Last night I had a dream that involved Mormons. I’m sure it’s further proof of my nerdiness, but we were talking about doctrine and discussing each others’ faiths. For some reason, the Mormons kept emphasizing “CTR”. Even when they were singing it came up over and over again.

What is “CTR”? It’s a popular Mormon acronym (in real life, not just my dream) for Choose the Right. One way of looking at it is that “CTR” is for Mormons as “WWJD” is for Christians. When faced with a difficult decision, the popular evangelical line is to ask ourselves, what would Jesus do? For Mormons, they are taught to choose to do the right thing.

I’ll be the first to admit to not always being a big fan of “WWJD.” It’s kind of an odd question to ask in some situations seeing as I’m not God and therefore lack the knowledge and power to make the best decisions. But I have owned at least one of those bracelets in my days and I’ve decided now to defend it.

Why? Because "WWJD” is better than “CTR.” What’s the focus of “WWJD”? Jesus. What’s the focus of “CTR”? Whatever I can do. These popular little acronyms symbolize a deeper issue that divides Christians from Mormons. The Christian is drawn back to our great Lord and Savior so that we can model ourselves after Him. The Mormon is drawn to look at his or her good works. On its own, “CTR” is innocent enough. But within the Mormon worldview, it is the summation of salvation by our their works. If they do enough of them, then they pass God’s test for this life and go on to the highest of Mormon glories.

I’ve lived enough to know that I can’t do enough good works to come close to the perfection that God requires. Say what you will about “WWJD,” at least the cheesy slogan draws me back to Jesus. You can have this world and whatever good works you can accomplish in it, but give me Jesus.

The following is a simple test you can take at home to determine your nerdiness level.

In the Weird Al video White and Nerdy, the nerd purchases a black market item on the street.  Watch the video and then compare your reaction to this rare item with the following categories to determine your nerdity. 

If you guessed what was in the paper bag before he opened it, your nerd quotient is freakishly high.  You are a "Nerd Commander."

If you knew about the existence of this item and, at some point in your life, actually took steps to obtain one of these for yourself, you are a "Nerd Jedi." 

If you just said, "Hey, Nerd Jedi should be above Nerd Commander!" you are a "Super-Nerd" and will henceforth receive no sci-fi reference in your title.

If, after obtaining the item, you walked away from it after no more than 40 minutes, you are a "Nerd Apprentice."

If you knew this item existed but you never tried to see it for yourself, you are a "Red-Shirt-Nerd."  You have occasional forays into nerddom, but it's not a place where everybody knows your name.

If you know what "red-shirt" refers to, go back up to "nerd apprentice."

If this is the first you've heard of this item and you are, even now, opening a new browser window to search through eBay, you are a "Secret Nerd"--otherwise, your nerd pack would have informed you of its existence long ago.  [Also, I must warn you that you think you want to see this item, but you really, really don't.  Please trust me on this.  Please.]

If you've never heard of what was inside that bag, and furthermore, you have no curiosity regarding it, then congratulations!  You are nerd-free!

I have no category for the nerdiness level of someone who would create a test out of this video. 

(HT and my eternal gratitude to Deborah Graff for sending me the link to this video.  Live long and prosper, Deborah.)

My last post on motivation leads us to consider our methodology. We claim to seek adherence to Scripture, but how are we doing this? I’m afraid some split the Bible into “Egalitarian verses” and “Complementarian verses.” There is no such dichotomy in Scripture. The whole of Scripture teaches a complex, yet uniform view of how men and women can best live lives glorifying to God.

We must allow the Bible to inform our view, not form the Bible according to what we’d like it to teach. The Bible is our first and final authority for theology and practice. It is first in that we must begin with what it reveals to us before pursuing other sources of knowledge. It is final in that if it conflicts with any other source of knowledge, the Bible wins.

So, because the Bible is of such authority, we look to it for an explanation of the proper functions of men and women. The wrong way to answer this question would be to pick and choose verses that we are comfortable with, and conform the uncomfortable ones to them. Instead, we must look at the complete testimony of Scripture on the subject and discern guiding principles that we can apply to everyday life.

In doing this, we must begin with basic hermeneutical principles, such as:

1)      Scripture is a commentary unto itself.

2)      Scripture never contradicts itself.

3)      Clearer Scriptures should be used to interpret those that are less clear.

Especially in this case, we must also discern between didactic or exhortive passages and narrative or historical passages. Narrative passages do often have the intention of instruction, but they do not usually provide the explicit guiding principles that didactic passages do. So, in general, we look to didactic passages that provide guidelines that should be supported, or at least not conflicted, by narrative passages.

So here’s the method in action: The case we’ve made in previous posts is that the Bible provides specific roles for men and women in church and marriage. Here are a few:

•     Men and women, though unique in many ways, are of equal value because they are made in God’s image (Gen 1:27).

•     Husbands are the head (authority) of their wives (1 Corinthians 11:3)

•     Husbands are ultimately responsible for their families (Gen 3:9)

•     Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22)

•     Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25)

•     Women are not to perform the role of elder, which includes teaching the Bible in the assembled church (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

•     Elders should be men with no more than one wife (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6)

What about the narrative passages that give us examples of women functioning with God’s blessing? We believe none of these passages conflict with the above biblical principles that make up the Complementarian position…

Judges 5:4-5- Deborah was a judge with the gift of prophecy appointed by God whom the people of Israel sought for wisdom. Many people believe this passage attributes political authority to Deborah, I think that’s unclear. Regardless, I’ve seen no biblical principle restricting women from having political authority, so this does not conflict with women not teaching in the assembled church, nor them having ruling authority in the church (eldership). Neither is there any restriction on women regarding the possession of spiritual gifts. The Bible teaches that women can have (and have had) the gift of prophecy as well as men (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). So there is nothing in this example that conflicts with the Complementarian understanding of Scripture.

Romans 16:1-2- Phoebe is described as a deaconess or minister. Without getting too far off track, the office of deacon is not a ruling office of the church; it is distinct from elder. I believe the Bible is rather clear that women are restricted from the office of elder, but I see no restriction against the office of deacon. Complementarians differ on this matter, but I find Andreas Kostenberger’s reasoning compelling. (I’m not sure what Grudem’s position is yet.)

We’ve only covered the first two chapters of Grudem’s book. Chapters 3-13 will offer defenses of the Complementarian position against Egalitarian objections, so I don’t want to go too far down that road at this point. However, I hope that these examples are enough to show the Complementarian methodology (at least how I understand it) as a sound paradigm for understanding the complete testimony of Scripture on this matter.

Unfortunately, one of the liabilities of having a blog is that it occasionally gets spammed. In our case, we are spammed with inappropriate trackbacks and comments on a regular basis. Such spam not only presents a bad message to our readers, but in most cases would qualify the blog to be banned by family safeguard programs. In an effort to quell the influx of spam postings, the Congress of The A-Team Blog has passed new legislation effect immediately:

1)      All comments must be made by users who have registered on our blog. The anonymous commenting has been deactivated. Registration is free and does not require users to make their personal information public- in your profile you decide what becomes public and what remains private. (Micah, you’ll need to remember your password :))

2)      Trackbacks are now being moderated. If you post a trackback and don’t see it right away, don’t panic. It may be a day or two until we get around to moderating them.

The Congress of The A-Team Blog has also petitioned for a vacation from Gender Friday effective following tomorrow’s post. Next weekend, The A-Team bloggers will be in Minneapolis for the Desiring God National Convention and will be unavailable for discussing controversial posts. We’ll take an additional week off just to have a breather from the gender topic since it’s consumed so much of the blog in recent weeks.

A few weeks ago (yikes--has it been that long?), I promised Brian a response to his comment on my post, "Postmodernism Will Lead to Violence."   Brian argued that there's no way, yet, to determine which worldview (modernism or postmodernism) would be more destructive when mixed with our sinful tendencies.  However, he believes that the record of history argues against modernism (specifically, against people holding the idea that we can know and be confident about truth).

First, I think the root of the problems that have occurred within modernism was not that people thought they were right.  History has shown that the bad didn't come when people thought they were right, the bad came when people were wrong about what they thought was right (how to behave, what is good, the right way to persuade, etc.).  Thinking one is right is actually neutral and can serve either good or evil.  When people were right and thought they were right, great goodness was accomplished.  I think, then, it's a definite harm to try to get all people not to care so much about things because one then loses a strong, persevering goodness along with everything else.

If being wrong (about ideas and right behavior) is actually the core problem (as I'm saying it is), then without an objective, universal standard to appeal to (one that is true and that can be known), the world will be even less likely to know or care about the right way to behave, and people will drift farther and farther towards their sinful tendencies, leading to a worse world.  If the core problem is people being objectively wrong, then the solution is to persuade people of what constitutes true goodness so that society will uphold that standard through rewards and punishments. 

If, in contrast to this (and according to postmodern Christians), the core problem is strong beliefs, passion, and commitment stemming from the confidence that one knows what is good and true, then therefore, the solution is to quench everyone's zeal--zeal for both good and bad--because we can't determine what is right; therefore, better to stop everyone's confidence just in case.  This is the reasonable conclusion if, as a postmodernist, one has given up on knowing what is good.  I'm not willing to give up the good (either on knowing it or on trying to reason with others to recognize it), and I don't see any reason biblically to think this is the course we should take.

So how can we judge between these two worldviews to determine which would be more destructive when mixed with our sin?  Would one lead to a more just, good society than the other?  As I said, it depends on what is really our core problem (having wrong ideas/values or being passionate/thinking one is right) and what is the true solution for improving societal behavior (a corrective standard that can be known or a reducing of one's confidence in knowing).

I can only give you this as a way to determine between the two:  First, read the Old Testament.  It is centered around God giving the Law--the standard of goodness--which He says specifically is not beyond their comprehension (Deut 30:11-14).  From that point on, the rest of the Old Testament is about the negative results that occur when the Israelites forget the standard (the truth revealed by God) and the positive results when they remember it.  Meanwhile, the prophets' purpose is to continually call people back to the standard and to measure the nation's behavior against it.  It does seem that God encourages confidence in a standard.

Then read the New Testament.  Paul seems intent on our increasing our knowledge.  He reasons with us in order to increase our confidence (1 Cor 15:1-19) and challenges us to persevere in the knowledge we have "become convinced of" (2 Tim 3:14-17) for the purpose of fulfilling the work we've been given to maintain the standard of truth (4:1-5).  John makes a case for the truthfulness of Christian belief (1 John 1:1-4) and shares it with us so we can know we have eternal life (5:13).  Jude even pleads with us to "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3).  We are specifically called to be strong in our beliefs yet to display that strength in love (1 Cor 16:13-14).  (Note that the corrective offered for the dangers of strong belief is true belief held in love, not a decrease in the strength of that belief.)

God thought these things were extremely important.  But where are the passages exhorting us not to believe too strongly we are right lest we cause harm?  Or those claiming (or even demonstrating) that we should not attempt rational persuasion of those who disagree?  If this were the correction we really needed, and these views would truly bring about a greater good than believing we know truth and the standard for goodness, wouldn't God have focused on these things instead of urging us to increase our confidence and strength in His truth? 

The book contains 32 brief chapters, each a lesson using the movie’s plot as a springboard (or plank) for discussion. Each chapter begins with a “pirate’s hook,” a snapshot from the movie illustrated the pearl of truth. The topics range from honoring codes and mutiny to captains needing crews and trusting our anchor.

Perhaps my favorite treasure/lesson in the book was “One Good Deed Deserves…” In the movie, Commodore Norrington tells Jack, “One good deed is not enough to redeem a man of a lifetime of wickedness.” Wesemann pillages this spiritual truth wonderfully: “Maybe a better question is whether one good act should redeem us from a lifetime of iniquity.” (30)

With almost any book of this nature, one appropriately expects a certain amount of cheesiness. While there are cheesy elements in Swashbuckling Faith (such as the JSV Bible translation- Jack Sparrow Version), it’s kept at an appropriate level without going too far over board. Tim Wesemann is a poetic writer who skillfully navigates the deeper waters of living faith. Avast me heartys, this be a fun and practical read whether yer landlubbin or out to sea. Now, bring me that horizon…