I came across an article on CNN today commenting on the Beloit College Mindset List. This list is fascinating. The introduction to the list offers a brief explanation.

Each August since 1998, Beloit College has released the Beloit College Mindset List. It provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college this fall. The creation of Beloit’s Keefer Professor of the Humanities Tom McBride and former Public Affairs Director Ron Nief, it was originally created as a reminder to faculty to be aware of dated references, and quickly became a catalog of the rapidly changing worldview of each new generation. The Mindset List website at www.beloit.edu/mindset, the Mediasite webcast and its Facebook page receive more than 400,000 hits annually.

The 75-point list is pretty fun to read through. I have included a few that I found interesting of funny.

1. Few in the class know how to write in cursive.

6. Buffy has always been meeting her obligations to hunt down Lothos and the other blood-suckers at Hemery High.

7. “Caramel macchiato” and “venti half-caf vanilla latte” have always been street corner lingo.

11. John McEnroe has never played professional tennis.

14. Doctor Kevorkian has never been licensed to practice medicine.

18. Fergie is a pop singer, not a princess.

24. “Cop Killer” by rapper Ice-T has never been available on a recording.

32. Czechoslovakia has never existed.

33. Second-hand smoke has always been an official carcinogen.

39. Pizza jockeys from Domino’s have never killed themselves to get your pizza there in under 30 minutes.

46. Nirvana is on the classic oldies station.

57. A purple dinosaur has always supplanted Barney Google and Barney Fife.

58. Beethoven has always been a dog.

70. The artist formerly known as Snoop Doggy Dogg has always been rapping.

71. The nation has never approved of the job Congress is doing.

Certainly, when dealing with culturally relevant classroom illustrations, each of these issues are perhaps very helpful. I must admit, it is somewhat shocking how much different my “mindset” is from the class of 2014. However, there are many far more substantial issues that have not budged, though we ignore them, which have far more profound impact on the educational process.

1. The trinitarian God of the Bible exists.

2. All men are born dead in sin and continue in sin and therefore are guilty before God.

3. Jesus Christ, the second person of the trinity, was born to Mary, grew up, fulfilled the law, and died for the sins of his people.

4. Man’s only hope, security, and forgiveness are found in Jesus Christ.

5. God pours out his Spirit on believers to be their helper and guide.

6. There is truth.

7. God is sovereign and directs all things–past, present, and future, for his glory.

8. God designed things to function in a certain way, and all things have been grossly affected by the fall.

If we are going to take the stance that such trivial things as Beethoven being first recognized as a dog rather than a great composer affect education, perhaps we would do good to give some thought to the affect our understanding of much more basic things has on education.

As a church planter I do a lot of thinking about how to reach the community in which I am seeking to plant a church. To be clear, I think church planters, pastors, sessions, congregations, and individuals should be engaged in such thought and conversation with one another. Such thinking is pretty easily defended from a biblical perspective. Jesus talks about not throwing pearls before swine in Matthew 7, and he instructs his disciples in how to proceed with their work in Matthew 10. Clearly, Paul has given some thought to his missionary journeys as evidenced by the fact that he is planning and desiring to visit Rome.

However, I must be extremely cautious when thinking about such issues. While I may begin the thought process desiring intelligibility (making sure that I am clearly communicating the gospel to the folks I am working with), it is all too easy for my flesh to get involved and to begin to think about how to make the gospel relevant (downplaying certain aspects of the gospel and emphasizing others in order to make the gospel more immediately accessible to the folks I am working with). The church has struggled, and in my opinion often lost this battle, as she has tried to work through ministering within the business-minded and results-driven culture of America.

Recently, I have had to think through some of these issues again, and the same struggles arose in me. Therefore, the quote that my wife showed me the other day was incredibly convicting and refreshing. Donald Miller writes,

A friend of mine, a young pastor who recently started a church, talks to me from time to time about the new face of church in America–about the postmodern church. He says the new church will be different from the old one, that we will be relevant to culture and the human struggle. I don’t think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to the human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of His gospel. If the supposed new church believes in trendy music and cool Web pages, then it is not relevant to culture either. It is just another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing (Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz, p111).

So, the question I must repeatedly ask myself is this, “What am I teaching the people to be passionate about–meeting in a bar, being a downtown church, having great music, being reformed, asking hard questions, amassing theological knowledge, etc., etc., etc., or the gospel of Jesus Christ?” Now I know some of these things may be the outflow of a genuine excitement about the gospel, but all of these things can be pursued in place of the gospel. Only the gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Nothing else is. I have heard Charles Spurgeon quoted as saying, “If you win them with a carnival, you will have to keep them with a carnival.” The bottom line is this, if someone “believes the gospel” because of a Web site or great music, then I must ask some hard questions because they might have faith in a Web site or song leader. If someone “believes the gospel” because of me, the church, something I do for them, or something the church does for them, then I must ask some hard questions because they might have faith in me or the church. The problem with teaching people to be passionate about something other than Christ is that when that Web site crashes, that song leader moves on, I fail them, or the church changes directions, then so does that person’s hope and security. My prayer is that I will be a pastor and we will be a church who are passionate about one thing, Jesus Christ–crucified and resurrected.

Rev. Mark Driscoll is a pastor of a large church up in Seattle called Mars Hill (Be careful not to confuse him with Rob Bell the pastor of Mars Hill in Grandville, MI. Driscoll is pretty solid theologically. Rob Bell – not so much, although he likes to use words that sound familiar which makes it all very confusing.) Driscoll has gotten a lot of publicity in the last few years because of the growth of Mars Hill and because he is one of the men seen as having helped to popularize Calvinism. Driscoll is a pretty colorful dude at times and has managed to offend plenty of folks, but he also gets a pretty fair amount right. Here is a video of him commenting on some of the popular teenage vampire novels; he makes some good points. As always – feel free to comment.

I don’t know anything really about the pastor in this story, the church that he pastors, or the denomination that they are or are not a part of. What I do know is this, he gets that the gospel is for everybody. Sure, he didn’t know who exactly he was talking to, but in God’s providence Rev. Ron Kingston was able to minister to Tracy Province (a convicted murderer who was on the run after a successful prison break and who was apparently involved in two more murders since his escape). Sure, Rev. Kingston may have acted differently had he been aware of who was in the area, but in God’s providence Kingston thought Province was just a guy who needed help and he helped him. Sure, we could say all kinds of things about how this story might have been different if Rev. Kingston had known he was talking to a lifer on the lam, but we can also say is the Rev. Kingston showed the love of Jesus Christ to a man who needs that love.

The bur in my saddle is not that Rev. Kingston was so bold that he sat and talked with this lifer, and I am not that bold. The bur in my saddle is that Rev. Kingston loved someone who was hurting in obvious outward ways (not the clean white-bread ways I am used to), and I find this hard to do. The issue I face is that while I don’t necessarily think it would be a sin to hide from Tracy Province if you saw him coming and knew who he was, I can’t say the same for looking past and even at times condemning someone who is broken in ways more obvious than myself. Sure Rev. Kingston didn’t know who he was talking to, but the fact remains that Rev. Kingston’s love for a homeless guy who got dumped in Yellowstone and was trying to hitch hike home was such that the guy said he might like to stay in Rev. Kingston’s town and get a job welding. Sure, say that Province was only looking to take advantage of an apparently easy score if you want, but I can’t undersell the power of the gospel that easily.

My belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ is a full admission that I am just as much a sinner deserving God’s wrath and curse as Tracy Province or anyone else who has walked this earth. My profession of faith in Jesus Christ is not a statement that I am something special, but that Jesus, the Son of God, had to die in order to adequately deal with my sin. The fact that I am called a son of the Most High God is not a badge to be worn with pride, but a marker of the profound mercy I have received from God through Jesus Christ. If I am but a recipient of mercy, how can I deal with anyone in pride? If I am but a beneficiary of the grace of God, how can I deal with anyone any differently? If I am alive only by the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ, how can I be so bent on self-preservation? Too often my penchant for pride and self-preservation stifles my ability to love those who are hurting, so I am grateful for and encouraged by this Wyoming minister and his willingness to serve someone who was apparently down on their luck.

The above video was posted on one of the blogs I like to read. Since Joel Osteen is currently one of the most influential preachers in the world, I wanted to post the video and offer a brief response. The point of the response is not so much that Osteen is a complete charlatan but more that we must not accept everything someone teaches but check it with Scripture as the Bereans were commended for in Acts 17.

Before you read the rest of the post, perhaps take some time on your own to think through what Joel Osteen is teaching and ask, “Does this square with Scripture?”

So, here’s the deal. There is nothing in Scripture that says God’s motivation for the Old Testament dietary laws are based on the healthy benefits of such laws. Rather, the point was to provide an object lesson for being set apart – for holiness. There is plenty in Scripture that speaks to the fact that laws such as the cleanliness code had a temporary function that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Jesus takes a radically different approach to the dietary laws than does Mr. Osteen in Mark 7.14-23. Peter, the Apostle, tried to take Joel’s approach to interpreting these same passages and was rebuked by God for it as recorded in Acts 10.9-16. The problem is not that Mr. Osteen is wrong about the health benefits of pork but that he is wrong in how he interprets Scripture. To say we must or should refrain from eating pork is, oddly enough, to deny Scripture; because, such moralistic teaching misses the (perhaps) subtle point of the teaching in Leviticus 11 and the blatantly obvious teaching in Mark and Acts. Further, if I can, as Mr. Osteen seems to teach, please God by not eating pork, then I don’t need a Savior to die in my place (see Galatians 3.15-29). When we draw a strong line of demarcation between the Old and New Testaments so that the Old Testament is not about a gracious redemption through the promised Messiah and the New Testament is not the same story as the Old Testament but something fundamentally different, then we miss the point of the Bible, of the law, of the gospel, and of Jesus’ death on the cross.

“Mrs. Bagby was not a Cumberland Presbyterian but a member of the U.S. or Southern Presbyterian Church. I too am now a member of the Southern Church. I say nothing against the Cumberlands. They broke with the Presbyterian Church because they did not believe a preacher needed a lot of formal education. That is all right but they are not sound on Election. They do not fully accept it. I confess it is a hard doctrine, running contrary to our earthly ideas of fair play, but I can see no way around it. Read I Corinthians 6:13 and II Timothy 1:9, 10. Also I Peter 1:2, 19, 20 and Romans 11:7. There you have it. It was good enough for Paul and Silas and it is good enough for me. It is good enough for you too.”

True Grit, Charles Portis

Is there truth? This, of course, is an age-old question that has been answered in various ways by various philosophers at various times. It is easy enough to debate this question in a purely cerebral way without ever dealing with the consequences of our ideas. However, if we alter the question slightly such hypothetical discussions become much more difficult and unhelpful. So… Are there standards? Well, the obvious answer is yes. For instance, if there were no grammatical standards written communication would be impossible. What about in parenting? Are there standards in parenting? Here is an article from ABC News about a woman who tries to say answer this question in the negative. She is leading the way in movements called un-schooling and un-parenting.

The whole un-philosophy is built on freedom and autonomy. When asked about rules she said, “Because we don’t punish, we don’t use the term rules.” Here is the problem. Even if I decide not to use the term gravity, it still exists.  If gravity exists, I had better understand the rules that apply before I get to the edge of a cliff. Denying standards does not mean they do not exist, it simply means we are out of touch with reality.

In the end, the un-mom’s practice betrays her philosophy. When teaching a mom how to un-school and un-parent (a conundrum in and of itself) an issue came up with how many cookies to let the kids eat. Her answer? “When you set up things with limits, you’re setting up a scenario of kids sneaking things.” Wait a minute. You don’t want the kids sneaking cookies, so you let them have as many as they want?

There are two underlying assumptions that are problematic. First, there is an assumption that it is bad to sneak things. This assumption is not problematic because it is wrong, this assumption is problematic because it is right. By operating on the assumption that sneaking things is wrong and letting the kids have as many cookies as they want, you are still submitting to the standard.

The second assumption is more subtle. The thought of the un-mom goes like this.

1. Sneaking things is bad.
2. If I give my kids whatever they want, they won’t sneak things.
3. If my kids don’t sneak things, they aren’t doing that thing which is bad.
4. Therefore, I will give my kids whatever they want.

The deadly assumption is that if we curb an undesirable behavior then we’re all good regardless of the motivation behind that behavior. This is simply un-true. Sneaking things is a symptom of selfishness, flesh-worship, and a lack of self-control. Eating a whole bag of cookies because you want to is also a symptom of selfishness, flesh-worship, and a lack of self-control. The symptom is not the problem, it only alerts us to the problem.

The article states, “Martin said she has ‘such a present-based mind-set’ that she doesn’t think about her kids’ futures, and that she just wants them to be happy.” In the end, a standard does exist. Her kids’ happiness is the standard. None of us wants our kids or ourselves to be unhappy. However, when we set up human happiness, whether it is ours, our kids’, or someone else’s, as our standard we are setting up a fleshy idol.

While we may not be as open with our idol building as the un-mom, we are all guilty of serving our flesh in our pursuit of happiness rather than God’s glory. This is sin. When our flesh becomes the standard, we are guilty of the very thing Paul writes about in Romans 1.18-32. Professing wise, we have become fools by exalting ourselves, the creature, over God, the Creator. Nevertheless, there is good news, for the gospel says, “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5.8, ESV). Yes, while I was still walking in sin and justifying myself with all kinds of un-excuses and un-philosophies, Christ, the one who knew no sin, became sin for me that I might become the righteousness of God. Christ subjected himself to the standards, which I denied that I might be forgiven for living as a fool.

A couple months ago I saw a Facebook prayer posted in someone’s status that read, “Dear Lord, this year you took my favorite actor, Patrick Swayzie. You took my favorite actress, Farah Fawcett. You took my favorite singer, Michael Jackson. I just wanted to let you know, my favorite president is Barack Obama. Amen.” This silly prayer has raised lots of questions for me that I think are good for all of us to think about. Feel free to respond.

1. Is this funny? Why/why not?
2. What makes something funny?
3. Does this prayer accord with the Word of God?
4. Does this prayer take the Lord’s name in vain?
5. How do I reconcile such a prayer, even if we take it as humor, with Peter’s exhortation to “honor everyone” including the emperor?
6. How do I reconcile such a prayer, even if we take it as humor, with Paul’s exhortation to Timothy that “supplication, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions…”?
7. Is it necessary for humor to accord with the Word of God? Why/why not?
8. Why do I find pleasure in such vain entertainment?
9. Why am I not so offended by sin that it is not entertaining?

This week I was in Germantown, TN for a meeting. Germantown is a fancy suburb of Memphis, a town with a less than glorious reputation. As we drove around Germantown I saw a sign that read, “Say no to panhandling.” What drives us to put up such signs? There are, of course, the official reasons for signs like this. We want to protect those who might panhandle at busy corners. We want to protect property values. We don’t want to be enablers. There are systems in place to help such people. Then there are the honest answers. We don’t like people like that. They make us uncomfortable. They are poor. They are dirty. They are really trying to take advantage of me. If they can ask for spare change they can ask if I want fries with that. We don’t like beggars. If I give them some change, they are going to buy alcohol with it (nevermind the fact that you were going to use that change for a sixer on the way home from work). If I give them something, they will somehow track me down and ask for more. The Lord helps those who help themselves.

I don’t know that any of the official or honest reasons hold any water at all, but I do know these reasons reveal our heart. I do know they reveal our pride. I do know they reveal our prejudices. I do know they reveal our lack of love. I do know they reveal that we think we are better than a panhandler. I do know they reveal our refusal to view all men as created in God’s image. And, I do know they betray our claims of understanding the gospel.

Genesis 1.27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” All men are image bearers of God, and as such all men should be honored as such. When we treat people as less than us because they have less than us, we deny this basic biblical truth.

The gospel says that we are sinners with nothing to offer, that we are beggars for God’s grace. When we despise beggars, we despise ourselves. When we demand certain behaviors before we extend the love of Christ, we implicitly add works to the gospel. May we who have received freely, give freely.

Francis Schaeffer’s book, Escape from Reason, is worth reading. It is worth reading multiple times. Early in my college career, Craig Loibner, the pastor of Fellowship North – the church where I grew up, recommended I start reading Francis Schaeffer. Specifically, he recommended that I read Escape from Reason. I respect Craig, so I read the book.  The first time I read the book, I knew it was important.  The first time I read the book, I knew it was helpful.  The first time I read the book, I had no idea what it was about. For someone given to experience in life over-and-against thoughtfulness about life, this book, which is thoroughly bent on thoughtfulness about life, only shook my foudation.  However, the truths that Schaeffer set forth would, overtime, seep down into the newly formed cracks in my foundation, solidify, and eventually obliterate the fairly pure though profoundly unexamined existentialism on which I built my life. Over the last ten-or-so years, I have revisited this book time-and-time-again. At present I am finishing yet another reading of Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason and was struck again by the closing paragraphs of chapter six.

I have come to the point where, when I hear the word ‘Jesus’ – which means so much to me because of the Person of the historic Jesus and His work – I listen carefully because I have with sorrow become more afraid of the word ‘Jesus’ than almost any other word in the modern world. The word is used as a contentless banner, and our generation is invited to follow it. But there is no rational, scriptural content by which to test it, and thus the word is being used to teach the very opposite things from which Jesus taught. Men are called to follow the word with highly motivated fervency, and nowhere more than in the new morality which follows the New Theology. It is now Jesus-like to sleep with a girl or a man, if she or he needs you. As long as you are trying to be human you are being Jesus-like to sleep with the other person, at the cost, be it noted, of breaking the specific morality which Jesus taught. But to these men this does not matter, because that is downstairs in the area of rational scriptural content.

We have come then to this fearsome place where the word ‘Jesus’ has become the enemy of the Person Jesus, and the enemy of what Jesus taught. We must fear this contentless banner of the word ‘Jesus’ not because we do not love Jesus, but because we do love Him. We must fight this contentless banner, with its deep motivations, rooted into the memories of the race, which is being used for the purpose of sociological form and control. We must teach our spiritual children to do the same.

This accelerating trend makes me wonder whether, when Jesus said that towards the end-time there will be other Jesuses, He meant something like this. We must never forget that the great enemy who is coming is the anti-Christ. He is not the anti-non-Christ. He is anti-Christ. Increasingly over the last few years the word ‘Jesus’, separated from the content of the Scriptures, has become the enemy of the Jesus of history, the Jesus who died and rose and who is coming again and who is the eternal Son of God. So let us take care. If evangelical Christians begin to slip into a dichotomy, to separate an encounter with Jesus from the content of Scriptures (including the discussable and the verifiable), we shall, without intending to, be throwing ourselves and the next generation into the millstream of the modern system. This system surrounds us as an almost monolithic consensus.