Christmas Is for Those Who Hate It Most

Matt B. Redmond has written what I consider a significant article by the same title I named this article. I encourage you to go read it.

The reason I say it's a significant is because of the reason for Christmas. I know we say that Jesus is the reason for the season. This is true. It's a bit more thoughtful to point to the gospel and recognize that the incarnation of Christ is central to the gospel. But Christ Himself said that "[He] came not to call the righteous but sinners" (Mark 2:7). It is the righteous who seem to know best the meaning of Christmas.

But we all know that the Holiday season is a time of great sorrow for many. They aren't sorrowful because of the celebration of the coming of Christ. They are sorrowful because particular needs are made poignant by the excess of commercial celebration that fails to assuage the ills of this world. These people have no particular love for the season of Christmas. Yet it is precisely for these people that Christ came.

From Matt Redmond's article, a list of people for whom Christ came:

Jesus’ first recorded worshipers were not of the beautiful class. They were poor, ugly shepherds, beat down by life and labor. They had been looked down on over many a nose.

• Jesus came for those who look in the mirror and see ugliness.
• Jesus came for daughters whose fathers never told them they were beautiful.
• Christmas is for those who go to “wing night” alone.
• Christmas is for those whose lives have been wrecked by cancer, and the thought of another Christmas seems like an impossible dream.
• Christmas is for those who would be nothing but lonely if not for social media.
• Christmas is for those whose marriages have careened against the retaining wall and are threatening to flip over the edge.
• Christmas is for the son whose father keeps giving him hunting gear when he wants art materials.
• Christmas is for smokers who cannot quit even in the face of a death sentence.
• Christmas is for prostitutes, adulterers, and porn stars who long for love in every wrong place.
• Christmas is for college students who are sitting in the midst of the family and already cannot wait to get out for another drink.
• Christmas is for those who traffic in failed dreams.
• Christmas is for those who have squandered the family name and fortune—they want “home” but cannot imagine a gracious reception.
• Christmas is for parents watching their children’s marriage fall into disarray.

We celebrate with gifts, and such bear the mark of Christmas in that Christ is the greatest gift. However, Christmas gifts with no message of the coming of Christ are given in vain. Give a gift of hope this season to someone who really needs it - someone who may not be particularly comfortable to be around because of their lowly state. But it is for such as these that Christ came.

...and read the whole article.

HT: Justin Taylor

Finding Comfort in the Will of God

I was involved in a discussion the other day regarding the will of God and what comforts us in times of great trial, specifically the loss of a loved one. The other side of the discussion consisted of a vague notion that God wouldn't allow bad things to happen. I can't state an incoherent argument coherently except to say that the reason it is incoherent is because it is essentially visceral and not scripturally based.

I pointed out that God is sovereign, all of us deserve to die and that unless Christ returns in a premillennial fashion we will all die, physically that is. So the truth is that there is nothing wrong with the observation that God causes us all to die one way or the other. He is right to do so and it is his will.

In response, I was told that people who were suffering loss shouldn't be told that the death of their loved one was the will of God. Additionally, it was pointed out, such a discourse to someone who was suffering loss could be driven away from God if they thought that God caused their loved one to be taken from them.

I'm sure my reply was not fully understood at the time, but I responded with our desire for the true God as our source of comfort. To elaborate:

First, we are all sinners who deserve death. Therefore, no means of the death of sinners is intrinsically evil. For example, a tornado that kills sinful people is not a bad thing. Or a murderer killing sinful people is not a bad thing. It is evil to murder, but that a sinner was murdered is not evil. The distinction is important to understand. God, who has no sin, is not a murderer for killing sinful people in cold blood. That we are horrified by the death of sinners should not inform our thinking on the nature of death as a result of sin. Otherwise, we fail to understand the nature of sin and our dire need for a savior.

Second, our desire is to be for God. It's not that we can try to desire God and succeed, for the very act of trying is founded on the desire we already have. Therefore, the desire is always first. But if we desire God then we would desire his will, whatever it is.

Now it is true that there are many who desire God according some misconception they have about God, but this is a desire for a false God because it is based on the notion of a god who does not exist. That is, that if our concept of God is not according to his revelation of himself to us then we have construed a false god in which to place our faith.

It may be that there are aspects of God that have not been revealed to us or that we have not come to a full understanding of God as we continue to learn about him. However, inasmuch as the gospel of Christ is central to his revelation to us, as long as we get the core of the gospel right, then we understand the essentials about who God is and the rest we ponder and refine throughout our lives as we grow in faith.

But with regard to the gospel, if we do not apprehend the depth of our sinfulness and God's sovereignty as creator, then we cannot understand the gospel of Christ. (There are other things to know in order to understand the gospel, but these two are key to this discussion.) If we think in any way that we are intrinsically worth saving, then we have to think that God has relinquished some aspects of his sovereignty in creation to us or we will think God blameworthy of the deaths of good people everywhere.

However, if we know the depths of our sinfulness, then we know that any desire we have for God comes from God himself and we rejoice in his sovereignty. For such who know this, it is comforting to know that the death of a loved one is the will of God. We may weep sorrowfully if we knew they they rejected God and we will see them no longer. On the other hand, if we saw the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, namely faith in God and the atoning work of Christ, then we can weep for joy in knowing that they have gone on before us and we are parted only for a short time.

For one who doesn't know the gospel as such there is no comfort except a false hope in a lie. For those who know it truly such as have fully placed their trust in Christ the only comfort is in the will of God; and as we display that comfort, God is most glorified.

Bearing the Forgiveness of God

Timmy Brister brought up a great question about the place of forgiveness.

Do we forgive unconditionally?:

"Sin/Offense –> Forgiveness –>Repentance –> Reconciliation (Unconditional)"

Or do we forgive conditionally?:

"Sin/Offense –> Repentance –> Forgiveness –> Reconciliation (Conditional)"

He gave arguments for both and asked his readers for observations. Here's mine:

"Clarifying what entails forgiveness is key and the role both the human forgiver plays as well as the role that God plays in the life of the sinner. When I first started skimming through this article to determine if I should read more deeply, I thought you were talking about the forgiveness of God. When I realized that you were talking about human forgiveness, then I had to ask myself the question, “What’s the difference?”

"That is to say that true forgiveness comes from God. Inasmuch as we practice the pattern of forgiveness, we imitate God, but we cannot forgive as Christ forgave. Only Christ can pay for sin. That means that when we extend forgiveness to the unrepentant, we bring the gospel to bear on the situation. Our conscience in the matter is cleansed at that time and the rest must be according to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

"However, God can extend forgiveness himself when we have not and one can repent when no human forgiveness has been extended. At this moment it becomes incumbent on the one who has not extended forgiveness to do so lest they become the sinner and repentance can bring this about.

"At this, the two scenarios you offer break down because the true forgiveness from God logically precedes the sin. If we practice God’s forgiveness, then we must anticipate sin and be prepared to extend forgiveness where no sin has occurred yet. This is especially true for the Christian because we have already been forgiven. And if we don’t live like this, then we endanger our assurance."

Forgiveness is not a matter of whether is it conditional or not. It's a matter of whether we are prepared to live out the gospel of grace in the form of forgiveness to sinners who need Christ.

Beautiful Feet

How beautiful the feet of those who bring the gospel of Christ.

Some Accounts from Venezuela

The team made it safely home from Venezuela. Lois and the kids are still there with Pastor Darwin, his family, Ised and the whole church. They'll be going with them to the Yucpas after a week. I'll have some photos to share soon if Lois doesn't beat me to it, but I wanted to offer a couple of accounts right away.

We showed up to do a carnival next to a baseball diamond and discovered that a semi-famous baseball player (don't ask me his name - I'm sports illiterate) had come to do a baseball clinic for some boys. One of our team, Hank Dahl, had come prepared for a baseball clinic with an evangelistic emphasis and talked to the man. He was a Christian and agreed to let Hank and a few of our men help out and share the gospel with the boys.

A boy, cousin to someone in the church, had been badly burned. Amazingly, he says it was Jesus who pulled him from the fire. He was released from the hospital because the bills were too high - not because he was well enough (that's socialized medicine for you). We sent a few people to his home pray for him. His uncle, known to be an alcoholic, was in a nearby house and was moved by the Holy Spirit to get up and visit. He found the team there and heard the gospel and came to Christ. That night while we were at the church he came in and exuberantly shared his testimony of that day how the Holy Spirit made him get up so that he would hear and finally understand the gospel (he had heard it before countless times, but had never submitted to the Truth). His family testifies that he is indeed a different man.

"Ghandi" and Pedro (a father-son team) have been our bus drivers for the past couple of years. This was the third time they've driven for us.The first year they drove for us, we discovered that although they have driven for Christian teams in the past, no one had ever shared the gospel with them. Ised, our Venezuelan missionary, shared the gospel with them then and they both accepted it. Now, two years later, having seen us minister with the gospel, we were at a location where a security guard was nearby. They went to him and shared the gospel with him. I don't know that he accepted, but it shows the effects of a consistent and persistent ministry: Men, for whom God used us to bring into His presence, are now our fellow ministers among us. How blessed we are to see our Lord grow His people.

Safety in the Workplace

Forgive my pride. My plant has done very well in recent years. Kewaunee Scientific Corporation has received the Certificate of Safety Achievement from the North Carolina Department of Labor for the fifth consecutive year. Last year, when we received it for the 4th year we were to understand that it was a first in North Carolina. Needless to say, a fifth year is quite an accomplishment. Kewaunee has four manufacturing groups and a distribution center. My group produces and fabricates solid-surface chemical-resistant work surfaces and sinks for fume hoods, benches (counter tops for cabinet assemblies) and tables. We also produce and fabricate liner for fume hoods and acid units and cut float glass for the other plants. The Resin Plant has distinguished itself for going injury-free for seventeen months now.

So they recognized us and awarded us with nice shirts, cupcakes and a photo op. Here are the people I keep busy every day:



The Plant manager, Clint Webber, is the tallest guy in the back on the left. I'm just in from the right about the third row back. Slightly obscured to the left of me is Keith Smith, the VP of manufacturing. I've worked with him since he was a lowly manufacturing engineer in the metal plant. My "secretary", Gary, is the big guy on the far left. Not pictured are the three amigos on second shift. If Clint gets their picture tonight, I'll update this with it.

Some of these people are Christian. A few are strong, but many are nominally so. A few follow a false gospel. Of the three ladies in the front, the one in the center is Carla, a strong sister in Christ. She doesn't tire of bearing the gospel to many of these people daily. Just behind her to her left and right is Tim and Ned. Ned is a deacon in his church and Tim is the pastor of a small country church. So, thank God that we have remained safe in the place we work. Pray for those who don't know Christ at all, but also for those who think they do, but could know Him better (hey, that could include me).

In any case, I count myself blessed to work among all these people.

How Do You Do Church?

I don’t mean to keep harping on the Regulative Principle, but the matter of ecclesiology keeps pegging away on the radar screen of my intellectual air space and I can’t help but to think that if I write about it it’ll go away and leave me to write about other things.

Tominthebox News Network continues to use exquisite humor (with the caveat that this compliment comes from someone whose sense of humor has been described recently as “corny”) to illumine our penchant for theological error. A recent article shared the pamphlet of a fictional church that combined a poor hermeneutical principle with the Regulative Principle to produce some interesting ecclesiological (how we do church and why we do it that way) results.

Hermeneutics are the principles we use to understand what the Bible means. For example, we use hermeneutics to determine if the word “all” in a passage means everyone everywhere, or just all of a certain type of people (population of a city or faith affiliation), or all ethnic groups but not everyone of every ethnic group. Perhaps you’ve heard a preacher refer to the number of times the Bible says something. I’ve heard this with regard to the teachings of Christ. It is noted by good teachers of the Bible that Christ mentions eternal condemnation at least as much as He mentions the kingdom of heaven. This isn’t necessarily a bad observation, but it makes for a poor hermeneutical principle. In other words, all Christ had to do was mention it once for us to know about it. Multiple mentions may indicate emphasis, but not necessarily.

In the case of this fictional church, they took this principle and counted the number of times different types of worship were mentioned in the Bible to determine their importance in worship. If it’s mentioned in the bible, it’s fair game as far as the Regulative Principle is concerned. If it’s not in there, don’t do it. Here’s the breakdown according to this pamphlet:

• Singing: "The Bible mentions "singing" 20 times (NIV)."
• Lifting Hands: "Not coincidentally, the Bible also mentions the lifting of hands 20 times (NIV) proving that the lifting of hands is equally important as singing."
• Dancing: "In the Bible, dancing is referenced 14 times in the NIV. It's referenced 19 times in the KJV! So hop to it!"
• Ripping Clothes: "Mentioned 29 times in the NIV (32 in the KJV), individuals would "tear," had "torn," or unashamedly "tore" their clothes as a sign of humility [in worship]... Why not participate in an activity that is 50% more important than singing or hand lifting and up to 100% more important than dancing? Sackcloth is available in the foyer for 1st time visitors."

The logic sounds plausible, but the conclusion is silly. So what’s the answer?

Dusman has posted a couple of articles [one and two] at Triablogue regarding the form and function of church. These articles are a response to a theological error fueling a movement of house churches called the New Testament Reformation Fellowship. There’s nothing wrong with house churches, but it’s erroneous to think that meeting in homes is the only legitimate way to do church. (Tominthebox has addressed this one as well recently.)

Dusman’s articles trace the form of church back to the conversion of believers. Soteriology (the gospel – the area of theology that deals with our salvation) is the crown jewel of theology with Christology as it’s setting and Theology Proper (the doctrine of God) as the crown itself. This means that Christ’s work on the cross is singularly important to our being able to know God. Pneumatology, Anthropology, Harmatology, Bibliology, etc. all encircle this crown jewel and are unknowable without the gospel. The act itself, written accurately in the passages of Holy Scripture, transcends the capacity of mere words to convey the depth of God’s self-cohesion.

This cohesion is to be illustrated in our local fellowship as we bear one another’s burdens. Dusman argues therefore, that the function of a local fellowship follows conversion. Only then do we derive the form of church – from the function. Whether a fellowship of believers is a small house church or a megachurch, the form must bring believers together for the sake of propagating the gospel. He offers an abbreviation of 58 “one-anothers” found in the New Testament for our consideration:

In sum, we promise to…

honor one another,
be members of one another,
live in harmony with one another,
build one another up,
be like-minded towards one another,
accept one another,
care for one another,
serve one another,
bear one another's burdens,
be kind to one another,
forgive one another,
abound in love towards one another,
comfort one another,
encourage one another,
stir one another up to love and good deeds,
confess our sins to one another,
be hospitable to one another,
greet one another,
fellowship with one another,
submit to one another while
not passing judgment on one another,
not provoking one another,
not envying one another,
not hating one another,
not slandering one another,
and not bearing grudges against one another.

We do all this because Christ has loved us in each of these ways and this frees our hearts to love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34; 8:32).

And He loved us sacrificially. Consider this: do you focus on the form or the function of the church with regard to the glorification of Christ and the ministry of the gospel? Do you treat your fellow Christians like this?

Dawkins Hears the Gospel...

...from AIG-UK's Paul Taylor.

Whether he eventually responds in faith is a matter for the Holy Spirit. At least we know he's heard it.

Christmas Concert Video

A week ago I finished editing the video for the Christmas concert series at my church presented on December 7, 8 and 9. I've made the DVD and have uploaded the video. Most of the video is on GodTube, but it's a little buggy. However, YouTube has a nice feature where I can string several videos together in a playlist. I can even create a custom viewer. I've got all the video uploaded now to YouTube. So, if you have an hour and a half to sit back and enjoy a Christmas Concert over the Internet, now is your chance.

Here is the lineup:

Title	0:00:21
Pastor Skip: Opening Prayer	0:01:06
Prelude 1	0:02:51
Prelude 2	0:04:18
Slegh Medley	0:03:48
Joy	0:03:29
Glorious Impossible	0:05:07
O Come All Ye Faithful	0:02:30
Bell Carol Medley	0:04:55
O Holy Night	0:05:43
Carol Medley	0:06:29
John 1	0:05:11
Jesus Messiah	0:06:53
For Unto Us	0:04:14
Sound of the Round	0:04:29
He Came All This Way	0:04:28
Jeff Spry: Gospel	0:06:10
Skip Cartin: Gospel	0:05:35
In Christ Alone	0:05:03
How Great Is Our God	0:07:01
Halleluiah Chorus	0:06:41
Total Time	1:36:22

Here is the video:

Pember-Rhapsody

rhap·so·dy (rps-d) KEY

NOUN:
pl. rhap·so·dies

1. Exalted or excessively enthusiastic expression of feeling in speech or writing.
2. A literary work written in an impassioned or exalted style.
3. A state of elated bliss; ecstasy.
4. Music A usually instrumental composition of irregular form that often incorporates improvisation.
5. An ancient Greek epic poem or a portion of one suitable for uninterrupted recitation.

ETYMOLOGY:
Latin rhapsdia, section of an epic poem, from Greek rhapsidi, from rhapsidein, to recite poems : rhaptein , rhaps-, to sew; see wer- ² in Indo-European roots + aoid, id, song; see wed- ² in Indo-European roots

Provided by Houghton Mifflin


I've chosen this term to indicate a post where I mix together unrelated elements. Yet in the grand scheme of things it is all ultimately related in import and ideology. It's musical, poetic, eclectic, diverse yet harmonious. To illustrate the diversity in my own life I offer to you another round of Bela Fleck:

-

-

Fusion Jazz brings styles together in unique ways. Bela not only incorporates styles, but he brings together instruments that are not typically used together. Who would think to use a banjo, steel drums and bassoon together? My life is like this. A mixture of cultures, endeavors, gifts and abilities. I don't know that any of the men in this band are Christian. I would pray that they are or that they are made alive in Christ if they are not.

I've been reading the Bible with the kids in the evening. They've gotten to where they really like this. They beg to read yet another chapter. We always do a psalm with whatever we read and we have been doing them in order as we go through Matthew. They have been astonished as to how the Psalms seem to match up with what we just read as though it was planned that way. Last night, Hope tried to read ahead to see how they would match up. I feigned scorn and said, "Don't do that! What are you trying to do, read the Bible or something?"

Two nights ago we read the end of Matthew which included the tearing of the veil at the time of Jesus' death. I looked up a drawing of the tabernacle and explained how the temple was built to be like a "permanent" tabernacle. The veil separates us from the holy of holies where God's presence was to be. Once a year a priest would go in and if he did one thing wrong he could die. The other priests would have to drag him out without going in there themselves. So I asked the kids what the veil was for.

"It separates us from God," they concluded after thinking about it a short bit.

"What happened to it's purpose when it was torn," I asked?

"We weren't separated from Him anymore," Luke said with a smile.

Hope's eyes got big and an excited smile came across her face. "Hey! I know why Jesus had to die," she exclaimed. "If we do something wrong, we die. He died so that we wouldn't die if we messed up."

Bingo.

My friend Kim posted some pictures of her Christmas decor, so I'll return the favor. I endeavored to photograph the lights and played around with the manual settings on my cheap digital camera. Here are the results:



This is the front of the house.


Paul and Hope sitting on the porch railing under the icicle lights. Icicles in the NC piedmont? They're rare and never this large.


Detail of the stuff hanging on the lattice.


The tree in the front room. Yes, it's in front of the fireplace. We rarely use the fireplace anyway, but it would be nice to decorate the fireplace and put the tree elsewhere. However, there is no elsewhere for the tree.


Detail of the tree with knick-knacks on the mantle. The partially occluded bear is definitely part of the Christmas decor. The painted terra cotta doll is from Venezuela. The framed thing is a wedding invitation that someone colored and framed and presented to us on our wedding.

Most of the ornaments on the tree are an ecclectic collection of gifts and crafts. It's homey, but meaningful, and certainly fits the Rhapsody theme.

And, since I am a bit of a Trekkie, I took this silly Star Trek personality quiz:

Your results:
You are An Expendable Character (Redshirt)

An Expendable Character (Redshirt) 75% Data 68% Deanna Troi 65% Beverly Crusher 60% Uhura 60% Worf 55% James T. Kirk (Captain) 50% Will Riker 50% Geordi LaForge 45% Chekov 45% Jean-Luc Picard 45% Spock 44% Mr. Sulu 25% Mr. Scott 20% Leonard McCoy (Bones) 20%

Since your accomplishments are seldom noticed, and you are rarely thought of, you are expendable. That doesn't mean your job isn't important but if you were in Star Trek you would be killed off in the first episode you appeared in.

Click here to take the Star Trek Personality Test

Ok - That's disappointing. I'm expendable. I may sing the occasional solo at church, but by and large what I do, or what I can do, indeed goes unnoticed. The solos are fluff.

Look back at the previous post and see the photo of me dressed up like the 1940s. I've always said that the 40s was my era. WWII was my war. Glenn Miller was my band leader. There was a man named Mark Ma who saw that the gospel had progressed westward since the Great Commission. Now the great frontier of the gospel was China. In the 1940s, Mark Ma had a vision to take the gospel beyond China and traverse the nations between China and the Holy Land to take the gospel to the people of those lands back to Jerusalem. His vision was halted by the Chinese government. Over the years the vision dimmed and was nearly lost when it was discovered by Chinese Christians over a decade ago. Now the vision is in full swing. Last night I heard from Chinese missionaries that the vision is being realized with the sending of Chinese missionaries into the "-stan" countries.

Mark Ma was stopped and never saw his vision realized. He was marginalized and passed into the next world unaware of the impact his vision would have. He was expendable, but he will not be forgotten.

Investigation of Common Sense by Someone Who Has Very Little

My wife claims I have no common sense… Okay, I just asked her and she clarified that I have “very little” common sense.

I asked her, secondly, if she had common sense and she casually nodded and said, “Yes.”

My final question for her was to ask how she defines common sense. She replied that common sense is “doing normal everyday things without thinking much about it.”

Then she saw me typing these things up and asked, “You’re not going to make fun of me, are you?”

Well, certainly not intentionally. Of course I have “very little” common sense, so who knows? She never reads my blogs, so she’ll never know. She did ask me how I define common sense. My initial formulation was, “An intuitive approach to applying one’s worldview to situational responses.” It’s rough and bears refinement. Perhaps I thought too much about it.

The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary defines common sense as “Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.” It looks like my wife was not too far off base. Perhaps the simplest consideration based on this definition is that those who have more specialized knowledge or understanding than is found in relevant populations of people in general would necessarily lack common sense. They would have, rather, “uncommon” sense.

However, what I was trying to say with my definition is more in keeping with Wikipedia’s treatment of the concept:

One meaning of common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, commonsense, common-sense or commonsensical), based on a strict deconstruction of the term, is what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding. Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people "in common". The knowledge and experience most people have, or are believed to have by the person using the term.

Whatever definition is considered apt, identifying particular items of knowledge that are "common sense" is more difficult. Philosophers may choose to avoid using the phrase where precise language is required. Common sense is a perennial topic in epistemology and widely used or referred to by many philosophers. Some related concepts include intuitions, pre-theoretic belief, ordinary language, the frame problem, foundational beliefs, endoxa, and axioms.

Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale. Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.

The Wikipedia article goes on from there into a discussion of historical philosophical considerations related to “common sense”.

Another term for knowledge “held by people ‘in common’” is knowledge that has been “normalized”. Such knowledge may be fundamentally flawed. For example, it was common sense for centuries in Europe that bathing washed away that healthy layer of grime from the outside of one’s body exposing one to certain ill. Of course, this was perhaps based on the observation that when one bathed in the winter especially, one died of pneumonia. Of course, we know better than this today. Right? Actually, how certain can we be of what we know? If people in Europe could be so commonly deluded then, what common delusions could we be subject to today?

In this respect, common sense could be used to manipulate groups of people through deception. To understand how this works, it helps to understand how principles and worldviews work. Worldviews are made up of sets of principles. As an individual encounters situations, these principles are applied to produce responses that are appropriate according to the worldview.

In truth, there is only one valid worldview. In a fallen world, we tend to possess flawed and conflicted (or conflicting) worldviews manifested as competing inclinations to produce responses to the various situations that we encounter. We are born with a basic worldview of utter dependence and develop a worldview as we mature. This development is learned through three venues: genetic predisposition, experience and observation, and revelation.

Genetic predisposition. We each are predisposed to have certain temperaments and levels of drives. As fallen beings we typically spend our lives trying to overcome the sinful tendency to overindulge these temperaments and drives.

Experience and observation. With only six senses (including balance), this is perhaps the broadest category. On one end of the spectrum, stressful or traumatic events can affect our genetic predispositions. On the other end of the spectrum, vicarious experience through education may modify our worldview with apparent self-intent. Most commonly, our worldview is informed through experience and observation by the normalization of quasi-philosophical sentiments reinforced through repetition in various media and socialization. It’s this aspect that at once contributes to common sense (and common delusion). More on this in a moment.

While some may deny revelation, they cannot deny creativity. Creativity is one aspect of revelation. Visions and dreams are another. Revelation uses what we know and creates new information from it. Revelation also involves evaluation in that information we receive must be assigned a value. For those of us who are Christian, we heard the gospel (experience), saw the effects of the gospel in the lives of others (observation), the Holy Spirit revealed it as truth by causing us to recognize ourselves in the equation. We subsequently assigned great value to the information and we reanalyzed our lives (previous experiences, observations and predispositions) in light of the new worldview created by this revelation. Thus, revelation is the most powerful venue for worldview development. This is why many deny it.

Within this framework, as I stated earlier, common sense can be understood to be a way to “manipulate groups of people through deception.” Who would do such a thing? Power brokers following the lead of the Deceiver himself. Examples abound. Hitler’s propaganda is an obvious one.

As my earlier example of bathing in Europe illustrates, common sense can also be simply wrong. Entire societies have flourished and are flourishing while holding things to be true that aren’t. Sometimes it’s the odd bird that challenges common sense in search of the truth that is otherwise kept at a proverbial arms distance by the rest of society unwilling to test the veracity of commonly held beliefs. Sometimes these odd birds are venerated.

Sometimes these odd birds are sought out for destruction for bearing the truth to a people who are being fed lies intentionally. Such is the danger of bearing the gospel in fulfillment of the Great Commission. So, Christians have thought about it and we are called to challenge the status quo in favor of the gospel. We have particular knowledge. Too often we Christians exhibit too much “common sense” theology and end up with such beliefs as fitting for semi-pelagianism. We are therefore called to think not once, but continually, about whom God is and seek ever to know Him more clearly. We are called to uncommon sense.

Perhaps I don’t have much common sense. But I think I’ll be just fine without it.