Recent Posts
January 28th, 2011 in by steve
A recent staff editorial from Boise State University’s Arbiter paper argued against Capital Punishment. Introductory statements were as follows:
The way we see it: Capital Punishment irresponsible, hypocritical. “Cruel and unusual punishments (shall not be) inflicted” – The Constitution of the United State of America;
“Thou shalt not kill” — The sixth commandment of The 10 Commandments;
These are key lines from two of the most recognizable and influential documents in Western civilization. Nowhere in these lines does the word “except” reside. There are no circumstances under which American citizens should consider it acceptable to use the Death Penalty as a form of punishment. It’s irresponsible and disgusting that we still allow people to be put to death. Especially when there are cases where innocent people are convicted.
“The way we see it” is based on the majority opinions of The Arbiter’s editorial board
Capital Punishment is a very complex and controversial issue for our times. What follows below can be considered “Another way to see it.” This article is from J. Budziszewski, a well known professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. It is titled Capital Punishment: The Case For Justice and gives a biblically and philosophically based argument for Capital Punishment in some situations.
Capital Punishment: The Case For Justice by J. Budziszewski
Justice is giving each what is due to him. So fundamental is the duty of public authority to requite good and evil in deeds that natural law philosophers consider it the paramount function of the state, and the New Testament declares that the role is delegated to magistrates by God Himself. “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,” says St. Peter, “whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (1 Peter 2: 13-14). St. Paul agrees:
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Romans 13:3-5).
So weighty is the duty of justice that it raises the question whether mercy is permissible at all. By definition, mercy is punishing the criminal less than he deserves, and it does not seem clear at first why not going far enough is any better than going too far. We say that both cowardice and rashness miss the mark of courage, and that both stinginess and prodigality miss the mark of generosity; why do we not say that both mercy and harshness miss the mark of justice? Making matters yet more difficult, the argument to abolish capital punishment is an argument to categorically extend clemency to all those whose crimes are of the sort that would be requitable by death.
I ask: Is there warrant for such categorical extension of clemency? Let us focus mainly on the crime of murder, the deliberate taking of innocent human life. The reason for this focus is that the question of mercy arises only on the assumption that some crime does deserve death. It would seem that at least death deserves death, that nothing less is sufficient to answer the gravity of the deed. As Scripture says: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9: 5-6). Someone may object that the murderer, too, is made in God’s image, and so he is. But this does not lighten the horror of his deed. On the contrary, it heightens it, because it makes him a morally accountable being. Moreover, if even simple murder warrants death, how much more does multiple and compounded murder warrant it. Some criminals seem to deserve death many times over. If we are considering not taking their lives at all, the motive cannot be justice. It must be mercy.
The questions we must address are therefore three: Is it ever permissible for public authority to give the wrongdoer less than he deserves? If it is permissible, then when is it permissible? Is it permissible to grant such mercy categorically?
Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good. In revenge the spur is the passion of resentment, which answers malice with malice for private satisfaction. We are not concerned here with revenge.
Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such. The reasons for saying so are threefold. First, just punishment is not something which might or might not requite evil; requital is simply what it is. Second, without just punishment evil cannot be requited. Third, just punishment requires no warrant beyond requiting evil, for the restoration of justice is good in itself. True, just punishment may bring about other good effects. In particular, it might rehabilitate the criminal, physically protect society from him, or deter crime in general. Although these might be additional motives for just punishment, they are secondary. In the first place, punishment might not achieve them. In the second place, they can sometimes be partly achieved apart from punishment. Third and most important, they cannot justify punishment by themselves. In other words, we may not do more to the criminal than he deserves–not even if more would be needed to rehabilitate him, make him harmless, or discourage others from imitation. For example, if a man punches another man in the nose, we may not keep him in a mental institution forever just because he has not yet become kind in spirit, kill him because we cannot be sure that he will never punch again, or torture him because nothing less would deter other would-be punchers. For these reasons, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution: they are secondary.
The argument against capital punishment runs as follows. True, the purpose of retribution is served by the murderer’s death, but under certain circumstances retribution might interfere with other purposes of punishment: it might prematurely put an end to his rehabilitation; it might undermine deterrence (say, by so angering his compatriots that they, too, commit evils); and it might not be necessary for the physical safety of others. Therefore, it would be better not to kill him, but to protect society by other means–perhaps by locking him up forever. The difficulty with this argument is that it seems to regard the secondary purposes of punishment as sufficient to overturn its primary purpose. Rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence cannot justify doing more than what retribution demands; how can they justify doing less?
Fortunately, this is not the end of the story; mercy and justice can, in fact, be reconciled. Let me first consider a false ending to the story that makes their reconciliation seem simpler than it is. This false ending comes from the utilitarian philosophy that permeates our society and legal culture.
To the question, “Is it ever permissible to show mercy?” the utilitarian answers “yes,” but it is a misleading “yes” because he does not understand what is being asked. A utilitarian says that the only reason to have laws at all is to stop things that make people feel pain and start things that make them feel pleasure. Requiting wrong just because it is wrong will make no sense to him because he does not believe in intrinsic wrong; if someone chides him, “Never do evil that good may result,” he is confused, because what results is the only measure of evil that he has. He cannot distinguish retribution from revenge, viewing all punishment merely as an emotional venting which makes people feel better. Not that he objects to it on that account, for in his view, feeling good is all that matters. Over time, though, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence can make people feel better, too, so the only question is what combination of punishment and remission of punishment makes people feel the best. Therefore, the utilitarian might very well do less to the criminal than he deserves–but, for the same reason, the utilitarian might do more to the criminal than he deserves, for the utilitarian does not grasp the concept of desert.
To the question, “Is it ever permissible to show mercy?” I also answer “yes,” but for a different reason. The faith I hold recognizes the dilemma that utilitarians ignore. Justice is inexorable; evil must be punished. This would seem to make mercy impossible; yet there is mercy. As the Psalmist says, “Great is thy mercy, O Lord; give me life according to thy justice” (Psalms 119:156). Somehow the irreconcilables meet and kiss.
How can this be? There are two parts to the riddle, one on God’s side, the other on man’s. On the divine side, the reconciliation of justice with mercy lies in the Cross. God does not balance mercy and justice; He accomplishes both to the full. The reason He can remit punishment to human beings who repent and turn to Him is that Christ, the Lamb of God, has taken the punishment in their place. His death and resurrection become their death and resurrection, because he identifies with them through sacrifice and they identify with him through faith; the judge himself steps forward to pay their debt. Divine mercy, then, means two things. One is the divine atonement which makes God’s forgiveness possible. The other is the divine patience with which He waits for us to ask for His forgiveness.
Yet whom God loves, He disciplines. For our good, not even divine forgiveness means that the consequences of sin in this life are fully remitted. Among these consequences is punishment by human magistrates, who act as God’s agents whether they know it or not. The sentences of human magistrates cannot be, and are not meant to be, a final requital of unrepented evil; that awaits the great day when Christ returns to judge the quick and the dead. But they foreshadow that final justice, so that something of the retributive purpose is preserved. In the meantime they promote restraint, repentance, and amendment of life. Human magistrates turn out to be not plenary but partial delegates, and not only of God’s wrath but also of His patience.
All this puts the primary and secondary purposes of punishment more nearly on a level than they would be otherwise–not for God, but for man. Although human magistrates are forbidden to let crimes go unrequited, they do not carry the impossible burden of requiting them to the last degree. For temporal purposes, the retributive purpose of punishment can be moderated by its other three purposes after all. The only purpose which cannot be moderated is the purpose of symbolizing that perfect retribution which magistrates themselves do not achieve, for human punishment is a sign of wrath to come.
If criminals in general can sometimes be punished less than they deserve, then perhaps capital criminals can sometimes be punished less than they deserve. The desideratum is when the purposes of punishment can be satisfied better by bloodless means than by bloody ones, so let us consider the four purposes one by one.
Rehabilitation refers to the reconciliation of the criminal with man and God. It may seem at first that capital punishment can never aid in rehabilitation, because when the string of life is cut the process of rehabilitation is cut off, too. But this is overstated. One part of rehabilitation is cut off, for certainly a dead man is not readmitted to society. But what do the opponents of capital punishment propose as an alternative? For serious crimes and dangerous criminals, they propose life imprisonment, but a man in jail for life does not return to society either. The real question is not what the prospect of death does to a man’s prospect of readmission to society, but what it does to his prospect of change of heart. Here the picture is quite different. “Depend upon it, Sir,” said Samuel Johnson, “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” Indeed, there may be many criminals for whom nothing else concentrates the mind enough. By contrast, an offender who is confined in jail for life with no society but that of other criminals is probably more likely to be hardened than reformed. We are forced to conclude that in some cases, the death penalty may contribute to rehabilitation rather than hinder it.
Protection refers to the defense of society from the criminal. The restoration of just order is by its very nature a moral protection of society, but there is much to be said even if we consider only physical protection. Some people suggest that although capital punishment might once have been necessary for protection, modern improvements in the penal system make it possible to shield the innocent without killing the guilty. Such indeed is the argument of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, although he states the conclusion in less categorical terms. It is the more categorical form of the conclusion to which I object. What the Pope suggests is that today we may be able to sentence a criminal to life imprisonment with the reasonable certainty that he will not be able to escape. I agree that this is a deeply significant change which may ultimately reduce the weight of the safety question in cases where clemency has been proposed. However, I do not agree that it has reduced its weight already. Today the risk is not so much that dangerous and justly judged criminals will escape from prison; the risk is that we will let them out. It has been a long time since a “life sentence” meant that the prisoner would stay in prison for the rest of his natural life.
There are several reasons for the erosion of life sentencing, and they tend to compound each other. High crime rates have so swelled the number of inmates that officials find it difficult to feed and house all of them; the pressure to set some free is hard to resist. At the same time, American society finds it increasingly difficult to take right and wrong seriously. Not only does our lax moral attitude contribute further to the high rate of crime, but it generates further pressure to let criminals out of prison. When we do let them out, they are usually more dangerous than when they entered, because of the tips they have learned, the contacts they have made, and the attitudes they have developed among other criminals. The argument is sometimes made that abolishing capital punishment would foster the virtue of compassion. Conceivably this is so, but in the present moral climate it is more likely to foster that counterfeit compassion which thinks no wrong is very wrong. Should this happen, then society would be even more at risk than it is now.
Suppose the unlikely: that somehow we did keep all capital criminals in prison for the duration of their natural lives. Even then the protective purpose of punishment would not be fully satisfied. True, a man behind bars no longer endangers society in general. But he endangers other inmates, and he certainly endangers prison staff. Surely they, too, deserve consideration. We are forced to conclude that even today, with our modern penal systems, safety is still an issue. Safety must not trump desert: the risk of future harm to society cannot justify doing more to the criminal than he deserves. But in some cases it should keep us from doing less.
Deterrence refers to the discouragement of crime in general. This is where some opponents of capital punishment claim their strongest ground, for the statistical evidence for the deterrent effect of capital punishment is inconsistent and inconclusive. Avery Cardinal Dulles has suggested a further dilemma. (See “Catholicism & Capital Punishment,” FT April 2001). Although grotesque and torturous methods of execution seem most likely to deter, they are incompatible with human dignity. Conversely, those methods of execution which are compatible with human dignity seem unlikely to deter. So for the means of capital punishment which could actually be used, we probably could not count on a deterrent effect.
For those who view deterrence as the primary purpose of punishment, the uncertainty of capital punishment as a deterrent provides the fatal argument against it. For those who view its primary purpose as retribution, however, this uncertainty makes little difference; the mere fact that a deserved punishment does not deter makes it no less richly deserved. But is it possible that high rates of capital punishment would actually undermine deterrence, inciting wicked and resentful men to greater evils? We know that banning a favorite vice can have this effect; the prohibition of alcohol, for example, can give drunkenness a certain glamour. But the crimes we class as capital must be prohibited in any case. If there were evidence that punishing them by execution rather than by bloodless means incited them, that would certainly be an argument for using the bloodless means. To my knowledge, however, no such evidence has turned up. It seems, then, that the data on deterrence neither strengthen nor weaken the case for capital punishment.
Retribution. We saw earlier that, although human punishment does not bear the full burden of requiting good and evil, it must hold up requital as an ideal; it must point beyond itself, to that perfect justice of which it is merely a token. Cardinal Dulles agrees, but he sees a problem:
For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the state has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the state is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.
The cynicism which Cardinal Dulles describes is a real and grave difficulty. In general, our ruling class no longer believes in those divine decrees of which human decrees are but a hint or shadow, and neither does a large and growing part of the population. More and more our intellectuals agree with the famous statement of Oliver Wendell Holmes that “truth is the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others.”
But what is the import of these facts? They do not make it less important for our courts to appeal to justice; they make it more important. There is a difference between saying that the ideology people hold no longer gives adequate expression to the law which St. Paul says is “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15), and saying, instead, that it is not in fact written on their hearts. Even now, people retain a dim idea of desert; the idea “A deserves B for doing C” has not simply become meaningless to them. The Roman judges of the first century were no less cynical than the American judges of the twenty-first. Tiberius Caesar would have been quite comfortable with Holmes’ maxim; Pontius Pilate washed his hands of justice, using the question “What is truth?” not to begin the interview with his prisoner but to end it. The apostles knew all these things, yet St. Paul calls the magistrate the servant of God to execute divine wrath on the wrongdoer.
I do not know whether our society can be brought back to believe in a transcendent order of justice, but of this I am certain: if we who recognize this standard do not act as though we believe in it, then no one will be brought by us to believe in it.
The question to ask about the retributive purpose of capital punishment is this: Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? This seems unlikely. Consider the deviant who tortures small children to death for his pleasure or the ideologue who meditates the demise of innocent thousands for the sake of greater terror. Genesis says murderers deserve death because life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live?
Let us consider what objections might be made against our argument to this point. The judicious Cardinal Dulles, to whom my discussion is already indebted, finds less to commend capital punishment than I do. Yet even he does not think that a review of the purposes of punishment is sufficient in itself to justify abolishing the ultimate penalty. The crux of his published argument is found not there, but in four other common objections to the penalty of death. (1) Sometimes innocent people are sentenced to death. (2) Capital punishment whets the lust for revenge rather than satisfying the zeal for true justice. (3) It cheapens the value of life. (4) And it contradicts Christ’s teaching to forgive. The Cardinal calls the first objection “relatively strong,” to the second and third he concedes “some probable force,” and the fourth he considers “relatively weak.” Yet he concludes that “taken together, the four may suffice to tip the scale against the death penalty.” Let us revisit these four objections.
Erroneous convictions. Courts sometimes do mistakenly condemn the innocent. Although erroneous conviction is possible in any case, its gravity increases with the severity and irreversibility of the penalty. It would seem that the proper remedy is to require a higher procedural standard in capital cases than in ordinary cases, and to root out the sources of corruption in the system of justice. Indeed, the Cardinal acknowledges the point, approving the suggestion that capital punishment would be justified if the trial were held in an honest court and the accused were found guilty “beyond all shadow of doubt.” His point is that this criterion cannot be satisfied, for despite all precautions, errors do sometimes occur.
The difficulty with the argument lies in the notion of guilt “beyond all shadow of doubt.” When we say this, do we mean beyond shadow of any sort of doubt, or do we mean beyond shadow of reasonable doubt? In law, the latter standard rules, and surely this is as it ought to be. Anything might be doubted, but it does not follow that doubt is always justified by the facts in evidence. The murderer might have told the grocer, doctor, and cabdriver what he was going to do; he might have been videotaped doing it by a newsman, a passerby, and an automatic security camera; he might have boasted about it afterward to a coworker, bartender, and next-door neighbor; and he might have confessed, in the presence of his lawyer, to the arresting officer, the investigating officers, and the court. Yet perhaps someone on the jury has been reading the Meditations of René Descartes and is troubled by the possibility that the sensible world is only an illusion caused by an evil demon or by the nature of minds. If it is, the juror reasons, then none of the witnesses can be trusted. For that matter, neither can the accused; he may have only dreamed the whole murder. True, Descartes concludes that the world is not an illusion after all. But the juryman votes for acquittal anyway, reflecting that philosophers sometimes err.
Now the way that the juryman reasons about philosophers is very much like how Cardinal Dulles reasons about juries. The Cardinal holds that because even honest courts can err, we must not trust any verdict, irrespective of the weight of evidence which supports it. But a doubt which cannot be affected by any possible evidence is not a reasonable ground for letting a convict off the hook.
The lust for revenge. Of course it is true that the death penalty might whet the appetite for revenge. It is hard to see, though, why this should be more true of the death penalty than of “locking them up for life.” Indeed it is hard to see why it should be more true of punishment than of the other aspects of criminal justice. Seeing policemen on the streets, hearing the testimony of witnesses in court, hearing the judge’s solemn charge to the jury–all of these things might whet the appetite for revenge, and no doubt they often do. Should we then abolish policemen, testimony, and solemn charges? Moreover, not only can the love of justice be twisted toward the wrong, but every good impulse can be twisted toward the wrong: love of country, love of family, compassion for those who suffer. The first may be distorted into jingoism, the second into nepotism, the third into sentimentality. Even the love of God can be perverted, and when it is, it is a terrible thing indeed. Yet the fact that something right can be perverted does not stop it from being right.
The cheapening of life. Cardinal Dulles paraphrases the standard argument this way: “By giving the impression that human beings sometimes have the right to kill, [capital punishment] fosters a casual attitude toward evils such as abortion, suicide, and euthanasia.” The Cardinal does not consider this argument strong. In particular, he observes that many earnest opponents of these other deeds are earnest supporters of capital punishment, for they realize that the rights of the guilty and innocent are not the same. He is quite right, and we can pair his observation with another. Many fervent supporters of these other deeds are also fervent opponents of capital punishment. The phenomenon is as common as it is strange. Perhaps it is a form of compensation, as conscience demands its pay: having approved the private execution of the weak and blameless, one now seeks absolution by denouncing the official execution of the strong and ruthless. Whether or not this explains it, two things at least are plain. First, it is psychologically possible to hold either of the following combinations of positions: that it is wrong to kill the innocent but may be right to kill the guilty, and that it is wrong to kill the guilty but may be right to kill the innocent. Second, the normal moral reason for upholding capital punishment is reverence for life itself. Indeed, this is the reason why Scripture and Christian tradition uphold it, a fact which suggests that if anything, it is the abolition of capital punishment which threatens to cheapen life.
Christ’s teaching on forgiveness. It is true that Jesus taught us to love those who hate us, forgive those who wrong us, and abstain from hypocritical comparisons between ourselves and those who offend us. These things we should do, however difficult they may be. But let us remember that the same Lord and God who commands His people to pardon their debtors also gave them Torah, which commands magistrates to call them to account. Cardinal Dulles speaks rightly when he says that “personal pardon does not absolve offenders from their obligations in justice.” Indeed, he considers this fourth objection “relatively weak” and “complex at best.” My only objection to these words is that they are too polite, for the supposition that personal forgiveness implies a requirement for universal amnesty is not merely weak but mistaken. Taken seriously, it would destroy all public authority, for if punishment as such is incompatible with forgiveness, then why stop with capital punishment? Must we not abolish prisons, fines, and even reprimands as well?
I have heard it asked by fellow Christians, “How dare we play God? How dare we wrest into our own hands the divine prerogative of life and death?” It is a good question. My answer is that we dare not. We dare not wrest into our own hands any of the divine prerogatives of justice, whether the deprivation of life, of liberty, or of property. It is a dreadful matter to kill a man, but it is also dreadful to lock him in a hole, away from wife, children, parents, friends, and all that he held dear in life. It is a fearsome matter to imprison a man, but it is also fearsome to use fines and impoundments to confiscate his worldly goods, which he may have accumulated by honest labor and is counting on for the succor of his family and the support of his declining years. No, we dare not wrest into our hands any powers over our fellow men. But if God puts such powers into the hands of those who hold public authority–what then? Does this not alter the picture? How dare we jerk our hands away, hide them behind our backs, refuse the charge. For the teaching of Scripture and Christian tradition are just as clear about public justice as they are about personal forgiveness, and the teaching of Christ is that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). The magistrate is “sent,” whether he knows it or not; he is “the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer.” Yes, we have seen that he is a servant of God’s patience, too, but the one charge does not cancel the other. However tempered with mercy, public authority remains an augur or a portent of the wrath which will one day fall upon the unrepentant.
The story has another side as well. To remit deserved punishment too easily is a miscarriage not only of justice but also of mercy. When a heart is very hard, it may sometimes be the case that deserved punishment is the only knock strong enough to break the husk and spill out the seeds of repentance. God Himself is said to use this method: those whom He loves, He chastens, even perhaps with the prospect of death. If we are to imitate His love, then we must sometimes imitate His chastening, too.
Our brief review of the objections to capital punishment has led us to the following conclusion. First, in considering whether to grant clemency, the proper question is not whether juries ever err, but whether we have reasonable ground to think that this particular jury has erred in fact. Second, any deserved punishment, indeed any element of justice, might whet the impulse for revenge. But when a good impulse is perverted, we should fight not the impulse but its perversion; and so with the impulse for justice. Third, Scripture and Christian tradition uphold capital punishment not in contempt for life but in reverence for it. It is because man is made in God’s image that Torah decrees that whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. Fourth, Christ did teach personal forgiveness, but he never challenged the need for public justice. Official pardon rightly has conditions which personal forgiveness does not. Not only is punishment compatible with love, it is sometimes demanded by it as the only medicine strong enough to do the offender good.
Classically, Christian teaching has held that the state has the authority to inflict capital punishment. It has also classically held that in certain cases a deserved punishment of death may be remitted but that the grounds for possible clemency are particular, not universal. Categorical remission of the penalty for all whose crimes deserve death contradicts revealed teaching on the duty of the magistrate and has no warrant in Christian tradition. It would weaken three of the four purposes of punishment, would confuse the good counsels of compassion, and would bring about more harm than good. What, then, of Evangelium Vitae? I accept the conclusion of John Paul II that “today” cases in which the death penalty is still necessary are “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” However, we must resist the tendency to exaggerate his conclusion by reading these six words as the single word “nonexistent.”
Some say that because there is a risk of error in both directions, we should prefer to err on the side of mercy. I agree. We should indeed prefer to err on the side of mercy, in individual cases. But to err categorically is not simply to make a mistake. It is to abdicate our duty.
J. Budziszewski is Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. This article is adapted from a chapter of A Call for Reckoning: Religion and the Death Penalty, edited by John Carlson, Eric Elshtain, and Erik Owens, to be published this fall by Eerdmans.
Copyright (c) 2004 First Things 145 (August/September 2004): 39-45.
Copyright/Reproduction Limitations:
This data file is the sole property of FIRST THINGS. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as “freeware,” without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., “Copyright (c) 2000 by First Things”) and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice.
This data file may not be used without the permission of FIRST THINGS for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
Read this article on the First Things website.
Posted 9/26/04
Copyright © 2001-2011 OrthodoxyToday.org. All rights reserved. Any reproduction of this article is subject to the policy of the individual copyright holder. Follow copyright link for details.
January 21st, 2011 in by steve
By Lael Arrington
Truman Burbank was born and raised on a TV set, the star of his own show. He is completely unaware of reality. He believes he lives on a coastal island. He believes that his wife and friends, all paid actors, really love him. Christoff, the producer in the film, says, “While the world he inhabits is . . . counterfeit, there’s nothing fake about Truman himself.” Truman is real. That’s what makes him “so good to watch.”3
The 1998 film The Truman Show illustrates the often confusing distinctions between belief and knowledge, truth and untruth. What constitutes knowledge? Most philosophers would agree that knowledge is justified true belief. It is belief, something we take to be true by at least 51 percent, that agrees with the evidence. At the beginning of the movie, Truman believes that his life on Seahaven is real, not a scripted TV show. But his belief does not qualify as knowledge because it is not justified by the evidence of which the viewing audience is clearly aware.
What is truth? Truth is telling it like it really is. Truth is not a thing, but rather a relationship between our words or ideas and reality. Whether Truman can see it or not, whether he believes it or not, whether his words agree with it or not, his life is entertainment for the masses. Truman’s beliefs do not correspond to reality. They are false.
We may think of belief as an all-or-nothing proposition. But belief is more of a continuum. In the course of the movie, we see Truman’s confidence in what he believes to be true steadily diminish. Lighting canisters fall out of the “sky.” The man he knew as “Dad” shows up one day, trying to warn him before he is hustled onto a bus. He catches on to his wife doing product placement commercials. You can almost see the needle on the continuum between belief and unbelief falling, falling past the 50/50 point. He suspects he is being deceived and controlled. When he escapes on a sailboat, the producer
creates a ferocious storm. Truman shouts to the sky, “Is that the best you can do? You’re going to have to kill me!” He survives and sails on until the ship reaches the edge of the watery set and, quite literally, pokes a hole in the bubble of deceit that has been his life.
In the same way, we can live in deceit and illusion until one day we hit the wall of reality. When our false beliefs collide with reality, we then have a choice: Will we live according to knowledge — true belief justified by good evidence? Or will we settle for illusion? The producer promises Truman an illusion of safety. Truman chooses the truth that sets him free. The cheers from the audience gradually subside as they stare at their blank screens, then grope around for their TV guides and some other virtual adventure to soothe and distract. But that is another story.
To seek knowledge, we weigh all our beliefs against the best evidence — God’s revelation, both general and special. In order to live and speak with truth, we do so “in the sight of God” (2 Corinthians 4:2). That is, we live and speak words that correspond to reality as God created it and as The One Who Sees Everything sees it. Frederica Mathewes-Green has said, “Reality is God’s home address.” 4 To be a person of truth is to live before God in the reality he created rather than to settle for illusions, even those of our own making.
For reflection and discussion
As I look back over seasons of pain and escape into distraction and daydreams,
I think of how I described my journey in my book Godsight:
“I think how the emptiness I often felt came from being in a place, either
in my head or on a screen, where I was not present to God. My life did not
correspond to his reality.
“I sensed the lack of integrity deep in my bones. The reality of my own life,
full of potential moments of love and ser vice to God and others was ticking
by. My escapes were killing me softly — one evening of entertainment, one
daydream at a time.
“What is most real is eternal life. Jesus said, ‘Now this is eternal life: that
they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent’
(John 17:3). If we truly want to love and seek God, we find him when our
words and lives correspond to reality, even painful reality. Not in untruth,
fantasy or distraction.”5
• Have you experienced hitting the wall of reality? Did you discover that
any of your beliefs were untrue?
• What counts for true knowledge in today’s world? What limitations
might you find with today’s approach to knowledge?
When Truman discovered his life was an illusion, the director begged
him to stay in the safety of Seahaven. He didn’t stay. Why do you think it
is so hard to live in an illusion? Why not enjoy the safety?
• Are there places in your life or heart that do not correspond to reality as
God sees it? What reality have you constructed?
• What greater reality might God be inviting you into?
• What might you want to say to God about being a person of truth?
3. Andrew Niccol, The Truman Show, directed by Peter Weir, starring Jim Carrey (Hollywood:
Paramount Pictures, 1998).
4. Frederica Mathewes-Green, in a conversation with Lael Arrington in 2004.
5. Lael Arrington, Godsight: Renewing the Eyes of Our Hearts (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway,
2005).
January 21st, 2011 in by steve
Shocking!
That’s all one can say about what newly inaugurated Governor Robert Bentley said in a church.
“Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother,…”
Governor Bentley was speaking at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church after the official inaugural ceremony. Bentley told the crowd (in the church) that he considered anyone who believed in Jesus to be his brothers and sisters regardless of color, but anyone who isn’t a Christian doesn’t have that same relationship to him.
Simply Shocking!
Bill Nigut, the Anti-Defamation League’s regional director said, “His comments are not only offensive, but also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor,” … “It is shocking that Governor Bentley would suggest that non-Christians are not worthy of the same love and respect he professes to have for the Christian community,” … .
Dr. Gill Mckee, another Baptist pastor added some personal context: “He was in a church, in the presence of many Christians, his spiritual brothers and sisters,” …”What is so ironic is that his strong Christian faith is what causes him to love other people, no matter who they are, black, white, rich, poor, Christian or not,” McKee said Tuesday. “I know the heart of the man: Robert Bentley loves other people.
“Anyone who raises questions like that (favoritism) about him doesn’t know him,” McKee said. “As the committed Christian I know him to be, one of his priorities is to love his neighbors – and that has nothing to do with whether the neighbor is Christian or not.”
The Rev. Dr. David Freeman, senior pastor of Huntsville’s Weatherly Heights Baptist Church commented:
“Gov. Bentley was using ‘insider’ language,” Freeman said. “People in his church knew exactly what he meant. I grew up with that language, so I understand it, too. However, I now believe that that language points to one of the great failures of fundamentalist Christian theology. … “The greatest Christian theology entreats us to see all human beings as our sisters and brothers. That is a gift {to} the world’s faiths.”
Amen! Preach it! All religions and worldviews are ultimately the same! How dare a politician imply anything otherwise – especially in a sacred place like a church that Martin Luther King preached in! Let justice, no, “Sameness” roll on!
Or, … maybe not. I wonder how Jesus would define brothers and sisters?
Matt 12:46-50 “While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
That is even more shocking than Governor Bentley!
Matthew 10:32-39 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
OMG! Now that is really shocking! Oh, how shocking My God and Savior really is. Good thing Jesus didn’t say that in a church with reporters present. They might have tried to kill him or something. Governor Bentley needs to learn to be more careful or he will end up becoming more like Jesus. Let that be a warning to all of us.
December 22nd, 2010 in by steve
It seems that very few of us appreciate the value of pain and suffering while experiencing it, although many can speak of good lessons learned afterwards. Certainly, the question of “How could a good God allow so much suffering?” would be on anyone’s top ten “Why?” questions to ask God. Yet some of us spend more time trying to avoid suffering than trying to understand it. It seems we don’t value suffering very highly. Obviously, no one (masochists excepted) likes pain. But perhaps greater than the immediate pain is the pain that comes from the confusion when we cannot find the purpose of pain.
Yet, if we know anything of the God of the bible, we know that the same God who numbers our hairs and does not allow a sparrow to fall to the ground apart from his will, also allows great suffering to be experienced by most everyone, including His chosen people. Even the Apostle Paul, whose numerous personal examples of suffering are described in Acts and 2 Corinthians, described some of these times as being “under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself.” Suffering to the point of despairing must have been very difficult, yet Paul says, “but this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God.” It’s true that we cannot always know the particular purposes for our suffering, we can always know this purpose of not relying on ourselves, but God. I think of this purpose, of relying not on ourselves, but God as being like “first base”. Perhaps we won’t be able understand more until we get to this place, first.
When I noticed a revised and expanded edition of Surprised By Suffering – The Role of Pain and Death in the Christian Life, by R.C. Sproul, I decided to give it a read. R.C. Sproul is a very able teacher and I was pleased with the balance of theology and biblical illustrations as well as personal illustrations from his life and family heritage. I was also pleased with the breadth of the book, covering everything from faulty theology (“It’s not God’s will for you to suffer…”) or the benefits of suffering for the sufferer or secondary benefits for others who might be observing, to the final act of suffering – namely, dying in faith followed by the resurrection and life after death. Indeed, two thirds of the book is devoted to death and dying followed by subjects of the resurrection and afterlife.
Originally, I was surprised at this emphasis, but quickly came to appreciate the necessity of the whole picture of life, death and resurrection, especially in light of the Gospel’s answer to the question of suffering and afterlife compared to other worldviews. Since virtually every human culture has developed some form of hope in life beyond the grave, it was enlightening to be led through a brief overview of ideas from Plato, Socrates, Kant and eastern views as well. All of which provided the background in which to contrast the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament on resurrection and the afterlife. Truly, as Paul says, “If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
Steve Barry
Surprised By Suffering by R.C. Sproul; Hardback, 156 pages; $15.00 retail, $12.00 Cornerstone price
November 17th, 2010 in by steve
By Kelly Monroe Kullberg and David Kullberg
Though their antecedents are rarely explored in the evening news, present
tensions in the Middle East are rooted in a family story that is more than
four thousand years old. This drama begins with Abraham, a model of faith
and a father to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Muslims learn about Abraham
through the Qur’an (Koran) of Islam. Jews and Christians learn about
Abraham through what the Jews call the Torah and Christians call the Old
Testament, beginning in Genesis.1
The first chapters of Genesis shed light on some basic questions — our
origins and purpose, why we fight, why we die, and how we live meaningfully.
We find glory, beauty, love, deception, shame, blame, punishment, sibling
rivalry, murder, expulsion — all in the first four chapters of Genesis. Before
long, God grieved the sin among his people and re-created the world through
a flood, a baptism, if you will. As author Madeleine L’Engle suggested, “The
flood was God’s tears.”2 But God found one righ teous family, Noah’s, through
which he rebirthed a freshly storied world.
From Genesis 10 on, the focus of Scripture is on covenant relationships. In
the context of cultural confusion in ancient Babel, where men were building
a great city for personal glory, the Lord not only separated people through
unique languages, he also planted the seed of a remarkable people who were
asked to reject idolatry and live in love. Like us, these were fallible and three dimensional
people, making Genesis a vivid, candid, R-rated page-turner.
Through it all God was faithful, and over many generations the seed grew
into a life-giving tree. Any person could be grafted into that tree, not by
fortune of lineage or wealth but simply by faith in God and in his promised
Messiah. God begins with a remarkable father and mother, a patriarch and
matriarch. Abram and Sarai (whom God renamed Abraham and Sarah) were
citizens of Ur, a great center of ancient Mesopotamia. And the Lord said to
Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household
to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation” (Genesis
12:1 – 2).
Muslims honor Abraham as the first monotheist, worshiper of the one
true God they call Allah. Muslims trace their heritage through Abraham and
Hagar, the servant who was Sarah’s childbearing surrogate, and their son,
Ishmael (Abraham’s firstborn child). Muslims prize the promise God made
to Hagar when she was abandoned in the wilderness: “Lift the boy [Ishmael]
up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation” (Genesis
21:18). Indeed, Ishmael was blessed with life and progeny, for he had twelve
sons, and his numbers quickly grew.
Jews and Christians trace their lineage through the son God promised
Sarah and Abraham — Isaac, the miraculously conceived son of the free
woman, through whom God would foreshadow and fulfill his covenant promises.
Isaac’s son Jacob then bore twelve sons, whose descendants became the
twelve tribes of Israel.
The account of Abraham and Sarah continues the theme of God’s covenant
(beginning with Noah) to one particular family. The Lord said to Abraham,
I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all
peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
GENESIS 12:3
I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. . . . I will make
you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.
GENESIS 17:1, 6
The branches of this family tree would be known by their fruit. They
would, as a way of life, turn curses into blessings. Joseph, son of Jacob, grandson
of Isaac, converted the curse of exile into blessing: not only did Joseph
save his own brothers who’d sold him into slavery but he saved non-Jews as
well, including all of Egypt, from famine. The children of God would, and
will, become a blessing to the nations. “Thus there were fourteen generations
in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon,
and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah” (Matthew 1:17).
This shared respect for Abraham, with differing ideas of the past, present,
and future, makes the conflicts among Jews/Christians and Muslims — from 1
the medieval crusades to today’s Middle Eastern clashes — surprising on
one hand and understandable on the other. But embedded within the tension
there is also hope — that any cousin who so chooses will be present at the
family reunion.
For reflection and discussion
• How do you see this ancient story unfolding in our time?
• At the age of one hundred years, “Abraham gave the name Isaac to the
son Sarah bore him” (Genesis 21:3). Why do you think Abraham chose a
name that means, in Hebrew, “he laughs”? Sarah also laughed. Why?
The theme of Abrahamic covenant is so essential that the apostle Paul revisited
it two millennia later. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul tells Christfollowers
that they are not children of slavery but of freedom. In Galatians
3:26 – 28 and Galatians 5:1, he writes:
You are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into
Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile,
neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according
to the promise. . . . It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm,
then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
• What is it to be a child of slavery? What is it to be a child of freedom and
the Spirit? How might people in freedom bless those in slavery?
• What resources have you been given to share as a blessing to another?
Reprinted from “A Faith and Culture Devotional”, copyright 2008, Kelly Monroe Kullberg and Lael Arrington.
The Faith and Culture Devotional contains over 100 daily readings in the subjects of Art, Science, and Life. It is written, edited by Kelly Monroe Kullberg and Lael Arrington and published by Zondervan, 2008.
It is available for purchase from Zondervan at www.zondervan.com or through The Cornerstone. The retail price is $16.99, Cornerstone’s regular price is $13.59 and currently there is a BSU student special price of only $10.00.
November 15th, 2010 in by steve
The Cornerstone is hosting a series of lectures by Paul Brown, Ph.D., on Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Theory.
Dr. Brown is Assoc. Professor of Chemistry and Environmental Studies at Trinity Western University, in Langley, B.C.
There will be three separate talks on Wednesday nights at 7:00 in the Cornerstone room of The Biblical Studies Center.
-
Nov. 17th, 7:00 pm “An Introduction To Intelligent Design Theory” This talk will be an introduction to construction of Intelligent Design Theory and comparison with other systems of thought such as Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium.
-
Dec. 1st, 7:00 pm “Fingerprints of Design” This talk will focus on whether design is recognizable and what methods are used to measure information and design.
-
Dec. 8th, 7:00 pm “Alternative Scenarios on The Diversity of Life” This talk will address the question of how including the notion of design and information might change our view of life and evolutionary change.
The Lectures will be in the Cornerstone room at The Biblical Studies Center building, 1025 Belmont St. For more information, please contact Steve Barry at The Cornerstone, 345-1757.
August 25th, 2010 in by steve
A Christian Theory of Everything
By Sam Storms, PhD
Physicists and cosmologists are ever in search of what they call “a theory
of everything,” an all-encompassing theory that can account for everything
from the subatomic world of particle physics to the galactic expanse of supernovas
and black holes.
Brian Greene, professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University,
argues that for the first time in the history of physics we have a framework
with that capacity. Scientists call it string theory. The idea is that everything in
the universe at its most microscopic level consists of combinations of vibrating
strings. According to Greene, “string theory provides a single explanatory
framework capable of encompassing all forces and all matter.”
The problem isn’t that Greene and others have gone too far in making this
claim. The problem is they haven’t gone nearly far enough! Greene is clearly
drawn to this theory because strings make sense of every fundamental feature
of physical reality. But what makes sense of strings? Why do they exist?
If they explain “all forces and all matter,” what explains them? What accounts
for the shape they take and the functions they serve?
The answer is that everything exists for the glory of God. Everything
— from quarks to quasars, from butterflies to brain cells — was created
and is sustained so that you and I might delight in the display of divine
glory. Only humans are fashioned in the image of God. We are the only species
that establishes schools and conducts research and preserves archives
of information. We alone have been granted remarkable capacities to reason
and reflect, deduce and conclude. We alone can glorify God by rejoicing in
the beauty of his creative handiwork and relishing the splendor of his selfrevelation
in the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
We’re touching here on the most profound question anyone could ever ask:
Why is there something rather than nothing? The simple answer is that God
chose to create. This was certainly not from the anguish born of need, as if
creation might supply God what he lacked. God didn’t take inventory and
suddenly realize there was a shortage that only you and I could fill. So what
prompted God to act?
The source of God’s creative energy was the joy of infinite and eternal
abundance! God chose to create from the endless and self-replenishing overflow
of delight in himself.
We must begin with the recognition that God delights infinitely in his own
eternal beauty. When God the Father gazes at the Son and sees a perfect reflection
of his own holiness, he is immeasurably happy. The Father rejoices in
the beauty of the Son and Spirit, and the Son revels in the beauty of the Spirit
and Father, and the Spirit delights in that of the Father and Son. God is his
own fan club! God created us out of this eternal community, this overflow of
mutual love, delight, and admiration, so that we might joyfully share in it, to
God’s eternal glory.
God doesn’t simply think about himself or talk to himself. He enjoys himself!
He celebrates with infinite and eternal intensity the beauty of who he is
as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And we’ve been created to join the party!
To relish and rejoice in the beauty of God alone accounts for why we exist.
Enjoying God is the soul’s sole satisfaction, with which no rival pleasure can
hope to compete. Glorifying God by enjoying him forever. It’s the Christian
Theory of Everything.
Reprinted from “A Faith and Culture Devotional”, copyright 2008, Kelly Monroe Kullberg and Lael Arrington. Mr. Storms article is adapted from his book One Thing: Developing a Passion for the Beauty of God. Mr. Storms left Wheatonto found Enjoying God Ministries in Kansas City, Missouri; www.enjoyinggodministries.com
March 12th, 2009 in by steve
We wanted to share an overview of some great DVD’s and a special opportunity to get them for your education and outreach. At Cornerstone, we believe in both the printed page and the power of visual media for communicating truth. This special opportunity for video outreach is at such a great price that we wanted to share this with as many people as we can.
There are five DVD’s available. Normally, they would retail $15 – $20 each. But we can distribute them to you for small donations such as:
3 DVD’s for $10.00
5 DVD’s for $15.00
7 DVD’s for $20.00
15 DVD’s for $40.00
20 DVD’s for $50.00
If you add a little for postage, we would be glad to mail them to you as well.
The Case for Christ
Lee Strobel’s bestseller comes alive in this documentary that chronicles the reporter’s journey from atheism to faith. The former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune draws upon his investigative skills to examine the historical viability and accuracy of the Gospels, along with the personal claims and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Case for a Creator
In this video adaptation of the best-selling book from Lee Strobel, you’ll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness that present astonishing evidence for the existence of a Creator.
Unlocking Mystery of Life
Unlocking the Mystery of Life is a compelling documentary examining the scientific case for intelligent design — an idea with the power to revolutionize our understanding of life…and to unlock the mystery of its origin.
Privileged Planet
Most scientists and philosophers claim that Earth is an ordinary speck of dust adrift, without purpose or significance, in a vast cosmic sea. This idea from naturalistic philosophy that has dominated science for the past 150 years. Yet, remarkable evidence–unveiled by contemporary astronomy and physics-tells a very different story.
Prophecies of the Passion DVD
Prophecies of the Passion is an extraordinary look at the Messianic prophecies fulfilled during the final week of Christ’s life on earth. “This film is a work of art. I believe many people will understand the full meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection for the first time.” – Lee Strobel Author of The Case for Christ.
February 8th, 2008 in by steve
by Alex Chediak
And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate
place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going,
and they had no leisure even to eat. – Mark 6:31
* * *
My wife and I recently had one of those free two-week subscriptions to Netflix. They offered to extend it for another two weeks, but we cancelled. The lady on the phone wanted to know why, but our reason wasn’t on her list. She asked, “Have you enjoyed it?” We said yes, and thanked her. “Are you finding the movies you want?” Affirmative. “Are you able to find the time to watch the movies?” Again, yes. “So, why are you canceling?” she asked incredulously.
The worldview in our culture is straightforward: you’ve worked long and hard, sacrificing your preferences to do what others need you to do, and come quitting time, you should reward myself. You’ve earned it. And when you’re sitting by the pool with a diet Coke and a great magazine, you can remember that this is what you were working for. It doesn’t get any better than this…
To read the rest of this article, follow this link.
February 7th, 2008 in by steve
Some people are deeply offended by Mark Driscoll. Others greatly appreciate his missional heart while steering away from his frank, sometimes raucous comments and humor. Then there are others who, upon noticing a chapter titled: “The sin of light beer..” and say, “Well, it’s about time!”
As for me, I tend to fellowship with folks who are closer to the latter camps. Having known about Mr. Driscoll for a while, I finally got around to reading two of his books. 
First I read “Confessions of a Reformission Rev.: Hard Lessons From An Emerging Missional Church.” That book is about those lessons learned along the way of planting a church from a handful of folks to having thousands in attendance. As he chronicles the Mars Hill Fellowship’s trials, tribulations and growth, he lays out a practical biblical wisdom in how to model a biblical, but culturally relevant church in the 21st century. (Please note that it is a church that is trying to reach out to Seattle and young people in particular, so it is a bit of a special case.) Those involved in church planting would particularly be blessed by his Confessions book, which is actually part of a leadership book series.
Many of his mistakes could have been avoided if he had more discerning in his choice of co-laborers. But then, Jesus’ disciples weren’t the most stellar examples initially, either. (And we assume He knew what he was doing!) The Apostle Paul also forewarned the Ephesian church that the enemy would bring heresy from within (Acts 20:28-31). One of insights from Driscoll, that I personally appreciated, was that “liberal theology” comes in both “Modern” and “Post-modern” sheep’s clothing. These kinds of distinctions help one to not make mistakes with sweeping generalizations about the so-called “emerging church” being “liberal,” etc. One of the mistakes that Mr. Driscoll made was assuming that some “postmodern Christians” were more Christian than they actually were.
Actually, it is the “Confessions” part of the book that also gets Mr. Driscoll in trouble. Since these “confessions” are frequently told in a very humorous, less than dignified manner, many do wonder if he really is repentant of his flaws. But I suspect his main point is still to take God very seriously and oneself much less seriously. There are times when he does speak pretty bluntly about the flaws of others, but frequently this is also a bit tongue in cheek, if you catch the humor.
I think many don’t understand this. And there are lengthy blogs on the internet debating some of the subjects which Mark “confesses”. (I guess some people have a lot of spare time.) By the way, I am not opposed to critiquing teachers. Even though I believe much of the critique over Driscoll and his ministry is perhaps the result of people being “overly righteous” (Eccl. 7:16), this doesn’t negate the fact that the pastor/elder does needs to be “above reproach” and teachers will rightfully be judged more strictly.
The other book, Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out was published first (2004) and sets out to be more instructional in tone, particularly on how to understand the gospel, the church & culture that you are in (or the culture you are most comfortable in) and then finally, the culture that you are trying to reach. That is one of the assumptions of the book – that we are actually trying to reach others beyond our church and perhaps beyond the culture we are in.
One of his main points is that we need to be aware of the interplay between the gospel, the church, and the surrounding culture. For example, in a somewhat simplistic manner, he says that when we neglect one of these three aspects, there will typically be some form of error creep in. for example:
The Church + The Culture – The Gospel = Liberalism
The Church + The Gospel – The Culture = Fundamentalism
The Gospel + The Culture – The Church = Parachurch
Obviously, these aren’t absolute categories, but they are recognizable tendencies which are pretty easy to see. Well, at least they are easy to see in other folks!
Later on, in the chapter that some people tend to read first (Chapter 6: The Sin of Light Beer), he brings up the New Testament religious/cultural groups known to us as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Zealots, and the Essenes. Each of these cultural sub-groups, living contemporary to each other, tended toward different expressions in their degrees of cultural syncretism, cultural separation and sectarianism.
From these illustrations, Driscoll moves on to something more tangible in modern times—the use and abuse of alcohol. In a brief, but relatively thorough treatment, he outlines the Scriptural teaching on alcohol-use and abuse, along with some history and compares people’s reactions to this subject in modern American Christianity. Again, for many, there is no “news” here, but for others, this window of thought, along with many others in the book, is very eye-opening.
To help illustrate his overall principles throughout the book, there are also small “Reformission Interview” chapters where some basic questions are asked of Christians whose current vocation is frequently sometimes considered “questionable” or at least “sub-Christian.” These people include folks who are “a film critic, a radio D.J., a pub owner/brewer, a rock band manager, a tattoo artist and even someone who came to Christ working as a exotic dancer. (Pub owner? Okay. Tattoo artist? Maybe. Exotic dancer? Just how does an exotic dancer apply Paul’s teaching about “remaining in their situation…” (1 Cor. 7:17-24)! I guess you’ll just have to read it to find out.)
In addition to the chapters and these interviews, there are also discussion questions at the end of each chapter, thus making it a good tool for small groups. Which is exactly one of the things we are planning to do at The Cornerstone. There will be some scheduled times when people will be getting together briefly to discuss a chapter and learn how they can be more “refor-missional” to their culture. If you are interested, give us a call or send an email. Or, read the book and discuss it with your own group of friends. We will have copies on sale for discount and even a few to borrow.
(*Just what is meant by “reformissional” anyway? Near as I can tell it is a term coined for a movement which has, among other things, the emphasis that Christians and churches should be faithful to the content of unchanging Biblical doctrine while believing that they should, at the same time, continually reform their ministry methods to most effectively reach the changing cultures(s) to which they are sent by God as missionaries, e.g.1 Cor. 9:19-23.)
Steve Barry
