Monthly Archives: July 2007

What did Jesus look like?

Posted on by
Reply

In this post, Joe Carter respectfully disagrees with one of John Piper’s sermons, entitled “What Color Should Jesus Be?” (Friends who visit Carter’s post will recognize several of the paintings from my recent teaching series on world religions. I guess there are only so many public domain pictures of Jesus out there.)

Piper, in considering how Jesus should be portrayed, says (note that this is Carter’s transcription of the sermon),

But I think they should probably be black portrayals of Jesus, and white portrayals of Jesus, and Chinese portrayals of Jesus. And everybody knows that they’re not accurate. There isn’t one that’s accurate. That’s why it’s legitimate to do lots of inaccurate works. Because you just say we all know that we don’t know what he looked like so what we want to say with our inaccurate Jesus is something true about Jesus. Namely, he’s there for everybody. Continue reading →

How Do I Earn My Keep?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, a person asked me how InterVarsity staff (like myself) are funded. In his words, he contrasted two models: what he called a “mission field” model of “not muzzling the ox” and being supported by donations, vs. a “tentmaker” model where I “earn my keep” by being paid for the work I produce. It was an honest question, and I think he was primarily trying to understand how InterVarsity works. But it’s a good question, and I’ve been thinking about it a lot this morning.

My position (ESN Associate Director) is funded by those individuals and churches who share my concern and vision for the university, and who want to partner with me financially and prayerfully in this ministry. I believe that this is a Biblical model (not “the” Biblical model, though), and I also think it makes sense in a general, nonprofit sort of way. When I’m wearing my other hat, I work with several hundred Greater Cincinnati nonprofits, so I think I have a good perspective on the nonprofit world. Continue reading →

“…this alleged mortal…”

Posted on by
Reply

While reading a completely unrelated online discussion, I came across this strangely worded description of Jesus.  The writer, who is not a Christian and was uncertain whether Jesus even existed, referred to him as “this alleged mortal.”  This phrase stuck with me.

Who else in history could be called an “alleged mortal”?  Who else lived a life, proclaimed teachings, and died a death so striking that even someone who doubts his very existance can only say that Jesus was “allegedly” mortal? 

I recently attended the IICS Vision Conference and listened to Dr. J. P. Moreland of Biola University.   Dr. Moreland is a gifted philosopher who deals in both academic philosophy and popular apologetics.  His topic – “How to Present an Exclusive Jesus in an Inclusive World” – laid out a philosophic argument for Christianity as the true religion.  Towards the end, he described 4 criteria for choosing which religion to follow.  The fourth and final criterion was

Pick a religion where you get all of Jesus, instead of a watered-down version of him.

A person in the audience asked whether he was stacking the deck here by making Jesus a focal person in any religion.  Dr. Moreland replied, no, because every religion claims Jesus as their own.  Muslims call Jesus the greatest of prophets.  Buddhists claim Jesus as a bodhisatva.  “Jesus is the greatest figure who ever lived,” said Dr. Moreland, and everyone wants a piece of him.

That’s What Friends Are For

Posted on by
Reply

So, last night, our good friends Bryan and Kelley Brandeberry invited us to Pizza Hut, but we couldn’t go because we already had some steaks defrosting and were low on cash in our eating out envelope. We, in turn, invited them to the Erlanger library’s Family Fun Night (clowns + water balloons + popsicles = fun!). We took a long time walking to the library, never saw them, and just assumed we missed them or they decided not to come.

We returned home to find the following message on our answering machine:

Hi guys. We could not make it to the library because of a long and very funny story that happened to us at Pizza Hut. We will tell you all about it later. But as a result, we received a free ham and sausage pizza. Which is now in your fridge. Enjoy!

I opened the refrigerator door. Lo and behold, a free ham and sausage pizza had magically appeared on the middle shelf.

That’s what friends are for: free pizza. God bless America.

Wow – I love Netflix! (They paid me $15 to say that.)

Posted on by
Reply

It’s so rare when a company seems to do everything right.  I mean, it’s totally shocking – that a large, national corporation appears to operate in a logical, friendly, dare-I-say wise manner.  Yet every interaction I’ve had with Netflix has gone swimmingly.  Including today.

For 4th of July, we went down to my parents’ house.  Elizabeth’s mom was gracious enough to let us borrow a portable DVD player so that the kiddos would not get overly bored on the 6-hour car ride.   Among the movies we brought were one of Agatha’s favorites, The Wizard of Oz, and an movie borrowed from Netflix, Alice in Wonderland.  During the trip, I put the Wizard DVD into the Alice Netflix envelope, just as a way of keeping it safe temporarily.  When we returned home, Elizabeth took the Alice envelope, logically thinking it contained Alice, and mailed it back to Netflix.  Imagine her surprise when she opened the DVD player and found…Alice.  Doh!  We had mailed Netflix our own DVD.

Today, I called customer service.   For complete transparency, I was on hold for over 10 minutes, but I was at my desk, so I just put the phone on speaker and did some work.  After I explained the situation, here’s how the conversation went.

ME: “…and so we sent back our personal copy of Wizard of Oz by mistake.”

NETFLIX GUY: “Classic movie!”

ME: “Yeah.”

NG: “Did you get an email from us?”

ME: “No.”

NG: “Oooh – that’s a problem.  See, they take out every DVD from its sleeve, and if they had caught the mistake, you would have gotten an email.   But if it’s a movie we stock, then they would have assumed it was one of ours and just put it back into circulation.  I’m afraid you’re not getting in back.  I’m sorry.”

ME: “Sure, I understand.”

NG: “Well, seeing as how it wasn’t Netflix’ responsibility…”

ME: “Yeah?”

NG: “…I’m afraid that the best that we can do is…”

ME: “Yeah?” [expectng him to say some corporate version of "losers weepers"]

NG: “…offer you either a $15 refund on your credit card or give you a $15 credit on your next billing cycle.”

ME: “What?”

NG: “Actually, I take that back.  It would be a $14.99 credit.  So your next bill will only be $3.  You can use the $15 to buy a new copy of Wizard of Oz.  Try Amazon.  I bet you can get one for only seven or eight bucks on there.”

ME: “Really?”

NG: “Yeah, they’re really reliable.  They have everything.”

ME: “No, about the credit.”

NG: “Oh – sure.  It will show on your next bill.  Can I do anything else for you today, Mr. Hickerson?”

ME: “What do I do with Alice in Wonderland?”

NG: “Just wrap it up in a paper towel, put a Post-it note on it with your email address, and mail it back in one of your other envelopes.  We’ll take it from there.”

ME: “Thank you!”

Then, less than 15 minutes later, I got an email asking me if I was satisfied with my customer service experience.  I am mightily, mightily impressed.  (And, of course, I discovered that Netflix is a BBB member to boot.)

For another, less direct thing that Netflix is doing well, check out the coverage of the Netflix Prize.

Who is the Church?

Posted on by
2

In case you hadn’t heard, Pope Benedict reiterated the official Catholic position that Protestant churches are not “full churches,” since they are not “governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”  Instead, they are “ecclesial communities.” 

Some good coverage:

I don’t have anything original to contribute to this discussion, but, a few years ago, Miroslav Volf wrote a terrific book entitled After Our Likeness: The Church As the Image of the Trinity.  Volf lays out a free church ecclesiology based on Jesus’ statement, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matt. 18:20).  He responds to both an Orthodox theologian, John Zizoulas, and a Catholic theologian, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who has since become Pope Benedict). 

I found the book to be very helpful in thinking about my church, which comes from a nondenominational, nonsacramental tradition.  Historically, these types of churches have not had a strong ecclesiology (theology of the church).  Volf helped me to develop my thinking of a Scriptural foundation for the free church style of church governance, based on the intentional gathering of Christians.  I strongly recommend it for anyone who, like me, loves the church  and sees it as integral to God’s Kingdom.  

UPDATE: Christianity Today has linked to an editorial they wrote back in 2000 about these same issues.  Very positive view of the Vatican’s position as a way forward, since it recognizes Protestants as fellow Christians.

Our 4th of July Trip

Posted on by
Reply

Over the 4th of July, we went down to my parents’ house.  We visited (in order):

Here are some pictures.  Enjoy!

Systems of Belief

Posted on by
Reply

Over at slate.com, this interesting paragraph showed up:

Systems of belief such as religion and even scientific paradigms can lock their adherents into confirmation biases. And then tidbits of fact or gossip appear over the Internet to shore them up. There’s a point of no return beyond which it’s very hard to change one’s views about an important subject.

The writer, Arthur Allen, is discussing a scientific theory that he believes is patently false (the theory that childhood vaccinations have increased the incidents of autism), but that’s not what I’m most interested in.  Rather, I want to focus on the way he makes it sound as if only “adherents” view evidence through a biased lens. 

Here’s the thing: everyone has a system of belief.  It might be not be systematic, it might not be considered a “belief,” it might not even be consistent or agree with any traditional philosophy or religion.  But everyone has one.  It’s impossible not to.  Otherwise, how would you even begin to make sense of the world?   How would you know what to pay attention to, what to ignore, where to start considering a new idea or newly acquired fact? 

Rather than blaming what you perceive as someone’s mistake simply on the fact that they adhere to system of belief,  it’s better to examine that system of belief itself.  Is it consistent?  Does it align with known evidence?  Do you have trustworthy foundations for your system?  Is there a better system that explains what’s going on?

Then, rather than pretending that Person A is judging things based on a system, while Person B is looking at “just the facts,” we should mutually recognize each others’ biases and presuppositions, as well as our own.  If we are aware of our own assumptions – even if we have good reasons for them – then we can much more easily communicate with people whose assumptions differ from ours.   Futher, the other person might have very good reasons for the assumptions they make, even if their conclusions are ultimately wrong.  By understanding and sympathizing with those reasons, we can love our neighbors as ourselves, even if we disagree completely.