is before you,
and put a knife to your throat
if you are given to gluttony.

Instruction of Amenemope, Chapter 23
Do not eat a meal in the presence of a magistrate,
Nor set to speaking first…
Look at the cup in front of you,
And let it suffice your need.


Proverbs 23:4-5
Do not wear yourself out to get rich;
have the wisdom to show restraint.
Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone,
for they will surely sprout wings
and fly off to the sky like an eagle.

Instruction of Amenemope, Chapter 7
Do not exert yourself to seek out excess
And your wealth will prosper for you;
If riches come to you by theft
They will not spend the night with you;
As soon as day breaks they will not be in your household;
Although their places can be seen, they are not there.


I remember discussing in seminary the issue of “borrowed material” in the Bible. Several students were greatly disturbed at the idea. For them, it made Scripture seem less reliable, less pure, even less divine somehow. After all, the wisdom of the world is tainted and useless, right?

But God saw fit to have the words of a pagan world included in the Bible. How should we make sense of this? Here are a couple of thoughts from the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Proverbs.

“…To recognize the biblical texts as divine revelation does not necessarily mean that all its contents had to be previously unknown information…. Very likely the writers deliberately used well-known concepts and expressions from the pagan world to subordinate them to the true religion.”

“Inspiration does not exclude the divine use of existing material; but in Scripture it takes on a new force, a higher meaning, and becomes authoritative.”

So if we know by example (from God Himself) that using the creations from an unbelieving world is sometimes acceptable, how do we decide when and where it is most appropriate?

I have some thoughts percolating on that very idea. More coming later. Until then (and as always), I’m interested in your thoughts and observations.

Spring Broke

I haven’t posted as often this week – I suppose I am coasting into Spring Break. Some of my students will be doing big and great things like spending a week skiing with friends or serving on mission trips. Me? Here’s what my break will look like:


I’ll spend my mornings watching SpongeBob SquarePants and my afternoons riding bicycles.

I’ll be spending some sleepless nights in a half-panic as the reality of having another baby finally starts to set in.

I will have to take out a second mortgage to stock up on diapers, buy bunk beds, and find batteries for all the baby toys that will make crazy, repetitive, annoying noises.

I’ll be shedding tears of joy as the furniture folks deliver and assemble the bunk beds for me. Since it took me four weeks to assemble a Big Wheel, I’m afraid the boys wouldn’t be able to use the beds until they were ready for college if it were up to me.

I will have to keep two boys from killing each other, breaking stuff, and making their mother crazy while they are out of school, too.

I’ll watch my fair share of March Madness until my wife reminds me (three or four times) how desperately our yard needs work. Then I’ll get off my duff and start to work outside, discover I don’t have the right tool for something, hurt myself or break something, then come back inside feeling like a failure. I’ll turn basketball back on to make myself feel better.

I’ll try to read something that isn’t related to any of my classes.

If I do write about anything, it won’t be about sex because my friends have informed me that my blog has become a little “topic heavy.”

Enjoy the break.

Knockoffs

You’ve seen these kind of t-shirts, right? They mimic other logos and brands while promoting a Christian message. It seems they gained popularity when I was in junior high and high school, and I have to admit I had my fair share of them.

A “Solid Rock Café” t-shirt that looked just like a Hard Rock Café shirt.

A “1 Corinthians 6:10” shirt made to look like a Corona shirt.

A “Jesus is the Real Thing” shirt that sort of almost resembled something like a Coca-Cola shirt.

I could go on, but I’ve embarrassed myself enough. I mean, back then I thought I was puttin’ the “Kool” in Kool-Aid with those shirts. Now? – I’m not sure I would mow my yard in one.

I suppose like all things, those knockoff t-shirts have their place. Tim Ellsworth wrote the following article back in November about Christian knockoffs. I found it again this morning and thought it was worth sharing…


A little girl recites Psalm 23. A squirrel sings "I Will Always Love You." A man beats the tar out of a computer when he accidentally stumbles across a pornographic Web site.

These are just some of the videos you'll find on Internet sites like GodTube, an obvious knockoff of the popular YouTube.

GodTube is one of the fastest growing Web sites around. It had 1.7 million unique visitors in August, a 973 percent increase from the previous month. A number of major Christian retailers and ministries have signed on as partners with the venture.

The site has company among others aping YouTube, like ChristianUTube and Xianz. While I'm sure there are some decent videos on these sites, from my limited experience, they tend to be bastions of bad theology with a lot of material that's downright silly.

Take, for instance, the video of Ray Comfort calling the banana "the atheist's nightmare." He proceeds to demonstrate that the banana disproves evolution - because it's obvious that the banana with its no-slip grip has been designed to fit in the human hand. It's also "just the right shape for the human mouth," Comfort says.

If this is true, then what are we to make of the kiwi?

The popular GodTube doesn't stop at offering Christian videos. On a recent visit, I saw an ad on the site advertising the "GodTube Social Network: The best way to connect with other believers."

The best way to connect with other believers? I thought that's what local churches were for.

The video sites like GodTube aren't alone, however, as Christian knockoffs like this are everywhere.

Want a Christian version of "American Idol"? We've got it.

How about a Christian energy drink ("Fused with the fruit of the Spirit" - and no, I'm not kidding). We've got that too.

Christian breath mints? Yep.

We've even got the social networking knockoffs. Myspace? No, it's got to be HisHolySpace or Your Christian Space instead. I mean, on Myspace, an unbeliever might try to add me as a friend or something. We can't have that.

While there's certainly a place for Christian versions of various products - like books - do we really need Christian breath mints? Am I more like Jesus after consuming a Testamint than I am after sucking on a Tic Tac?

The Christian subculture is robust and growing, and its success indicates that far too many Christians are perfectly content to surround themselves with "Christian" copies of everything, in the process isolating themselves entirely from a lost world that desperately needs the Gospel.

Wouldn't the videos posted on sites like GodTube be far more effective on mainstream sites like YouTube, where non-Christians might actually see them? There probably aren't a lot of unbelievers who have GodTube bookmarked on their browsers.

Or, better yet, what if the energies that go into making "Christian" videos - or "Christian" products of any kind - were used instead to produce high-quality work that isn't explicitly "Christian"? Look at J.R.R. Tolkein. His books are so good that everyone enjoys them - Christians and non-Christians alike.

While Tolkein's beliefs may have spilled out into Middle Earth, his books were not written primarily as tools to proselytize. They were written to be great books. Christians would do well to follow his example, and would be far more effective in transforming culture by doing so.

Of course, the Christian knockoffs aren't all bad, and I'm sure those who make them and use them have the best of intentions. I even fall into that category of users myself from time to time.

But Christians have seemingly forgotten what God said through the prophet Jeremiah to the Israelites who were captive in Babylon: "But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare" (Jeremiah 29:6).

Taken as a whole, this impulse to "Christianize" everything in our culture reflects poorly on evangelical Christianity. It indicates that we are not interested in engaging the broader culture, or in trying to transform and redeem it to the glory of God. Instead, we want to build our own "Christian" fortresses where we can feel safe and secure and good, far removed from the evil and sin and worldliness of the culture around us.

That mentality surely doesn't play well among those that we as Christians should be trying to influence the most.

Reality Check

Here is a reality check.

(I wonder how much time Eric spends worrying about theological labels.)

HT: Wade Burleson

How to Fit in at Almost Any Church

Sorta funny.

I cracked up at the ferrets.

Labels, part 2

Arminian, Barthian, biblicist, Calvinist, charismatic, conservative, contemporary, covenantal, dispensationalist, emergent, emerging, evangelical, fundamentalist, irenic, liberal, literalist, missional, moderate, neo-orthodox, post-evangelical, post-modern, progressive, reformed, traditionalist…

(Please be sure to read Labels, part 1 before continuing.)

If I were a theology professor, we would tackle the issue of theological labels in a couple of different classes this semester. Pastors, theologians, and students use theological labels in their sermons, lectures, and late-night conversations over their Playstations. I have no idea how many actually exist, but I’m guessing there could be over 250 different theological labels. Many of the same labels have made their way into our everyday language. Due to the widespread use of labels, both in academic settings and in everyday conversations, we should carefully consider their advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages:
Labels can assist in communication. If theologians around the world all used the same labels in the same way (and they don’t), the consistency in communication would improve dramatically. It would be nice if a person labeled as “emerging” in Conway, AR could go anywhere else in the world and another pastor would have a pretty good idea of the person’s theology, just knowing the label alone. The problem is that pastors and theologians have no equivalent of the DSM-IV. There is no manual that is used universally to provide consistent labels. For some labels, there may be a general consensus of definitions. For others, individuals are left on their own to define them as they’d like.

Labels sometimes make people feel better. Theological dilemmas and journeys can be scary – especially if a person feels lost about what is happening to them. Some people experience great relief just knowing that their theological position has a name. Labels can make people feel safe. Naming a theological position indicates we have some knowledge of and control over it. The problem is that unlike psychological disorders, theological perspectives are not conditions from which we need healing. And it is OK to feel lost and a little scared along the way – we certainly don’t need the false security that labels can provide.

Disadvantages:
Labels are limiting. While our labels may produce more efficient communication, they sometimes do so at the expense of accurate communication. People sometimes get “boxed in” by a label, and theologians and ministers can miss important information about another person because it doesn’t fit the label and they aren’t looking for it.

Labels are persistent. Once a person receives a theological label, it tends to stick. Labels are etched into the minds of others and these associations remain in their memories for years if not a lifetime. Even someone whose previous beliefs have all but disappeared will likely retain the label for quite a long time. At best, labels are verbalized in the past tense (e.g. “that dude was a hard-core fundamentalist”). But the label is there nonetheless – it persists.

Labels create stereotypes and stigmas. Once others discover that a person has a particular theological label, they will think of and treat that person differently. I could illustrate this point in class by asking students what would happen if I were to disclose that I was an Emergent Calvinist. Nothing in my personality or behavior would change during those few minutes in class (nor in the following days, weeks, or months), but their perception of and interactions with me would immediately change nonetheless.

Labels become identifiers. People who receive or assign themselves theological labels often begin to identify themselves in terms of those labels. In my lifetime spent in churches and Christian educational institutions, I have constantly met people who identified themselves as “fundamentalist,” “conservative,” “moderate,” or even “postmodern” (*gasp*). And I should have insisted to them, for example, “No, you are a child of God who has some conservative beliefs.” People think of themselves differently once they are so labeled and too much of their identity can get wrapped up in their label.

I’m not suggesting we do away with theological labels. I’m suggesting we use them cautiously and flexibly – and with much grace and humility.

Labels, part 1

ADHD, agoraphobic, anorexic, antisocial, anxious, autistic, bipolar, borderline, bulimic, cyclothymic, delusional, depressed, dependent, dissociative, dysthymic,……..

We tackle the issue of diagnostic labels in a couple of different classes this semester. Clinicians use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to diagnose various psychological problems. We are currently using the fourth version of the manual and the DSM-IV describes about 250 different psychological disorders. Many of the same labels have made their way into our everyday language. Due to the widespread use of labels, both in clinical settings and in everyday conversations, we should carefully consider their advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages:
Labels assist in communication. When clinicians around the world all use the same manual (and they do), the continuity of care for a client improves dramatically. If a person in Conway, AR is diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder, he or she can go nearly anywhere else in the world and another clinician will have a pretty good idea of the client’s problems, just knowing the diagnosis alone. The DSM-IV labels improve the consistency of treatments between clinicians.

Labels sometimes make people feel better. Psychological problems can be scary – especially if a person feels lost about what is happening to them. Some people experience great relief just knowing that their condition has a name. Labels can make people feel safe. Naming a condition indicates we have some knowledge of and control over it.

Disadvantages:
Labels are limiting. While our labels may produce more efficient communication, they sometimes do so at the expense of accurate communication. Clients sometimes get “boxed in” by a label, and clinicians can miss important information because it doesn’t fit the diagnosis and they aren’t looking for it.

Labels are persistent. Once a person receives a diagnostic label, it tends to stick. Diagnoses are entered into client records that follow them for years if not a lifetime. Even someone whose symptoms have all but disappeared will likely retain the diagnosis for quite a long time. At best, past labels are documented in the past tense (e.g. “client has a history of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder”). But the label is there nonetheless – it persists.

Labels create stereotypes and stigmas. Once others discover that a person has a particular diagnostic label, they will think of and treat that person differently. I sometimes illustrate this point in class by asking students what would happen if I were to disclose that I had been diagnosed with Schizophrenia several years ago. Nothing in my personality or behavior would change during those few minutes in class (nor in the following days, weeks, or months), but their perception of and interactions with me would immediately change nonetheless.

Labels become identifiers. People who receive diagnostic labels often begin to identify themselves in terms of those labels. In my work in community mental health clinics, I constantly met clients who identified themselves as their label: “I’m a Bipolar” or “I’m a Schizophrenic.” And I was constantly saying to them, “No, you are someone who struggles with Bipolar Disorder.” People think of themselves differently once they are diagnosed and so much of their identity can get wrapped up in their label.

I’m not suggesting we do away with diagnostic labels. I’m suggesting we use them cautiously and flexibly. More on labels coming tomorrow.

Dr. Gardner - All The Rest

Whereas the first post was reserved mostly for tackling the issue of singleness, this post will serve as a “catch all” for any other questions readers may have. (But please feel free to continue your discussions in the first post.)

Dr. Gardner, I’m sure readers will post their own questions. But let me offer just two to get the ball rolling.

(1) With this new paradigm or perspective on human sexuality in mind, what specific, concrete guidelines or instructions would you suggest regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior outside of marriage? Several of my students have discussed their frustration with Christian leaders who in general say, “save yourself for marriage,” but won’t offer any specific ideas about what is OK and what is not OK before marriage.

(2) In addition, what are the implications of this perspective on how we should do “sex education” in our families and churches?

Dr. Gardner - Introduction and Singleness

I apologize for the delay – we’ve had some network difficulties at CBC. Today I welcome Dr. Tim Gardner to the blog. Both Dr. Gardner and I would like for my students (and other blog readers) to engage in some dialogue about Sacred Sex. Once Dr. Gardner has responded to this post, I invite everyone else to join in by offering your own reactions and questions.

Dr. Gardner, thank you again for offering to help us better understand your book. Let me quote a passage from your introduction to Sacred Sex. “God wanted sex to be a lot more than just a really fun think for wives and husbands to do together…. God designed marital sex to be an encounter with the divine. Sexual intimacy, with all of its overwhelming emotions and heart-pounding sensations, was never intended to be expressed solely in the emotional and physical realms. Rather, it is to be a spiritual, even mystical, experience in which two bodies become one. God is present in a very real way every time this happens. Sex really is holy. It’s a sacred place shared in the intimacy of marriage. And it’s an act of worship, a sacrament of marriage that invites and welcomes the very presence of God. That’s the meaning and benefit of holy sex.”

Many of my students have read Sacred Sex, but there will be some readers who have not. Is this an accurate summary of your ideas? Please feel free to restate or elaborate the main idea of your book in any way you’d like.

One of the major points of discussion for my students was your view on singleness. You do spend a few pages discussing the concept of the image of God and singleness, but it isn’t the focus of your work in Sacred Sex. Some students and readers have wrestled with the following passage, for example:

"Man, before the creation of woman, was somehow incomplete.... As a man is united with his wife in sexual intimacy, they become one flesh.... That is when a man and woman together most fully represent the image of God, which was breathed into them when He gave them life at creation. This is a marvelous truth. Our Creator God, who is three persons in one Godhead, created a man and woman who become one flesh in sexual union, fully representing the God who created them and gave them His image. It is important to note that this truth about sex doesn’t mean that unmarried persons are somehow less representative of the image of God than those who are married. It does mean that the fullness of God, His complete image (albeit marred in our sinful state) is not fully represented by a lone individual. It is found only when women and men are together in community and communion in the body of Christ. ...And that togetherness of male and female is most fully expressed in the holy state of matrimony as celebrated in the oneness of the one-flesh union."

Can you please share more of your thoughts on singleness?