July 4th Thoughts on Church & State

Can Christians be a people of justice rather than looking for the state to give justice? The first task of the Church is not to make the world more just but to live out to the world what grace-filled justice is that it may show to the world justice to the invisible people of the world desperately fleeing from evil seeking justice to protect and help, feed and clothe.

Christians are to be an alternative to the world. The Church of God embodies the witness of an alternative reality - of the people of God telling the world you are loved, you are cared for, you will not be harmed - neither you nor your children.

American cannot be a nation of nationalism, militarism and capitalism at the expense of its populace – and particularly Christianity cannot be aligned with a government espousing harm and destruction to those whom it serves or under-serves.

America cannot be a nation which runs on fear. It cannot be a democracy that is governed like those nations committed to ruling in fear and injustice. It must be a nation committed to grace, mercy, and grace-filled justice. A true democracy that is representative of Christ must be shown the way by churches of Christ telling of Another Way. A Way that follows Jesus in ministries of helps, healing, peace, and refuge. A Way of personal and community redemption. This is the path of the Church and can be the path of any nationalised democracy seeking wholeness, unity, and service to mankind.

R.E. Slater

July 3, 2019

Jesus and Hitler Are Not the Same: False Equivalence Arguments in A Post-Truth Era

White supremacists march in Charlottsville, VA, August 13, 2017

Love God with All Your Mind or,

This Is Not That

http://www.toddlittleton.net/love-god-with-all-your-mind-or-this-is-not-that

August 16, 2017 by Todd Littleton

Dallas Willard contended that Jesus was the smartest human being to ever live. Some quickly respond, “Duh, he was God.”

That is not what Willard had in mind.

Steeped in his Jewish faith, reading the Bible available to him and formed by the regular recitation of the Shema, Jesus, Luke notes, “Increased in wisdom.” Armed with the regular reminder to include the mind with a love for God proved pivotal as Jesus addressed and redressed the fallacies of his day. Tithing of your mint, dill, and cumin to avoid the weightier matters of the law – justice, mercy, and faith – is a false equivalence. Jesus identified it among the Pharisees. (Matthew 23:230

Even if some would claim all things are settled so stop thinking too much, loving God with our minds still requires good thinking. We are helped by noticing logical fallacies as we evaluate arguments. From time to time I have invited my friend Greg to write up a short piece highlighting a specific fallacy. Here is his piece on false equivalence.

Jesus and Hitler: This Is Not That

We might as well start with Hitler, since we’ll get there anyway, and this week, it’s perfectly legitimate to reference Nazis.

Jesus and Hitler both started important movements, so they are the same.

That’s an egregious example of false equivalence, an informal logical fallacy that relies on a similarity between two things. The similarity is then taken to encompass the whole of the comparison, making the two things equivalent in the mind or the argument of the one offering the comparison. It’s easy to see why the example offered breaks down.

Jesus did start a movement, and it was predicated on love and forgiveness. Hitler also started a movement, and you know that’s where the similarities end; to say that they are the same is a clear example of false equivalence. They are not logically equal.

We look for equivalences in order to make judgments, either value judgments or truth judgments: this is good, this is bad, this is happening, this is not happening. There are two basic approaches:

Analogy: A is like B.

Equivalence: A is the same as B in important ways.

The former is far more common than the latter. Take your typical 14-year old as an example.

“Oh my God, mother! Everyone else is going to the party but I’m grounded? You’re just like Hitler!”

This is what we would charitably call a weak analogy. The mother is like Hitler only inasmuch as she is preventing the teenager from doing something the teenager wants to do. As analogs go, that’s incredibly weak. If the mother was killing the teens friends in horrific experiments, the analog is much stronger.

False equivalence typically deals with things happening in the real world, so it’s not usually an abstraction. It’s possible to do it as a thought exercise, but we typically only refer to it to discuss real world things or events. This week provides the perfect example.

The counter-protestors in Charlottesville are just as bad as the Unite the Right protestors because they came armed and looking for violence.

OR

Black Lives Matter and Antifa are the same as the alt-Right protestors. Both sides use violence to achieve their ends. They are both equally bad (wrong, etc.).

First a caveat. Identifying a false equivalence requires a desire to do so. That may seem trite, but it cannot be emphasized enough. We now live in a world where facts are subject to politicization, which is to say, a fact is only a fact if it works for me or my side. Anything that works against me or my side is not a fact. This is a clear example of confirmation bias, a tendency that afflicts all humans irrespective of their political affiliation. What is required is a desire to get at the truth, whatever the truth may be, even—especially—if it conflicts with what I believe. That is supposed to be a hallmark of the Christian tradition, but it seems to be dying a slow death these days.

Are the counter-protestors in Charlottesville the same as the Nazis in Charlottesville? If relying on the comparison that both are willing to use violence, then the claim is barely true, and then only if incredibly important information is ignored. Do the counter-protestors want to set up a government that enslaves other races? Do they want to deport white people “back to their own country?” Do they want to systematically remove the rights of white people? No. No. No. Do the Nazis? Yeah. We are talking about actual Nazis here.

Secondly, were the counter-protestors all Leftists activists or “antifa,” as they have come to be known? Only if clergy from various denominations and faiths with linked arms are Leftist activists. Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Reform Jews, Sunni Muslims, etc., all Leftist activists? No. Were all the protestors on the Right some version of a white supremacist? As far as we know, yes. They were chanting “Death to Jews,” and “blood and soil,” a rallying cry for white supremacists that dates back to the Third Reich.

Whether or not we want to quibble with the methods of the “Left” in this situation, we must first set aside questions of methodology and discuss questions of identity. Were we dealing with actual Nazis? Yes. Is anyone in America today that you can think of as bad as actual Nazis? I hope the answer is no, and if it is, then the two sides are not equivalent.

Anti-Fascist Marchers in Charlottsville, VA, August 13, 2017

News References

One dead as car strikes crowds amid protests of white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville; two police die in helicopter crash, August 13, 2017

Thousands march down Broad Street for 'Philly Is Charlottesville' rally to condemn white supremacy,

August 16, 2017

Introduction to Free Will, Determinism, Compatibilism, Incompatibilism

Before we begin Tom's article let me pass along several charts and links which may be helpful references to the discussion on free will vs. determinism. This is a complex subject and has been framed by as many viewpoints, theologies, and philosophies as there has been human minds to concentrate on this subject.

It is important to note that regardless of where one lands on this topic I always like to ask the larger question of ethics v morals or pragmatics v results. As example, if a theology is without mercy, love or forgiveness does it by neglecting those virtues qualify it as a worthy belief/religion? Or similarly, if a philosophy cannot give to humanity a method of just and equatable community is it ultimately a worthy philosophy to follow?

For myself, the results of reasoning and belief are just as important as the contents of a theological belief or philosophical subscriptions. Its all well-and-good to discuss large ideas and complex semantics but if it cannot be lived out into virtuous lives than can it be an idea which can hold any value?

I suppose this gets back to the ancient Greek idea of living the virtuous life by asking the question what makes life worth living? Asked differently, can knowledge form humanity towards wisdom or does it detract from this high ideal? If it does then what internal or society power seems to motivate a person or a society towards living out virtuous constructs in human relations with one another or with one's self? Or more simply, we've entered upon the age old question of the meaning of life - what gives to life its value, morals, ethics, and internal engine which drives it forward?

To speak to the idea of free will or determinism must be to ask all these questions and more. It is not a simple topic to enter into and much effort has been given to discovering how we might live in light of our reflections. All too often the results of bad acts have been based on once worthy-and-acceptable insights bastardized to accommodate human greed and empowerment. High, superfluous religious (sic, Christian, Muslim, et al) or philosophical ideals have resulted in their respective degeneracies to the enslavement and death of whole generations, cultures, and societies.

So then, it is not enough to speak a correct theology or philosophy but a virtuous theology or philosophy which can inspire and motivate humanity to its best practices rather than its worst. This is the value of knowledge... that it shows mercy, love and forgiveness to one another. In a word, it is the story of Jesus retold innumerable times through the many accounts of lives seeking by their-turns-and-in-their-ways the grace, peace and divinity found in God and in the best of humanity. The Jesus-way seems to be the answer to the ancient Greek academicians question seeking for the meaning of life. Peace, my friends.

R.E. Slater

May 31, 2017

• Wikipedia - Free Will
• Wikipedia - Free Will in Theology
• Wikipedia - Determinism
• Wikipedia - Theological Determinism
• Wikipedia - Compatibilism
• Wikipedia - Incompatibilism

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - query link on free will
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - querry link on determinism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - query link on compatibilism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - query link on incompatibilism

* * * * * * * * *

9 Reasons to Believe Humans Have Genuine

but Limited Freedom

article link

by Thomas Jay Oord
May 29th, 2017

A few neuroscientists are saying human free will is an illusion. They base their views on a few experiments. For many reasons, I believe they are wrong in thinking this. And the experiments don’t come close to disproving human freedom.

I was recently honored to participate in a conference on neuroscience and free will at Loma Linda University. (Thanks to Jim Walters and Philip Clayton for inviting me!) Conference participants varied in their academic expertise and interests, although I believe all self-identified as Christian.

The group is putting together a collection of essays on neuroscience and free will. I’ve been writing my own essay for the book. I explore briefly the neuroscience arguments against free will, pointing out their flaws. I’ll post some of that material in a later blog essay.

I offer below a portion of my essay for the book (and part of my plenary address at the conference). Here are nine reasons why we should believe humans have genuine but limited freedom:

We should affirm human freedom because…

• Belief in freedom fits the data we know best: that we are freely choosing selves. We all presuppose in our actions that we make free choices and we know this from our first-person perspectives. We have better grounds to think human freedom is genuine than think it is not.

• It helps us make sense of other creatures, especially humans. This argument fits nicely with what philosophers call “the analogy of other minds.” I think of it often when I consider how parents raise children. Nearly all parents believe their kids have some degree of freedom, at least sometimes, and they reward or discipline their children accordingly.

• Belief in freedom seems necessary to affirm human moral responsibility. This is an obvious reason why we should believe humans are free. Without freedom, humans seem neither praiseworthy nor blameworthy. Moral responsibility requires free response-ability.

• It’s a component of love. When it comes to humans, it’s difficult to think we can make sense of love if we think humans are not free in any sense. Robots may do good things, but unless we define love in an odd way, we don’t think robots can love. Love requires genuine but limited freedom.

• Belief in freedom seems necessary to affirm that we sometimes intentionally learn new information. Insofar as students choose to be educated, this choice presupposes free will. Insofar as we all seek to learn, we act freely.

• It accounts for intentional actions to reject the old and welcome the new or reject the new and return to the old. Conservatives appeal to freedom when calling us to return to past ideas, and progressives appeal to freedom when calling us to embrace new ones. Intentional change presupposes free will.

• Belief in freedom is part of what motivates many people to choose good over evil. Those who believe their negative urges are beyond their control typically fail to resist those negative urges. And those who encounter evil are unlikely to resist it if they feel nothing can be done. After all, why try to combat antisocial behavior if we’re not free?

• It is necessary for believing our lives matter. If all life is predetermined, it makes no sense to think our lives have meaning or that what we do ultimately matters. If all comes down to fate, we make no real contribution to what has already been decided.

• Belief in freedom is most compatible with believing God loves us. This is not only true if one believes a loving God would give freedom to creatures. It’s also true for rejecting the view that God praises or punishes creatures who are not free. A fully predestining God has no grounds to judge predetermined creatures.

The final reason I list for why we should believe humans have genuine but limited freedom refers to God. In the second half of my essay, I explore what God’s freedom might be like. But I believe descriptions of divine freedom will be inadequate if we don’t also explore the relationship between God’s love and power, creaturely freedom, and evil in the world. So I explore those ideas as well.

Am I Missing Something?

There may be more good arguments to affirm that humans have genuine but limited freedom. I’d love to hear your suggestions. If you come up with a reason I ought to consider, please post it below…

Comments

Curtis Holtzen

May 29, 2017

This may be an expansion of #3 and 5 but it seems to me truth and rationality depend on free will. It seems the determinist wants us to believe determinism is true, but that would require we investigate the subject. Perhaps gathering enough information and assessing enough arguments to finally believe determinism is true (assuming here the trust of direct involuntary doxasticism). But the investigation presupposes freedom, otherwise why praise those who affirm the truth of determinism and chastise those who deny it? I guess all this rests on Kant’s “ought implies can” and if I ought to affirm determinism that implies I can affirm or deny its truth which seems to suggest I am free.

thomasjayoord

May 29, 2017

I like it, Curtis! Thanks!

Greg Boyd - The Crucifixion of the Warrior God (to Biblical Violence)

My one comment when reading of the violence in the bible is that we see God through our own images. It is no less different now than it was then - even the biblical writers, prophets, priests, and kings saw God through their own thoughts and beliefs. When God speaks to us it is always disruptive to ourselves, our way of looking at others, and even how we move through life. But disruption does not mean that its "100% correcting" or can homogenize all the peccadilloes we carry within us. As any penitent Christian will tell you, God will spend a "lifetime" bringing us into Christ's image on the Cross but it must first begin with our submission to His Spirit.

No, to encounter the disruption of God is to begin a series of disruptions throughout one's life. Some ginormous and some hardly worth noticing. But to be a person inhabiting change is to be a person open to change, relearning, and retelling the Jesus story to ourselves, our family and friends, and throughout our missional lives.

And so, we hear God through our own images. We write, pray, and sing of God through our own images. The Bible's revelations and messages transform over the ages - even now! - but God's people might not unless they are committed to His Spirit to be transformed. Ironically, even during our more "enlightened" church periods since the 1600's the church still preaches "the Cross in one hand while lifting up the sword in the other." How curious when Jesus Himself used no sword except the sword of the Spirit. No angelic military to bend the world to His way of thinking but the cruciformed lives of His church. No thunder and lightening except that which flashed about His head on the eve of His crucifixion.

Nay, the problem is us. It lies with us and in us. Not God. Us. Not the Bible. Us. It's writers and preachers and listeners. It's interpreters. Even as we come to the book of Revelation the church would rather see God in dynamic militarism against mankind rather than as the One Coming to cease our wars and quiet our murderous hearts. But perhaps it all started with unrepentent believers refusing to bow heart and knee to the peace of Christ in mission, livelihood, and communion with one another. And so we pray dear God this simple prayer, "Save us from ourselves. Save us to do the work of the Spirit by your Cross of love and grace. Amen."

R.E. Slater

January 25, 2017

* * * * * * * *

The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Volumes 1 & 2

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1506420753/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_rG4GybM1YS0HH

Renowned pastor-theologian Gregory A. Boyd proposes a revolutionary way to read the Bible in this epic but accessible study. His "cruciform hermeneutic" stands as a challenge to the field of biblical studies and to all thoughtful Christians.

A dramatic tension confronts every Christian believer and interpreter of Scripture: on the one hand, we encounter Old Testament stories of God commanding horrendous violence. On the other hand, we read the unequivocally nonviolent teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. Reconciling these two has challenged Christians and theologians for two millennia.

Throughout Christian history, various answers have been proposed, ranging from the long-rejected explanation that these contrasting depictions are of two entirely different "gods" to recent social, cultural, and literary theories that attempt to dispel the conflict.

The Crucifixion of the Warrior God takes up this dramatic tension and the range of proposed answers in an ambitious constructive investigation. Over two volumes, Gregory A. Boyd argues that we must take seriously the full range of Scripture as inspired, including its violent depictions of God. At the same time, he affirms the absolute centrality of the crucified and risen Christ as the supreme revelation of God.

Developing a theological interpretation of Scripture that he labels a "cruciform hermeneutic," Boyd demonstrates how the Bible's violent images of God are reframed and their violence subverted when interpreted through the lens of the cross and resurrection. Indeed, when read in this way, Boyd argues that these violent depictions bear witness to the same self-sacrificial nature of God that was ultimately revealed on the cross.

When Religion Makes People Worse

This statue of Jesus crucified is included in a collection of
the fragments from Reims Cathedral in France, on display
at the National WWI Museum at  Liberty Memorial in Kansas
City, Mo., on May 2, 2014. The museum holds the most
diverse collection of artifacts around the world. | Religion
News Service photo by Sally Morrow

Christians, Conflicts & Change: When religion makes people worse

http://religionnews.com/2016/04/05/religion-makes-people-worse/

by David Gushee

April 15, 2016

Religion can do a great job helping believers discern right from wrong. Religion can do a great job helping believers relate kindly and justly to other people. And religion can do a great job stiffening the will of believers when they face unjust suffering for their faith.

I was taught these things when I studied Christian ethics, and they continue to motivate me in my work as an ethics professor today.

But hard experience has me seeing the negation of these claims more than I did at the beginning of my journey.

Now I see that religion can sometimes do a very poor job helping believers discern right from wrong. Religion can do a very poor job helping believers relate kindly and justly to others. And religion can easily persuade people that the rejection they are receiving for their hurtful or ill-considered convictions is martyrdom for God’s Truth, leaving them even more entrenched in their destructive beliefs.

My two key teachers in the field of Christian ethics in the 1980s were the Baptist Glen Stassen of Southern Baptist Seminary and the Lutheran Larry Rasmussen of Union Seminary in New York. These men knew each other and shared many common scholarly interests that shaped me as well. These included the Nazi period in Germany, the extraordinary life of the scholar-pastor-resister Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the challenge of overcoming racism, and the fight against the nuclear arms race during the Cold War.

Both men modeled and taught me an essentially hopeful vision about the role that Christian convictions can play in making Christians more faithful and society better. They taught a faith that had learned very deeply the lessons of the Nazi period; that honored Dietrich Bonhoeffer for standing fast against Nazi seductions when so many of his fellow Christians surrendered their souls; that resisted America’s own racism; and that rejected the idea that more nukes would make the world safer.

My own dissertation focused on that small minority of Christians who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. I sought to discover what kind of character, motivations, and faith shaped these people who risked their lives when their neighbors were standing by indifferently. I have spent much of my career attempting to teach what I have sometimes called a “rescuer Christianity,” as over against a “bystander Christianity.”

But now as a wizened old veteran of the fight, I struggle with discouragement sometimes. It is not just that many Christians fail to live up to the clear demands of Christian discipleship. It’s that we can’t even agree on what those demands are. We all say we believe in Jesus, but what we make of that belief is so irreconcilably different that I am not sure that we are in any meaningful way members of the same religious community.

I should have seen this more clearly all along. After all, could it really be said that a Dietrich Bonhoeffer who died resisting Hitler shared the same religion as the “Christian” men who murdered children in Hitler’s name? What was the religious commonality between white Christian KKK members and black Christians fighting for an end to segregation and lynching? And how much do pro-torture, Islamophobic Christians have in common with those who take the opposite path?

A faith that stands with the crucified ones of this world is very different from a faith that does the crucifying. The question becomes not whether you say you follow Jesus, but which Jesus you follow.

Worst of all has been my discovery in recent years of versions of Christianity that actually make people worse human beings than they might otherwise have been. Here churches, pastors, or individuals interpret Scripture or faith in such a way that they do harm they would not do if they were just good old-fashioned pagans. I never anticipated that I would think: “If we could just keep people out of (this version of) church, they would be better people.”

Christian leaders often puzzle over why Christianity in America is declining so badly. Here’s a reason: some highly visible versions of Christianity are so abhorrent that reasonably sensible people want nothing to do with Christianity or the people who practice it.

The same, of course, holds for abhorrent versions of other religions. But that’s their problem, and this one is mine.

Is There a Crisis in Conservative Protestantism? (How To Engage the Moral Politics of the Day)

link to article

by Carl R. Tureman

December 9, 2015

[comments mine - re slater]

In October, I had the pleasure of attending both the lecture and subsequent seminar given for First Things by Ross Douthat on the crisis in conservative Catholicism. Not being a Roman Catholic, I was there very much as an outside observer of the discussion but it raised for me the obvious questions: Is there a parallel crisis in conservative Protestantism and, if so, in what does it consist?

Douthat’s argument—that conservative Catholics overestimated their success and influence both in the political and ecclesiastical sphere, has limited parallels in conservative Protestantism. Certainly, the cultural power of conservative Protestants has massively declined since the days when threats of a boycott by the Southern Baptist Convention could strike fear into the heart of a corporate CEO. As with their Roman Catholic counterparts, politically conservative Protestants are coming to realize that they placed too much faith in the political process. Yet, on the ecclesiastical front, Douthat’s crisis assumes the importance of a unified, institutional church. The fissiparous nature of Protestantism means that such a crisis cannot happen. We are, after all, by definition schismatics from a Roman Catholic perspective. In this sense, Roman Catholics would no doubt see Protestantism in itself as constituting a permanent crisis. 

Nevertheless, setting Roman Catholic objections aside, I would suggest three areas where conservative Protestantism in the USA—at least its broadly reformed strand with which I am familiar—could be said to be, if not in crisis, then certainly moving toward such.

First, far too much power is exerted by wealthy and influential parachurch organizations. A good example of this was provided this year by events surrounding the attempted exchange about Evangelicals and Catholics Together which was commissioned by Reformation21, the e-zine of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Three of us were involved: Timothy George, Thomas Guarino, and myself. The exchange was respectful, honest, friendly, but frank. My own article was scarcely a paean of praise to the ECT process.

Within hours of the first article (that of Tim) being published, a tweet and a hostile blog post by a senior representative of another Reformed parachurch group based in Florida, followed by rumored behind-the-scenes shenanigans, were enough to get the series pulled (and then thankfully picked up by First Things—kudos to Rusty Reno). Sad to say, one parachurch group had effectively closed down perfectly legitimate discussion in an unconnected forum by sheer bully-boy tactics.

An aberration? Unfortunately not. This is symptomatic of the way things are in much of the conservative Protestant world. As long as the most influential parachurches are run like businesses, money and marketing will be the overriding concerns, even as concern for ‘the gospel’ is always the gloss. Reinforced by a carrot-and-stick system of feudal patronage connected to lucrative conference gigs, publishing deals, and access to publicity, such tactics as those described will continue to be deployed. Roman Catholics might look on Protestantism from the outside and see it as theology ruled by a mob [sic, mobocracy; ochlocracy]. Speaking as an insider, it often seems to me to be ruled more by the Mob.

The second problem for much of conservative Protestantism is a related one, highlighted by Roger Scruton. Scruton has rightfully stated that it is “surely impossible to flee from kitsch by taking refuge in religion, when religion itself is kitsch.” (The Intelligent Person’s Guide to Modern Culture, p. 92). There is indeed an unbearable, kitschy lightness to so much that passes for conservative Protestant life and thought. The theology that sells is by and large a cheap, rootless imitation of the real thing. Year after year, the same brand names churn out bland, lightweight books on whatever is the topic of the moment, with no regard to authorial competence. It is the names that sell, after all. And thus the same speakers fill the same conference rosters time after time, with the supercharged aesthetics of the platforms distracting the audience from the insipid content of the performances. So much sound and fury. So much signifying nothing. 

I suspect this cannot be sustained, or at least cannot be sustained with the same audience, over an extended period of time. It is kitsch and therefore ephemeral. If we imitate the shallowness of pop culture, we can expect to replicate the life expectancy of the same. Boy bands come and boy bands go, after all. Popular fashion is indeed a cruel mistress, and a faith whose practices and idioms are really anchored in the tastes of the moment is inextricably tied to that moment.

Finally, conservative Protestantism lacks a strong tradition of social thought which might help it counter the kitsch and engage with the many challenges that are being cast its way by contemporary society. Now, I am a big believer in the church being the church. The Benedict Option offers little that is really new to me. I have always thought the church needs to be a spiritual community of sojourners in this world. But every member of my congregation has to live to some extent in the world. Every day they face questions that demand thoughtful and careful answers, whether it is as personal as the legitimacy of forms of fertility treatment or as public as how to navigate identity politics in the workplace. 

Compared to Roman Catholicism, Protestantism is playing catch-up in the areas of moral theology at a point in time where this is possibly too little too late. The old ‘God, guns, and America’ approach of the Religious Right is a spent force (thankfully so) but Protestantism does not currently have much with which to replace it. The work of men like David VanDrunen on natural law is proving very helpful but we need more of our finest minds engaging with the moral issues of the day, not so much to persuade the world to change its mind but at least to give clarity of thought to our own people as they go about their daily callings.

I do not believe that Protestants need to become Roman Catholics but we do need to understand the problems which beset us from within. The big money parachurch ministries depend upon constant recreation of a market for theological kitsch, and theological kitsch drives out the kind of deep thought which really does need to be the focus of the church’s efforts and resources at this point. Therein, I suspect, lies the coming crisis of conservative Protestantism.

*Carl R. Trueman is Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary.

The Controversial Art of Banksy, "We Reap What We Sow"

Jesus... "Either you get him or you don't...."

I have a lot of images of Jesus in my head. One of them is of Jesus as a political and social subversive who sharply divided people by His words and deeds. Wherever you read of Jesus in the New Testament you read of those who have become deeply convicted by what He had said, or done. There was rarely a middle ground in the presence of people's lives when confronted by Him.

Like the pop graffiti icon Banksy (see bio below) - whose art work tears at the ethics and morality of governments, capitalism, and social agendas, - no one could be neutral before Jesus. You either "got Him or you didn't." You either loved Him, or hated Him. Begging the question, "How would we react to Jesus if we were before His presence today?" Would we be deeply offended by Him? Would Jesus elicit from us long forgotten emotional stirrings of turmoil, unresolved conflicts, or bitter feelings of envy? Or perhaps, like the beloved Mary, or the disciple John, find a deeply contrite spirit falling upon us wrapped within an enlightened shroud of profound silence before His divine authority?

It's hard to say, I think, without first being tested and sorting it all out. But perhaps a good barometer of our reaction might be in how we assess popular religious figures whom we may not have very nice thoughts about. Mostly, thoughts of repulsion, criticism, or cutting cynicisms.... Rather than "hearing the message we quickly attack the messenger." Whether this is triggered by feelings of insecurity or protection it is left to the one conflicted by the message to discover its source of projection.

I think of Rob Bell as one today's controversial figures. The divisions around his persona are deep and wide. For myself, he once created a spiritual divide that required rethinking what Christianity had become in the latter days of my Christian faith.... Not that this sort of conviction hadn't occurred in my past at other times, eras, or personal events. But more so now, today, because it was pointedly made against the raging religious criticisms flowing through the intemperate modern day church as I have since observed it. A church that I love. Whose people I love. But a church that requires daily Renewal. Regeneration. Repentance. A change of message and of heart. A church whose institutions, dogmas, and traditions, seem to be addressed here within the pages of this website all too frequently. Rather than finding a church that lives the very message it breathes having fashioned its own message of Christianity rather than the gospel one of Christianity. A message limited by our religious borders and sensitivities, our words and habits, even our partisan policies and politics.

Though I have never been especially fond of Rob's tactics or demeanor, still I think of him as a wounded friend, and well-meaning spiritual advisor, that has helped in pointing the glaring inadequacies of the Christian faith fallen upon its religious idols and tempers. Something that is as true of our lives as it is with anyone's life housed behind the safeguards and barriers of our self righteousness and devote legalisms. Who has forced untimely decisions upon the sanitized world of Christianity become too comfortably entranced behind its message and ways; unprepared to make the timely sacrifices required behind the incendiary walls of iconoclasm that envelopes its bible, worship, prayers, and hymns. A church that I believe wishes to go forth in Jesus' holy name on bended knees when confronted by the Jesus of the bible who shows to us a life undone without His presence, truth, and love.

At the last, Rob is one of many prophetic voices that have been speaking to the church to awake to its First Love even as the Apostle John did 2000 years ago in Revelation chapters 2-3. To find the divine strength of God's presence and love in all that it says and does. To eschew any messages not first speaking of Jesus as the First and Last, the Alpha and Omega, in all that it says and does. Of a Christian faith that is all about Jesus. Centered only in Jesus. And one which makes Jesus the dividing line between a great fallen, man-centered religion... or a humbled, confessional faith, full of God's divine mystery, presence, and hunger for our souls. Whose universal message of salvation is to all, for all, and through all, in Jesus' name, by the power of His Spirit.

Yes, like Bell, or Banksy, or perhaps a good-hearted friend who challenges us in our lives - and like the many who have challenged me in my life from pulpit to fellow laborer - so is this God-Man Jesus. We either get Him, or we don't. But at that sublime moment when entering into His divine presence do we find ourselves deeply conflicted by our own proud words and paucity of deeds? Or emasculated of all our virtues and pride? Knowing only the rawness of our life without His presence and love, His Spirit, and guidance? Even so, Lord Jesus, come. Come this day upon the wings of our repentance and confession as on most days in our lives when we need a Lord and a Savior to help us through the mazes of this ungodly, unloving, sinful web of life. Even as we are now before your humbling presence. Even so, come. Let these words be our thanksgiving and our Amen. In you name we pray for Help. For Sustenance. For life itself. Amen and Amen.

R.E. Slater

Novermber 18, 2013

The Controversial Art of Banksy

We reap what we sow, Banksy

Wikipedia Bio - link here

Banksy is a pseudonymous United Kingdom-based graffiti artist, political activist, film director, and painter. His satirical street art and subversive epigrams combine dark humour with graffiti done in a distinctive stencilling technique. Such artistic works of political and social commentary have been featured on streets, walls, and bridges of cities throughout the world.[1]

Banksy's work was made up of the Bristol underground scene which involved collaborations between artists and musicians.[2] According to author and graphic designer Tristan Manco and the book Home Sweet Home, Banksy "was born in 1974 and raised in Bristol, England.[3] The son of a photocopier technician, he trained as a butcher but became involved in graffiti during the great Bristol aerosol boom of the late 1980s."[4] Observers have noted that his style is similar to Blek le Rat, who began to work with stencils in 1981 in Paris, Jef Aerosol, who sprayed his first street stencil in 1982 in Tours (France), and members of the anarcho-punk band Crass, which maintained a graffiti stencil campaign on the London Tube System in the late 1970s and early 1980s.[5][6] However, Banksy says he was inspired by3D, a graffiti artist who later became a founding member of Massive Attack.[7]

Known for his contempt for the government in labelling graffiti as vandalism, Banksy displays his art on publicly visible surfaces such as walls, even going as far as to build physical prop pieces. Banksy does not sell photos of street graffiti directly himself; however, art auctioneers have been known to attempt to sell his street art on location and leave the problem of its removal in the hands of the winning bidder.[8] Banksy's first film, Exit Through the Gift Shop, billed as "the world's first street art disaster movie," made its debut at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival.[9] The film was released in the UK on 5 March 2010.[10] In January 2011, he was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary for the film.

Political and Social Themes

Banksy's works have dealt with an array of political and social themes, including anti-War, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, anti-imperialism, anti-authoritarianism, anarchism, nihilism, and existentialism. Additionally, the components of the human condition that his works commonly critique are greed, poverty, hypocrisy, boredom, despair, absurdity, and alienation.[121] Although Banksy's works usually rely on visual imagery and iconography to put forth his message, he has made several politically related comments in his various books. In summarising his list of "people who should be shot," he listed "Fascist thugs, religious fundamentalists, (and) people who write lists telling you who should be shot."[122] While facetiously describing his political nature, Banksy declared that "Sometimes I feel so sick at the state of the world, I can't even finish my second apple pie."

Melbourne City Council put a protective screen over a piece of Banksy graffiti stencil artwork in Cocker Alley, off Flinders Lane near Swanston Street. Picture: Mike Keating Source: News Limited

Police warn international graffiti artist Banksy
his work will be rubbed out

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/police-warn-international-graffiti-artist-banksy-his-work-will-be-rubbed-out/story-fni0fit3-1226761795755

by Aleks Devic, Sunday Herald Sun

November 17, 2013

ELUSIVE world-famous graffiti artist Banksy has copped a spray from Victoria's senior cops, who warn his work will be erased if he stencils without a permit.

The secretive street artist, whose identity is unknown, has divided the city.

The Victoria Police rebuke is at odds with Tourism Victoria and the City of Melbourne, which are welcoming the ­revered guerilla graffiti artist back to boost the city's creative credentials.

Transit Divisional Intelligence Unit Acting Sgt Paul Luck told the Sunday Herald Sun that Banksy would be treated like any other vandal.

"If he hasn't got permission to put it somewhere then it's a crime and we will encourage whatever bit of property that it's been put on, we will encourage them (the owners) to remove it," Sgt Luck said.

Banksy, who achieved cult status and whose works have sold for more than $1 million, has decorated Melbourne before but in blunders, his work was destroyed.

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle extended an invitation to Banksy in 2010 when council workers painted over one his pieces in Hosier Lane by mistake and said the council would consider commissioning him to do a work of art.

The artist has just finished a month-long "live exhibition" in New York City, and is looking for his next project.

Tourism Victoria chief executive Leigh Harry said it was "unfortunate" Banksy's local works were ruined. He said international tourists travelled to see his pieces.

"The fact that Banksy chooses to create his art in Melbourne, reinforces Melbourne's credentials in this creative field," Mr Harry said.

"Should Banksy wish to return to Melbourne to undertake any more art, he would be welcomed back."

It is believed all of Banksy's art has been removed from Melbourne walls.

During a late-night attack in 2011, vandals painted over two Banksy pieces that were in Fitzroy.

Residents Against Graffiti Everywhere founder Steve Beardon said glorifying Banksy's artwork sent the wrong message that people can become rich from being vandals.

"Banksy can go to hell as far as I am concerned and he should stay away," Mr Beardon said.

Melbourne art expert Ken McGregor compared the loss of the Hosier Lane Banksy as "painting over the Mona Lisa".

Banksy Sells Original Paintings Worth $40,000
for $60 each in New York City





BEST OF Banksy Street Art