Government Soul: Taxing Generosity – 3
March 5th, 2009 by Dale Fincher
The last two days, I’ve been discussing some of the tax hikes the Obama administration is planning, particularly those aimed at donations to non-profits (and I run a non-profit). What has concerned me most, however is the rhetoric that is geared to gain support from people unfamiliar with the real issues. This not only hurts the soul of our culture but the souls of those playing word games.
Apparently Washington has been reading my blog…. 
… because this article was found on page 3 of the Wall Street Journal, “White House Rethinks Tax Hikes.”
Even congressional members of the Democratic Party are giving resistence, including the top tax writer who is chairman of the Finance Committee. You can read the article for the questions being raised.
Two comments stood out to me. One was by Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner when he said the tax proposals “affects only about 1.2% of taxpayers.” Yet, that’s not the point at all. This is still stuck in political spin. It’s not about how many taxpayers are affected, it’s about how many non-profits are affected. That 1.2% represent a large part of giving, which Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy, said would have been hit over the last two years with nearly $4B in losses to non-profits. You have to compare apples to apples to see real impacts.
Geithner also said that the tax proposal would only have a “modest negative impact.” How does he know? Nobody knows until the taxes are enacted, when government grows and charities shrink.
The other thing that stood out to me represented the real kind of change America has been wanting. It came from Democratic Senator, Maria Cantwell. “Why not look at a broader approach to tax policy, [rather] than coming in with this proposed change to marginal rates?”
Tell it like it is, sister!
THAT is the CHANGE America needs right now. Creativity and real reform, cleaning up the 66,000 pages of tax law we currently have! We do not need some easy slap on tax rate hike that doesn’t clean up Washington nor help anyone else. That’ll help a lot of souls, including Washington’s.
Posted in government, soul, taxes | Comments (0)
Government Soul: Taxing Generosity – 2
March 4th, 2009 by Dale Fincher
Yesterday, I mentioned the new tax proposals of the Obama administration, targeting particularly those who make over $200k. I want to reflect today on a comment made by Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget that appears to be as intentionally deceptive in this article. Excerpt:
Thursday, the White House defended Mr. Obama’s proposal, saying that the wealthy people it would affect would still have significant deductions from charitable contributions.On a $10,000 donation, a family in the 15% tax bracket would save $1,500 in taxes, but wealthier taxpayers would save more. If philanthropist Bill Gates makes that same contribution — without the proposed limits — he would save $3,500 in his taxes, said Peter Orszag, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.
“All we’re saying is we think Bill Gates should get a $2,800 tax break — still a lot larger than a middle-income family — rather than the $3,500 one,” Mr. Orszag said.
This is intetionally deceptive for two main reasons. 1) The average reader will see these numbers and get the impression that the “wealthy” already get an unfair larger tax break over the “middle-income family.” 2) What Orszag calls a “tax break,” isn’t a “tax break.”
The idea behind tax-deductions through generosity is so that if you decide to forgoe income in order to help an IRS approved non-profit organization, then you are not taxed for that income. It makes sense: why be taxed for monies you don’t keep or use for yourself? Why tax money you voluntarily do not claim as your own?
Because you are not taxed on money you give away, this is not a “tax break” at all. You don’t get any special tax advantage for giving away money. It’s as if you didn’t have the money to begin with, it doesn’t go into your savings. You get no personal benefit from it whatsoever. When you donate money, the money is gone, period. You simply are not taxed for money you hand out to IRS approved organizations.
Let’s suppose two people made $100k each. Using the illustration of Orszag, one is in the 15% tax bracket and another in the 35% tax bracket. If neither of them gave money away, the first would be left with $85k after taxes. The second with $65k after taxes. You can clearly see who is left with the most money. The middle-income earner, dollar for dollar, takes more money home.
Orszag said that the 35% tax bracket gets a bigger “tax break” than the 15% tax bracket. But that’s he’s basing his “tax break” language on a higher tax bracket which pays more taxes already. Then he shows two people donating the same amount of money (which is unfair comparson, because people who make more, donate a higher percentage of their income). Then, he converts the percentages into real numbers (which is a misleading apples/orange comparison). These numbers are all corelated to the tax bracket, not to real number tax breaks. Any one would rather be in the 15% tax bracket than the 35% tax bracket and take the lesser “tax break.” Calling it a “tax break” is intentionally deceiving to get people to ignorantly favor his point of view.
If the “wealthy” automatically got a $3500 tax break and the middle-income family a $1,500 tax break, that would be an unjust oucry. Everyone should get the same real number tax breaks. But the system isn’t based on real numbers, but on percentages. The percentages are always higher on the “wealthy.” When converted to real numbers, the “wealthy” always have higher numbers when it comes to paying taxes as well as their “tax breaks” because that’s what percentages do!
I hope you’re still tracking with me. Many people don’t see the deception in the rhetoric because many people get confused with number-talk. But I believe you can get this… just review it (or ask a question) if it seems unclear or difficult.
But let’s move to the next level. Obama’s admin wants to reduce the amount of tax deduction a “wealthy” person can make from 35% to 28%. Currently, if someone is generous, he doesn’t have to pay taxes for being generous. But on Obama’s new plan, he does have to pay taxes for being generous.
Let’s look at our scenario again. Two people have $100k each. One in the 15% tax bracket, the other in the 35% tax bracket. For the sake of discussion, let’s say they both contributed all their money to a charity in 2009. On this scenario, both would walk away not paying any taxes. Why should they? They voluntarily gave up their income and have nothing for themelves.
But let’s fastforward to Obama’s plan. Both give all their income away. The person in the 15% tax bracket would walk away paying no taxes because he made no income. The person in the 35% tax bracket DOES pay taxes, even though he made no income! Why? Because Obama’s new plan is even taxing the income that is given away to an IRS approved non-profit. This person in the 35% tax bracket, on Obama’s plan, has to pay $7,000 in taxes on this $100k, even though he shows making no income (because he gave it all away). So now this person can only donate, roughly, $93,500 because he has to save the balance to pay the tax.
On this scenario, non-profits are shortchanged 7% and the generous person in the 35% tax bracket is required to pay taxes on money he doesn’t show as income and does not keep for himself. Local non-profits who do not receive federal aid are hit hardest… theoretically, the federal government is removing resources from these non-profits (which is why many non-profits say this is the wrong tax-deduction to remove, especially in a hard economy… there are plenty of other loopholes that the mega-rich have setup to avoid high taxes that the $200k income earner cannot get…. but I digress).
But wait! When Obama raises the 35% tax bracket to 39.6% (as I understand the propsal), then non-profits are not shortchanged 7%, but nearly 12%! That they are comparing the ‘tax break’ to today’s tax brackets and not to the tax brackets that are tied up with this ‘tax break,’ is also misleading.
Now go back and read Orszag’s comments in light of this and how he confuses the reader with his numbers about a so-called “tax break.” Does this sound odd to you? Why not just say it like it is? It’s not reducing a tax break, as you don’t get any benefit from the money you generously give. It’s rather a program that says generous money must come from taxed money. Plain as that. It is a taxing on generosity.
The government is free to do this. And I must admit that over this past year, we probably donated more taxed money than non-taxed money (because many local needs are not related to an IRS-approved tax-deductible organization… like the hungry neighbor down the street or the teenager that needs counseling.)… we do our best to donate to needs, not based on whether we can write it off.
But while the government is free to do this, at least call it what it is. It is not reducing a huge “tax-break” for the wealthy. It isn’t a tax-break at all. It is taxing donated money. Calling it a “tax-break” is, from my perspective, about as laughable as reducing the sentence on an innocent man and calling it “compassion.”
For the sake of clarity, it isn’t the taxing of generosity that bugs me most (though I run a non-profit and am not thrilled by the news). What bugs me is the deception and injustice and preying on people who don’t understand the system, creating a happy populist or happy majority who march to the beat of the drum without understanding what is going on. If this is the best way forward, then be clear and plain. When deceptive words come into play (think Wormtongue), we should be suspicious that something more is going on.
As I do work for Soulation, I am aware that damaging the soul and being inappropriately human can happen at any level of life: rich or poor, healthy or sick, ivy-league or high-school dropout. We have a choices to be transparent and truthful; and choices to cloak our langauge to persuade people less informed (called, “lying”).
When any public official misleads the public, this damages his own soul. And we should be concerned, at the end of the day, not only with the economy and poverty, with national security and public museums, with creation-care and energy independence, but also that those who lead and those who follow are not become people of the lie. Our politicians (and those who work for them) have souls too. And when they twist their souls to aid their money-goals, it is not creating the “change” for a better life for any of us.
Posted in generosity, government, soul, taxes | Comments (0)
Government Soul: Taxing Generosity
March 3rd, 2009 by Dale Fincher
I’m concerned for non-profits as we go into the Obama era. I understand the economic fix the USA is in right now: we all feel it. And I understand the need to remedy it. HOW we remedy it is up to the particular hired “experts” who have the power to push buttons.
While government is concerned about the needs of the poor (education, health), I’ve seen an unprecedented rise in justice work from religious groups, especially evangelicals. The poor are receiving aid and attention from every direction, including from the generous “wealthy” person. I’m very encouraged to see so much work by private citizens on the local level. This, to me, is the heartbeat of repairing many social evils in our world.
What does not receive attention so much from the government is soul-care and an answer to appropriate humanness from a religious (Christian) perspective. One one level we might say that a secular government may not find enough “experts” on their side to justify that a soul even exists…so why care for it? On another level if they did do this kind of work, they’d likely do it poorly. One reason I’m not in favor of public prayer in public schools is that it is likely children will learn horrible ideas about legitimate prayer. Better off letting students “feel” the secular vacuum than allow them to be misled that civil prayer fills it.
Obama’s adminstration has some new tax strategies to help repair the deficit and “economy,” all directed at people who make a little over $200k a year. It doesn’t matter if $200k earners have a large or small family, living in high or low cost-of-living areas, or are already generous with their income to help people on the local level. It doesn’t matter if they were responsible during this economic crisis and had practiced saving money rather than consumerism. Either way, the new tax strategy is to move money into the federal level to help with federal needs with the tools the feds have to decipher who needs help and who doesn’t (after FEMA and Iraq, you can just for yourself how good these services will be), shouldered by hard working Americans who found success with their hands.
Regardless of how the government wants to tax, that isn’t as much of the moral issue that concerns this post. What concerns this post is the rhetoric I’m reading, including disingenuous (intentionally misleading) comments. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, page 4, has this article, “Charities Say Tax Changes Add to Pain.”
Tomorrow, I will explain… but for now, share your own opinion…
Posted in generosity, government, morals, soul, taxes | Comments (0)
Is authenticity enough? : on celebrity and failure
February 15th, 2009 by Dale Fincher
Deep down, don’t we all believe that a bit of wild behavior–drinking, smoking, padding the expense account, skimming your taxes–has a salutary effect on human personality development? Isn’t sowing one’s wild oats a revered rite of passage for American youth?
Um…. Who says these attitudes should be normalized? In this instance it is Joe Queenan writing the cover article for the Weekend Journal in the Wall Street Journal, “In Praise of Transgressions.”
I understand that Queenan is a satirist. In this article, it’s thin. I actually think he believes what he’s saying.
So do many today who believe experimentation that is harmful to one’s self and to others should be a valid opportunity to explore. We “expect” teens to be reckless. We expect them to be uncultivated in virtue and class. And we expect our public servants to skim taxes. Apparently, one is never required to grow up.
In speaking to a high school classroom last Spring, the students raised the issue of swearing. Why were certain words considered off limits? Many of the kids in the class loved to razz authority, snigger, glance at each other with knowing looks that they were somehow superior to all this nonsense. What was the morality behind swear words?
I touched on what mattered to them: their social status. Many of these students came from wealthy families. I told them that swearing, regardless of it’s morality, is a sign of a lack of control, a lack of manners, and a lack of class. Suddenly, the classroom silenced. They all regarded themselves as upper class economically. I called them out that they were not demonstrating an upper class virtue and upper class concern for others. Swearing is often an assault of language (as it is uncreative) and an assault on manners (it tells others in earshot that crudeness owns the audible space). In short, swearing is often self-conscious and proud. It’s unworthy of people who claim to be educated and leaders.
So it goes. To be a virtuous leader is not the same as making money, having power, having celebrity. It is a good time to understand this on a large scale.
People proficient at sports may be committed to swimming or baseball. That means if there’s one quality they surely have it is tenacity. But that doesn’t mean they are virtuous or well-rounded enough to be leaders. Yet we treat them as “heroes” because they did something physically incredible. A hero used to be someone who sacrificed themselves to help others. Today it means someone we marvel at, like a giant crane perched on a skyscrapper. Celebrities are skycrapers, but hardly “heroes.” The fact that we keep staring at them and throw money at them says a lot about us.
We’ve developed a habit of thinking that doing something physically incredible is a passport to being someone worth listening to. Why we take the political opinion of so many Hollywood celebrities is irrational to me. They didn’t become popular because of political opinion, and therefore, should be less considered than, say, some obscure professors who spend an lifetime studying the principles of good government and the corruption in Washington. Yet when we consider celebrity endorsements of candidates as weighty, they says a lot about us.
We just elected a President that appears to get votes because of celebrity ‘coolness.’ From my perceptions, he falls into a similar category, and may be the kind of president we’ve become socially conditioned to accept without question. Many pundits wondered what qualified Obama to be a messiah for the US government. Many are still asking this question as politicians vote to spend almost $800B on a stimulous package that the majority of those they represent do not want or are unsure if it will help.
When I read the headline that Phelps was caught doing illegal substances, I wasn’t surprised. When he publically apologized, I wasn’t suprised. That’s what your PR agent will tell you to do, otherwise you will lose money and so will your PR agent. What surprised me was that Kelloggs, a large sponsor of Phelps, dropped him!
In today’s world, I thought Kelloggs courageous (a virtue) to let Phelps go when the American public has much the same attitude as the quote at the top of this post. I think Phelps deserved it. Not because it’s a bad influence in our children. Not becaue he was stupid. Not because he was callous. He deserved it because he was flagrantly wrong. This wasn’t a mistake or an oversight. It was deliberate. What kind of behavior is over the line in sowing one’s wild oats? What is enough to keep a celebrity from public endorsement and millions of easy money. Is our national pride and identity really wrapped up in the Olympics and gold medals? Who are we anyway?
Phelps won some gold medals for swimming. Great! But is that leverage enough to say we should celebrate him no matter what other feats he makes, including bong-smoking with frat boys? If he had been heroic, he would have taken a stand against the drugs. That’s what heroes do, even if nobody celebrates the act.
A friend of mine spoke to his co-worker recently about this. The co-worker thought it unjust of Kelloggs to drop Phelps because at least Phelps confessed and was honest.
Here’s another major assumption of today’s postmodern culture: transparency equals virtue. For all the talk that postomderns give about authenticity, that’s only a half-virtue. The other half is working toward change.
A.A. will tell you that confession and authenticity are only the first of twelve steps: confess your life has become unmanagble. That’s transparency. But that doesn’t mean you are well, should be in the spotlight, or are worthy of being celebrated. It just means you’re starting to work the program. Time to move to step 2. When you reach step 12, then you may have something to say to the world that we all need to hear. Until then, work in your private world on being an appropriately human person.
There is no “revered rite of passage” called “sowing wild oats.” We’ve smuggled that in as a smutty excuse to be less than human. We are to learn from history so we don’t repeat it. That’s one of many reasons so many acts are illegal (like drug use or skimming taxes… should we “rever” this? Is this a wild oat?). If we cannot respect this when it comes to the laws of our land, how will we fend against corruption when the laws crumble? Is virtue no higher than the laws? Seems not in the way we elect officials and pander to celebrities.
We will likely wake up one morning wondering what happened. We will no longer be laughing at what we got away with but sad that we got away with it. Should we expect more out of ourselves and from each other?
We need to understand the frailty and glory of human nature so we can harness it for good and be open to our own foibles. If we faile, sometimes “I’m sorry” isn’t good enough. Sometimes we have to end the endorsements, step down from our offices, leave the spotlight. It’s okay. We’ll live. We recorver. We work the program. Our humanity is not wrapped up in who recognizes us or how well we succeed or fail. But by all means, let people who need to leave the spotlight be out of it. Authenticity isn’t enough for a soul’s recovery.
And all the while, we can work at not revering famous people for being famous, but look for local heroes. It’s the unsung heroes that have a smaller chance of falling, in part, because they are heroes through their virtue rather than heroes of fame.
Posted in heroes, virtue | Comments (0)
Apologetics for a New Generation
January 14th, 2009 by Dale Fincher
As you know, I’m a member of the “new apologetics” fan club. Nobody has coined that term yet, from what I can tell, but I’m a card-carrying member anyway. And while my view may go in directions not yet popularized by evangelical apologetic celebrities, I am excited about a new volume released this winter, edited by my friend Sean McDowell:
Apologetics for a New Generation.
This is a compilation of different voices all getting at the same thing: apologetics is bigger and broader than we’ve practiced it for a loooong time. While my view is that there are many apologists in this world who don’t know it and many apologetic mediums that are never called such, finally a few evangelicals are paying attention.
It’s a sign that the popular conversation can be advanced: you don’t have to be “emergent” to be missional, relevant, and touch the postmodern soul in healthy ways.
Then again, maybe we’re all emergent anyway and can’t help it.
Jonalyn and I each have chapter contributions in this book (though Amazon’s site doesn’t say so). Hers is on an apologetic of gender, something many conservative evangelicals haven’t yet noticed the need for without a fear of losing funding. My chapter is on apologetics as soul formation: a human apologetic.
This book can be read alongside Living with Questions as an example of apologetics being done in a fresh way, for students and adults alike.
You can pre-order the book now. You’ll want to have it when it comes out to keep abreast with the creative ways you can shine your light to the world.
Posted in apologetics, living with questions | Comments (0)
Dorothy Rabinowitz takes on Deepak Chopra
December 13th, 2008 by Dale Fincher
Watch this video first. Then read the article at the end of this post.
Pulitzer prize winner, Ms. Rabinowitz, nails the present journalistic discourse on the head. The senseless pity on perpetrators of crimes rather than on victims is something that has been called out again and again as a problem in media discourse. The endless blame on causes unrelated to ideas and religion is classic secular diagnosis. The pandering to celebrities who know less than experts (though treated as experts) is far more embarrassing to American popular culture than any war on terrorism.
Now read, Ms. Rabinowitz article. She’s clear and punches to the point. This kind of dialog needs to happen more. And you get to be a “Culturally Savvy Christian,” as Dick Staub puts it, and be alert to the language the ‘sophisticated’ world is talking. Awareness of the problem is half the battle.
Posted in islam, secularism | Comments (0)
A New Kind of Apologetics
December 10th, 2008 by Dale Fincher
At the NYWC in Sacramento, I gave a seminar on “A New Kind of Apologetics: Emerging Questions of Today’s Youth.”
First, I’m encoraged that YS is bold enough to get outside the box and let me give a seminar on this.
Second, I’ve was very encouraged by the response as I was unsure how some of my ideas would be received by the average youth worker (which we all know are not ‘average’!). There’s a real hunger to take apologetics in a more “human” direction. We’re delighted Soulation is helping lead the way with that.
Gospel.com highlighted my talk on their blog today. You can check it and download the talk as an mp3 to listen to while you’re about the house, at work, or going for a drive. I think you’ll find it encouraging, funny, and expanding your own vision of reaching, not only youth, but leaders and neighbors as well.
Posted in apologetics, living with questions, questions | Comments (0)
Celebrating 100 years… Chesterton and Grahame
November 21st, 2008 by Dale Fincher
Halfway through this year, I remembered this was the year of a marked centenary. G. K. Chesterton penned Orthodoxy (he wrote The Man Who was Thursday the same year as a story illustrating the same theme).
I had heard of Chesterton prior to college, but I did not read him until then. Little did I know how influenced I was by Chesterton long before I knew the name.
In my struggle of feeling homesick at home, God curiously led me to three different men on my journey that spoke the very thing I thirsted to hear; ironically, none of them are clergy, but public speaker, author, and musician. They were men who “got it,” or at any rate, they got me. They were those Professor Kirk talks about in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; that once you’ve been to Narnia, you don’t need to talk about asking others if they’ve been there too. You’ll see it in their looks.
It was in their looks, their words, their poetical suspicion of the world being at once beautiful and monstrous at the same time. They were men who saw the glory of earth in ruins, waiting to be re-united with heaven. Those men were C. S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, and Rich Mullins.
I’ve heard it said that Lewis has a Chesterton book opened next to him as he wrote a lot of his works. One glorious passage in Mere Christianity said, “God is like the sun; you cannot look at it, but without it you cannot look at anything else.” I thought that was brilliant Lewis. Lo, it was in fact brilliant Chesterton. Actually, as I got more deeply into the classics, I discovered, that fine piece of prose was an alteration from Plato.
The humanities, lost in today’s evangelical church (though cherished in some evangelical universities) and largely devalued in our modern and postmodern world, has been my source of strength and courage to pursue humanness as good. That’s why they are called the humanities after all. Chesterton drew heavily on them.
Without imaginative, metaphorical, storied visions as these, deeply influenced by the Scripture, I would find life, at least my own life, dull. I would hardly know why I should follow Christ. I would find him, as many modern apologetics proclaim, as true. But without these prophetic visionaries who have beheld the beatific vision and shared it with the passion of a star, I would be left finding the good news of the kingdom at hand as a wasteland, devoid of the beauty that touches on the longing of my human heart.
One of my favorite talks by Ravi Zacharias is on the meaning of life, which he later put into Can Man Live Without God? Buried in the heart of his argument is a discussion of fairy tales and how the lessons they teach are completely consistent with the way life is lived today, and consistent with the gospels. This was borrowed from Chesterton. Once, sitting in Ravi’s living room, petting his border collie named, “G.K.”, I asked him about Chesterton’s influence and he said he thought the “Ethics of Elfland” was one of the finest chapters of the 20th century. You’ll find that chapter in Orthodoxy.
Rich Mullins also borrowed inspiration from Chesterton. His popular song, “Creed,” resounds in the chorus with this pithy phrase,
I did not make it,
no, it is making me,
it is the very truth of God not the invention of any man.
This is Chesterton’s Orthodoxy: “God and humanity made [orthodoxy], and it made me.” Another poetic paradox of Chesterton shows up in Mullins song, “Growing Young.”
We are children no more,
we have sinned and grown old
and our father still waits
and watches down the road
for those crying boys to come running back to his arms
and we’re growing young.
Chesterton put it this way, “We have sinned and grown old and our Father is younger than we.” This is from Orthodoxy. Mullins called it his favorite book.
Whether we know the name or understand the words of Chesterton, today’s church is deeply indebted to this rotund man of mirth who is still as relevant today as he was 100 years ago. He “got it.” And the philosophical battles he faced then are the same ones still strongly lingering now. One of my favorite ideas in Chesterton is the very last paragraph in Orthodoxy. But I will not give it away. Let it be your tasty dessert as you read the book.
Christianity Today just did an interview about Chesterton with Inkling scholar, Lyle Dorsett. It’s a short interview but he puts it in a nutshell.
Dorsett mentions Malcolm Muggeridge at the end of the article as one of the only apologists since Chesterton to use humor. But Muggeridge, who I did my graduate work on, wasn’t very influenced by Chesterton. He does retell the story as a young boy seeing this towering figure. But it was the recollection as young boy and that was about it. Muggeridge had his own journey to take, one more treacherous of a search than even Chesterton’s who discovered his heresy was orthodoxy. Muggeridge was 5 years old when Orthodoxy was printed. Lewis was 10.
For your pleasure, I’ve recorded part of chapter 1 from Orthodoxy. Listen to Chesterton’s paradoxes, how he holds our experiences in tension–like “romance.” His definition of “romance” is not like ours today, but is the more historical, Western idea that we are losing daily in the age of unreason. Let his metaphor about the yachtsman discovering England work into your meditation today.
Orthodoxy, Introduction in Defense of Everything Else (mp3, 8 min)
But there’s another book celebrating 100 years, another book important to the Christian imagination. This book is in the same tradition as the deeply human Chesterton. Kenneth Grahame’s Wind in the Willows is a celebration of human experience personified in the animals: the intelligent Rat, the faithful Mole, the impetuous Toad, the wise Badger, the chatty Otter, and many others. Disney stripped Toad’s “wild ride” from the book, leaving children with a paltry imaginative glimpse into a deeply imaginative tale.
Jonalyn and I are reading the Wind in the Willows before bed these nights. Well, I’ve been doing the reading aloud; she’s doing the listening. It’s a cleansing of the soul after a long day of work. Wind in the Willows as a title holds a deeper meaning than a mere discription of nature brushing against river plants.
As a taste, I’ve recorded a section from the book where they meet Someone. They hear flute playing in the distance as they are looking about for Otter’s son. Sunrise is nearly upon them. And they follow the music… Let the words and desciptions play in your soul. And I think you’ll also note a similar “feel” and description here that I’m sure Lewis borrowed for Aslan. Grahame is subtle in his storytelling; a real master.
Wind in the Willows, excerpt from chapter 7 (mp3, 15 min)
I’m glad there is a God to be thankful to (a Chesterton idea) for my gratitude pours out that these two works were made for the generations to help us see ourselves and our world for what it is–frail yet good, with a Master of Ceremonies always busy behind the scenes.
Posted in c s lewis, chesterton, human, imagination, ravi zacharias, rich mullins, wind in the willows kenneth grahame | Comments (0)
What are the biblical roles of husbands and wives?
November 9th, 2008 by Dale Fincher
Here is a classic complementarian position of the roles of husbands and wives. Understand it well.
Notice how emphatic he is at the beginning that this issue is ‘clear.’
Notice how he automatically connotes the meaning of the metaphor, ‘head.’
Notice the emphasis of the husband to be a tie-breaking vote (when Paul’s point to the husbands is on love). You will frequently hear the ‘tie-breaking vote’ argument used by complementarians. I think there’s another way to break ties, but this argument often persuades people into a complementarian model.
Notice how he says men shy away from leadership (is this the nature of men historically or a 21st century construction?)
Notice how he calls his relationship with his wife a ‘team,’ but then limits her voice to mere ‘input’ (is there teamwork in the final decision or only teamwork in consultation?).
Notice how he misquotes Eph 5:22 later in the video by attaching ‘submission’ to the husband is like the church’s ‘submission’ to Christ. The verse doesn’t say that.
Notice how, at the end, it is the husband’s duty to sanctify his wife.
What are your thoughts?
For my thoughts on Ephesians 5, see “The Mystery of Submission” in the August archive.
Posted in complementarian, egalitarian, ephesians 5, men, women | Comments (0)
What exactly is this "Living with Questions"?
November 8th, 2008 by Dale Fincher
I’m glad you asked. I’ve been getting this question in a variety of ways so I thought I’d lay it out for the record.
When you spend a long time writing a book, you’d hate to see people who are looking for a book like yours miss the opportunity to read it because they just didn’t know. There is so much in Living with Questions that covers a wide array of other books on the Christian book shelf. Give this one a look. You may find yourself getting a lot more than you paid for (and save yourself some money too!).
Living with Questions is not your typical apologetics book.
If you like Lee Strobel’s “The Case for…” books, you’ll like Living with Questions. Strobel’s books give you interviews on various topics on the book cover. Living with Questions gives you tools so you can be an apologist too and not just find yourself quoting other people. So if you’ve read Strobel, consider Living with Questions next. Plus you get more topics in less pages. Strobel is not the only Christian writer who was set against the church and found themselves landing squarely on Jesus. As someone who grew up in the church, I knew many reasons to reject Christianity and, if not for intellectually sane and emotionally healthy reasons to follow Jesus, I could have easily walked away. Living with Questions is born out of that kind of journey.
Living with Questions is not just for teens. The marketing is toward students. So are some of the interior graphics. But it was written for everyone, especially those who want to share their faith with smart people and find ‘apologetics’ just too ‘deep’ or ‘academic’ or ‘heady.’ Living with Questions is gentle entry point into the world of understanding your faith more deeply, how it stands up to reason, and how you can confidently share your faith with others. Though the book is built around student questions, we’d be dishonest to say those same questions are also not adult questions. The reviews on Amazon for Living with Questions are from college graduates. In fact, Living with Questions should be found in the youth section of the book store (because they have so few books that really address their earnest questions) as well as the adult section beside all the other popular apologetics books of the day. It has that kind of cuturally savvy insights you don’t find in many other apologetics books.
Living with Questions is doing what postmoderns say can’t be done: doing apologetics for a postmodern audience. Yes, contrary to emerging beliefs, postmoderns still value reason, many just don’t know it. They value truth, but not for its own sake, but for the sake Jesus gave us: to make us free. Today’s kids are a mix of modernism and postmodernism, and neither one is deeply helpful for having a rounded view of the world. C. S. Lewis showed us that. In an era where the most vocal forms of apologetics are more academic and heady, Living with Questions draws more on the imaginative tradition of C. S. Lewis while still using the academic in the background. Living with Questions takes not just the mind and emotions into account, but the whole person, validating every square inch of being human, the ways God equipped us to reach out to him and to each other. I would use any of the arguments in this book on a university campus. In fact, I have. These are test and helpful and not just more “Christianese.”
Living with Questions is reflective. It’s full of stories and perspectives to chew and mediate on. The last three chapters are my favorite, painting a picture of life, love, and goodness, of the restoring of beauty in the universe as God intended. Hint: it’s not what you typically hear in church but is deeply Biblical.
Living with Questions helps students own their faith so they are ready for college and the challenges ahead. It works great for the student who is seeking as well as the student who doesn’t realize he/she should be seeking (because they don’t quite know they are alive, human, and purposed in this world yet). Many have already used Living with Questions and found it effective. (See study guide drawn up by a youth leader along the right side of my blog.)
Living with Questions helps the reader get out of ‘religious’ talk and into real life, a need many express when it comes to “Christian” literature.
Living with Questions answers a lot more questions than the chapters indicate. Inside every chapter are aspects of every question like “Why does a good God send people to hell?” and “Can I be a Christian and an evolutionist?” and “Am I loved?” and “How do I know I can trust the Bible?” and “How do I know which religion is right?” and “CAN religion be ‘right or wrong’?” and “What is faith?” The book also mentions diversions and addictions many face, including busyness, music, and cutting. Not only are interesting questions embedded in each chapter, but each chapter gives you tools on how to think about questions. So you don’t just get my explanation. You get to go exploring and come up with your own. This is very important if we are to OWN our faith.
The only way to adequately OWN our faith is to have the freedom to DISOWN our faith. Living with Questions gives that freedom.
Living with Questions is also for those who are not Christians. I get emails from secular college students who say they’ve really enjoyed the book and gave them good things to think about. Many “Christian” books are not written for the non-Christians. If you’ve been looking for a book to give to a non-believing friend, Living with Questions is also for them.
Living with Questions is not a dogmatic, in your face approach to truth-telling. The title of the book says it all. We live with questions so we can live into answers. Many questions and answers are understood a little now and understood more later. Some questions just need perspective. Some questions need encouragement. Some questions need information. Some questions need to be reframed. Living with Questions offers all of these.
So if you’re looking for a book to discuss in your youth group, a book to hand out to college students, a book to assign to your classroom, a book to read on the airplane, a book to understand our world a little better and how today’s generation approaches life, if you’re looking for tools to navigate life better rather than having to quote someone else, then Living with Questions is the book you’re looking for.
Soon available on audio too.
Posted in addiction, apologetics, c s lewis, college, faith, hell, living with questions, pastors, questions, reason, teens | Comments (0)
