Age Segregation

Michael Glodo writes:

“The Church, as a demonstration of God’s riches and power, should be made up of people who would normally not associate with one another otherwise. Conversely, the church where this reconciling effect is absent testifies to the absence or impotence of the Gospel. This raises a very serious question. I realize this will be controversial, not so much because the doctrine is not clear, but because its consequences strike at some of the most deeply ingrained practices of many evangelical Christians. Of course, an obvious implication is that racial and economic segregation in the church are contrary to the very nature of the Gospel. It also makes clear why class bigotry is hostile to the Gospel. But another conclusion also seems inescapable: churches, and more specifically worship services, which are targeted to specific age groups to the exclusion of others share a fundamental failure to comprehend the heart of the Gospel. The problem plainly stated is that building the church on age appeal is as contrary to the reconciling effect of the Gospel as building it on class, race, or gender distinctions. Add to this conclusion the fact that the family is the normal way in which the Gospel is to be propagated. The primary way in which the Gospel is to come to young people is through older generations. Anything that reduces interaction between generations in the church works counter to the covenant family.”

This has a lot to do with how I do church and friendship and small groups and Sunday-lunches and socials. What is the common bond at my church? Do people feel left out because something other than Christ seems to be a basis of unity? Should small groups so overwhelmingly segregate age groups, regardless of the immediate benefit of easy connections? Should I keep exclusively inviting so many people of the same age group to lunch? What can I do to have substantial interaction with much older and much younger believers in Christ? God is glorified in a diverse church, because it more clearly points to the one Lord, one faith, and one baptism that unites us.

A Simple Way to Read Faster

The following is from p. 40 of “How to Read a Book“, by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren. Note that the author points out that speed reading is often benefitial to inspectional reading, but not always to analytical reading.

Fixation and Regression

Speed reading courses properly make such of the discovery–we have known it for half a century of more–that most people continue to sub-vocalize for years after they are first taught to read. Films of eye movements, furthermore, show that the eyes of young or untrained readers “fixate” as many as five or six times in the course of each line that is read. (The eye is blind when it moves; it can only see when it stops.) Thus single words or at the most two-word or three-word phrases are being read at a time, in jumps across the line. Even worse than that, the eyes of incompetent readers regress as often as once every two or three lines–that is, they return to phrases or sentences previously read.

All of these habits are wasteful and obviously cut down reading speed. They are wasteful because the mind, unlike the eye, does not need to “read” only a word or short phrase at a time. The mind, that astounding instrument, can grasp a sentence or even a paragraph at a “glance”–if only the eyes will provide it with the information it needs. Thus the primary task–recognized as such by all speed reading courses–is to correct the fixations and regressions that slow so many readers down. Fortunately, this can be done quite easily. Once it is done, the student can read as fast as his mind will let him, not as slow as his eyes make him.

There are various devices for breaking eye fixations, some of them complicated and expensive. Usually, however, it is not necessary to employ any device more sophisticated than your own hand, which you can train yourself to follow as it moves more and more quickly across and down the page. You can do this yourself. Place your thumb and first two fingers together. Sweep this “pointer” across a line of type, a little faster than it is comfortable for your eyes to move. Force yourself to keep up with your hand. You will very soon be able to read the words as you follow you hand. Keep practicing this, and keep increasing the speed at which your hand moves, and before you know it you will have doubled or trebled your reading speed.

A Tidal Wave in East Pakistan

From pp. 39-40 of David Keller’s “Great Disasters: The Most Shocking Moments in History“:

In East Pakistan, in 1970, [a tsunami] killed almost half a million people. East Pakistan (it’s now called Bangladesh) had been hit with gigantic waves before, but none with the force and destruction of this one.

It all started with a cyclone roaring through the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean. Winds blew at over 100 miles per hour. The storm was so fierce that it churned up a huge surge of water, aimed directly at East Pakistan. For hours the people had watched as the winds whipped and the rain fell in sheets. Then the wave struck. Twenty feet high and miles wide, it swept over the Pakistani coast and flooded over 3,000 square miles of land.

Thousands of people were crused or pulled out to sea to drown. On the largest island off the coast, 200,000 people were killed. On many smaller islands, no one was left alive at all.

One of the reasons that there were so many deaths is that Pakistan had so many people: nearly 1,000 for every square mile of land. Most of the country is on land not much higher than the ocean itself, so there was no high ground to run to. Another reason is that the peopl were unprepared for the storm. There had been another storm just a few weeks before, and many people fled the coast. But the storm died out and nothing happened. This time many people thought the same thing would happen again and stayed where they were. By the time the wave hit, it was too late to run.

Tell a Bible Story

There was a group of men
Who loved a casual meeting
Who said, “Let’s quit this crusty way
Of scripture preaching-teaching!”

Their cry was strong
Their evidence long
“Where Jesus walks, there we meet
HE WAS NOT AN EXEGETE!”

“He told good stories, didn’t go
From verse to verse telling so
What Paul and Peter said.
In that postmoderns dread.”

So met they did as a church
With the catchy theme, “for truth we search”
Mouths were opened for the feeding
Desperate hearts for living words

But all they got was fizz and froth
Instead of meat they swallowed broth
Barraged with everybody’s “story”
Missing out on all the glory

Thus in the end, it was ironic
Those who claimed to have the tonic
Purged word from Sunday morning
And gave cause for spiritual mourning

Be Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak

Aaron, Aaron, choose a softer seed
Do not break the bruiséd reed
Be quick to listen, slow to speak
Show strength in Christ by being weak
Pray for the ones you want to love
Before you open floodgates of
Empty words and caustic tones
Which only make for shrinking groans
At night when sin and shame come to mind

Oh,
your
aching,
writhing,
wrenching
mind

Doubly you err in such a day
In two ways you have gone astray
First, you loose the rudder of your ship
From the restraint of a godly grip
Secondly you brush aside
With shocking God-ignoring pride
What He above first thinks of you
What He above alone can do
Seek chiefly the favor of your God
Lest your belief be mere facade

Conversation Questions

What do you think is most important to believe? Could you spend a few minutes trying to persuade me of it?

Would you consider yourself genuine or hypocritical according to your own standards?

Which religion do you think is most wrong and hypocritical?

What have you been thinking about lately?

What do you think is a bigger source of moral problems for humans: internal influences or external influences?

This is Compassionate Calvinism

Every man has built for himself a house of mind, and holds dear the belongings which he possesses within. The foundation beneath his house—where his beloved affections, worship, treasures of joy, and sources of value and acceptance are—sustains all that which he loves in the framework of his thinking. The house is built in glory to his master, either Satan, or the God of Jacob.

To the glory of God, Christians characteristically live and think. For some, this means enjoying meat. For others, abstaining. For some, this means drinking wine in thanksgiving for God’s blessings. For others, abstaining. For some, this means exercising compassion on the poor by means of supporting socialism. For others, capitalism.

And for some this means assuming free-will to make sense of human decisioning and responsibility and non-coercion. This attempt at coherence, to the glory of God. For others, the working of God in a person to will and to act according to His purpose. This, to the glory of God.

Indeed, to question God’s sovereignty over our wills is rebellion. Indeed, to stubbornly refuse to believe God’s word when He so explicitly describes His determining, defining, irresistible will is downright sin. But who I am to devastate another’s foundation so harshly, so as to destroy his house violently? Are not the treasures within his house the same treasures I cherish? Are we not members of one another?

“Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” –Romans 14:4

“Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ…” –Ephesians 4:15

Eugune Peterson says it better than I can in his interpretative paraphrase:

“Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don’t see things the way you do. And don’t jump all over them every time they do or say something you don’t agree with—even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently. For instance, a person who has been around for a while might well be convinced that he can eat anything on the table, while another, with a different background, might assume all Christians should be vegetarians and eat accordingly. But since both are guests at Christ’s table, wouldn’t it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn’t eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table. Do you have any business crossing people off the guest list or interfering with God’s welcome? If there are corrections to be made or manners to be learned, God can handle that without your help.” –Romans 14:1-4, The Message

This is compassionate Calvinism: to get a handle on the core values of Christ, the God-man. To zero-in on the crux of what it means to be godly: worshipping God and loving your neighbor. To subordinate all theology to the aim of love which issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

This is compassionate Calvinism: not to obliterate a man’s house of mind and leave it unsupported, but rather to gently, gradually, lovingly supply a better foundation. One conversation at a time. This new foundation is to be Biblical, solid, God-honoring, and man-humbling. It is to inspire acts of unseen love and obedience and prayer, all to the glory of God.

“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.” –Romans 14:17-18

See also

The Gospel: The Fragrance of Life and the Stench of Death

The words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:14-17:

“But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.” (ESV)

Check out how some paraphrase-ish translations put it:

“Our lives are a fragrance presented by Christ to God. But this fragrance is perceived differently by those being saved and by those perishing. To those who are perishing we are a fearful smell of death and doom. But to those who are being saved we are a life-giving perfume. And who is adequate for such a task as this?” -NLT

“In fact, God thinks of us as a perfume that brings Christ to everyone. For people who are being saved, this perfume has a sweet smell and leads them to a better life. But for people who are lost, it has a bad smell and leads them to a horrible death. No one really has what it takes to do this work.” -CEV

“For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task?” -NIV

Eugene Peterson doesn’t pull any punches in his interpretative-translation:

“Because of Christ, we give off a sweet scent rising to God, which is recognized by those on the way of salvation–an aroma redolent with life. But those on the way to destruction treat us more like the stench from a rotting corpse. This is a terrific responsibility. Is anyone competent to take it on?” -The Message

We are indeed a fragrance to those “who are being saved and among those who are perishing”, but as v. 16 shows, to those who are perishing, we are the fragrance (i.e. stench) from death to death. Of course, we are the fragrance of life and a stench of death via a life of God-exaltation, Christ-defined love, the exercising of a good heart, a pure conscience, and a sincere faith, and declaring the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26-28). An unbeliever has to be controlled by the “ruler of the kingdom of the air” (Ephesians 2) to find such beautiful things ugly!

“If the great things of religion are rightly understood, they will affect the heart. The reason why men are not affected by such infinitely great, important, glorious, and wonderful things, as they often hear and read of, in the word of God, is undoubtedly because they are blind; if they were not so, it would be impossible, and utterly inconsistent with human nature, that their hearts should be otherwise than strongly impressed, and greatly moved by such things.” –Jonathan Edwards

Secular Psychology

Teaches us to cope, rather than to pray to and rest in a Sovereign.

Teaches us to love ourselves, as if we needed to be taught (Ephesians 5:29).

Teaches us to take pills, but not to address the root-reason (the condemnation of humanity at the Fall; Romans 5:12-21) behind the chemical imbalances.

Teaches us to think well of ourselves, rather than that the intentions of our hearts are evil from youth (Genesis 8:21).

Teaches us to think we are the center of the universe.

Teaches us to think that feelings are always worth venting (Proverbs 29:11).

Teaches us to not be crazy for Christ.

Teaches us to have Pollyanna Optimism.

Teaches us not to hate sin.

Teaches us to be healthy rather than holy.

Teaches us to flatter, and never to rebuke.

Teaches us to spare the rod and hate our children (Proverbs 13:24).

Teaches us to not feel guilty for sin that God considers so bad that he prepares a hell of eternal conscious torment.

Teaches us to say, “it’s OK”, rather than, “I forgive you.”

Teaches us to not be shamed about our past sins (Romans 6:21).

Teaches us that you can address deep human problems of the mind without addressing the reality of God.

Teaches us that crazy murderers do not deserve to be put to death.

Teaches us that religion is good so long as it makes us feel good.

Teaches us that we have the power to liberate our mind from any undesirable state.

Teaches us to escape reality, rather than face it.

Teaches us to seek inner peace apart from being forgiven by the Holy of Holies.

Teaches us that if God did not exist, suicide would still be irrational.

Teaches us to seek happiness apart from Creator of pleasure.

Objective Truth vs. Subjective Attraction?

From I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist:

“Many beliefs that people hold today are not supported by evidence, but only by the subjective preferences of those holding them. People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. But truth is not a subjective matter of taste–it’s an objective matter of fact. In order to find truth, one must be ready tog ive up those subjective preferences in favor of objective facts. And facts are best discovered through logic, evidence, and science.” –From , by Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, and David Limbaugh (>>)

I sympathize with the quote, because it’s reacting to a culture that is attracted to cheap pleasures that are lies. People drink from the toilet of fictional works like the The Da Vinci Code rather than marvel at the screaming glory of the skies, the necessary inferences from mere existence (like eternality!), archaeology, and self-evidencing, corroborative, non-fictional, first-hand testimonies like the gospels.

But the quote rubs me the wrong way, because people don’t come to Christ through cold thinking. God shines in their heart to see the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. It is a subjective beauty *and* objective truth issue. That which is most beautiful is truthful, and that which is most truthful is beautiful. True beauty attests to truth, and truth is beautiful. If we don’t subjectively prefer truth, we haven’t seen it for what it is. We’re still believing a lie. If we aren’t concerned about objective truth and coherence and reality then we aren’t really attracted to true beauty. We’re subjectively attracted to cheap pleasures.

It’s impossible to prefer true beauty without assenting to great truths.