The Holy Dog Pound

Staring into the "Void"...

2006-05-11T11:46:00.000-07:00

“There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus” - Blaise Pascal, Pensees

"You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you" - Augustine of Hippo, Confessions,

"Codswallop" - The Internet Monk, A God-Shaped Void? Maybe Not

The latest essay by the Internet Monk really caught my attention. It is challenging and thought provoking in a number of topics, and I wanted to spend some time going over his ideas.

I’ve lived most of my life submerged in the world of churches, Christians, Biblical language, and the Christian worldview. (Sorry Joel) As I’ve moved into the second half of life, I’ve become aware that I need to separate myself from the Christian culture that has dominated my life, and to look closely for where my own assumptions are deeply embedded with the concepts, presuppositions and categories of the spiritual/intellectual/social/religious environment that surrounds me.

As part of my journey to deconstruct this evangelicalism I’ve lived in, I have consciously attempted to appreciate the thinking and experience of those who do not share my Christian faith. This process has been difficult, because the “house” of my personal experience is completely furnished with the furniture of a Christian society, church language, Biblical presuppositions and the basic beliefs of the Christian community.

Any number of people I am aware of would find nothing wrong with the basic idea Michael is criticizing here. "Given the state of decay in our culture, should we not attept to build our own community, our own language, our own presuppositions, in order to keep the more corrosive aspects of 'the world' at bay?" Given my own growing appreciation for the liturgy and the greater Christian traditions in music and theology, I am sympathetic to the notion that we ought to strive for our own language and way of viewing the world, in opposition to the way the wider world does so.

But I am speaking here from my own experience, as an adult convert to the faith who had not grown up in a community of faith. Michael has done so, to an extent I cannot understand. And even with my limited experiences since my conversion, there is much in the "spiritual/intellectual/social/religious environment" in American evangelicalism that is not helpful - that is either "Christianized" bits of the wider culture, or bits of the earlier manifestations of American/Christian culture maintained out of inertia or fear of change. And Michael's concern throughout his essay is for evangelism - how do we speak across the divide between the culture of the Church and the culture of the world. And his main point is that one of the key assumptions of much evangelical effort - the famous "God-shaped vacuum" extolled by Augustine and Pascal - may not fully apply in our day and age...

One day, in a class discussion about a recent chapel message, Steve spoke his mind. I can’t quote him, but it was something very much like this:

“Why do Christians always say that you can’t be happy unless you are a Christian? It’s insulting to a person who isn’t a Christian to be told that they will never be happy without Christ. I’m not a Christian, and I am happy most of the time. I am happy with my friends and they things I enjoy doing. I don’t want or need Christianity to be happy.”

To quote the hanky-waving lady in the local African-American church….”Well……” So should we argue this point? “Steve, you just don’t know what happiness is. Trust me. You have no idea how happy I am compared to you.”...

What was meaningful to the young people interviewed was life, family, love, work, relationships and the enjoyment of this world. They were comfortably, happily attuned to this world. Spiritual tattoos aside, they had little thought of much beyond what their senses or experiences presented to them.

In other words, Augustine’s famous “God-shaped void” didn’t make its expected appearance in anything near the numbers expected.

This is the problem. The people Michael is profiling here don't see a need for the Christian faith. They are, as Ravi Zacharias puts it, "happy pagans".

The dilemma of the "happy pagan" is real. But how did these "happy pagans" appear in such numbers? I have two ideas on that.

1) The West is RICH. Though it doesn't get preached on much in the West these days, the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is chock full of warnings of the spiritual corrosiveness of wealth. As Michael so aptly puts it in the conclusion of his essay, we are physical beings. If our physical needs are met and exceeded, and our minds are entertained, we naturally have a sense of well-being. And we in the West are, in the vast majority, very well taken care of, and very well entertained. If we have what we want in this life, and we have no expectation of another, what need is there for God and the Cross? Trying to tell someone like this that Christianity will make him or her "happier" - especially if we tie the moral demands of the faith into the package that directly impact their cherished means of continued happiness - what is their motivation to cross over to our side?

What do we say in response to this? I don't claim to have a pat answer, but perhaps one opening is a consideration of the ephemeral nature of life's happiness, and the effect that overabundant wealth has in even a secular frame of reference. Civilizations more often fall from within than from without - and growing soft and secure through wealth and leisure is a surefire way to start and accelerate the process. The current state of affairs concerning the West vs radicalized Islam is a prime (albeit un-PC) example of this.

Of course, the ultimate Christian answer is that this life is NOT all there is - and that the next life is of the utmost importance as opposed to this one. Alas, here the second factor in the disappearance of the vacuum appears...

2) the West is POST-CHRISTIAN. Whatever concensus Christian thought may have held in the West - and even in Medieval times, it was still an amalgam of Christianity with Roman and Germanic cultural elements - the concensus has been lost. Our culture has been fed by four consecutive centuries of secularization, privatization, and in some cases outright denigration of religious belief. That cultural background is there in all of us, even in the most Bible-thumping Young-Earth-Creationist charismatic-non-cessationist Christian alive. The cultural tide is against outright appeals to the Age to Come - what Marx famously derided as the "opiate of the masses". Even if someone grants the necessity for faith in something, the sense is that "we tried Christianity, it didn't work, let's move on to something else". I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that the difference between evangelism in a pre- vs post-Christian society is the difference between wooing a virgin and wooing a hardened divorcee.

(Another thought struck me as I was composing this - where is the Church growing today? Where are the pagans being converted? In places of suffering. In places where the Church is persecuted. "The Blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." How much is the Church in the West suffering? Why should we expect great results if we are not? ... And do you find this train of thought as uncomfortable as I do?!?)

Scripture tells us that if there a God-shaped void, we will rarely see or encounter it in obvious ways. What we will see is a race numb and dead. A planet of people refusing to think about God or think about God except in idolatrous- self-serving- terms. A world of people who see no more relevance to the Gospel than to a thousand other things that make absolute no sense or have no claim upon a person at all.

This is, however much it may pain those like Michael and myself who are tired of the endless wranglings over Calvinism in evangelical blogdom, "total depravity". However much I may deplore the debates over the TULIP, the truth of the matter is that humanity is hostile to God. They always have been.

So, how do we reach them?

([A]re) we aware to the extent that we insist everything outside of our belief systems conform to our own thoughts, presuppositions, concepts and beliefs?

Well, to a certain extent I sympathize with those whom Michael is criticising. If there is any conviction to our faith, we *have* to believe that our "thoughts, presuppositions, concepts and beliefs" - especially regarging Christ and the Gospel - ARE TRUE. And that what Mohammed, Marcus Borg, and Dan Brown say is NOT TRUE. The real problem here, though, is *how* one apprehends that truth. And here Michael is spot on - most apologetics walk unbelievers through a scripted part, which in reality few are willing to play. I still read - and enjoy - Peter Kreeft's books of Socratic dialogues between his Christianized Socrates and all manner of unbelievers. But the unbelievers in Kreefts books are too logical, too willing to back down from their core beliefs when his Socrates shreds their arguments. Kreefts books are a stimulating intellectual fantasy, but a poor preparation for real-life discussion.

I am amazed at the hostility many of these same Christian friends have to the notion of having extended, equal and fair conversations with unbelievers. In affirming the necessity of a spiritual operation on the mind and heart of a person, and the importance of making Christ the central focus of saving faith, we are not told to do nothing but preach, and to preach only in the way, voice, content and forms that we are comfortable with. The call to be a witness or a missional communicator is an invitation to incarnation and Christlikeness in motive, method and message.

If we take seriously the unbelief of unbelievers, then we pray, share the Gospel and do so in a way that is completely incarnational. We do not make them into projects. We fully humanize the process of evangelism, and we take unbelief seriously.

I think what Michael is saying here that we should seek to build *friendships* with those whom we would witness to, and not try to get them to read the scripts in our evangelistic plays. We must walk a fine line between witness and compromise, a line that cannot be standardized for every believer and every situation...

For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (I Corinthians 9:16-23)

The burden of reaching out is on us, not the pagan. And the "reaching out" is not by compromising our worship or our beliefs - they are what makes us Christians. If we abandon our worship and our faith, what exactly are we calling people *to*? No, our outreach is with *ourselves*, as Christ reached out to us...

The God-shaped void is absolutely there. It is the HUMAN PERSON! But it is not a void…it is someone made in God’s image, a person loved by God; a person for whom Christ did all his mediating work. This person and their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) are not a threat to us. We do not need to manipulate or control them. We can allow them to have their life, their journey and their experiences. We do not need to demand anything of them for us to present/represent Christ to them.

Packaged presentations, timetables, competitions for most converts, bait-and-switch Gospel ploys, "seeker-sensitive worship" - if someone played these tricks on us Christians, would *we* feel honored? Would we be more attracted to what they were offering by these methods? The modern ideal of truth separated from incarnation - in reality a *Gnostic* ideal - must be set aside. If we want to talk to others about a God of love, *we* have to *love* them - and not just by handing them tracts.

Today’s young people are bored with God. They are not “seeking” God at all, but are living on the hardened surface of a fallen human experience, seeking to make sense of what is incomprehensible apart from Christ. We cannot “create” interest apart from the work of the Spirit. Our calling to be witnesses is not to approach the world like cattle to be herded, but as persons to be loved in the way God loves this fallen world through Jesus Christ. We live in a generation and time dead to God and alive to entertainment and a consumer mythology that promises and delivers meaning through stimulation and amusement.

Christ has become the servant and savior of such a world. We live in that world, fully human, fallen, redeemed, rescued, living and hoping in the new creation. How do we speak of these things? It’s a question we must keep answering fearlessly.

The T4G Statement

2006-05-07T07:58:00.000-07:00

The official version of the T4G statement is now online. The Tavern has been discussing the matter, and I recommend the points made by Joel and Phillip and Joel again about it. But I promised my two cents, and here they are...

Articles I-IV (Scripture & Truth)
Much of the content in these four articles is standard boilerplate (affirmations of inerrancy, repudiations of postmodernism and pragmatism, etc), but three issues in particular caught my attention.

Authority of Scripture – there appears to be a contradiction between Articles I and II regarding the role of Scripture as the Church’s authority. In Article I, the Bible is described as “the sole authority for the Church”, whereas in Article II it is “our ﬁnal authority for all doctrine and practice”. There is a BIG difference between sole and final, as any Reformed person would gladly tell you (especially in regards to the great Solas of the Reformed tradition). I know that the majority of the drafters of this document fall into the Baptist end of the ecclesiological spectrum, where the idea that only the Bible should have any constitutional authority is widely accepted. But Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans (and even some Baptists), while acknowledging Scripture as final authority (at least in theory), regularly use creedal documents to organize their theology, church life, and liturgy. Are they in error to do so? Is Scripture the “last court of appeal” (the final authority), or is it really the only valid authority (the sole)? An editorial faux pas like this is quite astonishing.

Truth and Scripture – the phrase where the signatories affirm “the ability of language to convey understandable truth in sentence form” caught my attention. I looked at the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy last fall, and one refrain that returned again and again in that document was the centrality of “propositional truth”. Is the use of the phrase “understandable truth in sentence form” a fall-back from hard propositionalism? After all, poems have sentences, do they not? And do they not convey meaning?

Expository preaching – The phase at the heart of Article IV is left undefined. What sort of “expository preaching” is vital? Word studies? Theological systematics? What is the role of “story” and redemptive history in preaching? Where does exposition about the Gospel depart from proclamation of the Gospel? (The two are NOT synonymous, unfortunately.)

Articles V-VII (The Godhead and the Incarnation)
Nothing in here caught my eye as being too far beyond the pale.

Articles VIII-XIII (Salvation and the Gospel)
Article VIII stood out in my eye (and to others) as a sore point. “(T)he Gospel is revealed to us in doctrines that most faithfully exalt God’s sovereign purpose to save sinners”. What exact “doctrines” are being discussed here? At this point, perhaps a working definition of “the Gospel” should have been given. We were told in Article VII that the life, substitutionary death, and resurrection of Christ are essential parts of the Gospel. We are also told in Article XII that justification by faith alone is also an essential part of the Gospel. But are these parts the whole? They seem to be telling us about the Gospel without really telling us what the Gospel really is. This confusion seems common in some Reformed circles – the assumption that discussion of parts equals presentation of the whole. If the situation in the Church is really as bad as the preamble would seem to indicate, perhaps giving us some basic definitions of the terms they are defending might have been useful?

Articles XIV- (the life of the Church)
The Lord’s Supper – Article XIV states that “the Lord’s Supper can(not) faithfully be administered apart from the right practice of church discipline.” Again, a major definition is left hanging in mid-air. Just what is meant by “right church discipline”? Based on my knowledge of at least one of the participants, I suspect that the presupposition lurking behind this statement is that only intra-congregational communion is acceptable. IOW, if you are a member of our congregation, we can theoretically tell if you are not living in a way as to endanger your participation in the Supper - but if you are a visitor professing faith in Christ, how can we tell? The merits of “open vs. closed communion” can and should be debated, but it would be good to know what is really meant by this denial, so that second-guessing is unnecessary.

Gender roles – this one has generated the most “heat” in online discussions, and I leave that debate to others. I’ll only say that I am sure that the Church in America is doing many things that is “damaging its witness to the Gospel” – I’m not at all sure that the question of womens’ ordination is the most pressing of these things, however…

As I noted in the Tavern last week, a much more thorough, balanced, and ecumenical treatment of the Gospel was done seven years ago, called The Gospel of Jesus Christ: an Evangelical Celebration. I think it is by far the worthier and more weighty document, and deserves far greater attention that it has received up to this point.

The Pound Re-Opens

2006-05-01T00:02:00.000-07:00

(Blows dust off of the Blogger template and looks around)

Getting re-adjusted to life back home took up a lot of my time - in addition to spotty internet connections, and sheer inertia. But recent stirrings on the Internet have given me an opportunity to reassert myself for... well, I don't know if there's any audience left, but that's probably for the best as I meant this mostly as an online diary for myself anyways.

I haven't kept up with the Christian conference circuit for quite a few years now, but evidently a high-profile one just wrapped up called Together for the Gospel, featuring a lineup of evangelical luminaries such as Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C.J. Mahaney, and Al Mohler. One of the results of this latest conference is a confessional statement called "The Together For The Gospel Statement" (initial online versions are here and here, but evidently the conference website is going to issue an "authorized version" quite soon). The Tavern has been chatting the document (and the conference) up, and looking the statement over I was interested in jotting down what I thought of it. I was just going to do this on my own computer, but Adrian Warnock has put out a call for bloggers to join him in a systematic analysis of the document once the official version is online. So, I once again take up my ethereal pen and put down my thoughts for no one in particular. ;-}

It's Been a Long Time...

2006-02-05T05:33:00.000-08:00

Over a month, by my estimation. It's been a busy one at that, and not all good. Moving, getting sick, moving again, starting at work, starting at church...

Anyways, Peter, I'm sorry I missed your meme. My bad. Anyways, send me an e-mail and let's get RE:Union back on track.

On a more theological note, at one point in the last month I was counseled by my pastor to jump-start my prayer schedule again. He recommended finding a quiet, worshipful place to pray. He actually recommended the Basilica of the National Shrine to the Immaculate Conception. I've visited it a few times, and here is my observation of it.

1) Architectually, it is mindblowing. It was really brought home to me how much evangelicals have abandoned the use of art and architecture in our churches.

2) Mary is quite the center of attention. Well, I suppose that's hardly a surprise. I wouldn't feel comfortable praying in all the chapels there because of this - in fact, there's only one I really use, the Byzantine Chapel. I am not on the pro-Marian bandwagon to the same extent Paul Owen is, and I don't see myself ever doing so. But walking out of the Basilica after my first prayer time there, and considering the way Mary was venerated (as I believe, wrongly), I had to ask myself, "Is this really so different in God's eyes from the way we evangelicals venerate the USA in *our* worship?"

Is it, really?

3) They have a kick-butt bookstore there. I'd probably appreciate it more if I were a Roman Catholic, but I have been able to add some hard-to-find Chesterton books to my collection because of this store.

On My Way Home

2005-12-17T06:22:00.000-08:00

"One stage of your journey is ended - another begins." Gandalf, The Two Towers

It's been a busy two weeks at school, what with final assignments and packing and what not. Today, my dad and I start the long drive home. Prayers for our protection would be appreciated.

Lord willing, I'll be back home for Christmas - and back at this blog.

Musings on the CSBI Part IV

2005-12-07T07:29:00.000-08:00

Part III of the CSBI is laid out in articles of affirmation and denial. I am going to focus on those articles I would like to see clarified or reconsidered.

Article V

We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads or relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.

Here we get into those "hermeneutical" issues that Peter keeps bringing up. ;-} The relation of the Old Testament to the New - the question of the applicability of the Mosaic Law to the Church and the present world - is a hermeneutical question of the highest import. If we are no longer to stone Sabbath breakers, use bitter waters to decide cases of adultery, or not eat pork, have not those commandments been "corrected" and "contradicted"?

"Grammatico-historical" exegesis of Hosea 11:1 alone yield the exegesis of it that Matthew used? The exegesis of the Old Testament by the New is usually *typological*, not grammatico-historical. I do not want to see GH exegesis disposed of, but used in conjunction with the NT pattern of OT exegesis. This, BTW, would also have the advantage of taking care of a lot of dispensational excesses. ;-}

The question of how to read the OT comes down to whether or not we read the Bible Christologically. I would like that to have been made more explicit here.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

The whole question of what standard of truth is being used as the canon of inerrancy is again raised. Here they qualify what does *not* qualify - modern technical precision, exact quotations, etc. So what *does* qualify?

This question also impacts the article on creation and the flood. And again, the hermeneutical angle is prominent. How are we to interpret these chapters of Genesis? Does observation of creation today have any valid place in that interpretation?

Article XVI

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

The affirmation of the truthfulness and inspired nature of Scripture *has* been the concensus of the Church throughout its history. But the nature and intensity of the inerrancy debate in the past 100 years, I think, *does* have some bearing on the dual rise of scholasticism and liberalism - both being sides of the same Enlightenment coin. The framework of Enlightenment thinking was tailor-made to spark this debate, and fed both sides of it.

What Is the Bible, Anyways?

2005-12-01T12:19:00.000-08:00

Fellow tipster Jim at the Tavern asks some very good questions about the Bible.

What saves? What sanctifies? Is it the paper? The binding? The leather cover? The words on the page? The page numbers? The cross references? The running commentary by Saint Scofield? Further, is it the whole BIble that saves me, or just particular verses? Are some verses more salvific than others? Are people who memorize more scripture than me more sanctified? Is there a minimal subset of the Bible needed to save people? Is that why we print and hand out the Gospel of John? Can you be saved by the RSV? The NIV? The Jerusalem Bible? The KJV? Do we have to be able to read the original languages?

Someone will come back with, "we're talking about the content of the Bible, not the physical book." But then, I ask, where is the content? what is the content? What are we talking about? The ideas that the bible conveyed in the Bible certainly are ideas about how salvation and sanctification are accomplished, but are we saved by the ideas? It seems to me that runs up against the problem of mental competence; we're back to being saved by subscribing to a set of principles, rather than being saved by (Christ).

Making such propositional statements about something that's understood by faith is problematic. It seems more than a little silly to me, and I suspect it might be the source of grave errors.

Musings on the CSBI Part II

2005-12-01T06:36:00.000-08:00

Continuing my series on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, I now turn to the Summary Statement.

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

I do like the Christocentrism of this first clause. The centrality of Christ to understanding the Bible is the critical issue - something Our Lord Himself taught.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

It would be nice if they offered a definition of "infallible" up front, rather than assuming it. And the Scriptures "require" a lot of things - the OT law is a prime example, are Christians bound to any or all of *its* "requirements"? A blanket statement like #2 here makes cannot be made, without some hermeneutical qualifications.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

A biblical truism (II Cor. 3; I Cor. 2). But as Paul Hazelden points out in his commentary on the CSBI, "I have had far too many nutters telling me they know something is true because the Holy Spirit gives them an 'inward witness' to its truth." I think the use of the plural here in this clause is the key - the Spirit works in and through the Church in all ages, and we ought to weigh our insights with theirs, especially in the core matters of the Faith (Trinity, Christ, the Cross). We do best if we do not read the Bible in a vacuum, by ourselves.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

Wholly and verbally? I don't think this is supportable even by Scripture itself. As the author of Hebrews says, God spoke to the prophets in many and diverse ways (Heb 1:1-2). Did God dictate the Psalms to David? There are certainly places where God dictated His word out - Sinai being a prime example. But that is not the only paradigm to understand where Scripture came from.

And again, the question of hermeneutics comes in. I will grant that God does not tell us lies about His works. He created the world, it did not arise spontaneously out of nothing. But what exactly *does* Scripture tell us about God's acts in creation? Ask Henry Morris, and Hugh Ross, and you'll get two diametrically opposed answers. Hermeneutics again raises its ugly head. The assumption of some sort of blanket perspecuity seems to be lurking in the background of this clause, and I think this will come back to the fore again as this goes on.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Ah, the dialectic of "either/or". Either "total divine inerrancy" (and again, inerrancy is not yet defined here), or "(t)he authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired". I'm familiar with this sort of thinking. I used to engage in it myself. Everything is black and white, logical, and if something is not totally one thing it is totally another.

Note the clause about "the Bible's view of truth". Again, a key part of the arguemt is left undefined. What *is* the Bible's view of truth? Cartesian rationalism? Correspondence Theory? Coherence Theory? Propositionalism? I don't think any of these categories completely contains the Biblical revelation.

We are into deep waters here. I am not convinced it is meaningful to talk about a 'view of truth contrary to the Bible's own' because it is at least possible that the Bible contains a number of views of truth. - Paul Hazelden, A Response to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

What I take away from this is that there are a lot of assumptions below the surface in this document that need critical attention.

Musings on the CSBI Part I

2005-11-30T07:46:00.000-08:00

Discussion at the Tavern and at Jesus Creed has turned to the question of Biblical authority and inerrancy. Given the questions being asked about the presuppositions of "inerrancy" and "hermeneutics", and my own changing point of view regarding the interrelation of rationality and community, I thought it best to go to the source and see where I may still agree or disagree with it.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Here, I will just deal with the Preface.

Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority. The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word that marks true Christian faith

Not to deny the importance of recognizing the truth of Scripture, but I now think this is a bit hyperbolic. I detect a trace of foundationalism here - you cannot grasp and confess the Biblical authority without the foundation of an acceptance of its full truth. As for the part about "denying inerrancy = setting aside Christ's witness", that too is hyperbolic. Again, I am not denying the truthfulness of Scripture, but to place a recognition of that truth - especially as defined in inerrancy - on par with the Gospel is to make a secondary issue on par with the primary. I often sense the same mistake in Calvinist arguments about TULIP - "to deny TULIP is to deny the Gospel". I no longer buy that argument, because I no longer see the Gopsel as only a matter of theological propositions.

We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight.

Well, well, well. ;-}

We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

So, who's to say the "sin" of denying inerrancy worse than the "sin" of being uncharitable in debate?

We invite response to this Statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help that enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

I don't know how much of a response this actually got, but I know I intend to take them up on this offer.

How to Debate on the Internet

2005-11-29T17:16:00.000-08:00

I have just been reminded of why Dilbert is one of my all-time favorite comics. I hope Dogbert doesn't revoke my DNRC membership for reposting this list here, but it's too good to pass up.

1. Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)

2. Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.

3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

4. Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.

5. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

(HT to Amy Witt as overheard at the Tavern)

A Belated Apology

2005-11-28T08:42:00.000-08:00

(I’m cross posting this here and at the BHT)

Well, now it’s *my* turn to do a “confessional blogpost”.

Several years ago, I got into a very heated argument with a friend of mine. At the time I was planning on dropping my (admittedly “student” level) membership in the Evangelical Theological Society, over their refusal to excommunicate Clark Pinnock for his Open Theism views. (I eventually did drop my membership, for that and other reasons.) That was only the incidental start of the argument. The point of it was that I was primarily depending on what other people in the Reformed camp had written about Pinnock’s views to reach my conclusions.

“You can’t do that!” my friend said. “You have to read what he wrote himself to draw those kinds of conclusions!” My reply was, “Look, smart and godly men who share my theology have already done that, and come to such and such conclusions. I can trust them! Why should I waste my time reinventing the wheel?!?” Neither of us ended up convining the other on that day, and I just walked away mad – and with a gnawing feeling in my gut that she just may have been right. Fortunately, feelings can be squashed for the sake of preserving one’s arguments...

And my argument sounds reasonable on the surface, does it not? I mean, after all, who has the time to read every single word that every theologian and pastor has written? And what do we have denominational theologians for, if not to examine these things by the light of Scripture (and our confessions), and draw conclusions for us? If we can’t trust the guys on our own team, who can we trust?

Well, I have come around to reconsidering this whole thing. Especially in the light of several recent incidents.

I have been shifting towards a view of the Church and its mission that dovetails with the movement identified as “the Emergent Church”. Now, I will be the first to admit that there are problems, especially with its most public and prolific spokesman, Brian McLaren. But the poor level of interaction between the Emergent movement and some theologians – men who I generally agreed with, people I trusted – astonished me. The more serious critiques and essays proffered by Emergents – fine examples can be found here and here – are barely noticed. McLaren is made out as representing what *everybody* in the Emergent movement thinks – and even his works are often taken out of context.

Then, there was the Dooyeweerd Affair. A discussion on the BHT about this article by James Jordan brought up the role Dooyeweerd played in Calvinist thought. Now, I had been taught – by people who generally agreed with me theologically, people I trusted – that Dooyeweerd was a theonomist, a first kissing-cousin to Rushdoony and “Scary Gary” North, and therefore was problematic. I stated as such, publicly and vehemently – and got chewed out for it. I couldn’t reconcile why these people I was interacting with, of all people, would defend a *theonomist*! It never occurred to me until far, far, into the argument, that what I had been told about Dooyeweerd was wrong. But lately, I have been reading James Smith’s book Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, which includes a running commentary by Smith on the relation between RO and Dutch Calvinism, focusing on Dooyeweerd. And the Dooyeweerd I’m reading about in Smith’s book bears as much relation to the Dooyeweerd I was told about, as Demi Moore’s Hester Prynne does to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s. I was sadly misinformed.

Lastly, my own rethinking of how "reason" is used by people, even in the Church, has forced me to recognize that even people who agree with me, people who are Christians, can be mistaken, can utilize bad arguments to defend pet positions. Heck, I’ve done it myself on far too many occasions. And it is therefore very dangerous to let someone else do all your thinking for you.

So, to everyone involved at the BHT regarding the Dooyeweerd mess, I apologize. I was wrong.

To my friend, I apologize. I was wrong.

To those whose works I misused, I apologize too. I was wrong. I should not have used you as a shield to cover my own intellectual sloth.

And to Dooyeweerd and Barth, I apologize. I should not have totally pre-judged you on the basis of what others told me.

And now, I have some work to do. In the Twilight of Western Thought and Church Dogmatics just got bumped up on my reading list...

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN

2005-11-25T07:25:00.000-08:00

Daniel 5:25-28 -

"And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

The ongoing war between the constellation of independent Calvinist Baptist blogs and the constellation of blogs I slum around in has flared up of late. I have wondered at the invective maintained in this fight, and where it comes from.

From my own limited observations, there are four main targets of these "TR" types:

1) "Confessional bloggers" - those who have the courage to tell of the dark side of Christian experience - the sins, the doubts, the struggles of faith and ministry. But for some, this smacks of mental instability.

2) "Auburn Avenue/New Perspective on Paul" - those who seek to re-evaluate the traditional Reformed understandings of Covenant, and apply these re-evaluations in other areas of theology (like soteriology). The question of whether they are right or not is one thing - but for some, this conversation should not even be happening. "Luther/Calvin said it, I believe it, that settles it."

3) "Reformed Catholicism" - those who seek to have a dialogue with historic (c)atholic theology (the theology of the Church in all ages and branches) and perhaps, dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox as well. But for some, we evidently have nothing to learn from them, and they all have to become like us, or else.

4) "the Emergent Church" - those who would have the praxis of the Church match up with the calling of her Master, especially in areas where modernity has blinded us to our failures. But for some, this is simply atheological liberalism.

All four of these categories are open to criticism. It is possible for confessionalism to go too far. The AA/NPP has its good points and bad. I am a Protestant, self-consciously and comfortably, and therefore not Catholic or Orthodox. And Brian McLaren does have a habit of going to far on many points. But I do wonder at the innate and almost unthinking hostility and rejection of all these categories, in toto, by the "TR" types. What gives?

I think one good reason is that all four of these categories start with a rejection of the centrality of the particulars of Reformed Theology (at least as they are envisioned by the critics) for the Christian life. For the confessionalists, they have the indecency to point out that believing in all the right theology does not mean life doesn't suck. The AA/NPP wants to re-examine these categories in light of history and biblical theology. The reformed catholics want to re-emphasize the commonalities of all Christians rather than the distinctives. And the Emergents are demanding that the Church start *acting* like the church - especially in the pocketbook.

But, if you have built your entire understanding of the Christian life on propositional theology, on what makes you distinctive, and RIGHT, as opposed to all the benighted quasi-heretics in the impure churches outside yours, this is a great threat. Anything that threatens the primacy of your theological system must be confronted, refuted, insulted, shouted down into silence.

All these guys have is their theology. They don't have the sacraments. They don't have a connection to the wider Body of Christ. They don't have a vital tradition of their own. They don't anything but their theology, and how they think that theology should effect people. And anything that doesn't fit that box is a danger to them.

James Jordan has come out and said that this branch of the Church is dying.

Philip Jenkins has documented the continuing global shift of vital Chrisianity from the West to the South.

As far as I am concerned, these self-appointed "guardians of the faith" are fighting to guard a dying cause. The handwriting is on the wall, for those who can read it. God will build His Church - the particular stones of dogmantic (r)eformed Presbyterians and independent (c)alvinist Baptists are not vital to His project.

The Shadow Lifts

2005-11-24T16:12:00.000-08:00

'A great Shadow has departed,' said Gandalf, and then he laughed, and the sound was like music, or like water in a parched land... - The Return of the King, The Field of Cormallen

My rough draft just got back from my professor, and things are looking very good. A great weight has lifted from my heart. A few more details to patch up, and I'll be on my way home again, at last.

Thanks be to God.

Trudging Towards Mount Doom

2005-11-19T06:42:00.000-08:00

The Lord of the Rings: an allegory of the PhD?

The last and darkest period of Frodo's journey clearly represents the writing-up stage, as he struggles towards Mount Doom (submission), finding his burden growing heavier and heavier yet more and more a part of himself; more and more terrified of failure;

I'm writing my thesis right now. I hate it. I'm having nightmares about it. The rough draft is due next Wednesday, and I hate it.

If anybody still reads this thing, say a prayer for me.

FWIW...

2005-11-14T16:49:00.000-08:00

It fits, I guess...

Numenorean

To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

(HT to Cacoethes Scribendi)

Casuality of War

2005-11-13T12:53:00.000-08:00

Mike at Eternal Perspectivs is hanging up his pen.

I can empathize with his sentiments. There have been times when I have stirred up controversy and fights on the Internet - sometimes inadvertently, sometimes on purpose. One of my close friends has been pestering me for years to let go of doing theology on the Internet entirely. He's a sociologist, and his point of view is that the inherent limitations of doing theology on the Internet outweigh the advantages. It's too easy to be misunderstood, it's too tempting for "trolls" and would-be Inquisitors to do their thing, and the profound depths of face-to-face communication - so important in dealing with theology and the imago Dei - are simply not possible. I've always had this nagging suspicion that he's right. But being alone out here in California, this has been my only outlet for it. And I've needed this "online diary" of sorts to keep track of my thoughts as my mind has been changing.

Unlike some, I have no aspirations that this blog is going to "change the world". I'm frankly amazed that other people read it on occasion. But it is here, nonetheless. And I think I will keep at it for awhile longer yet. But I do understand why Mike left, and there is always the possibility that, in the future, I may go the same route.

Reply to Paul Owen

2005-11-10T09:45:00.000-08:00

Before I get too swamped with writing my grad thesis, I want to take the time to reply to Paul Owen's clarififcation on his stance on the Atonement, and thank him for taking the time to read this obscure blog of mine.

He says...

I do not believe (propitiation) to be consistent with eternal election and limited atonement. God’s election of sinners indicates an already present love for them, and a willingness to forgive them. The death of Jesus therefore cannot be understood as causing or effecting God’s benevolent disposition towards them by appeasing his wrath. Christ’s death does not cause God to be willing to forgive those whom he has already determined in his decree to forgive. That makes no sense. It is those who hold to universal atonement who consistently believe that the purpose of Christ’s death was simply to secure a willingness on the part of God to forgive (if they accept the benefits of that atonement).

As far as my own understanding of the theology of the atonement is concerned, the propitiation of Christ did not *create* the love of God for the sinner - it was the *result* of that love. The eternally determined love of God for His people motivated the Son to sacrifice Himself for their sins, so that the justice of God could be satisfied. It was God's justice that required punishment - it was His love that determined that His Son should suffer it on our behalf.

The expiation model which I hold to does agree that Christ’s death delivers us from destruction. But the logic is different. Christ’s death is not designed to satisfy the offended honor of God, nor his punitive justice. The eternal punishment of the unrepentant will do that.

For the sins of those unrepentant, yes. But what about *my* sins? As I understand the nature of sin and judgment, it is not an abstract notion, but the requirement of *every man and woman* that they answer to God for what they have done. How can God be satisfied that *my* sins have been punished, simply because John Doe is in hell?

The penal substitution model sees the wrath of God being poured out on Jesus so as to satisfy the demand for a just punishment of the pardoned sinner. Inevitably, in effect, this takes the emphasis off of the physical death of Jesus, and places it upon some supposed outpouring of God’s anger upon Christ on the cross as the unfortunate substitute.

I don't know who Paul has been reading on this, but again, for myself I see no separation possible between the physical death of Jesus and His suffering on my behalf. It was an integral part of His penal substitution. Simply suffering on the Cross wasn'e enough - He had to *die*. For Death is the ultimate punishment for sin.

The expiation model sees God as willing to pardon our sin (Rom. 5:8); but our stain must be removed for us to be pardoned.

I think this is a key point of contention. I see no separation between sin and "stain". The act of sin is a stain. Our corrupt nature is a stain. God cannot ignore either.

Now, sadly, back to that miserable thesis...

A Third Trumpet from the South

2005-11-01T10:38:00.000-08:00

This statement was released from a meeting of major Anglican primates from the Global South this weekend. The Archbishop of Rwanda, Emmanuel Kolini, and three representatives of the AMiA (of which my home congregation is a member) were present. Here's a glimpse of what we Western Christians look like from the outside...

==============

The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter Communique

A Third Trumpet from the South

TRUMPET III

The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter

Red Sea (Egypt), 25-30 October 2005

The Third Anglican South-to-South Encounter has graphically demonstrated the coming of age of the Church of the Global South. We are poignantly aware that we must be faithful to God's vision of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We do not glory in our strengths but in God's strength. We do not shrink from our responsibility as God's people because of our weaknesses but we trust God to demonstrate His power through our weakness. We thank God for moving us forward to serve Him in such a time as this.

A. Preamble

1. A total of 103 delegates of 20 provinces in the Global South (comprising Africa, South and South East Asia, West Indies and South America), representing approximately two-thirds of the Anglican Communion, met for the 3rd Global South to South Encounter from 25-30 October 2005 at Ain El-Sukhna by the Red Sea in Egypt. The theme of the Encounter was "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: Being A Faithful Church For Such A Time As This".

2. We deeply appreciated the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time he spent with us, his listening ear and encouraging words. We took to heart his insight that the four marks of the Church are not attributes we possess as our own right, nor goals to attain by human endeavour, but they are expressed in us as we deeply focus on Jesus Christ, who is the Source of them all (John 17:17-21).

3. We were really warmed by the welcome that we received here by the President, the government and the people of Egypt. We valued the great efforts made by the state security personnel who are making the land of Egypt a secure and safe place to all her visitors. We were touched by the warm hospitality of the Diocese of Egypt.

4. We have witnessed in Egypt a wonderful model for warm relations between Christians and Muslims. We admire the constructive dialogue that is happening between the two faiths. We appreciated the attendance of the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Dr Mohammed Said Tantawi, the representative of Pope Shenouda III and other religious leaders at the State Reception to launch our Encounter. We were encouraged by their wise contributions.

B. We Gathered

5. We gathered to seek the face of God, to hear His Word afresh and to be renewed by His Spirit for total obedience to Christ who is Lord of the Church. That is why the gathering was called an "Encounter" rather than a conference. The vital question we addressed was: What does it mean to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church in the midst of all the challenges facing the world and the Church?

6. The world of the Global South is riddled with the pain of political conflict, tribal warfare and bloodshed. The moral and ethical foundations of several of our societies are being shaken. Many of our nations are beset by problems of poverty, ignorance and sickness, particularly the HIV and AIDS that threaten millions, especially in Africa. In addition to that, thousands of people have suffered from severe drought in Africa, earthquakes in South Asia, and hurricanes in the Americas - we offer our support and prayers to them.

7. Apart from the world condition, our own Anglican Communion sadly continues to be weakened by unchecked revisionist teaching and practices which undermine the divine authority of the Holy Scripture. The Anglican Communion is severely wounded by the witness of errant principles of faith and practice which in many parts of our Communion have adversely affected our efforts to take the Gospel to those in need of God's redeeming and saving love.

8. Notwithstanding these difficult circumstances, several parts of our Communion in the Global South are witnessing the transforming power of the Gospel and the growth of the Church. The urgency of reaching vast multitudes in our nations for Christ is pressing at our door and the fields are ready for harvest.

9. Surrounded by these challenges and seeking to discover afresh our identity we decided to dig deeper into God's Word and into the tradition of the Church to learn how to be faithful to God's gift and call to be His one, holy, catholic and apostolic people. We deliberately chose to meet in Egypt for two reasons:

a. Biblically, Egypt features prominently in the formative period of the calling of God's people (Exodus 19). Moreover, Egypt was part of the cradle that bore the entry of the Savior into the world (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:13-15).

b. Meeting by the Red Sea, we could not help but be inspired by the historic crossing of God's people into the realm where He purposed to make them a "light to the nations" (Isaiah 42:6). Part of that blessing was fulfilled when Alexandria became a center of early Christianity, where church fathers formulated and held on to the Christian faith through the early centuries.

C. We Discovered Afresh

10. We discovered afresh the depth and richness of our roots in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Carefully researched papers were presented at the Encounter in the context of worship, prayer, Bible Study and mutual sharing. We recognize the dynamic way in which the four marks of the Church are inextricably interwoven. The salient truths we encountered inspired us and provided a basis for knowing what God requires of us.

The Church is One

11. The Church is called to be one. Our unity is willed by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who prayed that we "all might be one." (John 17:20-21) A great deal of confusion has arisen out of misunderstanding that prayer and the concept of unity. For centuries, the Church has found unity in the Person and teaching of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Scripture. We are one in Him, and that binds us together. The foundation and expression of our unity is found in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

12. While our unity may be expressed in institutional life, our unity is grounded in our living relationship with the Christ of Scripture. Unity is ever so much more than sharing institutionally. When we are "in Christ," we find that we are in fellowship with others who are also in Him. The fruit of that unity is that we faithfully manifest the life and love of Christ to a hurting and groaning world (Romans 8:18-22).

13. Christian unity is premised on truth and expressed in love. Both truth and love compel us to guard the Gospel and stand on the supreme authority of the whole Word of God. The boundary of family identity ends within the boundary of the authentic Word of God.

The Church is Holy

14. The Church of Jesus Christ is called to be holy. All Christians are to participate in the sanctification of their lives through submission, obedience and cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Through repentance the Church can regain her rightful position of being holy before God. We believe concurrently that holiness is imparted to us through the life, ministry, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 10:21-23). He shares His holiness with us and invites us to be conformed to His likeness.

15. A holy Church is prepared to be a "martyr" Church. Witness unto death is how the Early Church articulated holiness in its fullest sense (Acts 22:20; Rev 2:13, 12:11).

The Church is Catholic

16. The Catholic faith is the universal faith that was "once for all" entrusted to the apostles and handed down subsequently from generation to generation (Jude 3). Therefore every proposed innovation must be measured against the plumb line of Scripture and the historic teaching of the Church.

17. Catholicity carries with it the notion of completeness and wholeness. Thus in the church catholic "when one part suffers, every part suffers with it" (1 Cor 12:26). The local church expresses its catholicity by its devotion to apostolic teaching, its attention to prayer and the sacrament, its warm and caring fellowship and its growth through evangelism and mission (Acts 2:42-47).

The Church is Apostolic

18. The Church is apostolic in its doctrine and teaching. The apostolic interpretation of God's salvation plan effected in Christ Jesus is binding on the Church. God established the Church on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:20).

19. The Church is apostolic in its mission and service. "As the Father has sent Me, so I send you." (John 20:21) In each generation He calls bishops in apostolic succession (Eph 4:11-12) to lead the Church out into mission, to teach the truth and to defend the faith. Accountability to God, to those God places over us and to the flock is an integral part of church leadership.

D. We Commit

20. As a result of our Encounter, we emerge with a clearer vision of what the Church is called to be and to do, with a renewed strength to pursue that vision. Specifically, we made commitments in the following areas.

The Authority of the Word of God

21. Scripture demands, and Christian history has traditionally held, that the standard of life, belief, doctrine, and conduct is the Holy Scripture. To depart from apostolic teaching is to tamper with the foundation and to undermine the basis of our unity in Christ. We express full confidence in the supremacy and clarity of Scripture, and pledge full obedience to the whole counsel of God's Word.

22. We in the Global South endorse the concept of an Anglican Covenant (rooted in the Windsor Report) and commit ourselves as full partners in the process of its formulation. We are seeking a Covenant that is rooted in historic faith and formularies, and that provides a biblical foundation for our life, ministry and mission as a Communion. It is envisaged that once the Covenant is approved by the Communion, provinces that enter into the Covenant shall be mutually accountable, thereby providing an authentic fellowship within the Communion.

23. Anglicans of the Global South have discovered a vibrant spiritual life based on Scripture and empowered by the Spirit that is transforming cultures and communities in many of our provinces. It is to this life that we seek to be formed and found fully faithful. We reject the expectation that our lives in Christ should conform to the misguided theological, cultural and sociological norms associated with sections of the West.

Mission and Ministry

24. Churches in the Global South commit to pursue networking with one another to add strength to our mission and ministry. We will continue to explore appropriate structures to facilitate and support this.

25. Shared theological foundations are crucial to authentic fellowship and partnership in mission and ministry. In that light, we welcome the initiative to form the Council of Anglican Provinces of the Americas and the Caribbean (CAPAC). It is envisaged that CAPAC will not only provide a foundation on the historic formularies of Anglican faith but also provide a structure with which member churches can carry out formal ministry partnerships with confidence.

26. Global South is committed to provide our recognition, energy, prayers and experience to the Networks in the USA and Canada, the Convocation of Nigerian Anglicans in the USA, those who make Common Cause and the Missionary District that is gathering congregations that circumstances have pressed out of ECUSA. We are heartened by the bold witness of their people. We are grateful that the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly recognized the Anglican Communion Network in the USA and the Anglican Network in Canada as faithful members of the Anglican Communion.

27. As for the other provinces and dioceses around the world who remain steadfastly committed to this faith, we look forward to further opportunities to partner with them in the propagation of the Gospel. We will also support those orthodox dioceses and congregations which are under difficult circumstances because of their faithfulness to the Word. We appreciate the recent action of the Primate of the Southern Cone who acted to stabilize the volatile situation in Recife, Brazil.

In this regard, we take this opportunity to acknowledge the immense contribution of the Primate of South East Asia to the development of the Global South and to the preservation of orthodoxy across the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Theological Education

28. In order to provide teaching that preserves the faith and fits our context, it is crucial to update the curricula of our theological institutions in the Global South to reflect our theological perspective and mission priorities. We note from the All Africa Bishops Conference their concern that far too many Western theological education institutions have become compromised and are no longer suitable for training leaders for our provinces. We call for the re-alignment of our priorities in such a way as to hasten the full establishment of adequate theological education institutions across the Global South so that our leaders can be appropriately trained and equipped in our own context. We aim to develop our leaders in biblical and theological training, and seek to nurture indigenous theologians. We will provide information on institutions in the Global South, and we will encourage these institutions to explore ways to provide bursaries and scholarships.

The Current Crisis provoked by North American Intransigence

29. The unscriptural innovations of North American and some western provinces on issues of human sexuality undermine the basic message of redemption and the power of the Cross to transform lives. These departures are a symptom of a deeper problem, which is the diminution of the authority of Holy Scripture. The leaders of these provinces disregard the plain teaching of Scripture and reject the traditional interpretation of tenets in the historical Creeds.

30. This Encounter endorses the perspectives on communion life found in sections A & B of the Windsor Report, and encourages all Provinces to comply with the request from the Primates' Communiqué in February 2005 which states:

"We therefore request all provinces to consider whether they are willing to be committed to the inter-dependent life of the Anglican Communion understood in the terms set out in these sections of the report."

31. The Windsor Report rightly points out that the path to restoring order requires that either the innovating provinces/dioceses conform to historic teaching, or the offending provinces will by their actions be choosing to walk apart. Paragraph 12 of the Primates Communiqué says:

"Whilst there remains a very real question about whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion, the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered."

32. Regrettably, even at the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in Nottingham in 2005, we see no evidence that both ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada are willing to accept the generally accepted teaching, nor is there evidence that they are willing to turn back from their innovations.

33. Further, the struggles of the Communion have only been exacerbated by the lack of concrete progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report. The slow and inadequate response of the Panel of Reference has trivialized the solemn charge from the Primates and has allowed disorder to multiply unnecessarily. We recognize with regret the growing evidence that the Provinces which have taken action creating the current crisis in the Communion continue moving in a direction that will result in their "walking apart." We call for urgent and serious implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report. Unscriptural and unilateral decisions, especially on moral issues, tear the fabric of our Communion and require appropriate discipline at every level to maintain our unity. While the Global South calls for the errant provinces to be disciplined, we will continue to pray for all who embrace these erroneous teachings that they will be led to repentance and restoration.

Spiritual Leadership

34. Our on-going participation in ministry and mission requires godly and able spiritual leadership at all times. We are encouraged that many inspirational leaders in our midst bear witness to the Scriptures and are effectively bringing the Gospel to surrounding cultures. We commit ourselves to identify the next generation of leaders and will seek to equip and deploy them wherever they are needed.

35. We need inspirational leaders and accountability structures. These mechanisms which we are looking into must ensure that leaders are accountable to God, to those over us in the Lord, to the flock and to one another in accordance to the Scriptures. This last aspect is in keeping with the principle of bishops and leaders acting in council. In this way, leaders become the role models that are so needed for the flock.

Youth

36. The Global South emphasizes the involvement and development of youth in the life of the Church. The youth delegates encouraged the whole gathering by the following collective statement during the Encounter:

"Many youths in the Global South are taking up the challenge of living in moral purity in the face of the rising influence of immoral values and practice, and the widening epidemic of HIV and AIDS. Young people will be ready to give their lives to the ministry of the Church if she gives them exemplary spiritual leadership and a purpose to live for. Please pray that we will continue to be faithful as the Church of 'today and tomorrow'. It is also our heart's cry that the Communion will remain faithful to the Gospel."

Poverty

37. As the church catholic we share a common concern for the universal problem of debt and poverty. The inequity that exists between the rich and the poor widens as vast sums borrowed by previous governments were not used for the intended purposes. Requiring succeeding generations of people who never benefited from the loans and resources to repay them will impose a crushing and likely insurmountable burden. We welcome and appreciate the international efforts of debt reduction and cancellation, for example, the steps recently carried out by G8 leaders.

38. A dimension of responsible stewardship and accountability is the clear call to be financially self-sustaining. We commend the new initiative for financial self-sufficiency and development being studied by the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA). This is not only necessary because of the demands of human dignity; it is the only way to have sustainable economic stability.

HIV and AIDS

39. A holy Church combines purity and compassion in its witness and service. The population of the world is under assault by the HIV and AIDS pandemic, but the people of much of the Global South are hit particularly hard because of poverty, lifestyle habits, lack of teaching and the paucity of appropriate medication. Inspired by the significant success of the Church in Uganda in tackling HIV and AIDS, all our provinces commit to learn and apply similar intentional programmes which emphasize abstinence and faithfulness in marriage. We call on governments to ensure that they are providing adequate medication and treatment for those infected.

Corruption

40. The holy Church will "show forth fruits that befit repentance" (Matt 3:8). Many of us live in regions that have been deeply wounded by corruption. Not only do we have a responsibility to live transparent lives of utmost honesty in the Church, we are called to challenge the culture in which we live (Micah 6:8). Corruption consumes the soul of society and must be challenged at all costs. Transparency and accountability are key elements that we must manifest in bearing witness to the cultures in which we live.

Violent Conflict

41. Many of us from across the Global South live juxtaposed with violent conflict, most egregiously manifest in violence against innocents. In spite of the fact that the conflicts which grip many of our provinces have resulted in many lives being lost, we are not defeated. We find hope in the midst of our pain and inspiration from the martyrs who have shed their blood. Their sacrifice calls us to faithfulness. Their witness provokes us to pursue holiness. We commit ourselves to grow to become faithful witnesses who "do not love their lives even unto death" (Rev 12:11).

E. We Press On

42. We emerge from the Encounter strengthened to uphold the supreme authority of the Word of God and the doctrinal formularies that have undergirded the Anglican Communion for over four and a half centuries. Communion requires alignment with the will of God first and foremost, which establishes our commonality with one another. Such expressions of the will of God which Anglicans should hold in common are: one Lord, one faith, one baptism; Holy Scripture; apostolic teaching and practice; the historic Creeds of the Christian Church; the Articles of Religion and the doctrinal tenets as contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Holding truth and grace together by the power of the Holy Spirit, we go forward as those entrusted "with the faith once delivered" (Jude 3).

43. By the Red Sea, God led us to renew our covenant with Him. We have committed ourselves to obey Him fully, to love Him wholly, and to serve Him in the world as a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6). God has also helped us to renew our bonds of fellowship with one another, that we may "stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man in the faith of the Gospel" (Phil 1:27).

44. We offer to God this growing and deepening fellowship among the Global South churches that we might be a servant-body to the larger Church and to the world. We see ourselves as a unifying body, moving forward collectively as servants of Christ to do what He is calling us to do both locally in our provinces and globally as the "scattered people of God throughout the world" (1 Peter 1:1).

45. Jesus Christ, "that Great Shepherd of the sheep" (Heb 13:20, Micah 5:4), is caring for His flock worldwide, and He is gathering into His one fold lost sheep from every tribe and nation. We continue to depend on God's grace to enable us to participate with greater vigour in Christ's great enterprise of saving love (1 Peter 2:25, John 10:14-16). We shall press on to glorify the Father in the power of the Spirit until Christ comes again. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter Red Sea, Egypt 25-30 October 2005

END

Hot Anger, Cold Blood

2005-11-01T08:19:00.000-08:00

(Almost) every time I post a critique of someone else's blog listing, I get in trouble. But sometimes I just have to comment - they stir up something that I have to work out in my own mind.

The latest Paul Owen post at Communio Sanctorum fits this bill. Instead of Mary, now it's the idea of "Penal Substitution" - or rather, in Owen's case, the strong link between the Atonement and the appeasement of God's anger. He doesn't specifically say what he's writing against, except to call it "a foreign theological framework which emphasizes the anger of God, and the legal demand of just punishment, in a way that is (in my view) foreign to the Bible." That kind of wording will get him into really hot water with some of his Internet foes. What I hope to do here is to ask some questions of Owen's arguments, in a (hopefully) less "hot" tone (pun intended).

1. Owen's first point is that there is no specific mention of the appeasement of God's anger in the passages detailing the sacrificial system, only that the pollution of sin is transfered to the animal sacrifice. Well, OK. But are we to assume *no* connection between our sin and God's anger? That connection is made abundantly clear throughout the Old Testament - just type "anger" or "wrath" into the ESV Search Engine and look up all the verses where these words are attributed to God. Does it also have to be mentioned in the specific sacrificial accounts to be taken into consideration? His treatments of Isaiah 53 and Romans 3 also depend on severing anger from sin, and are flawed to that extent.

2. Owen then claims that God's anger cannot ultimately be satisfied with the destruction of animals, but with the sinners themselves. Just so. But then he goes on to say that Jesus was *not* punished in our place, because the NT does not specifically say so in that language! I think Owen here is making the same mistake that some of those he would castigate does - he's asking for dogmatic/systematic statements from the Bible like our systematic theologies would make. If God does and must punish sin, and our sins were upon Christ, and He died though living a blameless life Himself, does the conclusion that He bore our punishment not follow?

I think that the severing of the connection between our sin and God's anger is the key flaw in Owen's argument. If some sort of link between human sin and divine anger can be drawn - and there is ample biblical evidence that this can be done - then the whole discussion is moot. I'm sure that there *are* people who have overemphasized God's anger, but that is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Surely the appeasement of divine wrath is one of the many benefits that we have received from the Cross of Christ. And it is one for which I, myself, am profoundly greatful.

Who (or What) Are We Fighting... And What With?

2005-10-25T07:46:00.000-07:00

This is probably going to get me "Blogspotted" again. :-( But what the heck, the symmetry is too great to pass up.

In doing my usual trek through my blogroll in my browser's favorites column, two blogs hit on spiritual warfare today - and wound up on opposite sides of the fence...

Curses

Real Spiritual Warfare is Not Like a Round of "DOOM"

Frankly, I get nervous at both.

Dan's post makes me nervous, because I *don't like* the idea that demonic influence can permeate families without any positive action on the part of the descendants. I think that coming to faith in Christ should automatically sever any such things, even if they do exist. And there are things in *my* past that some folks who follow this line of thinking might want to pray over *me* for, and I don't know if that's appropriate... or not...

Phil's post makes me nervous, because it reduces spiritual warfare to promulgating and arguing over theology and philosophy. For all the insistance in Reformed and Fundamentalist circles on the supernaturality of the universe - at least, where God is concerned (creation, Incarnation, Resurrection, etc) - there is little taste for allowing that the dark side of the supernatural just might be active today too. "Charismatic (*and* demonic) activity ceased at the closing of the canon!" If you say so. But I've seen the biblical arguments for this, and I am not impressed. (EDIT - in the comments section, Phil says he *has* encountered demon-possessed people, but he addresses the *person*, not the demon. That seems the opposite of the NT pattern, and I have asked him about this.) I think that both Fundamentalism and strict (r)eformed theology have absorbed at least this much modernism - that they are very uncomfortable with the idea of ongoing supernatural activity that does not fit in their theological box.

And I am still this much of a rationalist, that I am too. So Dan's article makes me uncomfortable.

And I have changed in my thinking enough, that I acknowledge that there is a possibility that divine and demonic activity is more than possible in this life. So Phil's article makes me uncomfortable.

There are elements of truth in both sides, I think. The ultimate "spiritual warfare" is the preaching of the Gospel, not funky "territorial prayers". But I also think there is a demonic side to the evils around us that rational theology is blind to.

I am forced to acknowledge, once more, that there are things in theology and life that I cannot pin down, that defy my ability to rationally set them in a row.

Theological "Need-To-Know"

2005-10-24T20:50:00.000-07:00

In addition to sensitivity level, information that is classified is restricted in its dissemination based on the "need to know" the information. Having a "top-secret" clearance does not give one access to all documents classified at that level. Rather, information is disseminated based upon sensitivity level and the need to know.

- "Classified Information", Wikipedia (italics added by me)

The drive, the need, to explain things that don't make sense to us is very powerful. Especially for theologians. And accepting that there may not be an answer - or worse, that God may not deign to give us an answer - is very hard indeed.

Dan Edelen's latest post resonates with me on this topic. When faced with evil, with tragedy, with Things That Just Don't Make Sense, we want to know "Why?" We demand to know why. And sometimes, if we don't have ready answers, we extrapolate them from what we think we know (or just make them up) so that we have some comfort to fall back on. But, perhaps, there are things we just won't be told the "why" for. God's answer to us may be, "You don't have need-to-know for that information right now."

Dan references Job and his trials in his post. I would like to elaborate on that theme. We, the readers of the book of Job, are given the "inside scoop" on why Job suffered - Satan's challenge to God about the ground of human faith. When, at the end of the book, God does appear to Job, He could also have told Job the reasons why. God doesn't. Instead, He confronts Job with Himself, and insists that Job admit his ignorance. And even after that, God keeps the "secret". I don't think Job ever knew, in this life, why he went through what he went through.

When faced with tragedies like Katrina, like Dan's sad story of the missionary who died before she could fulfill her calling, we want the "classified data" in the background - we want to know WHY. And sometimes, I think God's answer to us is the same as His answer to Job - "You're not cleared for that information!"

Accepting mystery, the incompleteness of our understanding in this life, has been a big hurdle in my walk of faith. Sometimes, it's nice to know that others have faced the same struggle, and that I can learn from their acceptance that there are some things that God just hasn't seen fit to clear us for.

If You Play with Fire, You May Get Burned...

2005-10-22T13:22:00.000-07:00

And if you decide to go playing politics, you should not be surprised if you get attacked politically.

Case in point - James Dobson of Focus on the Family. He has, over recent years, become more and more involved in political matters, often in belligerant style. Most recently, he has been focusing on the politics of the federal judiciary, as evidenced in his involvment in the Justice Sunday rallies and the nomination of Harriet Miers.

It would seem that Dobson has been very deeply involved with the Miers nomination almost from the start. If the reports at the Wall Street Journal are correct, Dobson was expressly courted by the Bush Administration with assurances that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. His involvement has raised some eyebrows, and may be engendering a backlash - apparently, Arlen Specter is considering calling Dobson as a witness in the Miers nomination hearings because of his involvment.

I am not saying anything here about the fitness of Miers for the post, or why Bush really chose her. So what is my point in all this? Just this. If Dobson does get called before the Senate and roasted over an open fire (not just the Dems would enjoy this - Specter's appointment to the Judiciary Committe was opposed by Dobson), he and his supporters will likely paint it as a martyrdom tale - the brave Christian leader standing in the path of the godless secularists seeking to stack the courts against traditional American/Judeo-Christian values, and being slandered and attacked for his heroic stand.

As Hagrid would say, "Codswallop!" Politics is politics. And Dobson knows this well. As the book Blinded by Might showed, Dobson has been playing the political game for quite a long time, so he cannot be blind to how it works. Now, if one wants to play politics, that's fine. But playing politics is NOT the same as advancing the Kingdom. And when the political wheel turns, and you find yourself on the receiving end of what you've dished out for so long, to cry "Persecution!" would ring hollow to my ears. And it would ring hollow to many more ears as well - ears much more hostile than mine, who would rejoice to see the name of Christ and the Church dragged through the mud yet one more time.

But then again, too many evangelicals cannot see the difference between advancing the Gospel and appointing strict constructionists to the Supreme Court - so if Dobson does decide to play the martyr, it might work. Sad to say.

Taranto's Law

2005-10-19T11:48:00.000-07:00

Named after James Taranto, ringmaster of the "Best of the Web" blog at OpinionJournal.com. My formulation of it is, "Sooner or later, real life WILL imitate The Onion."

Case in point -

Israelites Sue God for Breach of Covenant - The Onion

Romanian Prisoner Sues God for Failing to Protect Him From the Devil - Pakistan Daily Times

(HT to Mere Comments)

Another Fine Mess

2005-10-19T06:16:00.000-07:00

...I've gotten myself into.

The *one* thing that gets my blog noticed beyond myself and a small circle of friends is this whole mess about Mary. *sigh*

Paul Owen and Eric Svendsen are slugging it out over the details of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (or PVM), so I'll refer interested parties to those blogs. (After cramming for a final this week, I haven't had time to fully digest either argument myself.) For my part, I will reply to Kevin Johnson's reply to my last post.

First off, I am well aware of the venerability of the PVM doctrine. So my criticism of it is not based on any animus towards the Roman church (which didn't evolve until the Middle Ages in my viewpoint, but that's another matter). The extent to which the Reformers held to PVM is another matter, currenly being debated in the blogs listed above, so I'll withhold comment.

RE: the question of tradition vs. modernity - for me, this is not a question of blind rejection of tradition. I speak as one who has already come from such a viewpoint. I have moved from indifference to liturgy and the centrality of the Eucharist, to one who ardently embraces both. I have moved from a strict credobaptism (including the denial of faith and salvation to infants) to a broad paedobaptist position - clearly the *traditional* position. I am no longer so blind as to think that the traditons of the Church (including Biblical interpretations) are to be ignored on the basis that *we're* so much more knowing and informed than they were.

However, let me also make a few counterpoints. I am still, self-consciously, a Protestant - which means, among other things, that I hold that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority and court of appeal in matters of doctrine and practice. *Any* tradition, no matter how venerable or ecumenical, has the right to be brought before the bar of Scripture and examined. (Of course, the interpretations of the Scriptures used are another matter, and that is where the problems I have with Paul Owen began.) In abandoning the modernist acid of total distrust, let us not leap blindly into a total acceptance of all things received either. Error and truth were co-mingled from the start, as any reading of the Pastoral Epistles will show.

Kevin asks, "(A) doctrine such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is so widely attested that we shouldn't abandon it at the very least without reviewing our own presuppositions and understandings of the issues at hand in rejecting such a doctrine."

A fair question, and I am trying to lay my cards out on the table in this post. However, as the comments section in Kevin's own post attests, the "presuppositions and understandings of the issues" by those who initally put forth the PVM should also be on the table. And here is my second biggest beef with PVM - the very idea of it smacks of Platonism and a denigration of the sexual nature of our Lord and those who surrounded Him. Why is the idea that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations - and children - so abhorrent to some of the Early Fathers? And how much of that attitude went into the establishment of PVM?

Kevin also asks, "My question back to our almost-Reformed-Catholic friend and other interested parties is this--What does it hurt to embrace the majority opinion of the Church on this matter? A more important question is this, 'How seriously do we take the traditions of the Church and how much do these traditions form our thinking in this matter and others?'."

To answer the first question - in the whole question of "reformed catholicism", Protestants are being asked to give up a *lot*. Our sectarianism, our theological snobbery, our biblical reductionism. What are *we* bringing to the table in return? If we cannot bring what makes us distinctly Protestant - if we still think there is any worth in identifying ourselves as Protestant - to the table, is this really a dialogue? I have often said in other venues that for there to be true ecumenism, *everybody* would have to bring something, and everybody would have to give up something. I think Protestants *can* bring something to the table, as Protestants - our high view of Scripture's role in theology. And I think a reasonable result of that (pardon the word choice) would be a re-examination of the PVM by other communions.

In answer to the second question, the answer is probably "Not much, and not enough." Historical ignorance is an American badge of honor, especially it seems in evangelicalism. I am trying to rectify that in my own life, but I am still a "work-in-process". (Side note - One aspect of that work is my working on the Ancient Christian Commentary series by IVP. The volume on Judges arrived yesterday. Tell Paul Owen that everybody listed in the section on Judges 11 - Ambrose, Augustine, Origen, Chrysostom - thinks Jephthah literally sacrificed his daughter.)

In some aspects, I am sorry the rupture had to occur at this point - however much I may think the PVM to be mistaken, it's not something I would withhold fellowship with someone over, and there are bigger fish to fry in ecumenical matters. It does, however, serve to highlight the tensions that still exist between modern Protestants and the other communions.

Well, Since You Asked...

2005-10-17T11:39:00.000-07:00

I was going to do this within the comment section of the last entry, but it probably deserves a post of its own.

Kevin Johnson (of Reformed Catholicism (which I had forgot to add to the blogroll - thanks for the inadvertent reminder) asks for an elaboration on why I listed Paul Owen's post on Mary as a reason I'm not a "reformed catholic". Fair enough.

Let me state at the outset that I am not against tradition per se, and that I have wide agreement with the goals and insights of those who call themselves "reformed catholics" (hence their inclusion in my blogroll list on the right). However, sometimes the acceptance of (C)atholic teachings and traditions goes just a *wee* bit too far. As much we can (and ought to) castigate reductionistic Protestantism, we must also acknowledge that, on occasion, a blind hog will find an acorn - and that there *are* "traditions" that deserve to be thrown out with the bathwater. The perpetual virginity of Mary is, IMHO, one of those instances.

I, personally, find the argumentation Owen puts forth in the article linked above very weak. I'll take it point by point.

1. I will pass on the nuts and bolts of the Greek exegesis of Luke 1 (as I am no expert on that), but if Mary was going to be a perpetual virgin, what on earth was her "pledge to Joseph" supposed to be?

2. There is nothing in the Old Testament about people abstaining from marriage as a "holy order" within Judaism (Jeremiah being a unique exception) - you don't see the eschatological relativizing of marriage until the New Testament. "Temple virgins" are *pagan*, not Judeo-Christian, in origin. Owen's readings of Anna and "the women temple servants" in I Samuel presume, and do not prove, his thesis.

3. Also, Jepthah said he would offer up whatever came out of his house *as a burnt offering*. And why would his daugher's friends have to go on the mourning trip with her if she was just going to be a "vestal virign" - they could see her anytime. No, I am afraid that Jepthah *killed her*.

4. Jesus giving care of Mary over to John and not to his (literal) brothers, I think, demonstrates what He taught all along in the Gospels - bonds of faith override bonds of blood. At least, the John 19 passage can be read just as well my way as Owen's.

5. I will also pass on the interpretation of the Woman in Revelation. To paraphrase Chesterton, the only monsters more fantastic than those in Revelation are Revelation's commentators. :-} I will only note in passing that the identity of the Woman has been broadly construed, even in "traditional" (i.e. non-Protestant non-dispy) schools of interpretation.

To resurrect an old rhetorical phrase of mine, the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity is a "Bartholomew Cubbins"-size hat - and the Scriptural pegs available are way too small to hang it on. The "Protoevangelium of James" is not, to my knowledge, anywhere near being an ecumenical creed, and therefore does not have the power or right to bind my conscience in this matter.

So now I guess I have a question - why do we have to go so far out on a theological and exegetical limb for the sake of "catholicity" in this particular doctrine? Is there any room for saying that, yes, on occasion, our forebears in the faith did take a misstep?

Friday Grab Bag

2005-10-14T06:25:00.000-07:00

A great post by Doug Groothuis on how to conduct ourselves with those caught up in suffering.

Dan Edelen hears the hoofbeats of the fourth horseman. (And I thought I was depressive.)

Paul Owen demonstrates why, however much I respect and learn from the "reformed catholics", I'm not one of them.

The Virtue of Consistency?

2005-10-10T10:05:00.000-07:00

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Glib inconsistency is the excuse of lazy minds - me (in my TR days)

Several items came together for me this morning that led to this post. First, a discussion in the comments on one of Doug Wilson's series on the relationship between theology and salvation...

My Answer Is Right, Darn It
Cooks Who Feed Only Themselves
We Can't Count That High

(I highly recommend all three.) Anyways, the discussion centers around whether one can have fellowship with someone who teaches Arminian/Semi-Pelagian theology out of conviction, since (in the opinion of some) this means they consciously reject the doctrines of grace, which are clear biblical teaching. Logical consistency demands that since they consciously reject a clear biblical teaching, they must be shunned.

Another link (metaphorically and internet-ally) came up in the Boar's Head Tavern - a link to a post by someone who apparently doesn't want to become a hyper-calvinist, but is being driven to it by the logical necessity of his theological premises. (I don't post the direct link here, since I'm not picking on this person directly, but only using the discussion to demonstrate my point below).

Reformed types tend to assume that logical consistency in our theology is an unalloyed virtue. Our theology is better than others because we weave all the threads of our system together in a neat logical package, and so many others are... well... inconsistent. I heard someone on a lecture tape once (sadly, I have long since forgotten who) say that "as nature abhors a vacuum, theologians abhor mysteries." In the case of Calvinism, that is certainly true. But is it *wise*?

Anybody who has followed a Calvinist/Arminian argument for more than 5 minutes can tell you that each side has pet passages to throw in the others' faces, and each side has carefully constructed logical arguments to disarm the desired impact of those verses. The conclusion I have been creeping towards is that we are dealing with a *genuine mystery and paradox* here. That Calvinism and Arminianism polarize into an "either/or" what is actually a "both/and". Of course, logical consistency DEMANDS that either divine sovereignty or human will have the "final say", and you gotta choose one or the 'tother. And, at least in my own observations, the choice one makes is as dependent on the chooser's personality as it is on their exegetical skills.

If God *is* transcendent, if human beings *are* made in His image, it should not surprise us that there are things about God's ways - especially His ways with us concerning our salvation - that ultimately cannot be totally logically quantified. And when our logical consistency leads us to run roughshod over clearly in-context biblical teachings, we need to step back and put our logical consistency in its proper place. One thing that *can* be clearly exegeted from Scripture is that logical consistency in our theology is NOT God's highest priority for His children. It probably *is* a good thing to have a reasoned faith - but a *living* faith in the Risen Lord is the *highest* priority. And you don't have to have an A+ in Systematic Theology to have a living faith.

A Boy and His Tiger (or is it the other way round?)

2005-10-04T15:26:00.000-07:00

The tenth anniverary of the end of Calvin and Hobbes is being marked with the release of a three-volume - comprehensive - collection. (HT to Common Grounds Online)

I've had three "must-read" comics in my lifetime - Bloom County (at least the first two-thirds of its run), Dilbert, and Calvin and Hobbes. Bloom was surreal and irreverent, an apt fit for my teenage years. Dilbert is my job. I just change the names and acronyms and it's a 100% match.

But C & H - it was pure magic. I don't think anyone else could combine childhood fantasy, cultural comment, and a Pythonesque sense of humor like Bill Watterson did. It was heartbreaking to see him drop the strip, but I understand why he did so - better to quit at one's peak rather than churn out boilerplate to keep your syndicate happy.

I ordered the set as soon as I heard about it. Did I need to spend that money, did I need to have it? No. But some things transcend need, and touch the basic human condition. Calvin and Hobbes did that. And I will reread and treasure Watterson's art and insight for the rest of my life.

An Open Letter to Dan Edelen

2005-09-28T07:56:00.000-07:00

This was going to be a comment on Dan's latest post, His Winnowing Fork is in His Hand, but it just grew and grew as I thought it over, and I decided it would best take up large amounts of space here than at his blog.

As always, his posts make me think, even when I have to disagree with them in part.

I want to come at this from two angles - related to his "sensation" of coming judgment, and his assesssment of our readiness for it.

First, his assessment. I will be the last person in American Christianity to disagree with him about our general situation. The American Church is sated, lazy, caught up in itself, focused on (depending on your persuasion) uncharitable doctrinal purity, building mega-church complexes, winning elections, feeling better about ourselves, ad infinitum ad nauseam. I will also not disagree that God's primary motivation in ordering the world is not our comfort or our present well-being. God desires His people to depend solely on Him, to exhibit His holiness, to be ready for whatever He may bring. We ain't. And God almost always, eventually, does something about that. And that OUGHT to give us pause.

Where I pull back and have my doubts is about what significance to attach to his "sense" that there's "a bad moon arisin'". I hesitate for two reasons - one personal, one evidential.

First, the personal. I empathize with his sensation. I get things like that all the time. I constantly sense what God *could* do with us and with the world. I always feel like "somthing wicked this way comes". The problem is that I know, with me, it's psychological. I'm a chronic depressive. I've *always* felt this way. I've had such feelings for decades. And 99% of the time, the things I was sure were going to happen, did not. (And I ought to be much more grateful to God that they do not.) This was one reason I sought refuge in Reformed rationalism - I wanted a surety and a faith that was divorced from my emotions, that could remain uninfluenced by them and *objectively* true. It is true that I am no longer the rationalist I was - but I still distrust hunches.

Now, I will indeed grant that this is *my* problem, and that it does not invalidate what Dan experienced. His background is probably not like mine, and his experience cannot be explained away psychologically. I willingly grant that. And that brings me to my second point - that I've seen many others make such predictions in the past, and thus far they have not panned out. I remember vividly having a discussion with a woman in a bible study in which she expressed her conviction that American Christiand would be actively persecuted within a decade. She made that prediction in 1992. And I can't begin to count the number of failed end-times predictions I've seen come and go. Anybody who's been an evangelical more than 5 years can tell you any number of such stories. So, what do I make of this? Dan is a wise, godly, and articulate man. Yet I still have a hard time giving credence to "prophetic episodes" like this. Yet, by the inexhorable laws of History (or rather, the will of the One who molds history), every civilization has it's eclipse. The problem with predicting bad things is that, eventually, *somebody* is going to be right. The question is, how do we know?

I make no claims of prophetic insight, but in my mind, a slow anemic slide to spiritual irrelevance by the American Church is at least as probable as a "winnowing". God has *abandoned* churches, as well as chastised them. Frankly, I find neither option appealing.

But whatever God has in store for us, what should be our response in light of our situation? Not to blow my own horn, but I touched on this in an earlier post. I'll repeat it here.

Now that I've disagreed with Dan, it's my turn to agree with him. I think he's spot on about American Christians not being prepared to suffer. American evangelicalism is a theology of glory, not of the cross. Americans have largely forgot that the human condition is to suffer. Hence, when any little thing goes wrong, we throw a conniption fit and call our lawyer. Yes, we ought to prepare for evil times - not because of some coming "judgment", but because it is wise. Evil times are the mark of this age, and we have deluded ourselves into thinking otherwise.

That said, how to prepare? By stockpiling food and water in our basements? (Fat lot of good that would have done the folks in New Orleans.) Buy guns and train ourselves in their use? (That would provoke a good discussion about the proper use of defensive force for Christians, a topic for another day.) My point is, all the physical preparations a person can make may be of no use when the crunch comes. How should we then prepare? By learning to worship God, and learning to recognize our fellow Christians as our brothers and sisters, no matter their location, race, or denomination. What one person cannot do, God and the Church can do more and beyond what is required. So let us learn to worship God aright, give to our brethren in need, and rest in the Gospel. Then we will be prepared for whatever lies ahead.

Nigeria's Declaration of (Non)dependence (on the Church of England)

2005-09-22T06:41:00.000-07:00

The Anglican Church of Nigeria severs its' ties to the Church of England.

This verse is in your Bible, right?

2005-09-22T06:36:00.000-07:00

"And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." - I Corinthians 13:2 (emphasis added)

Tom Ascol, director of Founders Ministries, issues a sharp wake-up call to Calvinists who value truth over charity.

(T)he wake-up call comes when Paul goes on to write that it is possible to have such knowledge and understanding and still be "nothing." The greatest theologian in the world is NOTHING without love. That truth is one that we who are so openly committed to loving the truth must not gloss over. Instead, we need to meditate on it and let its truth sink deep into our minds and affections. A loving Arminian is of greater spiritual value than an unloving Calvinist. Being loving is far more valuable than being right.

Love for whom? Both God and people. I say this because of what Paul writes in Galatians 5:14, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" We might have expected him to say that loving God fulfills the law, but he says that loving neighbor as yourself does it. How can that be? Because loving people in this way is impossible without loving God. You cannot love people sincerely if you do not love God supremely. And if you love God supremely, you will love people sincerely. So Paul can say that loving your neighbor fulfills the whole law.

An unloving Calvinist should honestly face heaven's evaluation of him. The devastation of such a critique should humble all of us and make us plead with the Lord to work in us deeply by His Spirit so that we might become more and more filled with that love that is so evident in our Lord Jesus.

Katrina, the Theology of Glory, and the Theology of the Cross

2005-09-18T06:41:00.000-07:00

[EDIT - the part below referring to a word search is specifically aimed at the Katrina article.]

The "Katrina and the Will of God" meme is evidently not quite finished. With a HT to the new theology blog at World Magazine, I came across this little gem of an article by someone calling himself The Calvinist Gadfly. I am not so much interested in the comments by Rick Warren that prompted the article, as I am the Gadfly's response, and what it signifies.

(M)most evangelical Christians and their leaders agree with evolutionists and naturalists that a divine being did not ordain Katrina. Rather than siding with the Biblical worldview of God’s decrees in his creation, many Christians and their leaders have adopted the naturalistic thinking of the world around them for explanations for hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, etc. Make no bones about it my friends, there are sadly many Christians who are embarrassed about what the Bible says about God’s control over nature.

Well, for the record, let me state that I (and most of my online friends) do NOT fall into this category. We do not dispute that God ultimately controls the weather. So this actually isn't the root of the dispute in my mind.

They detest the idea that God actually has a purpose in this world that he fulfills through his all-wise, all-just, and all-good decrees.

Detest it? Our hope for life is founded on that very promise - that all that God does (or permits, if you prefer) will come together for the good He has purposed. What that does NOT mean is that the means God uses are ultimately as good as the End He has purposed.

In reading the many theological responses on blogs and sermons on Katrina, I noticed one important attribute of God that was ignored: his Holiness. If we view Katrina in light of God’s holiness and man’s sin, the correct question that should be asked is not “Why did God ordain this to happen?” but “Why did God not ordain Katrina sooner?” Those who are offended by such an assertion, I ask you bluntly, in light of God’s holiness what reason can you give to me that you deserve your next breath? What reason is there that God would be unjust to send a Katrina to your city? We are all sustained by God’s mercy, not by an obligation on his part.

Refer to the discussions below on the topic of "grace grinding" to get my viewpoint on all this. Yes, God is holy, yes we deserve death and hell - but when is it wise to tell someone that? It would depend on the person, and their circumstances. A person may need to hear that, and may even be prepared to listen - after we have demonstrated that we do so out of love, and not in propping up our system of theology.

Some sadly draw the conclusion that because there were evangelical churches in New Orleans, then this could not have been God’s judgment. These folks assume the typical “American evangelical church is worthy of God’s blessing, not God’s judgment.” The burden of proof is on the person to prove that this was not God’s judgment. Someone may object by saying that there could have been a few God-honoring Christians that died in Katrina or many more being displaced. Certainly there were. If that were the case, then does God not have the freedom to take their lives at his sovereign timing and for his all-wise purposes? Can God not preserve godly Christians through their faith which does not require that he must sustain their physical life? The fact that there could have been some God-honoring Christians that died in Katrina is absolutely no reason to deny that God’s overall purpose was judgment.

Somebody needs to get this guy a copy of the dialogue between God and Abraham over Sodom. Lot was no better off than many evangelicals today, in his theology or practice. Yet God spared that city, much worse than Nawlins, until Lot left.

I have not been slack in decrying the state of evangelicalism myself, FWIW. But again I must ask, where is the compassion in all this? Where is the wisdom? (And no, just knowing and believing the tenets of Calvinism is NOT "wisdom." Wisdom comes in the *application*, not the knowledge.)

OK, so what's my point in all this? Well, there is a little tool in most browsers called "Find on this page..." (at least, that's what it's called in Firefox). Do a search on the word "Christ" on Gadfly's Katrina article linked above. You'll see lots of references to 'Christ'ians, but none on Christ, or Jesus. Why is this important?

Where I have gotten off the boat with many of my fellow Calvinists, and on the boat with many classical Lutherans, is in the idea that we best - nay, we ONLY - really know who God is and what He has for us, in Christ Himself. We are not to focus on "eternal, holy decrees", but on the God-Man nailed to the Cross. The fullest and clearest revelation of God's will and character is in Christ. To seek God (and to seek to understand Him) in His holiness and glory apart from Christ, Luther called "The Theology of Glory", and decried it loudly and violently. In opposition to this, Luther called for "the Theology of the Cross" - to see that God has hidden Himself from us in many ways, and we can only clearly see Him in Jesus, and that most clearly at the Cross.

I ask you, if anyone is reading this - from His character and ways presented to us in the Gospels, and if you'll pardon the trite evangelical expression - what would Jesus do at the devastation scene? Preach sermons about submitting to the just judgments of God? Perhaps - but Jesus rarely did so, even to the notorious "sinners" He met. Is it not easier to imagine Jesus with His arms caked in mud, pulling survivors from the wreckage? Talking to them about God and His Kingdom, in ways so winsome that logic-choppers like me could never emulate Him if we lived to be 200?

Did Jesus acknowledge God's decrees of judgment? He certainly did. He saw the coming destruction of Jerusalem - and He wept over it. He knew the purpose that the Father sent Him to us for had to be fulfilled - and He yet asked that the cup pass from Him, if possible. Jesus *was* a "Calvinist" in that He knew God's sovereignty - but He was also human, and seemed to understand the veil of mystery and doubt that hides the glory and purposes of God from us much better than do many of these "Calvinists". He was, after all, "like us in all ways excepting sin".

I've come to believe that the manner in which we present and defend our theology is a vital component of that theology. And I must sadly report that there is much Calvinism out there that could do with a humanity transplant. Away with the theology of glory - remember the Cross.

Confession for Theologians

2005-09-16T21:31:00.000-07:00

I Repent
of pretending to know more than I do,
of speaking without listening,
of correcting without caring,
of passing judgment without understanding,
of talking at people instead of with people,
of using words that hurt and do not heal,
of writing without grace, charity, love and kindness,
of writing with arrogance and pride,
of being more critical than redemptive,
of presuming my words are more valuable than others’,
of uncovering problems without pointing to solutions,
of being more zealous for a system than for a Savior,
for I am a man with an unclean blog, and I write among a people of unclean blogs.

To which I can only say - I repent, Lord help my unrepentance.

How Did I Get Here? (Part III)

2005-09-14T08:46:00.000-07:00

Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?

Sometimes I don't speak too bright
but yet I know what I'm talking about

Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?

Part 3 of my little mea culpa deals with the differences in BEHAVIOR and DEMEANOR between me and my old gang.

The stereotype is that Calvinists are mean, uncompromising, logic-chopping louts. On their good days. And sad to say, there is some truth to the stereotype. I've seen Calvinists in action too many times to deny that we can sometimes really unload on our opponents, in ways that deny in practice what we say we believe in theory. In theory, God sovereginly enlightens some and not others; whatever we have is not our own, but God's gracious gift; and we ought therefore to treat with humility and compassion whoever does not yet have the insights we have been given. Unfortuantely, many self-appointed defenders of Calvinism on the Web are functional Pelagians theologically - they seem to assume that everyone *can* and *ought* to understand and accept Calvinism, and whoever doesn't is either stupid or willfully disobedient.

I first started dropping out of the incessant debates because I found them *boring*. At least on the discussion list I was on, the same Calvinists and the same Arminians would get into it at regular intervals, repeat the same arguments and quote the same verses, talk right past each other, and accomplish NOTHING. And the level of politeness sunk lower with each exchange. I got sick of it after awhile, and slowly dropped out.

But I didn't see the real nastiness until I started hanging out with the crowd at Internet Monk and Boar's Head Tavern. The sheer viciousness and vindictiveness of the insults and slurs hurled at these people! Sure, they aren't all Calvinists, and tend to ask embarassing questions about theology and practice (good questions usually are) - but does that excuse the sort of behavior I saw? Prominent men whom I had once held in great regard were acting like schoolyard bullies, and they not only didn't see the problem with this, they sanctify their actions by saying they are "Standing for Truth".

I'm sorry, but I can do longer accept the implicit wall of separation some Reformed types have raised between "speaking the truth"/"in love" (Eph 4:15). Yes, I still agree with them on the basics. But even the most sublime truths told without love are a mere noise (I Cor 13:1-2). I think I finally understand that now. If we're going to beleive and teach what we believe the Master taught, then it behooves us to also do it as He did it. And He saved viciousness and sarcasm only for those who thought they had all the answers, and were willing to sit in judgment over Him and His lost sheep for it.

Well, that's how I got here. So, where do I go from here? I don't know, or pretend to know. I only hope to move on and do better than I have in the past. And I hope that some of those old friends may yet show up on the path, heading in the same direction I am now.

How Did I Get Here? (Part II)

2005-09-13T09:08:00.000-07:00

(to be sung with a thick faux-Australian accent…)

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger, was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel…

Part II of my little self-examination deals with my differences in PHILOSOPHY from my old Internet theology friends.

I’ve found that in many respects, the greatest strength of a person or group is also their greatest weakness. I think this is especially true in the (r)eformed camp. Our greatest strength is insisting on an intellectually trained clergy and encouraging a theologically astute laity. It is also a weakness, in that human intellect is not a neutral commodity.

In the course of my sojourn in Reformed circles, I learned that there were several philosophical assumptions made about how to “do theology”. These assumptions included some form of “common-sense realism” (assuming a direct correspondence of reality to our sense perceptions of it), the systemizability of Scripture (inside the Scriptures are a solid systematic theology waiting to get out), and the competence of logic and deduction to get us from the Scriptures to that system.

One thing about Calvinists that most people are aware of is that we believe in something called “total depravity” – the “T” in the infamous TULIP. “Total depravity” simply means that there is no facet of the human person that is unaffected by our fallen-ness. What I’ve come to realize is that, however much we Calvinists say we believe this in the abstract, we always seem to give our theological/intellectual exercizes a pass on this. Those durn Arminians/Semi-Pelagians/Anabaptists/Catholics/Whatevers may have allowed their fallen intellects to affect their theology – but NOT us Calvinists! WE’VE got it right!

I’d be much more inclined to accept this little piece of hubris if it weren’t for the fact that Calvinists tend to disagree with *each other* on other matters that would seem to derive from the same principles of logic and interpretation as do the matters that separate Calvinists from non-Calvinists. If we Calvinists have a pass on the intellectual effects of depravity, why can’t we agree on things like baptism, lapsarianism, church government, or any number of other matters? Why would God give us “the truth” in soteriology just to let us flounder in ecclesiology?

The simple fact is, human logic and rationality are just *not* what they’re cracked up to be. Our use of logic is, sadly, subordinated to our egos. Logic is fine and dandy, as long as it proves *my* point. Once it starts to turn on us, the logical fallacies start to bloom like dandelions. And I think Calvinists are *not* immune to this. A recent re-reading of Pascal’s Pensees has reaffirmed my realization that all humanity suffers from this fault, and Calvinists do not get a “Get out of intellectual depravity free” card. Therefore we ought to show a little more grace and humility in our dialogues – but more on that in the next post.

A corollary of this is how we approach Scripture. Is Scripture primarily a sourcebook for constructing a systematic theology, as per Charles Hodge? Is it the axiomatic foundation for *all* human knowledge, as per Gordon Clark? Or is it the story of redemptive-history, starting from creation and culminating in Christ, meant to tell us how we are to relate to Him? This does not mean that there is no propositional revelation in Scripture, but that it is NOT ONLY propositional revelation. The Bible was not only meant for us to pull prooftexts out of it to beat our intellectual opposition with. We’re very apt to pull out what *we* want to see, and downplay what the other person wants us to see.

So, how do I differ from my old friends? I’m no longer as optimistic that we can pull together a perfect systematic theology from Scripture. I’m no longer willing to pretend that Calvinists have an intellectual edge over other Christian traditions. I’m no longer willing to remain in captivity in the philosophical modernist Babylon. I’m not quite willing to go to full postmodernism yet either, but I’m willing to listen to some of the criticisms, critically. I’m currently reading some of Brian McLaren (on hearing whose name some of my old acquaintances will rotate three times and ritually spit on the ground). I DON’T agree with everything he says, especially in regards to historical theology, and on hell. I DO agree with many of his critiques of modern evangelicalism and evangelical theology. And instead of pillorying him for his mistakes, we ought to at least listen to what he’s getting right.

If we can get to the point where we can honestly listen to someone and learn from them, even as we charitably disagree with them, we will have come very far indeed.

How Did I Get Here? (Part I)

2005-09-12T09:54:00.000-07:00

(Cue up the Talking Heads)

And you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack -
And you may find yourself in another part of the world -
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile -
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful
wife
And you may ask yourself - Well...How did I get here?

Well, leaving out the automobile, house, and beautiful wife part, that’s where I’m at lately. I’m looking around me at this point and asking myself, “How on earth did I get here?”

Several incidents in the past two weeks have been the final nails in the coffin of my association with some old acquaintances in the world of Internet theology. And the question I’m asking myself is, “What happened? I used to be pretty much where they were. Now we’re staring at each other over a chasm. Where did that chasm come from, and how did I end up on the other side of it?”

As I’ve thought about this question, I’ve come up with several general categories to lump my thoughts together. I’ll start with where I’m closest to them, and move out to the lunatic fringes from there.

THEOLOGY – I am still a Christian (I believe in the Triune God of the ecumenical creeds, and the mediatory work of the God-Man Jesus Christ). I am still an evangelical (I place the Gospel – the proclamation of the work of Christ – at the center of the church’s mission and life, and my own). Heck, I am still a Calvinist for the most part - I'd even defend the "L" if you backed me into a corner. So, as far as putting down on paper what I believe, I’m not all that far apart from my erstwhile friends in these respects. So where do I differ from them?

One difference is that I am no longer willing to define everything as sharply, and argue with everyone who does not agree with me on all of them, as I once was (and as they evidently still are). I have read widely from a great span of Christian traditions – Anabaptist, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. There are great differences in them in some respects, but godly theologians in each camp have passionately argued for their positions, from Scripture. Each has attained wisdom and insights that the others could learn from. And I am no longer convinced that there is only “one true church” that has it’s theology down pat, and to whom everyone else must come and learn. In fact, I think that some of our differences (especially re: recipients of Baptism, and who can commune at the Table) should be charitably “tabled” (pardon the pun) for the sake of greater fellowship among believers from different evangelical denominations.

Another big difference is how I now view the Church. The Church, as I stated above, is not primarily a “one right denomination”, with poor benighted “lost sheep” in all the other denominations – this seems to be the default view, in practice, of my erstwhile friends. God is working through *many* denominations and groups, and we are ALL part of the Body of Christ. *Every* believer, of whatever creed, country, or color, is our brother. And some of these denominations and groups are very distasteful to the Reformed camp. One of the biggest body-blows to my “tight” view of theology and the church was Philip Jenkins’ book The Next Christendom. The thesis of this book is that the Western manifestation of the global church is going to be sidelined by the Southern manifestations – and those manifestations are going to be decidedly Pentecostal/Charismatic in flavor. This stunned me. How could God possibly want the Church to grow apart from the most perfect system of theology ever attained by the Church (the Reformed system, of course)!?! I briefly entertained the notion of overseas theology teaching – but I also quickly came to realize that in many ways, the Churches of the South were in no need of my help – in fact, in many ways they were manifesting the fruits of the Spirit (especially in faithfulness under persecution) that many Reformed types could only dream of. I’ll have more to say on this in a later post.

In the circles I have come out of, correctness in theology is evidently the penultimate Christian virtue – considering how much time is spent on it. However - from my readings, from my observation of the church scene in my town, my country, and the world - it has become clear to me that absolute purity in doctrine may NOT the penultimate virtue in God’s eyes after all. And the whole question of whether we can attain such purity is a good question in itself – one I will take up in the next post.

Keep on Grindin'...

2005-09-07T07:57:00.000-07:00

The "Grace Grinder" meme just keeps spreading. TallSkinnyKiwi has picked up on it, as has Adrian Warnock's stand-in. Steve McKnight has posted another follow-up.

The Sausagemakers of Grace

2005-09-05T07:55:00.000-07:00

An interesting web of comments has arisen about a post on Jesus Creed called "Grace Grinding". It's a short post, so here it is in toto...

There is a kind of writing, preaching, and talking about grace that instead of offering grace and extolling the goodness of God, seems to use grace as the backhand of God that is used to grind humans into the ground as it talks about grace. I’m having a hard time being gracious about this.

It is the sort of communication that does extol grace, God’s good grace, but it makes that grace an angry thing God has to do because he is gracious. God, being so loving but downright ticked off with humans for their sins and stiff-neckedness and hard-heartedness, is still gracious to us. That sort of idea.

This is a massive distortion of what God actually does to us. James tells us, don’t forget, that if we ask God in faith that God gives to us simply or unbegrudgingly — and the grace grinders tend to make God a begruding God of grace rather than a delightful and pro-active God of grace.

These people can’t talk about grace without emphasizing that we are wretches;
they can’t read Yancey’s What’s So Amazing…? without saying it isn’t the whole story;
they can’t preach obedience without saying this isn’t works;
they can’t talk about grace without talking about all those who are on their way to hell;
they can’t preach love without showing holiness is behind it all;
they can’t talk about grace without reminding us that it is all for God’s glory and that God didn’t have to do this and that we ought to consider ourselves lucky;

in other words, they can’t accept that God’s grace is God’s benevolence toward us because of who God really is (a gracious loving God) and because of who we are: his chosen people in whom he delights and for whom he has crafted a gospel that restores us to be Eikons who are in union with God and communion with others.

Forgive me if I’m being ungracious to the grace grinders, but it wounds the gospel to use grace as a grinding instrument.

Grace, so it seems to me, should make us aware that we are special to God not the reluctant objects of mercy.

JollyBlogger and Missional Baptist picked up on it, and Scott posted a follow-up today.

What's most interesting is the comments sections in each of these posts. As Scott points out in his follow-up, there are not lacking those who will proudly wear the badge of "Grace-Grinder". The question I want to ask is, "Why?"

I think I have some explanations for this, and I will list them below. (Note that this brush is a bit broad, and is not intended to explain specific individuals - just the general spirit.)

1) The Reformed and/or 'culture warrior' emphasis on "sin". The Reformed community is probably one of the few left that, in general, makes much of sin. And as they see fewer and fewer people "beyond the pale" doing so, they make even more of it in compensation.

2) The Reformed/Puritan archetype of preaching the Gospel is not just preaching the Gospel - it's Law, THEN Gospel. The Puritans, facing a turbulent and spiritually dry enviroment (much as we do), sought to ensure the sincerity of their converts by first terrifying them with the full measure of God's Law(s), and only then presenting them with the Gospel. (Lutheranism has a similar paradigm, but they don't take it to the extremes the Puritans did). In Reformed circles today (especially those who consciously emulate the Puritans), this is the only way to preach the Gospel. If you don't preach the Law first, you're failing in your task.

3) An emphasis on the holiness and transcendence of God. This I've seen too many times to ignore. Again, in reaction to the overmphasis on God's immanence in "liberal" theology, Reformed types tend to emphasize the transcendence. (And given the focus on predestination in much of Calvinist theology - again an aspect of transcendence - there is an inherent pull in that direction anyways.)

Operating from these perspectives, any talk of "grace-grinding" not only does not make sense, it sounds like incipient easy-believism or liberalism. Hence, they emphasize the judgmental aspects of God's dealings with man.

The real danger (for Grace-grinders and grace-peddlars) is that if you over-emphasize one aspect of the Gospel, that tends to color your perception of all the other attributes. Brian McLaren's views on hell are one example, IMHO. It's a question of perspective. In some circles, the grace peddled is false, and needs grinding up. In other circles, however, a fresh breeze of the scandal and free grace of the Gospel is just what is needed to shake things up. What is most needed is the wisdom to tell at which point you are in.

Re-Organizing the Blog Roll

2005-09-04T19:56:00.000-07:00

Coffee Conversations is back, evidently with a lot more cream and sugar than in its previous incarnation. I'm re-adding the link to my blog-roll, in place of another blog that shall from now on remain nameless. A few other new bloglinks have been added as well, as my explorations of the blogosphere continue.

The LORD Was Not In The Wind

2005-09-02T07:48:00.000-07:00

Provocative enough title for you? (See I Kings 19:11)

I have been watching New Orleans' slow death by torture unfold this week. Like many, I have withheld comment in my own blog, for lack of anything meaningful to say. But now that others whom I respect have spoken up, I wish to reflect on their take on this disaster.

Michael Spencer - "What Are We Seeing in New Orleans?"

I'll take his major points (see the article for how he develops them) and respond individually.

I think we are seeing a turning point in the perception of America in the world. - I think it's way too soon to tell.

I believe we are witnessing a turning point in the perception of the urban poor in America. - if what I've read thus far is any indication, this only goes to reinforce peoples' existing political prejudices - liberals will scream about how the government failed the poor there (true), whilst conservatives will scream about the failure of government to keep the peace (true). The human mind is an amazing thing - we will read into just about anything what we want to see. More on that later.

I believe we are witnessing a revelation of the impotence of government. Who's to argue?

I fear we are watching the first of many future episodes of social chaos in America. As I stated in the Boar's Head, this is nothing new. Remember the LA riots? The race riots of the 60's? The Depression? The Civil War? We've had social chaos here before - we'll have it again. It's the human condition. Human depravity is what it is - not even a "Christianized" society is immune from it, as the records of Medieval Christendom all too easily attest. In America, we've just put a good "face forward" on it in most respects. "The fault, dear Monk, lies not in our secularists, but in ourselves, that we are monsters..."

=======================

Eternal Perspectives - "What Are We Seeing in New Orleans?"

EP's reply to Michael's post above. The core of his reply, which I concur with, is here...

What is happening in New Orleans is the natural consequence of a deterioration of moral standards in the city. Many of the inner-city residents - and especially those who prospered from the immorality of Bourbon Street and its appeal to base desires - are both victimizing and being victimized by the absence of morality among some of those who remained during the hurricane. They are unrestrained, lacking an internal basis for morality. They are not living like animals, as some have suggested, but are living like humans lacking God-established controls.

They have sown the wind, as Hosea said, and they are reaping the whirlwind. Not the whirlwind of Katrina, but a whirlwind far worse and far more dangerous: the whirlwind of wickedness residing in the human heart. A minority - an immoral minority - is exploiting the absence of law and creating disorder. They are preying upon the weak and demonstrating that what God has said about the unaided, unrestrained human heart is tragically true. There are none righteous. We are desperately wicked.

To be sure, there are many good people in New Orleans who have sought to reform and redeem the city for years. It has been my experience that where sin is strong, so are the churches and Christians that live nearby. I am confident such is the case in New Orleans, too.

But it is an uphill battle for them and one they will not likely win. The United States is a democracy, not a theocracy, and individuals are free to reject the morality of truth and live outside the law - not outside the law of the land, but outside the law of God. Some people will live as close to the edge of lawlessness as those in power will allow. And when the threat of consequences and punishment is removed, the evil in their hearts runs wild in the streets.

============================

Cerulean Sanctum - "What the Church is Not Learning"

Dan Edelen raises the spectre here of the possibility that Katrina is a manifestation of the wrath of God. I will reiterate my arguments from Boar's Head tavern on this topic here.

1) Who was the target? The Mardi Gras revelers? They're all gone for the most part, as well as the promoters and organizers. The urban poor were most of the vicitms. America in general (as Dan seems to intimate?) Granted, America has done and is doing things that are sinful. But so does every other person, nation, and society. From that standpoint, we could say that *all bad things that happen to us are manifestations of God's wrath*. But the Bible says that for Christians, these events are not punishments but trials and discipling, strengthening our faith and preparing us for the New Creation. For the unbeliever, they are foretastes of the eternal punishment to come.

Which leads to another point. When someone says that a disaster is "God judging us", they too can point to the Bible. The OT clearly states that disasters were God's judgment on Israel for her sins. And here I want to return to an earlier point, about our seeing in things what we want to see. We make the leap between how God used disasters against Israel to how God uses disasters today, without thinking about whether or not America is in a similar position with God as Israel was. Of course, most American Christians *do* make that assumption, some consciously, many unconsciously. So, when we see something like this happen, we start to think of all the bad things we as a country have done and how God is trying to "wake us up". This may be true, but it is not the way the NT teaches us to look at these things. And, to get back to my title, it is dangerous to start speculating as to why God has brought tragedy onto any one person or place at any one time. We are NOT God, we have not His wisdom, and at times like this it is best to do as Job's friends intially did, and sit and weep with those who have been afflicted (Job 2:13).

Now that I've disagreed with Dan, it's my turn to agree with him. I think he's spot on about American Christians not being prepared to suffer. American evangelicalism is a theology of glory, not of the cross. Americans have largely forgot that the human condition is to suffer. Hence, when any little thing goes wrong, we throw a conniption fit and call our lawyer. Yes, we ought to prepare for evil times - not because of some coming "judgment", but because it is wise. Evil times are the mark of this age, and we have deluded ourselves into thinking otherwise.

That said, how to prepare? By stockpiling food and water in our basements? (Fat lot of good that would have done the folks in New Orleans.) Buy guns and train ourselves in their use? (That would provoke a good discussion about the proper use of defensive force for Christians, a topic for another day.) My point is, all the physical preparations a person can make may be of no use when the crunch comes. How should we then prepare? By learning to worship God, and learning to recognize our fellow Christians as our brothers and sisters, no matter their location, race, or denomination. What one person cannot do, God and the Church can do more and beyond what is required. So let us learn to worship God aright, give to our brethren in need, and rest in the Gospel. Then we will be prepared for whatever lies ahead.

Unintelligent Denigration

2005-08-30T10:45:00.000-07:00

Every time I just about get to the point where I think that "conservative" philosophy and Christianity can be harmonized, someone from the conservative camp comes along and proves me wrong.

The latest case in point is John Derbyshire at National Review Online. His latest piece on Intelligent Design is just awful.

Where to start? Well, first he gets the very definition of ID wrong...

the theory that life on earth has developed by a series of supernatural miracles performed by the God of the Christian Bible, for which it is pointless to seek any naturalistic explanation

Has he even bothered to read ID material? The sum and substance of ID is to determine by scientific means (statistics, complexity studies) whether naturalistic explanations of the origins and development of life are probable, or the work of an (UNDEFINED) external intelligence. Period. One does not have to be a Christian to be an ID proponent (granted, most are, but there is room for Jewish and even Islamic input). Derbyshire has hopelessly confused the faith of the proponents with the assertions of the theory itself.

The article descends from this point into a series of ad hominem attacks on ID, linking it to everything from ESP to the Victorian/New Age speculations of Atlantis.

His counterproposal is even more outrageous...

What, then, should we teach our kids in high-school science classes? The answer seems to me very obvious. We should teach them consensus science, and we should teach it conservatively. Consensus science is the science that most scientists believe ought to be taught. "Conservatively" means eschewing theories that are speculative, unproven, require higher math, or even just are new, in favor of what is well settled in the consensus. It means teaching science unskeptically, as settled fact.

Anybody with any knowledge of how "science" really works could tell you that this view is as blind and naive as Derbyshire accuses ID proponents of being. The "concensus" of today is the "junk theory" of tomorrow. In many fields, there is NO concensus beyond the most basic of propositions. And the fact that "concensuses" can be (and all too often, have been) more the product of prejudice and politics than acutal scientific research is a known fact of history. (There was surely a "concensus" for eugenics in the first half of this century...)

Derbyshire seems more concerned with maintaining the philosophical status quo than he is in real enquiries as to the truth of Darwinism. That may be a good conservative attitude - but a poor scientific one. And fighting for barring fair hearing for non-naturalistic views of reality is certainly not an attitude for a Christian.

The Heart of Darkness

2005-08-29T18:19:00.000-07:00

For a long time it will be quite impossible to remove spirituality from his life. Very well, then; we must corrupt it. No doubt you have often practised transforming yourself into an angel of light as a parade-ground exercise. Now is the time to do it in the face of the Enemy. The World and the Flesh have failed us; a third Power remains. And success of this third kind is the most glorious of all. A spoiled saint, a Pharisee, an inquisitor, or a magician, makes better sport in Hell than a mere common tyrant or debauchee."

- Screwtape Letters, #23

I had a brief encounter with legalistic fundamentalism - for two summers in grade school, at a church-run day care while my parents worked. What happened there in even that brief time was bad enough to keep me out of the Church for almost 12 years after that point, and to twist my conceptions of God and Christianity for many years after that.

But James Spurgeon, a friend and acquaintance of Phil Johnson, has *lived* in this heart of darkness. I've been reading through the online version of his autobiography of college life at a fundamentalist "school", and grim reading it is. I think churches like what he describes are the "pet projects" of the Devil - where he has been able to perpetrate the most perverse evils in the name of his Enemy, Christ Himself. That Spurgeon came out of it as well as he did is, as Phil put it, a trophy of God's mercy and power.

Education as Repentance

2005-08-26T10:41:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest hurdles facing an intellectually bright theologian is intellectual pride - that once one has a good grasp of your tradition's theological system, you've "got it", and anything that contradicts that or goes beyond it is a distraction at best, incipient (or full-blown) heresy at worst.

Three of the hardest lessons I've had to learn about theology are -

1) I won't know everything, I can't know everyting, and it is folly and pride to assume otherwise.

2) No one Christian tradition has a total lock on the full-blown truth of God. All have their weak points, and all can learn from the others.

3) Sin and depravity apply to intellectual (and yes, theological) pursuits just as much as they do to moral and relational ones. Logic and "common sense" are subordinate to the ego, not the other way around.

I've been forced over the past several years to seriously rethink many of my former theological "certainties" - and the process has been not at all unlike "repentance". So this theme rings home with me in a very special way.

I offer these two web articles on "education as 'repentance'" - well worth bookmarking and coming back to again as needed.

"Repentance" by George Grant (August 23 entry)

JollyBlogger on the same

Checking back in

2005-08-24T08:36:00.000-07:00

Truth to tell, I'm a little apprehensive about coming back to this blog.

I've been gone for two weeks, back home to DC/Hampton visiting friends and family. I could almost wish I hadn't gone. Being back home for two weeks put me behind in my project, and it was very depressing to come back to an empty apartment in a nearly-deserted compound in CA. It just underscores what is obvious to me - I want to finish up here and go home.

The first Sunday back in church here in CA was also rough. I had a copy of the new reader's edition of the Book of Concord waiting for me. I appreciate many facets of Lutheran thought, but the abysmal level of understanding of other traditions in it (Calvinism and moderate Anabaptism in particular) added to my depression. I went to adult Bible class for the first time in awhile (I had my own car, so I didn't have to leave when my usual ride home did), and I participated a little - not very much it seemed to me. But afterwards, as I was walking back to my rental car, the pastor called out to me that I ought to consider going into the ministry or teaching.

Oh, God, if he only knew.

I told him, "I once thought that. Now, unless I get a clear call from God, I have to just wait."

That comment of his really brought things back for me. I was once so *sure* that I was going to be an academic theologian! I had my theology down pat. I was going to prove once and for all that there is NO "head-heart" divide, that Calvinistic credobaptism was the perfect theological system, and that...

Well, needless to say, it all fell apart. Knowing more theology did not make me a better or more obedient Christian. I can't help but see that there are valuable truths and insights in all branches of Christendom, and that every system of theology has its holes. I saw the way theology is most often used (as a weapon in argumentation) and how pedantic academic theology could get. I saw the way God is moving in places like Africa and South America - and how things are generally a mess here in American evangelicalism, and we are mostly blind to it all.

All this, and more (some of which are my own failings, like problems with Greek), wrecked my sense of any sort of "call".

I once told my rector that I thought I was going mad, and I would either end up as an atheist or a monk. He just laughed and said I was in no danger of becoming either. I suppose not. By now "doing theology" is in my bones, and I can't help thinking, reading, and (occasionally) writing about it, even now. But, to use the words put into the mouth of Luther in the recent movie about him, "I've mislaid all (or mostly all) my former certainties."

The Post that Isn't what was supposed to be...

2005-08-04T16:07:00.000-07:00

Ron at Challies.com has come out with part II of his critique of the Emergent Church.

From the lead-in in the last article, and the way the current article is written, you would think he was talking about McLaren's book A New Kind of Christian. But if you check the footnotes, it turns out he really isn't. He's talking about McLaren from an Andy Couch article about McLaren's book in Christianity Today.

So, IMHO, there's no reason to critique somebody's critique of a person if they haven't even bothered to read their intended target's book!!! If I turned in a term paper in seminary like this, I'd have gotten my head handed to me on a platter - and rightly so.

Note to Ron - if you're going to critique somebody, and expect others to take you seriously, take the time and bother to actually READ what you're supposedly critiquing.

It's the End of the (Emergent Movement) As We Know It...

2005-08-02T09:11:00.000-07:00

...and I feeeel fineeeee.....

Seriously, the lifespan of "fads" is getting shorter by the minute. Up until two years ago, I had never heard of the "Emergent Church". Then it was all over the Web. ModernReformation just devoted a whole issue to it. But now, it seems, the party's over. One of the community bloggers at Challies.com has begun a series proclaiming the death knell of the Emergent Movement.

Actually, don't get your hopes up. It turns out that it is (at least, so far) a rehash of the same TR line of argument - an attack on the "leaders" of the Emergent "movement" for their "waffling" on the subject of Scripture and its interpretation.

I'll quote the last paragraph as a sample of where he's headed...

Crouch's assessment is almost as ludicrous: "The more I talk with the Bells, the more aware I am that they are telling me a conversion narrative-not a story of salvation in the strict sense, but of having been delivered from a small life into a big life."

Okay, this statement is disturbing. Not as sharply Christocentric or Gospelcentric as it ought to be. Point taken. But then Ron goes on to comment...

I know that's in the Bible somewhere, but it's probably my problem that I can't find it because I'm reading the authoritative black and white version.

Which version is that? And whose interpretation? Yes, the Bible is "black and white" on many things. But when people go around using language like this, it starts to raise red flags in my mind. Especially in light of a prior paragraph...

Whatever happened, the Bells did the unthinkable: They "started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself." Uh-oh. This is like playing the Sesame Street game of "What Happens Next?" The Bells began looking at "the Bible as a human product…rather than the product of divine fiat." Surprise! Surprise! Rob explains, "The Bible is still the center for us, but it's a different kind of center." No further explanation? That's it? A different kind of center is like a square circle. It's in the center, but it isn't. Cute. Cutting edge. It's the sound of one hand clapping-in the center that's the center except it isn't the center. Got it? Continuing Rob says, "We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it." I'm guessing that he means the mystery of the Trinity or predestination. Yeah, right.

I can just sense the empathy and charity oozing from his commentary, can't you? Classic ad hominem attack style. But is he listening to what she's saying?

And of course, who's to blame for this disaster? Karl Barth, by way of Brian McLaren. Ron promises to give a review of McLaren's A New Kind of Christian in his next post. I've read it myself, and am interested to see what he does with it. Nothing good, I expect. Now, I'm not in 100% agreement with everything McLaren says in the book, but he raises some very salient issues in it, and the critics too often focus on what he gets wrong as an excuse to ignore what he gets right. But, we shall see...

Meanwhile, for a more reasoned discussion of the question of inerrancy and narrative-vs-propositional hermeneutics, check out the IMonk articles below.

A simple statement about the purpose and inspiration of the Bible
We thought he was such a nice boy...and then we found out he didn't believe in....Inerrancy!!
Magic Books, Grocery Lists and Silent Messiahs: How rightly approaching the Bible shapes the entire Christian Life
A Conversation in God's Kitchen

Arrakis... Dune... desert planet...

2005-07-31T06:39:00.000-07:00

I'm back in San Bernardino county after a week in glorious seaside San Diego. The title words apply. The heat... the oppressive heat... human beings were NOT meant to live here in such large numbers...

In one week I'll be back in DC for a two-week working vacation. It will be "work" as I will have to take my thesis data along and work on it - but a "vacation" in the sense that I will finally see my friends and family for the first time in 7 long agonizing months.

Societas Christiana has reposted an old essay on how Reformed theology should effect our online behavior. On a closely related note, an earlier post deals with the dangers of engaging in too much online controversy. This really rings home to me, as the whole question of open communion came up again at BHT, and generated the same dismal heat-to-light ratio. It seems we can't even talk about stopping our fighting between our denominations, without fighting about it. Sad irony.

Why it's dangerous to play with (hell)fire...

2005-07-26T13:03:00.000-07:00

Another great post at Cerulean Sanctum. Take a look at the comments thread too. This should be a no-brainer for us - but as my own life can demonstrate, we are all too quick to forget how much we owed the King who forgave our debts, and too quick to call down fire where He has not. (Matt 18:21-35; Luke 9:54-55)

What do Sex and Communion have in Common?

2005-07-21T06:37:00.000-07:00

Look here and find out.

God save the United States...

2005-07-20T19:01:00.000-07:00

from these honorable culture warriors.

Yep, Justice Sunday II. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

It is interesting that this came to my attention today, at the same time that Doug Wilson made these comments on the relationship between evangelicalism and gay rights. The point he makes can be applied more broadly than just that one issue...

The point of our article was that if American Christians want the nation to repent, then American Christians need to show the nation how it is done. But of course the concept that God might be chastizing us is beyond the ken of the modern evangelical. "Us? Have a problem?"

I also loved this quote...

As a prophet of God Jeremiah argued that the Babylonian invasion was a judgment of God, and that the Israelites should simply take it as being from His hand, and use the time as an occasion for repentance. And in that repentance they were to look for deliverance. This hardly made Jeremiah a colonel in the Babylonian Tank Corps.

Of course, the problem is that that is exactly what Jeremiah was accused of, on numerous occasions. The truth Jeremiah (and Wilson) acknowledge here has never been popular with the people of God. Of course, Israel's refusal to admit this did not save them from the Babylonians. I very much doubt it will help us, either...

Croonin' to Jesus

2005-07-18T07:24:00.000-07:00

OK, this is not going to be all that original a post, but it's been a pet peeve of mine for quite awhile now.

Blame the mavens at Mere Comments for starting it. S. M. Hutchens wrote this piece in response to the waves of emotio-romantic "praise music" that makes up much of evangelical singing these days. Then The Monk added his voice to the chorus. Now, I add mine.

I am a man - at least physiologically, attempting to be one spiritually and mentally. While I am no longer the rockribbed rationalist I was, I am no mystic either. And as a non-mystic man, this style of music really sticks in my craw. Maybe someday, if I have a significant female in my life, I can sing like this to *her*. But am I really expected to address my Lord and Savior - who created me, died for me, and intercedes for me - in these terms? He is a *man*, after all. Men relate to other men differently from the way they relate to women, or so I'm told. And He is still God, after all. This sort of warm-fuzzy assumed relationship doesn't seem to jive with my experience, or with 90+% of the God-man relationships described in the Bible. There are some parallels in the Psalms and the Song of Solomon, but they are but *one theme* among many. Since when did those of us who don't follow this view of our relationship to God lose our say in the church's worship style?

Please - let's have a little less sap in our songs, and a little more solemnity. Just a little. Could it be *that* bad? Please?

The New Kid on the Block

2005-07-14T07:30:00.000-07:00

Dr. Doug Groothuis has joined the ranks of the bloggers. (HT to Mike at Eternal Perspectives)

He's only had two posts so far (not counting the introduction), but he has in those two posts reviewed the book On Bull**** and confessed to engaging in technical sabotage at the Christian Junk-Sellers Convention. A strong start-off, I must say. :-) The link to his blog is now enshrined in the index column.

As often as you eat this (cracker) and drink this (thimble of Welch's)...

2005-07-12T08:08:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across this excellent article on communion today.

People may wonder - why am I, who still somewhat identifies himself as a (b)aptist, a member of an Anglican church? Here's one BIG reason. One wonderful, positive thing I learned in seminary was the importance and mystery of Communion. (And I learned that from Calvin, no less!) And once I saw communion done right (and at a Methodist church, of all places!), there was no going back.

My church back in DC does it pretty close to how he describes it in this article. (Of course, as an Anglican church, we do it *weekly*, the way you ought to do it.) We usually buy a big, fresh loaf of bread from a bakery near Eastern Market. We have a bottle of fine wine for the Communion cup. The bread is given in nice juicy chunks to the communicants. The wine is given in a large, old-fashioned chalice. There are deacons standing by for prayer while the communion is offered. And every Sunday after service, we share a common meal together - it's almost an extension of the service rather than a separate event.

I miss my church - my home. I can't wait to see them in August...

In the Beginning was the Logical Inference...

2005-07-10T20:02:00.000-07:00

I posted a few weeks back on John Robbins and the inflated role he gives logic in the Christian faith. Now, one of his allies has come out with a new post at Trinity Foundation, which claims that doctines logically inferred from Scripture are equivalent to Scripture.

Pause. Reflect on that.

Now, I'm no relativist. I happen to think logic is a good thing. But logic is a tool, like all other tools. And when you put even the best tool in the hands of a sinner (which we all are), you're going to get mixed results even under the best of circumstances. Logic is fine, but we're never 100% logical. Everyone, when push comes to shove, ends up tweaking their use of logic to protect their pet ideas (which more often than not are not the results of that logic, but are pre-conceived BEFORE we even begin to apply that logic).

If I understand them correctly, the Trinity Foundation folks are Presbyterians and Calvinists. Which means that, according to their system, infant baptism, presbyterian government, limited atonement, etc, are all sound logical inferences from Scripture. And, if the system outlined in the linked article is correct, that means they *are* divine revelation to be believed and obeyed as much as any direct quotation from Scripture. So all Baptists, Anglicans, Arminians, and anyone else who does not draw the same logical conclusions from Scripture they do are heterodox at best, heretics at worst.

If they are consistent, that's what they will say. (From what I've read, in some instances that's exactly how they act as well.) And if they don't - if they accept that there are legitimate differences in interpretation that cannot be resolved in this life - then the whole system of "logical inference = divine revelation" is, as an RTS prof used to say, "wildly counter-intuitive" - which was his kind way of saying that something was utter codswallop.

If that doesn't convince them, then perhaps they should go to the Scripture verse that says, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known," (I Cor 13:12) and logically infer some humility from it.

The Faces of Evil

2005-07-07T06:57:00.000-07:00

A group calling itself “The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe” posted a claim of responsibility for Thursday’s blasts in London, saying they were in retaliation for Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

- Headline from Yahoo News

Know Islam,
No Peace;
No Islam,
Know Peace!

- Comment at Little Green Footballs

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

- the Lord Jesus

For I do not do the good I want (loving Muslims as Christ commanded), but the evil I do not want (wanting to drive the ?#$!##$ Muslims back into the deserts that spawned them) is what I keep on doing.

- The outworking of Romans 7 in my heart at times like this...

Breaking News - Kenya Disfellowships ECUSA

2005-07-01T19:58:00.000-07:00

Kenyan Anglicans cut links with US church

By Samwel Rambaya

The Anglican Church of Kenya has severed links with the Episcopal Church of America and demanded its expulsion from the global communion.

The announcement at the end of a three-day meeting in Nairobi was made amidst revelation that the head of the parent church in England, archbishop Rowan William would be visiting Kenya on July 20.

The church made the move over ECUSA’s endorsement of Dr Gene Robinson, a 59-year-old homosexual bishop who divorced his wife to live with a male partner.

Besides foregoing unspecified financial aid, the Kenyan Church would also not send its clergy for training at churches that recognise lesbianism and homosexuality.

"Unless they repent and recant same sex marriage, we have nothing to do with them," said archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi who chaired the meeting at All Saints Cathedral, Nairobi.

Nzimbi said Kenya’s stand was communicated at last week’s meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, which is the top decision-making organ of the Anglican Communion.

"We have severed links with ECUSA and other churches which believe in same sex unions," Nzimbi said at a news briefing attended by bishops Stephen Njuguna, Gideon Ireri and William Waqo.

Archbishop William, who will be visiting Kenya on his way to Burundi, has been asked to request the ‘offending’ churches not to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the largest gathering of Anglican bishops.

Waqo, who is the church’s Provincial Secretary, could not give the exact funding to be rejected but said it would not affect the church’s operation.

The church also rejected calls for legislation of abortion and supported the proposal to ban advertising of alcohol and cigarettes.

It also demanded implementation of the Ndung’u Commission on Land report to resolve the land crisis and challenged the President to act on reported corruption.

"There should be no sacred cows or protection of a clique of trusted cronies," said Njuguna.

Biblio-Docetism

2005-07-01T17:38:00.000-07:00

EDIT: PGE called me out on the exact heresy I referred this to. Oopsie. More proof positive that I ain't infallible. ;-}

I was planning on writing a different post than this one, but circumstances intervened - the circumstance being a recent post on one of the blogs I list to the side here. I wasn't going to directly name it because I don't want to give the impression I'm just doing this to be "blogspotted" - but what the heck, I'll name names anyways. It's Phil Johnson, and his post resurrected an old article by Gary North critiquing an article printed in Modern Reformation by T. David Gordon. The offending article by Mr. Gordon was called "The Insufficiency of Scripture" - a provocative title to say the least. Sadly the article is not online (and Phil insinuates that this is both on-purpose and a recent development, something I rather doubt). But I read it when the magazine came out, and to my recollection, the point of the article was quite solid - that the Bible is NOT the axiomatic foundation of all human knowledge, that we may just have to study other things outside the Bible to more fully apply it, and that it is pride and arrogance to say otherwise. The list of North's complaints is long, and exactly what I'd expect from a theonomist and a presuppositionalist. A point by point refutaion would be effort wasted, but the primary root of the problem can be seen in the following quote...

Most theonomists are followers of Cornelius Van Til, who made it clear in everything he ever wrote that the mind of self-proclaimed natural man is not to be trusted. In one of his choicest analogies, he compared the mind of natural man with a buzz saw that is set at the wrong angle. No matter how sharp it is, it will cut crooked. Dr. Gordon has not accepted this view of autonomous man's mind.

My response is thus...

First, *Christians'* minds are still tainted with the same inclinations. Any difference between Christians and non-Christians is one of *degree*. And Van Til's thinking was just as indebted to *non*-Christian philosophy as any other theologian's was. There is no man walking on earth who can claim an infallible grasp of divine truth. We Calvinists love to carp about the "noetic effects of sin" - for everybody but US, of course...

Second, this totally negates common grace - that God allows *everyone* some ability to grasp the truths of life, if not the Gospel. How many of the inventions and ideas that support our life today came from Christian minds? If nothing of the mind if sinful man is to be trusted, you should chuck everything not invented by a Christian out your door - or should we have doors? Were they invented by Christians?

Third, this totally misses the point of what the Bible is about. Yes, the Bible teaches us wisdom, godly principles about how our lives should honor Christ. But those principles are woven into a larger story - the story of how God saved us in Christ when we did not deserve it. And those principles are not only part of a story, but a story that took place *in history and in a cultural context that is not ours exactly*. People like North love to look for "eternal principles" to extract from Scripture and apply directly today, with no respect for the redemptive or historical context of the original verses (or our own situation for that matter). There was an ancient heresy called "Docetism" that taught that Christ only appeared to be human - His divinity could not be sullied by joining it to a dirty human nature. The way some people treat the Bible is similar - we cannot allow mere human principles to aid our understanding of it, it is DIVINE! It *is* divine - it is also human. And human knowledge (even of divine things) is ALWAYS contextual.

General principles are fine, but knowing HOW to apply it is something else entirely. As C. S. Lewis said, "Christ said, 'Feed the poor' - He did not give cooking lessons." It takes *wisdom* to know how to apply principles. The Bible enjoins men to love their wives - it does not give specific instructions on how to best love *your* wife. You have to do the hard work of getting to know her to do that. The Bible says to give to the poor - should that mean giving the man on the corner your change, your jacket, your time, a lift to rehab? You have to get to know the man himself to know that.

As I stated above, the original article by Gordon is not online. I wish it were. Here is one quote from it that I wrote down in my journal when I first read it, as a sample of what Gordon was saying...

Theonomy is not merely an error, though it has manifestly been regarded as erroneous by the Reformed tradition. It is the error du jour, the characteristic error of an unwise generation. It is the error of a generation that has abandoned the bibilcally-mandated quest for wisdom on the assumtion that the Bible itself (alone) contains all that we need to know about life's various enterprises. It is the proof-textual, Bible-thumping, literalst error par excellance. It is not merely the view of the unwise, but the view of the never-to-be-wise, because it is the view of those who wrongly believe that Scripture (self-)sufficiently governs this arena, and who, for this reason, will never discover in the natural constitution of human nature or the particular circumstances of given peoples what must be discovered to govern well and wisely.

Phil says Gordon's article was probably the second-worst ModernReformation ever published. Well, I say it was probably the second-best. And I too think I have the Spirit of God...

Grab-bag Thursday

2005-06-30T10:40:00.000-07:00

A few links to posts that hit home with me this week...

Russel Moore at Mere Comments posts on the value of friendship - even with non-believers. Reading this made me miss my old Saturday morning cigar shop gang back in Arlington - pagans all, but a great bunch of guys to hang out with nonetheless...

Andrew Sandlin on intellectual sanctification and "changing one's mind". I could spend an entire post on how this has the story of my Christian life. I still just might do so...

John Armstrong steps up to the plate on postmodernism and Evangelical epistemology. Armstrong used to be on my "outs" list when I was in my TR phase. Now its frightening how much sense he's making...

Two sides of the same coin...

2005-06-27T12:51:00.000-07:00

These two articles come at a similar problem (interpretation of Genesis 1) from different perspectives - philosophical/cultural, and hermeneutical...

"The Mindset of the Culture War" by Joel Hunter

"St. Augustine on Biblical Interpretation and the Essential Bond Between Truth and Brotherly Love" by Tim Enloe

Two great posts that taste great together.

Which comes first - the doxy or the praxy?

2005-06-24T20:59:00.000-07:00

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends..." Henry V, Act III, scene i

One of these days I'm going to stop getting into theological arguments. One of these days I'll stop breathing, too - and it's an open question which will precede the other.

My latest misadventure starts with this post at Phil Johnson's blog. The ostensible target is Ron Sider - admittedly a tempting target at that. Being of a conservative bent myself, I tend to be suspicious of political liberalism (especially in its modern forms) - but it seems the target is only partially Sider, and that's where I felt compelled to jump in.

Where the real problem lies, according to Phil, is bad theology...

What I disagree with is Mr. Sider's diagnosis of the underlying malady. He thinks the problem is merely hypocrisy—that people just aren't living up to what they believe. Therefore he simply repeats the same mantra he has been chanting for thirty years: what evangelicals need most is a lifestyle change. (But) it seems to me that the trouble with today's evangelical movement runs much deeper than that. The real problem is that many self-styled "evangelicals" don't truly believe basic evangelical doctrine anymore. Large numbers of them couldn't even explain the gospel in the simplest terms. Many flatly deny the relevance of God's Word and its authority over their lives. Leaders like McLaren and Campolo have fostered these problems and now are openly challenging our right to believe anything with any kind of certainty or conviction. What kind of behavior would you expect to be the fruit of such thinking?

There are several problems with this line of thought.

1) I can't say I've read much of Campolo, but I have read a bit of McLaren, and I have to say that Phil is being somewhat unfair to McLaren's line of argument. He's not the total epistemological relativist he's made out to be here. I doubt Campolo is either. And in any event, Sider has been making the same arguments for three decades, and McLaren's only been around for one at most. Laying the blame at their feet is hardly fair. This train's been a long time a'coming, and leaders can't lead where the flock won't follow...

2) Several of the churches in my personal experience that I would consider most guilty vis-a-vis Sider's accusations are *not* doctrinally washed-up. On the contrary, they are bastions of (r)eformed Gospel preaching and teaching. Watered-down theology (at least as officially taught and preached, in the accepted standards of their conservative denominations) is not the root of their problem in that regard.

This leads to Phil's central argument...

(A)uthentic good works flow from sound doctrine; not the other way around. Orthodoxy is what gives rise to orthopraxy. It never works in reverse. This, after all, is the basic message of Christianity: good works are a fruit of genuine faith. Faith, not any kind of work, is the sole instrument by which we lay hold of justification (Romans 4:4-5). And the practical righteousness of sanctification follows that (Hebrews 11:6; Galatians 5:6). Genuinely good works do not—and cannot—precede faith (Romans 8:7-8). In other words, orthodoxy does take precedence over orthopraxy. That is an essential ramification of true biblical and evangelical doctrine. Orthodox doctrine really is more important than social action.

I have a slight problem with this. *Orthodoxy* - right belief about Christ as the Bible instructs us - is not exactly the same as *Faith* - trust in Christ and His Gospel. The two are joined at the hip, but somewhat distinguishable. A person can be slightly unorthodox - perhaps "heterodox" is a better term - and still have true faith. Having orthodox beliefs, on the other hand, is *no* guarantee that one has faith - James made that painfully clear (2:19). So, is there some magical component of orthodoxy that would reverse all these evils? What doctrine, for example, is being neglected at those model churches that makes them such tempting targets of Sider's criticisms? (And would Phil agree it *is* a "doctrine"?)

I made some initial comments in that post (not, I think, as clear as what I've posted here), and got some feedback on them - and the reviews were mixed at best. I tried to point out that focusing on orthodoxy as the shining path to orthopraxy had not always yielded the desired results in *my* own life. To which one of the respondents said...

I'm having a little trouble following your argument, perhaps because you didn't respond to the distinction Phil made between sound teaching and sound belief, but went right back to talking about "orthodoxy" anyway, as if one aspect of orthodoxy were just the same as the other.

Are you suggesting that when someone shows a pattern of disobedience to God, something other than a deficient faith might lie at the root of their problem?

If so, what is the remedy? A bath? A sacrament? Hypnotism? Flagellation? Beer and skittles?

"I've been down that road, Phil, and that dog don't hunt..."? You appear to be saying you have given up on the sufficiency of Scripture because it didn't work for you.

So, what does the "sufficiency of Scripture" mean here? Scripture itself teaches us that knowing God's commands is no guarantee of obedience (Rom 7). Scripture itself teaches us that obedience and exhortation to righteousness is not just a matter of individual effort and doctrinal learning, but corporate discipleship (I Cor 12). Is my admitting that my actions aren't up to my beliefs, and that therefore my beliefs are not guarantees of good actions, an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture? Again, where is the "magic-bullet" doctrine that makes obedience and a change of heart work? Knowing God is one thing - *trusting* Him, another. Reading about God's love is one thing - seeing it embodied in His people, another (John 13:34-35).

If orthodoxy *is* the guaranteed root of orthopraxy, why do many Christinas I know in my home church, who are not as theologically "accurate" as I, more loving, giving, and accepting of others than I? And why are those staunch theologically conservative churches I know of so blind as to the poverty of their earthly wealth? Why are many Third-World churches (who often lack our theological resources) bearing up grandly under persecution, and sending missionaries to *us*? Might it have something to do with their having faith and love, which we seem to be lacking?

I'm sorry, but if orthodoxy were a guarantee of orthopraxy, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. There'd be no place for people like Sider and McLaren - who I probably disagree with politically and philosophically to a good extent - to call us out on the carpet like they have done. Yes, there are theologically-starved churches out there - I've seen examples of them, too. But let's not kid ourselves by thinking that a wave of Reformed teaching will be an automatic panacea. If there's any hope to change things in our churches, it's not just sound theology - it's revival. And revival, in Biblical terms, is linked not primarily to emotional hysteria, scheduled appearances by "revivalists", or canned programs. It *is* linked inseparably with recalling the covenant God has made with His people - our Covenant in Christ's blood (yes, orthodoxy). But it is also linked inseparably with *repentance*.

We in American evangelicalism have got a lot to repent of - myself first and foremost.

Bach on Pipes - not the Organ types, either!

2005-06-22T10:30:00.000-07:00

Edifying Thoughts of a Tobacco Smoker

by Johann Sebastian Bach

Whene'er I take my pipe and stuff it
And smoke to pass the time away
My thoughts, as I sit there and puff it,
Dwell on a picture sad and grey:
It teaches me that very like
Am I myself unto my pipe.

Like me this pipe, so fragrant burning,
Is made of naught but earthen clay;
To earth I too shall be returning,
And cannot halt my slow decay.
My well used pipe, now cracked and broken,
Of mortal life is but a token.

No stain, the pipe's hue yet doth darken;
It remains white. Thus do I know
That when to death's call I must harken
My body, too, all pale will grow.
To black beneath the sod 'twill turn,
Likewise the pipe, if oft it burn.

Or when the pipe is fairly glowing,
Behold then instantaneously,
The smoke off into thin air going,
'Til naught but ash is left to see.
Man's fame likewise away will burn
And unto dust his body turn.

How oft it happens when one's smoking,
The tamper's missing from it's shelf,
And one goes with one's finger poking
Into the bowl and burns oneself.
If in the pipe such pain doth dwell
How hot must be the pains of Hell!

Thus o'er my pipe in contemplation
Of such things - I can constantly
Indulge in fruitful meditation,
And so, puffing contentedly,
On land, at sea, at home, abroad,
I smoke my pipe and worship God.

Poem originally posted here. HT to Cultural Savage at the iMonk discussion page.

Everybody, Pile-on Robbins!

2005-06-20T08:27:00.000-07:00

One thing I've noticed in the blog-world is how ideas get spread from blog to blog - and how people thereby get piled-on as a consequence. In that portion of the blogosphere I haunt, the target du jour happens to be John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation. It appears that somebody finally noticed this little gem in his April commentary:

Divine propositional revelation is the indispensable axiom, the starting point, the first principle of Christianity. If that first principle is perverted or twisted, then all theorems – doctrines such as election, salvation, covenant, and church – derived from it will be perverted or twisted as well.

Among the "pilers-on" are Andrew Sandlin and several of my fellow Tavernites. Now, I suppose that it is in poor taste to pile-on somebody when he's already down, but having been where he is philosophically, I can't let this pass without some comment.

I do still happen to think that there are propositional truths in the Bible. I can think of any number of them right off the bat ("I AM the LORD your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."). But the pilers-on are right in several respects. The Bible is NOT a logical collection of such propositional axioms. The foundation of the Christian faith is not just propositional, but relational. The proposition I quoted above is predicated on the relation ("*I* brought *you* out of Egypt..."). To apply the very terminology that Robbins uses ("axioms", "theorems") to theology implies a mathematical level of exactitude and certainty - something that one does NOT get from a straight reading of the Bible itself.

To all this, I would add that we ought to exercise a lot more humility and caution about the "axioms" we derive from the propositions. God may not contradict logic, but He does transcend it. And our own fallenness ensures that we cannot be *too* sure of our deductions, as the capacity for human sinful self-deception is frightening. Not to mention the fact that our Subject Matter in theology is Infinite and we ain't...

So yes, I guess I am going to join the pile-on against Robbins. But I hope I can land on the pile a little bit gentler than the others - because I've been where he is, both philosophically and personally. And I hope he eventually sees that while the Faith *is* propositional, it is also so much more than that as well.

Our Problems are Solved!

2005-06-16T12:30:00.000-07:00

The problems of Christianity in America have been solved. Evidently, what we needed was a new flag and a new Pledge of Allegience. (Link here) (HT to Kent at BHT)

This is almost enough to make one wish that our government WOULD start persecuting us. Then, at least, we could shake ourselves free of the delusion that the Kingdom of God and the United States have a "special relationship"...

Love, Injustice, & the Christian Way

2005-06-15T10:20:00.000-07:00

I really struggle with issues like the ones raised in this post by Tim Challies. Things like this I find heartrending, maddening, and convicting all at the same time.

It's heartrending to read how some Christians are called to suffer for Christ's name. I can't - no, I DON'T - want to imagine what she went through.

It's maddening to see the injustice in the world. I am an American, a victim of bullying, and an ISTJ. I therefore do NOT suffer bullies and evil men gladly. My instinct is not to love enemies, but to call down JDAM strikes on them. I have little compassion for Muslims, criminals, and the "rebels" described in the story linked above. Had I been there, I not only would NOT have submitted, I would have died - while trying to take one of the @Q#$!#s with me when I went. Phrases like "Let's roll!", "Ride to ruin and the world's ending!", and "Let justice be done though the heavens fall" resonate deeply with me.

And it's convicting, because I know that's NOT how we are called to react. God calls us to suffer with Him in Christ. I don't like that. But I don't recall God ever asking me about my likes when He set the universe up (ref. Job 38-41). This truth - the theology of love and suffering under the Cross - is the TRUTH.

My life has been one long exposition on Romans 7. All I can say is, if that passage does NOT describe normal Christians, then I ain't one.

You Gotta Know When to Hold'em, Know When to Fold'em...

2005-06-15T08:39:00.000-07:00

The fighting instinct dies hard. But it gets easier as one sees the futility of most arguments.

The question becomes, when do you give up? When the argument shifts from one level to another, when points don't get responded to, when at the very end of the line all you get is, "You're 100% wrong"...

That's the real killer for me. How can Christians end up like this?

"The head cannot lead where the heart will not follow."

We ALL need new hearts.

Theological Engineering

2005-06-10T14:02:00.000-07:00

I am an engineer.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: I am a nerd/geek/whatever the current slang is.

Engineers come in all stripes and specialities. Mechanical. Electrical. Traffic. Software. Network. Sociological. We live in the Age of the Engineer. Everything is engineered. We expect that everything can be engineered. With enough elbow grease and midnight oil, we can figure out the natural laws that apply to our problem, formulate a solution based those laws, and just run the application from that point on whenever the problem arises.

The problem is, some things can't be engineered. Some things can't be boiled down to predictable laws and formulaic answers. But there are those who don't recognize this. And there is no greater area where this mistake can be made than in theology.

All this started percolating in my mind when I read the latest iMonk piece - on Christian assurance. An excellent piece as usual. But what caught my attention in the response thread was the battle between those wanting to confront calloused souls who have a "false assurance", and those seeking comfort for troubled souls who see their imperfect sanctification as a sign of hypocrisy and false faith. Several of the responses seem to fall into the category of emphasizing one or the other - but the most militant seemed to be on the side of "uprooting assurance". There are times and places for both. Both sides can marshal biblical support. But what is needed is wisdom - to know which ought to be applied to a given situation. And what is needed for *that* is a personal knowledge of the people involved. And what is needed for *that* is a true worshiping community, with mutual service and accountability.

But alas, it's so much easier for many to constantly advocate either excruciating (pun intended) self-examination - which can lead to the Puritan/Neo-Puritan caricature of "uproot 'em all, let God sort 'em out" - or to advocate preaching only grace and love - which can lead to the easy believism caricature ala Joel Osteen. The neat thing is, with either method you don't need to do the hard work of figuring out where your own church really is. Just pick the right "application", and "run" it whenever the topic comes us. Why not? We've got the formula down. Theological engineering.

I've quoted this article before, but because it's where I got the idea of "theological engineering" to being with, I'll do so again...

Presbyterian/Reformed churches are sometimes not marked by sweetness but harshness, especially in those branches that have not jettisoned their historical theological base. Doctrine is the big thing, approached with the precision of an engineer. Here is what I mean. Let’s say that an engineer is going to build a bridge across the Mississippi River. He cannot afford to care what people think of him or how he comes across. “Hang it all, Man, we must be correct. I don’t care what you think. I’ll not have this bridge collapse because of your idiotic opinion. I have a moral obligation to ignore your ignorance.”

That is the one vital thing when it comes to building bridges of steel and concrete; it is different when it comes to the bridge between a holy God and sinful man. The gospel ministry is not only a science, it is an art(.)

Adventures in Missing the Point?

2005-06-08T18:58:00.000-07:00

Lifeway has just released the results of a survey in which they chronicle "the Top 10 Issues facing the church today". (HT to iMonk at BHT.)

All I can say is, Oh. My. Gosh. No wonder we're in so much trouble.

I was going to do a long, multi-part rant on this, but it's not really worth that amount of effort. I'll just throw a few observations concerning the issues raised, and the methodology of their "solutions".

10. ABORTION
9. HOMOSEXUALITY
7. MARRIAGE

Abortion is still legal and common. Acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise. Marriages are falling apart. Keen observations. But the fact of the matter is that these are just the symptoms - the roots (self-fulfillment as the reason for existence, loss of any sense of human dignity and value as an image of God, and the blunt fact that humans are born sinful anyways) go deep, and I think it's too late to expect society to greatly change its mind about these matters apart from a massive revival and reformation. Our best hope to change the culture is to be changed ourselves. Hence to the next issues...

8. RELEVANCE
6. APATHY
5. DOCTRINE/WORLDVIEW
4. EVANGELISM

One reason there's so much confusion on these issues is there is so little clarity even in our own circles about these things. (broadbrush)We either tend to play fast-and-loose with doctrinal content and emphasize cultural "relevance", or we're doctrinal maximalists who couldn't sing any tune less than 100 years old. Evangelism campaigns and techniques have been multiplied almost ad infinitum in America - and church attendance overall is still flat or declining. Preaching runs the gamut from theological lectures that would put seminarians to sleep, or moral/self-improvment exhortations that would fit right in on Oprah or Dr. Phil.(/broadbrush) I would suggest that what is needed is clear Gospel preaching. What is more relevant than Christ's life, death, and resurrection? What message possibly has the power to awaken the apathetic, if not the Gospel? What doctrines are more important than the teaching of who Christ is, what He did (and is doing), and how we are related to Him and our brethren? And if we have all that, how can we not tell the world?

3. LEADERSHIP
2. DISCIPLESHIP
1. PRAYER

Coming full circle, the root problems of our age (aggrandizement of self) show up here. Showing leadership is not easy if your flock can just vote with their feet (or vote you out of a job). Discipleship requires submission to the Body. Prayer requires submission to God (and sorry, I don't think Prayer of Jabez exemplifies that. "Expand my boundaries" doesn't quite match up to "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done...") Leadership, discipleship, and prayer require biblical patterns and models - leaders as servants rather than CEOs, discipleship as mutual confession and accountability, prayer as reverent and corporate.

There are some good things to be said for the points they raise. But the "solutions" that follow each point just illustrate *why* they have become problems in the first place. More heaping helpings of books, testimonies, gadgets, canned programs, ad infinitum ad nauseam. If we could spend, write, or manage our way out of these messes, we would have done so already. We Americans are great at such things. So what is needed now? I'm not 100% sure anymore - but I doubt that "more of the same" is going to cut it.

Grab-Bag Tuesday (UPDATED)

2005-06-07T08:26:00.000-07:00

Item 1 - Coffee Conversations has been removed from the link list for the time being. The scuffle between Coffee Conversations and Triablogue is getting annoying, and exemplifies the exact sort of name-calling and nastiness I'm sick and tired of. If things improve later, I'll re-add them.

Item 2 - For a real example of how those who disagree ought to dialogue, try the conversation between Andrew "TallSkinnyKiwi" Jones and Michael "White Horse Inn" Horton. The links to that conversation, with a witty and insightful commentary by JollyBlogger, are here. I can't let this quote from JollyBlogger go by, though...

But there is something else going on here that deserves some attention. The fact is that most of us don't have time to delve deeply into any particular controversy...

So what happens when a controversy arises which you don't have the time to investigate thoroughly enough to form your own solid, well grounded opinion? You listen to people you trust. You depend on their opinions to form your own opinions. So, if you are in a group that thinks that N.T. Wright is a wolf in sheep's clothing, the TNIV is the devil's bible, and the emerging church is the apostate church, then by golly, it's time to form up lines and resist all of these wolves, devils and apostates. My point is that it is the opinions and actions of our trusted leaders that usually guide us in our responses to these controversies, rather than our own investigations...

I think some of us have a fear that, if we dialogue (rather than preach at) with those with whom we disagree that this is the equivalent of endorsing their perceived errors, or even exposing ourselves to contamination. Some of us are very insecure in what we believe. We are afraid our beliefs won't hold up under cross-examination so we stay away from those we disagree with and talk about them rather than talk to them. I know I have been guilty of that. But I'm also of the opinion that a belief isn't much worth having if it can't stand up to examination or criticism.

And, sometimes our critics turn out to be friends after all. So, with that, I think it's safe to say that we traditionalists have permission to dialogue with the EC folks, after all, if Mike did it, so can we.

Item 3 - Part II of the NRO article I referenced yesterday is online (link here). While he paints a happy picture of the growth of "conservative" denominations (theologically conservative), I think the points the mentioned yesterday should give pause. Also, I have to wonder, how much of the growth he mentions is simply from those who are abandoning the mainlines? And how much is from new converts - or simple demographics if you take paedobaptism into account? ;-} And given the poll numbers about who believes what he mentioned yesterday, I still wonder. If a theologically muddled person leaves an apostate church for a market-driven church with 10-steps-to-improve-this-or-that-facet-of-your-life-with-handy-prooftext preaching, is it really an improvement? Check out the recent posts at Internet Monk on the role of Christ in our preaching to see where I'm coming from.

UPDATE - This is how things ought to work. A bishop in Uganda refused to confirm 62 of his congregation because they couldn't answer basic bible and creedal questions. (HT to iMonk)

Spiritual Junk Food and Its Effects

2005-06-06T11:19:00.000-07:00

So, what happens when you get several decades of Christ-less preaching and marketing practices instead of theology and worship?

This is what you get. In this NRO article, Dave Shiflett explains why secularists have little to fear from American evangelicals. Sadly, he's right.

Yet one finds little of the crusading spirit of religious certitude even among the dread born-again Christians and Evangelicals. Pollsters, including the much-quoted George Barna, have instead divined widespread heterodoxy and a live-and-let-live attitude.

Born-again Christians simply aren’t as generally advertised. Consider their view of Jesus, once regarded as the Sinless One. Twenty-eight percent agree that “while he lived on earth, Jesus committed sins, like other people.” That is far from a crusading belief. Even further afield, 35 percent of these supposedly hard-core believers do not believe Jesus experienced a physical resurrection, a belief shared by 39 percent of the general population (85 percent of Americans say they believe that Jesus is “spiritually alive,” whatever that may mean. One recalls that many Americans believe their deceased pets are now ghosts, which may also qualify as being spiritually alive.)

In this same spirit, 52 percent of born agains believe the Holy Spirit is merely a symbol of God’s presence or power but is not a living entity, not much different than the general adult population (61 percent). Nor does the devil find much support. Nearly 60 percent of American adults say Satan does not exist as a being at all, but is merely a symbol of evil; 45 percent of born again Christians agree.

These supposed storm troopers of the religious right have surprisingly little interest in bringing non-believers into the fold. Over one quarter — 26 percent — think it doesn’t matter what faith a person has because religions teach pretty much the same thing, while 50 percent believe a life of “good works” will get you into heaven.

Reformed crusaders will argue that this is a clarion call to get out there and fight for Reformed theology. Maybe so. I'm more inclined to think that we ought to learn to crawl before we start talking about running marathons. Right now, I'd settle for a simple revival of Nicene/evangelical orthodoxy!

Blowing Smoke

2005-06-05T16:56:00.000-07:00

One does not get hit with dazzling bursts of insight every day. I understand the draw of blogging, and the "pressure" one feels to, as it were, "publish or perish". The fact is, some days are just ordinary days, and I'm content to let them go by.

On ordinary days like this, there is nothing like a good smoke to ease the mind and relax the body. While I go off to the carport to enjoy my bowlful, I post several links here on the benefits of pipesmoking, and the battle that has raged between Christians over the permissibility of tobacco use...

What Does It Mean to "enjoy" Smoking a Pipe?

Spurgeon's Love of Fine Cigars

Tobacco and the Soul

Trischmann's Paradox: A pipe gives a wise man time to think, and a fool something to stick in his mouth. (And for those who are curious - I've been both in my time.)

Defining "Fundamentalism"

2005-06-03T13:18:00.000-07:00

John Armstrong raises the ante in his series on "fundamentalism"...

This kind of fundamentalism creates the same old schisms through what I call "hyper-orthodoxy." What is stressed by this emphasis goes well beyond the core of Christian faith. The way disagreement is processed invariably leads to schism. The truth of the matter is this–few who think and lead ministries as fundamentalists will ever admit that they are actually fundamentalists. Most who hear the label used will deny that they ever get that close to the reality of the thing itself. I find that my own admission to having fallen into this trap, via very conservative Reformed Christianity, has been good for my mind and soul.

Taking this quote as is, I thought to myself, "If those who are targeted by the term wouldn't accept the label, what good is it?" Setting the term "fundamentalist" aside, what is J.A. describing here?

Those who do not make distinctions between core, secondary, and peripheral doctrines.

Those who make total or near-total doctrinal agreement (or submission) a test for friendship and orthodoxy.

Those who have a surety that everything they believe is TRUTH.

Those who act, even if they don't say they believe, as if those who do not agree with them are willfully rebellious against God, and are deserving only of contempt and scorn.

Put this way, there are plenty of these folks to go around, and not just in Reformed circles. However, IMHO, the emphasis in Reformed circles on rigorous theological systems, having an intellectual faith (or at least the appearance thereof), and a milieu of sharp criticism of the wider culture (Christian and pagan), makes the Reformed tradition very susceptible to attracting this sort of animal. And like John, I can speak from personal experience with this. I was one.

Not that thinking systematically, intellectually, or having a critical eye to the spirit of the age are bad. Far from it. But it is all too easy to make these things the defining forces of our faith, rather than Christ. As Calvin said, the human heart is an idol factory. And as C. S. Lewis said, the closer the idol is to the altar, the more subtle and dangerous it is.

Note to Phil...

2005-06-03T11:07:00.000-07:00

RE:Your threatened whuppin...

Bring.

It.

On. ;-}

A Toast to the Low-Minded Christian

2005-06-03T07:03:00.000-07:00

Fellow BHTer Judson Heartsill posted this at the BHT. I just had to repeat it here to preserve it for posterity - and for my own sake.

I want to celebrate a character who has the dubious honor of sometimes getting kicked around not only by people like the BHT, but also by people like the Totally Reformed.

I'm talking about the low-minded Christian.

Everybody knows one. Or two.

They send you chain blessing emails. (Send this back to me and 5 other people, or you're a mean pud who doesn't like God). They send you emails PURPORTEDLY by Andy Rooney about how there's pictures of the 10 commandments everywhere in Washington D.C. on buildings.

They probably believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

They're Christians primarily because they don't want to go to hell.

They want to go to heaven primarily to see their grandma.

They watch some TBN occasionally.

They gave you a copy of The Purpose Driven Life.

They're threatening to give you a copy of Your Best Life Now.

If they even know what apologetics is, they probably think it's demeaning to Christians.

They read certain portions of Ephesians and tell you, "Now, I just can't believe that Paul really means what he's saying here on election."

Know the type?

Here's some other facts about some of them.

They believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead -- something only God could have revealed to them.

They watch their tongues.

Singing hymns or praise songs makes their heart leap upwards.

They read their bible every morning at 5:00 AM.

God is using them, right now, to make his will be done on earth.

God bless them.

High-minded Christian: You know a lot. Are you putting all that knowledge to use to serve your Master and your fellow slaves? Or are you using it to stoke your ego? It pleases God to use the weak. Just how weak are you? As weak as your low-minded brethren? I sure hope so.

Sacramentalism & Spiritual (Un)employment

2005-06-02T07:10:00.000-07:00

Phil's blog is up and runnning, and the sparks are already flying (pun intended).

His first topical post - on the dangers of Internet calvinism - is pretty fair (even if he paints BHT and IMonk with a broad brush). His second post is more puzzling.

He quotes a bit from one of MacArthur's forthcoming books that he's editing (nice bit of advert, Phil ;-} ...)

Human instinct seems to tell us that what we do is more important than what we believe. But that is a false instinct, the product of our fallen self-righteousness. It is a totally wrong way of thinking—sinfully wrong. We must never think more highly of our works for Christ than we do of His works on our behalf.

Good so far as it goes (but I would say that our beliefs should shape our actions, and that to place primacy on one against the other is wrong). But certainly, Christ's works on our behalf are more important than our own in response.

Now, comes the problem. Phil's commentary on the above paragraph states...

That pretty much sums up the whole gist of my concerns about the drift of modern evangelicalism—including evangelicals' obsession with political remedies for moral maladies, the rise of sacramentalist doctrines, the various attacks on the doctrines of imputation and the active obedience of Christ, and the general tendencies of "purpose-driven" and "seeker-sensitive" philosophies (where methodology is stressed and the content of the gospel message is neglected).

Ooooo-kay. Some of this I can track with - the political and methodological criticisms, for example. They too often do spring from a focus on our actions without due consideration of the beliefs and motivations that drive those actions. I may even buy into the same criticism about non-imputational views of the atonement (it depends on who he's criticizing and why). But sacramentalism? The whole point of sacramentalism is that it is not US doing the "work" in receiving God's offered mercies - it is Christ and the Spirit. It is God in Christ meeting with us at the table, it is the Spirit who unites us to the covenenat body in baptism. Do we work in the process? Yes, but only in the sense that we also "work" in faith - we *do* believe when we have faith, even if that faith is itself God's gift. Our work is passive, and secondary to God's work which must come first.

It is the non-sacramentalists who see baptism and the eucharist as merely something WE do.

So, what is Phil talking about?

If you think having a "This Car will be Unmanned in Case of Rapture" bumpersticker is witnessing...

2005-06-01T14:22:00.000-07:00

...you might be an evangelical. ;-}

Check out the list here - and add to it!

Certainty, Charity, and the Bible

2005-05-31T17:51:00.000-07:00

John Armstrong's latest weekly newsletter is going to raise some ire.

I'm not sure if I would agree 100% on everything he says, I think he hits close to the mark on one aspect - the difference between Scripture and systematic theology.

While Scripture does make propositional statements about who God is, who Christ is, and many other things, these statements are not organized in a systematic fashion, and all the interconnections are not spelled out for us. In some sense we "fill in the gaps" with logical and philosophical deductions, and these form the frameworks for our systematic theologies.

Where the more strident among us (be they "fighting Calvinists", "fundamentalists", or whatever your label du jour is) go wrong is in placing our deductions and constructs on the same level as the revelations of Scripture itself. Scripture is not primarily concerned with "filling in the gaps" in a systematic theological system - it is concerned with proclaiming God's works in history leading up to and culminating in Christ, and thus engendering and nurturing faith in Him. I would not make as sharp a dichotomy between God's Word and Scripture as Armstrong seems to do (and I think he's going to be in for some roasting over this), but his basic point is well taken.

And if we can acknowledge both the secondary nature of our theological systems, and our primary bond to Christ and our brethren in Him (who probably hold to other systems), we therefore should be gracious and accepting of other believers, and truly accept the adiophora as adiophopra. Augustine's maxim, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity" is sadly more honored in the breach than the observance.

"Peace, Peace", they cry...

2005-05-28T08:41:00.000-07:00

..."when there is no peace." That old phrase from the prophets came to my mind as I was biking home from Chipotle's last night.

Every Friday evening, a small group of protestors sets themselves up in the corner of one of the main intersections of Redlands. They carry signs and hand out petitions supporting "world peace" and decrying how military spending detracts from "health care".

I guess I'm still Calvinistic enough to have a total lack of comprehension for why people think this sort of thing will work. Such groups inevitably appeal to things like "universal brotherhood", rejection of violence, etc. The problem is, these concepts are only valid in the context of God's work in the church. In the church, there is (or should be) no Jew or Gentile, Greek or barbarian, all are brothers. Outside the church, there is tribal and racial hatred - you see the results in Rwanda and East L.A. Christians, in their offical role of ambassadors of Christ, are called to turn the other cheek. Police officers and soldiers (who can also be Christians) cannot turn the other cheek without innocents paying the consequences. For there are men and women on this earth who fear not God, and must taste the sword before they grudgingly submit to the law of men and nations.

And if the secular idea of pacifism is linked to evolutionary ideals ("We ought to be better than this by now!"), all I can say is, they are ignorant of history and human nature. Fine ideas, a liberal education and chanting the stanzas of "Kumbayah" will not reverse the Fall.

There can be no peace, apart from the Gospel. And even then, the final Peace is still to come. But when it comes, who will be found faithful on the earth?

The Tongue is a Fire...

2005-05-27T10:04:00.000-07:00

A big fight back home between friends apparently boiled over again. I tried to speak as cautiously as I could, and still wound up offending someone. Evidently, badly.

I am beginning to understand why some monastic orders instituted a vow of silence. There are some days when no matter what comes out of your mouth, it's going to cause offense to someone. The combination of our small wisdom in knowing what to say, and the greatness and sensitivity of our egos in judging what we hear, makes for bad communications all around. How easy it is to start a fight with our fellow believers - intentionally and unintentionally!

This time alone out here in CA has been frustrating, but also eye-opening. I'm sometimes shocked at how differently I'm seeing things now...

ALWAYS Check Your Sources...

2005-05-24T14:10:00.000-07:00

I got this beat into my head in college/seminary/grad school, but it pays. Really it does.

John Armstrong posted an item on his blog claiming that some church in California was offering prefered seating to the best tithers. The only problem is it's a hoax. The background story is a fake news item from Lark News, a Christian version of The Onion.

Even if the story is plausible - check your sources. The sad thing is, this story sounds plausible in today's environment - and even someone as usually right-on as Armstrong can get tripped up sometimes.

UPDATE: J.A. found out about the error, left the original post intact, and posted a very humble and up-front apology. Would that more people were as candid about their mistakes.

The Proof of the Pudding

2005-05-23T17:39:00.000-07:00

"..is in the eating." An ancient saying. But true.

This post probably falls into the "well, DUH!" category, but I still think it worth meditating on. One of the editorials for the current First Things (unfortunately, not available online yet - watch this space for the link) is "An Unworkable Theology" by Philip Turner. His point is quite simple, but widely applicable...

Every denomination has its theological articles and books of theology, its liturgies and confessional statements. Nonetheless, the contents of these documents do not necessarily control what we might call the "working theology" of a church. To find the working theology of a church one must review the resolutions passed at official gatherings, and listen to what the clergy say Sunday by Sunday from the pulpit. One must listen to the conversations that occur at clergy gatherings - and hear the advice clergy give troubled parishioners. The working theology of a church is, in short, best determined by becoming what social anthropologists call a "participant observer."

He goes on to painfully detail his application of this method to First World Episcopalianism, with predictable results. But as I read this, other applications also came to mind. How much of the preaching in our churches really reflects what we say we believe? How much of our behavior really reflects what we say we believe? The proof of our theology is not just what creed we uphold, but how go about our Christian life as well.

Sneaky suspicion: The "working theology" of some online defenders of Reformed theology may actually be Pelagian. After all, if there is a Pelagianism of morality (man can really act rightly before God if he so desires), why not a Pelagianism of theology (man can really believe rightly about God if he so desires)? The way some Reformed "apologists" treat their opposition, it makes you wonder...

A good movie, yes... a great movie, no.

2005-05-19T19:19:00.000-07:00

I just got back from Revenge of the Sith. And, well, it didn't suck. A ringing endoresement, eh?

It's the best of the three 'prequels', no question. But I can't help but imagine what this movie could have been. I will readily grant Lucas this - the plot for turning Anakin into Vader is superb. And by that I mean realistic, from a psychological and spiritual point of view. A combination of an appeal to power lust, an obsession with order, and playing on an powerful desire for a lesser good (saving his wife's life) against the greater good (the preservation of the Jedi order). By these or similar mechanisms, men and women fall into darkness in real life.

The problem is Hayden Christenson. I'll readily grant that his acting is better in Sith than it was in Clones. But his performance is still too uneven, and ultimately unconvincing. He lacked a convincing portrayal of a struggle against and final submission to the temptation, and the self-deceptions necessary to maintain himself in his choices.

In the hands of a more competent actor for the part of Anakin, Sith could have been a movie that transcended the genre of science-fiction and told a truly chilling tale about a real Fall of Man. Unfortunately, while still an entertaining film (and much better than any of the summer trash we're likely to be seeing), what it could have been it is not. Sad that is.

SWIII Review Upcoming

2005-05-19T13:28:00.000-07:00

I am now the possessor of tickets to the 3PM showing of Revenge of the Sith at the local multiplex. Watch this space for an in-depth review of said movie after I return.

The Heart of Darkness

2005-05-17T07:05:00.000-07:00

Mornings are always the worst time for me. Nightmares half-remembered, the worries of the day ahead, waking up to a silent, empty room - I hate mornings.

One thing about all this is that it is a sharp reminder that I am a sinner. I am corrupt. Broken. Unholy. Whatever front I can put on to others after I walk out the door, I cannot hide from the face in the mirror. Or the Lord of heaven.

Looking at the daily digest from the old theology list, I see they are arguing over the atemporality of Christ as related to His incarnation. I once would have dived right into a discussion like that. Now, I have to question how much we can really know about that. Christ did not explain to us how He was God. He just said he IS God.

And on mornings like this, I am less interested in how Christ as God related to God the Father while He was on incarnate on earth, than in whether He's interested in pardoning a wretched sinner like me. Because that is my only hope.

The Company You Keep

2005-05-15T06:28:00.000-07:00

It appears that Phil Johnson has joined the ranks of the bloggers. And I thought I was the last one on the bandwagon. Knowing Phil via several other venues, it's going to be interesting - but if he ever finds out I'm at BHT now, I may be in for a whuppin' for hanging out with "the wrong crowd".

Thinking of that brought home another point - how fleeting Christian community seems to be. Partly this may be my own personality showing through (I am a bit of an introvert), but it still seems to me that so much of our expressions of "fellowship" are dependent on other factors - whether we attend the same church, how much we are alike with the other person, and whether or not they agree with us theologically. Having gone through two church changes back in 2001-2002, I can also say that so much of the "Christian fellowship" evaporated once I left each church. There was little sense (after one left the worship service) that the people gathering there were doing anything more than "socializing".

Online, it gets worse. Without the constraints that being in the same location with the other person (and having to see their reactions), people's inhibitions get lowered. The rhetoric gets increased. And the results can get ugly. I've seen it too many times to deny it. (I've also been guilty of it myself.)

"Community" and "fellowship" are words that get tossed about, but in actual practice get little real attention. There's always other factors that are (consciously or not) given higher priority - doctrinal agreement, social parity, membership, whatever. I'm still getting my bearings on the "Emergent" movement, but it does seem they are consciously trying to address this issue. And whatever other problems they may have, that's a good thing.

As far as BHT goes... One thing I've noticed is that they have set rules on civility. They have a broad spectrum of people. There is conversation about things besides theology. And not everyone is on the same page theologically. In other words, it's more like real life. And it looks to be interesting.

Are we known by the comany you keep? The Pharisees and Jesus both thought so. But their attitudes towards that "company" made all the difference...

The Pressure's on...

2005-05-14T07:46:00.000-07:00

In more ways than one.

Several big homework projects are on the front burner this weekend, and on top of that I've been accepted into The Boar's Head Tavern - an unexpected honor.

I actually shouldn't gripe about the homework. It occurred to me this morning (while I was worrying about several other things) that overall, I have been abundantly blessed and protected by God far above and beyond what I have ever deserved. And that I don't thank Him as often as I should. I sometimes wonder why He bothers.

I was going to post my Boar's Head background bio, but I think I'll wait until tomorrow for that.

The Second Crusade

2005-05-12T08:01:00.000-07:00

The (un)holy wars have started at Internet Monk again. A post on the self-appointed gatekeepers of the True Reformed Faith begain drawing the ususal assortment of trolls and calvinayeen, and it got yanked. (Edit - the article has been restored, with an explanation as to the reasons for the whole episode.)

Every time I think IMonk may be going a little too far in his critiques, these bozos show up and unwittingly prove his points. In real life, what these guys are doing would be called "stalking", wouldn't it?

One of the tenured beer-swillers at Boar's Head Tavern linked to an article on why some personality types are drawn to some churches and theologies. Fascinating stuff. The full article is here. I post here only a taste...

Presbyterian / Reformed churches are sometimes not marked by sweetness but harshness, especially in those branches that have not jettisoned their historical theological base. Doctrine is the big thing, approached with the precision of an engineer. Here is what I mean. Let’s say that an engineer is going to build a bridge across the Mississippi River. He cannot afford to care what people think of him or how he comes across. “Hang it all, Man, we must be correct. I don’t care what you think. I’ll not have this bridge collapse because of your idiotic opinion. I have a moral obligation to ignore your ignorance.”

That is the one vital thing when it comes to building bridges of steel and concrete; it is different when it comes to the bridge between a holy God and sinful man. The gospel ministry is not only a science, it is an art, and the cure of souls is its great work. Knowing the Queen of the Sciences, theology, is vital, but kindness and gentleness are prerequisites, too. Augustine’s motto must ever be our own: “Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo.” (Strongly in deed, gently in manner.) Or, as Saint Paul put it, “Speaking the truth in love.” (Ephesians 4:15.) Tragically, all too few Reformed / Presbyterian churches are characterized by being suaviter in modo; instead of being sweet in their approach, they are too often harsh.

Chrsitianity & Conservatism - Take 2

2005-05-12T07:33:00.000-07:00

In today's National Review Online Jonah Goldberg follows up on John Derbyshire's piece on conservatism.

Goldberg too examines the religious angle of this question, and makes a valid point...

Christianity, as I understand it, holds that the perfect world is the next one, not this one. We can do what we can where we can here, but we’re never going to change the fact that we’re fallen, imperfect creatures. There’s also the whole render-unto-Caesar bit. And, of course, the Judeo-Christian tradition assumes we are born in sin, not born perfect before bourgeoisie culture corrupts us into drones for the capitalist state. In other words, while Christianity may be a complete philosophy of life, it is only at best a partial philosophy of government. When it attempts to be otherwise, it has leapt the rails into an enormous vat of category error.

Somebody get on the horn to the Justice Sunday crowd and inform them of this overlooked dilemma.

He also makes a fine point about the cardinal sin of liberalism...

The belief that all good things move together and there need be no conflicts between them is, ultimately, a religious one. And — by definition — a totalitarian one. Mussolini coined that word not to describe a tyrannical society, but a humane society where everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. Mussolini didn’t want to leave any children behind either. The attempt to bring such utopianism to the here and now is the sin of trying to immanentize the eschaton.

And this from someone who isn't even a Christian. How come he can see these things, and politicized Christians from either end of the spectrum cannot?

Looking back to look forward...

2005-05-11T20:32:00.000-07:00

I sometimes wish I could be more like the way I was - so confident in The Truth, thinking that doctrinal purity was the sure path to Christian discipleship. But articles like this are a sharp reminder of why I can't go back...

Everybody, I mean everybody where I live has heard some version of the Gospel, the issue is that they've so rarely seen it, though they've seen plenty of doctrinal arguments. In fact it seems to me that evangelism is simply a form of doctrinal argument. As I've said before, the goal seems to be to 'argue people into the kingdom'. The fact is none of us have anywhere near the intellectual integrity we think we have. We think we have hard-core beliefs but when it gets down to the relational push and shove of everyday life we think what we want to think, do what we want to do and believe what we want to believe.

Non believers aren't impressed by our arguments, nor our intellectual integrity, they are impressed by our ability to love. My ability to convert someone (which is non-existant) is generally hindered by my argumentive skills. I'm saying all of this to say that my willingness to reach out to someone will be more likely based upon their proximity to my life, the love I feel for them and the opportunity I'm given; and less so on my doctrinal stance.

If you really love Jesus, and you really love one of His creatures, you'll naturally want to introduce them to one another. My focus isn't upon helping them to avoid "hell" (whatever that is), my focus is on sharing with them the best, most loving and joyful love relationship I'm capable of enjoying.

BTW, this is why (the Internet Monk) pisses so many people off, he places relational integrity before perceived intellectual integrity.

The Hunger Artist

2005-05-10T11:31:00.000-07:00

Nice post by Doug Wilson...

"All this is serious business, but it should not obscure what is being done. The Christian faith does not say no to a young man's sexual urges just to be a killjoy. Rather, it is more like a mother telling her son that he cannot have a bag of chips half an hour before dinner. She knows what has been prepared, and she does not want his impatience to wreck it. In the same way, sexual impatience causes a lot of problems in marriage. We say no to that which would diminish or destroy the joy and purity and honor of the marriage bed" (Future Men, p. 144).

I wholeheartedly agree. I also wholeheartedly call this a fine example of the Rumplestiltskin Fallacy - that by naming a problem, you can make it go away.

I agree 110% that sex is for marriage, mind, body, and soul. But my dinner's been put off for 20+ years so far, there's no sign of anyone in the kitchen, and there's a LOT of free "potato chips" available online.

Screwtape must be laughing his ass off.

Christianity and Conservatism - How do they stack up?

2005-05-10T06:46:00.000-07:00

Today's National Review Online has a post by John Derbyshire on the death of conservatism.

And I thought I was a pessimist.

Whatever you think of conservatism's prognosis, he does offer a six-point encapsulated definition of conservatism, and makes a comparison between it and American conservatism, both Republican and "religious right" versions. Yet another example (and one much more thought out than Hitchen's screed) of how conservatism and christianity both overlap and oppose.

Here's my own take on the Six Points...

1. A deep suspicion of the power of the state.

This really shouldn't be limited to conservatives. Any student of 20th century history ought to be able to tell you what happens when you concentrate power in the central government - especially if that government has a nationalist or utopian agenda. And still being calvinistic, I get nervous when too much power concentrates in one area - especially government. Even if you try to wield it at first with the best intentions, power corrupts. Our fallen natures can't handle too much without becoming... changed. "I fear to take the Ring to hide it. I will not take the Ring to wield it." (Elrond, Fellowship of the Ring.)

2. A preference for liberty over equality.

Here I am more ambivalent. Along with Pascal, I am deeply suspicious of any attempts to enforce "equality" or "social justice" from above, as that again requires concentration of power, and often substitutes one set of injustices for another (Pensees 60, 81). But again, unfettered freedom is also a problem, and the biblical witness is clear that when "everyone does what is right in his eyes", chaos ensues. I don't think that we have given enough thought to the fact that the Church transcends both democracies and dictatorships - the people of Christ have lived under both, and will continue to live in whatever societies man organizes himself into. Nations rise and fall. The Church will continue.

3. Patriotism.

Again, patriotism is a limited good at best. "Patriotism" is a relatively recent notion (at least as far as loyalty to an abstract national state overagainst loyalty to clan, race, creed, etc). I have travelled overseas a bit, and I can say I appreciate how much better (relatively) things are here in America than elsewhere, and I have no qualms defending her and my countrymen from those who would destroy us. But America is NOT the New Zion. We are a fallen sinful people just as every other is. Our record is not spotless (the treatment of Indians and slaves, abortion on demand, our wars of aggression against Mexico and Spain, etc). American Christianity has always had a peculiar problem that traces back to the original Puritan experiement of a "Christian nation". We see ourselves as "special" in God's eyes because of our Christian forebears, or because our government incorporated God-talk and some Christian principles into its structure. I think this is nostalgia and longing for a mythic past more than anything. If we are Christians, we are strangers and pilgrims (Phil 1), whose citizenship is in the city of God (Heb 11). And our culture is now nothing like what it used to be. As I have stated before, the sooner we come to realize our status as "internal missionaries" for a far Kingdom rather than "crusaders" seeking to restore a "Christian" past, we'll be much better off - and ironically, much better able to influence the culture.

4. A belief in established institutions and hierarchies.

This is the American context. We self-consciously based our nation on a rebellion against an established institution and hierarchy (the crown of England). That has had a profound effect on many aspects of the national character, conservaties included. That revolution was based on Enlightenment reason, which claimed priority over established institutions and hierarchies. But once they were gone, Reason itself was overthrown. So what remains to take the place of either? (That sound you hear is the madman Nietzsche running about with his lamp...)

Others far more capable than I (Nathan Hatch, Mark Noll, George Marsden) have belabored my next point, so I will just summarize. American evangelical Christianity is about the most anti-hierarchical, anti-institutional mess you could imagine. Even I myself, who worship in an Anglican church when I'm home in DC, have some silent qualms about an authoritative hierarchy of bishops claiming their authority descends from the Apostles themselves. But whether or not you accept episcopal government, what you *do* have is the authoritative word of God, and the covenant community of the Church. We also have 2000 years (plus, couning the history of Israel) of history regarding theology, missions, martyrdom, etc. We do not live to ourselves - we have a legacy from the past, and an obligation to our brothers and sisters today, and also to the lost. And ultimately, our calling is to serve, to take the lowest place, to be slaves to all. Not very conservative, do you think?

5. Skepticism about the idea of progress.

I think that both modern conservatives and liberals have been guilty of worshiping at the idol of Progress. It may be more incorporated into the liberal philosophy, but it is (or was) the "spirit of the age" and everybody drank of it. Of course, after the pricetag of Progress comes due (nuclear waste, millions dead from "social engineering" in Russia, identity theft, pollution), it doesn't look nearly a sure thing. Again, the problem is not our technology (phyhsical and sociological) so much as our ill wisdom in using it (or in some circumstances, not using it).

Christianity is much more sanguine. I don't have any figures, but I would venture a guess that Ecclesiastes is one of the least-preached books in American churches today (apart from the forgotten uncles in the attic, the Minor Prophets). Ecclesiastes is a damning blast against any ideas of "progress", "happy materialism", or just about anything under the sun. The more years I accumulate, the more I appreciate its wisdom. Human nature cannot evolve and improve, because human nature is *fallen*. What is wrong with us, cannot be fixed by ourselves. Every Tower of Babel erected by man will be torn down and sown with confusion. For God will neither be mocked, nor will He leave His people to perish. He will both judge the pride of fallen man, and redeem fallen man to His own glory. And history will be capped off in the final analysis by the Return of Christ and the re-establishment of heavenly and earthly paradise. So there is progress in a sense - but not what most people are looking for...

6. Elitism.

Every human society has its elites - there's no getting around it. American liberalism is led by billionaires. Soviet Russia had the vlasti and the nomenklatura. High schools have the "cool kids". And any attempt to dislogde the elites simply puts another set in their place - George Orwell's Animal Farm is a telling literary parable of this. Making the "elite" the wealthy and productive is better in some sense, I suppose, than making the academic leftists the elite, but an elite is still an elite.

Of course, Christianity is about the most anti-elite religion on earth (if taken in pure form). The Pharisees were scandalized by Jesus' welcoming and forgiving tax collectors and prostitutes. The Roman noblility regarded Christians as the scum of the earth, worshiping a condemned criminal. Nietzsche's rants against Christianity's "slave mentality" are well-known. But again, if the real problem is human fallenness and human pride, where better should God manifest Himself than among those who are "at the bottom"? God chooses the weak to shame the strong, the poor to shame the rich, the powerless to shame the powerful, the foolish to shame the wise (I Cor 1-2). Insofar as our "conservatism" causes us to turn a blind eye and empty wallet to those who are not as well-off as we are, we have let our conservatism dull our witness to Christ.

Whew, that was a long one, and set me behind this morning by about an hour. But I hope it was worth it. It has certainly helped me remind myself of where I stand, and need to stand.

Hobgoblins & Escape Hatches

2005-05-09T09:02:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I blog and post myself into some pretty situations.

Some weeks ago, I was posting to the IMonk comments sections against those who throw blanket condemnations on Roman Catholics because of their views on justification, Mary, ad infinitum. Now, at Coffee Conversations, I find myself posting against the idea (mooted by N. T. Wright) that justification in and of itself is an ecumenical doctrine that can unite Protestant and Catholic.

One quote I've heard oft-used is Emerson's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Whenever I heard it, I thought to myself that those who use it were just shielding themselves from their own slapdash thinking. My (unspoken) reply was "An unthinking inconsistency is the escape hatch of lazy minds".

I want to think I'm being consistent here. I draw a line between dealing with Catholics *as individuals* and with *the institutional Catholic Church*. As individuals, I have no doubts that some are saved, by faith in Christ. Especially here in America, where Catholicism has been effectivey "Protestantized" by the cultual environment. Why should I not extend friendship with such people?

On the other hand, I could never join a Catholic Church, or participate in a Catholic Mass, because I cannot subscribe to their theology of justification and their interpetation of the Eucharist. Until they sort out (according to their own "inerrant" magisterium ;-} ) whether we are condemned apostates (Council of Trent) or "separated brothers" (Vatican II), I see no reason for Protestants to even consider ecumenical union with the institutional Catholic church.

Try as I might to be a "kinder, gentler" theologian, I have to draw some lines somewhere...

Blessed are the Shiftless and the Losers

2005-05-05T06:44:00.000-07:00

A very interesting article today at OpinionJournal.com by Christopher Hitchens - a clear warning that Christianity and conservatism are not only NOT synonymous, but also in some cases diametrically opposed...

I have never understood why conservative entrepreneurs are so all-fired pious and Bible-thumping, let alone why so many of them claim Jesus as their best friend and personal savior. The Old Testament is bad enough: The commandments forbid us even to envy or covet our neighbor's goods, and thus condemn the very spirit of emulation and ambition that makes enterprise possible. But the New Testament is worse: It tells us to forget thrift and saving, to take no thought for the morrow, and to throw away our hard-earned wealth on the shiftless and the losers.

I wonder what some of the "culture warriors" will have to say about that. For myself, I sometimes need a swift kick in the butt to be reminded that conservatism and Christianity are NOT the same. Hats off to Mr. Hutchins for the boot to the butt.

I serve a Fuzzy God

2005-04-26T19:31:00.000-07:00

The title is a spoof of something one of the Puritans once said, when taken to task about all the rules and regulations promulgated by the Puritans - "Sir, we serve a precise God." I still keep my copy of Richard Baxter's 900+ page Christian Directory as a reminder of this. And as a warning.

The danger of theological overprecision is commented on today by John Armstrong. I hear echoes of Os Guinness' observations in it as well...

The Truth About Calvin

2005-04-25T07:13:00.000-07:00

A good response to the latest IMonk piece...

"(Calvinism) has come to mean one who believes in the five points of Calvinism so-called but we must remember that those five points were drawn up as a very specific apologetic response to Arminian concerns. They were never intended by their framers to be a replacement of the gospel or some sort of codification of it. What many 'Calvinists' miss today is the surrounding theological context which those five points are set in and what that overall context has to do with them specifically.

The theology and practice of John Calvin was so much more Christ-centered than the theology and practice of so-called Calvinism today in Baptist and other circles. Calvin carried with him an incarnational catholic theology that was not merely a way to explain how salvation happened--rather it was a faith that transformed everything it touched."

Amen and amen. Frankly, I think a lot of the fanatical (c)alvinists out there would have a heart attack if they really read some of Calvin's actual teachings - particularly on the Communion table. ;-}

(The guy who wrote the quote above has his own blog, which is now linked here.)

They make their fringes long...

2005-04-19T12:07:00.000-07:00

Two observations today.

One, an excellent piece by Doug Wilson on how Calvinists should debate with others. (Edit - here's another good one.)

Second, James White's website continues its adventures in unintended irony. They're now offering blue rubber bracelets to their subscribers to, quote, "encourage the small but dedicated band that read this blog and who seek to honor God by honoring His truth in their lives and their witness, we have ordered a press run of the very popular rubber-band style wrist bands in royal blue. And what is imprinted on them? Well, for this first run (we might do others, if these go well), I thought the best possible imprint would be, 'No Compromise.' Is that not right where the battle is today?"

Run the title of my post through your concordance, read the verse, and draw your own conclusions...

Another Brick in the Wall

2005-04-14T09:36:00.000-07:00

Watching this war over theology and life brought to my remembrance some words spoken by Os Guinness at the first Annapolis conference of the Jonathan Edwards Insitute. I noted them with some interest at the time, but since then they have echoed truer and truer - especially now with this IMonk kerfuffle raging on. Of course, most of the Fighting Calvinist Brigade would say that Os Guinness is also theologically suspect, but as we Calvinists are so fond of saying we believe... the truth is the truth.

Remarks made by Dr. Os Guinness at a plenary address delivered to “A Passion for Truth”, the first annual conference of the Jonathan Edwards Institute, in Annapolis, Maryland, in July 1997:

“...We’ve got to clearly call for a revival of revival. But isn’t the same true of reformation? I’m Reformed. Most of you, I imagine, are Reformed. But I would say to you, gently, (that) the Reformed movement is not the best witness for reformation. Start by thinking, the Reformation has come full circle. Always in the past, the evangelicals, who were passionate for reform, were over against the corrupt, or the compromised, or the nominal, or the formal, or the dead, or whatever it was; and they represented life and return - reformation, revival. We’re the ones who need reforming today. And you do often hear Catholics and chastened liberals who look at dismay at... evangelicals, who are twice as worldly as them - and they are repenting of some of their worldliness, and they see worse in us. (The Reformed movement) is spiritually dry. Much of it is antiquarian! This is not the 16th century - we’re in the 20th, almost the 21st! Much of it is incredibly fractious. You can think of the obvious examples of Reformed brothers who talk about “intellectual kneecapping”, and do it to each other! But you can see a spirit of uptight phariseeism about truth, which has nothing to do with Jesus, or the Gospels. There’s an ugliness and a phariseeism in the Reformed movement that surely needs reforming. Revival needs reviving, but let’s be honest - the Reformed movement needs reforming. Even take one of its’ favorite notions, transformation. The Reformed movement, if you look at it closely, isn’t much of a transforming community. (It) loves its subcultures, comes out of them to its conferences, and beetles back to them - but do you have an engagement with a culture that’s actually from other parts of evangelicalism? The Reformed movement talks transformation a storm, and does anything but transformation in reality. We are not nearly as reformed as we think we are. And maybe one of the worst things of all is the lack of grace-giving. Our theology’s all that - isn’t the most startling thing about our Lord His grace? The categories He shattered, the unwelcomables that He embraced; and much of the Reformed movement is drawing its lines and putting people on the wrong side of the lines, and telling certain people (that) they’re no longer Christian! Their theology may be sub-par, but is all of this close to our Lord Himself? I suggest to you that revival needs reviving, and the Reformed movement needs reforming.”

Dispatch from the Trenches

2005-04-14T09:17:00.000-07:00

Over the past week, a full-blown blog war has broken out over the latest series of comments at The Internet Monk/Boar's Head Tavern.

Not only the lurkers and trolls, but such esteemed personages as Phil Johnson and James White have dived into the struggle. As I sit in my foxhole, watching the shells scream overhead, I note my observations...

I talked over some of this with my rector yesterday. He thought IMonk was saying some things worth hearing, but that his rhetoric was turning people off. He may have a point there. But the level of harsh criticism in reply to IMonk's writings seems *way* out of proportion to me. Admittedly, I'm not unbiased, but... To quote the great existentialist philosopher Han Solo, "Must've hit pretty close to the mark to get them all riled up like that, eh, kid?"

Honesty check - does yelling at someone and dressing them down for their beliefs *really* accomplish anything?

This is yet another nail in the coffin of my high hopes for the efficacy of abstract theology. And the efficacy of debating theology on the Web, for that matter...

Theology or Life?

2005-04-11T12:55:00.000-07:00

Again, I just had to come back to this topic, especially this gem of a comment by IMonk...

"...Calvinists seem offended at having to listen to someone talk about their LIFE and not just their THEOLOGY. It is the dehumanizing of theology that is turning me out of the Calvinist camp."

I can speak from experience on this, from my own days of argumentative Calvinism. To that type, a person's life is irrelevant. The TRUTH is the TRUTH, (and of course, the Calvinist formulation is that truth), so a person's life experience is irrelevant. One must bow to the TRUTH, and to hell with emotions or whatever.

You know, it would be GREAT if people actually functioned like that! Well, probably not, actually. The point is, we aren't. We're not computers. We're not Vulcans. We're humans. And fallen humans, at that. Our emotions and our backgrounds DO impact our theology, like it or not. And we Calvinists, of all people, ought to appreciate the necessity of divine action, above and beyond human comprehension, to make the truth ring true to our tone-deaf ears. The fact that so many Calvinists get so stirred up when someone commmits an "error" is - well, you'd almost assume that they thought that it actually lay in our power to understand everything about theology! That any error on someone's part is an indicator of willful sin and stubbornness on that person's part, making them a legitimate target of our divinely inspired ire.

To me, *that* is what smacks of stubbornness and arrogance. Not to mention a deep lack of charity and compassion.

I still believe in the main tenets of Calvinism. But I don't fight over them anymore. First, people's ideas about these things don't really change because of human arguments. Secondly, there's too many shrill Calvinists out there already - no need to add another to the mix. Third, Calvinism is a good (I'd still say the best) explanation of the Gospel - but *it is not the Gospel* itself. And THAT is what is the more important.

The Trouble with Calvin(ists)

2005-04-11T12:38:00.000-07:00

The latest article at InternetMonk is quite a read...

Even more striking are some of the responses IMonk makes to the critics of the piece. (See them here...)

I am writing some of them down here because they articulate many of the problems that I have been having with doing theology on the internet (especially the Calvinist version...)

"(T)the theological camps that war on the internet and in real life are primarily made up of people who don't care about the human journey of a person as much as they care about the theological issues and answers that person is able to articulate."

"...Calvinists seem offended at having to listen to someone talk about their LIFE and not just their THEOLOGY. It is the dehumanizing of theology that is turning me out of the Calvinist camp."

"I am not made more human or more loving or more real by the espousing of doctrine. I must live, love, choose and fail to be human."

"(T)here are those who insist (that) nothing matters more than the assertions of Calvinism, which they assume equal the Gospel. I cannot, not because I do not read their texts or know their confession, but because my life situation has made me a different person."

The Good Lord's Sense of Humor

2005-03-30T06:51:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, God shows up in the most mysterious ways.

When I created this blog, it was under the impression that, in all likelihood, nobody but me would be reading it for awhile, if ever. Guess I was wrong.

One comment, and (probably) one hate-mail in 24 hours.

Talk about popularity. ;-}

If that hate-mail came from this blog, and if whoever sent it is still there, here's my reply. (And if not, here's what I think about what the guy said, just for my own benefit).

I am speaking here not out of hatred, but out of frustration. Frustration at the whole way theology is done in America, on and off the web. And I am speaking out of the sure knowledge that I am also part of the problem.

I am frustrated how people can talk right past each other in issues of eternal import.

I am frustrated at how quickly the talk turns ugly.

I am frustrated at... well, how fallen we all are.

I have been re-reading one of my commentaries on Pascal, just for these reasons. Pascal has a wonderful way of cutting through the cattle manure that so often passes for philosophy (both in and outside of theology) and getting to the point. Pascal's main point here would be that we humans are both divine and devilish - we have been given the reason and self-awareness that makes true communion with God possible, and we turn those gifts inward upon ourselves (and against each other) in pride and rebellion. And certainly theology is not immune to those pitfalls.

I have studied and thought long and hard on such things. Indeed, as I alluded to in my last post, once upon a time I believed I wanted to be a theologian - a professor of theology to be precise. But God has a way of turning one's life upside down, does He not? I guess my biggest frustration is not having an outlet for all this theological steam. Thus, this online primal scream.

Which, according to Pascal, is also vanity. :-/

Kyrie elesion.

The Holy Dog Pound

Staring into the "Void"...

The T4G Statement

The Pound Re-Opens

It's Been a Long Time...

On My Way Home

Musings on the CSBI Part IV

What *Is* the Bible, Anyways?

Musings on the CSBI Part II

Musings on the CSBI Part I

How to Debate on the Internet

A Belated Apology

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN

The Shadow Lifts

Trudging Towards Mount Doom

FWIW...

Casuality of War

Reply to Paul Owen

A Third Trumpet from the South

Hot Anger, Cold Blood

Who (or What) Are We Fighting... And What With?

Theological "Need-To-Know"

If You Play with Fire, You May Get Burned...

Taranto's Law

Another Fine Mess

Well, Since You Asked...

Friday Grab Bag

The Virtue of Consistency?

A Boy and His Tiger (or is it the other way round?)

An Open Letter to Dan Edelen

Nigeria's Declaration of (Non)dependence (on the Church of England)

This verse *is* in your Bible, right?

Katrina, the Theology of Glory, and the Theology of the Cross

Confession for Theologians

How Did I Get Here? (Part III)

How Did I Get Here? (Part II)

How Did I Get Here? (Part I)

Keep on Grindin'...

The Sausagemakers of Grace

Re-Organizing the Blog Roll

The LORD Was Not In The Wind

Unintelligent Denigration

The Heart of Darkness

Education as Repentance

Checking back in

The Post that Isn't what was supposed to be...

It's the End of the (Emergent Movement) As We Know It...

Arrakis... Dune... desert planet...

Why it's dangerous to play with (hell)fire...

What do Sex and Communion have in Common?

God save the United States...

Croonin' to Jesus

The New Kid on the Block

As often as you eat this (cracker) and drink this (thimble of Welch's)...

In the Beginning was the Logical Inference...

The Faces of Evil

Breaking News - Kenya Disfellowships ECUSA

Biblio-*Docetism*

Grab-bag Thursday

Two sides of the same coin...

Which comes first - the doxy or the praxy?

Bach on Pipes - not the Organ types, either!

Everybody, Pile-on Robbins!

Our Problems are Solved!

Love, Injustice, & the Christian Way

You Gotta Know When to Hold'em, Know When to Fold'em...

Theological Engineering

Adventures in Missing the Point?

Grab-Bag Tuesday (UPDATED)

Spiritual Junk Food and Its Effects

Blowing Smoke

Defining "Fundamentalism"

Note to Phil...

A Toast to the Low-Minded Christian

Sacramentalism & Spiritual (Un)employment

If you think having a "This Car will be Unmanned in Case of Rapture" bumpersticker is witnessing...

Certainty, Charity, and the Bible

"Peace, Peace", they cry...

The Tongue is a Fire...

ALWAYS Check Your Sources...

What Is the Bible, Anyways?

This verse is in your Bible, right?

Biblio-Docetism