NYC opens first school for gay, bisexual and transgendered students. I am sitting here thinking about the curriculum, but I won’t go there. I’m sure the prom will make the news.

washingtonpost.com: Bob Hope Dead at 100.

here’s a gem to start your gay...uh…day. Good morning ladies and gentleman you are listening to wgay, the only station with a phalis for an antenna! ROCK ON!

I enjoyed spending a good bit of the Lord’s Day listening to Dr. John Macarthur’s 2002 Mullin’s Lectures on Preaching at Southern Seminary. There is a rich treasure of great preaching and teaching at the SBTS on-line audio library page. It’s wonderful to hear the chapel speakers that now come to SBTS. Safe to say that during my day things were of a different flavor.

Judd: Great links. The statement from Knox seminary is heartening. May sales of Left Behind drop by 1% as a result and may someone burn the book in celebration. I’d like to make two comments about the “brights.”

One: I fully agree that Dennett is repackaging rationalism or naturalism, and the package is a not-so-subtle pejorative about the intelligence and honesty of “not-so-brights.” In other words, religious people are kinda dumb, pretending that something is there that ain’t. Freud said it much better. It probably will make a nice web site, but I can’t see Dennett selling too many t-shirts or having much of a convention. Brights are not quite as cheerfully inclined as he would like us to believe, and the reason, as some of the bloggers pointed out, is Dennett can’t successfully put a smiley face on the end of ethics. It’s not a cherry announcement that there is no longer any reason to assume right, wrong or significance. Read Ecclesiastes or a good suicide note to get more of the appropriate flavor.

Two: (Get ready for a shock) Life after death is the most difficult part of the Christian worldview for me to believe in. I do not struggle with the deity of Christ, the love of God or anything in the Gospel. But I can get downright morose about death, particularly the idea that we survive the finality of death and go to heaven. Part of my problem is the near-absence of this in the Old Testament. The other part is simply the finality of death, particularly the lack of tangible evidence that anyone survives death. (I’m a Houdini type. I’d love to hear a message from the other side, but I just can’t buy John Edwards, etc.) There is no point my personal faith is stretched more than acknowledging those parts of the Apostle’s Creed that take us beyond the grave. My own half-brother’s atheism frequently ridicules the idea of humans living “forever” as being a torturous and bizarrely unappealing notion. I understand what he’s saying.

Of course, there are two things I keep in mind. One is that our fallen nature is now particularly at war with the idea of life after death. Human nature is now blind and dead to this reality, and clings to this physical life with a tenacious idolatry. We cannot rightly think of God or of the life God intends. We must shrink it all to the human span. The other thing is that God’s plan is not for disembodied souls to float around in a spiritual state of eternal Vineyard worship services, but there is a new heaven and a new earth coming. A return to the original universe and the paradise of fellowship with God and real life in a real world. Resurrection. The rescue, remaking and renewal of creation. This is something most “brights” have never considered, and even most Christians miss what “eternal life” actually means in Bible. It is God taking all this death and making it into something entirely new and devoid of death. Sounds good to me.

RIGHT ON.

Neuhaus notes a statement on Israel from Knox seminary. First, the crux-

Bad Christian theology regarding the ‘Holy Land’ contributed to the tragic cruelty of the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Lamentably, bad Christian theology is today attributing to secular Israel a divine mandate to conquer and hold Palestine, with the consequence that the Palestinian people are marginalized and regarded as virtual ‘Canaanites.’ More »« Less

Neuhaus takes on Bernard Lewis’s article “I’m right, you’re wrong, go to hell.”

I particularly like this gem, it’s very repeatable.

I will say it again: the reason we do not kill one another over our disagreements about the will of God is that we believe it is against the will of God to kill one another over our disagreements about the will of God.

Interesting commentary from Charles Murtaugh.

By now every blogger and his brother has taken a whack at Tufts philosophy prof Daniel Dennett’s weak op-ed in Saturday’s New York Times:

The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don’t believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death. More »« Less

Tim Keller is considered the most influential young reformed pastor in the country. I like him, his style, his innovations and respect for traditions. This page from D.J. Chuang’s really well done personal site is a good intro to Keller. Here’s a good quote.

Any proponent of “historic” corporate worship will have to answer the question, “Whose history?” Much of what is called “traditional” worship is very rooted in northern European culture. While strict contemporary worship advocates may bind worship too heavily to one present culture, strict historic worship advocates may bind it too heavily to a past culture.

. . . A refusal to adapt a tradition to new realities may come under Jesus’ condemnation of making our favorite human culture into an idol, equal to the Scripture in normativity (Mark 7:8-9). While contemporary worship advocates do not seem to recognize the sin in all cultures, the historic worship advocates do not seem to recognize the amount of (common) grace in all cultures.

I’ll dedicate this to our old friend Ron H, who is one of the casualties of my own bull-headedness. He would have liked that quote very much. I miss you, Ron, and the BHT is not as good without you.

D.J. has a nice index of worthwhile audio messages on the web.

Jim: I’m going to make it this time. Mid to later this week probably. You aren’t leaving til the weekend right?

These woods are lovely, dark and deep. Fortunately, I have no miles to go before I sleep. Still no sign of Bill. Oh, and after 4 years of broadband, dial-up sucks. Have fun picking on liberals. I’m off to bed.

Shall the Fundamentalists Win? This is a famous sermon by Fosdick, and it has a number of fascinating sections, particularly the one on the idea of progressive inspiration. Fosdick was at war with William Jennings Bryant, and whatever you think of the sermon, you will have to admit it was a different day than John Shelby Spong. Fosdick was a liberal Christian. Call him an accommodate or a compromiser, but he was genuinely trying to be a Christian with integrity. He doesn’t say the Muslim and the Christian are both right. He says the Bible is the progressive revelation beyond the Koran, and also within itself. As I said, like it or hate it, it’s intelligent. What happened to liberals like this?

Remembering Harry Emerson Fosdick. Years ago, I read a book called The Meaning of Prayer, by Harry Emerson Fosdick. HEF was a liberal of the old school, when liberals were Christians and not new age wackos, and the book was one of the most wonderful books on prayer by anyone anywhere. I am glad to see Fosdick remembered fondly.

‘Definite petition has its place…But…the thought of prayer as communion with God puts the centre of the matter where it ought to be. The great gift of God in prayer is Himself, and whatever else He gives is incidental and secondary…’

’...the thought of prayer as communion with God makes praying an habitual attitude, and not simply an occasional act. It is continuous fellowship with God, not a spasmodic demand for His gifts. ’

’...prayer is not beggary, it is not soliloquy, it is communion with God.’

’...the innermost nature of prayer (is) the search of the soul for God rather than for His gifts…’

“Recall St Augustine’s entreaty in the fourth century, “Give me Thine own Self, without Whom, though Thou shouldest give me all that ever Thou hadst made, yet could not my desires be satisfied.” Recall Thomas a Kempis…praying “It is too small and unsatisfactory, whatsoever Thou bestowest on me, apart from Thyself.” And then recall George Matheson … “Whether thou comest in sunshine or in rain, I would take Thee into my heart joyfully. Thou art Thyself more than the sunshine; Thou art Thyself compensation for the rain. It is Thee and not Thy gifts I crave.”’

Harry Fosdick, The Meaning of Prayer

Turning the Mainline Around – Prospects for Optimism in Mainline Protestantism. Well, all you pessimists avoid this one. Here is a dandy of a survey of what is going on in the mainlines, and why there is great reason for hope. It made my toes tingle with possibilities.

Among the good news: Liberals are old and dying, or gathered around the issue of homosexuality, which is an issue that actually involves a peripheral of churches. The renewal groups in the mainlines are coming from younger people, youth groups, outside the mainline seminaries, parachurch organizations, and most importantly, from grassroots churches (like mine) that just won’t surrender. They are cooperating, and they are growing. Liberals underestimate them. So read this and pray pray pray it’s all true. This opening illustration is worth keeping. How sad:

Elaine Pagels, the famous historian of early Christianity, once told a revealing story about the social world behind the scenes of high-powered biblical scholarship. As a young up-and-coming professor at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, she was invited to a closed-door, after-hours smoker. The men there (Pagels was the only woman) were all prominent Bible scholars. Many of them didn’t even believe in God, and those who still called themselves Christian were anything but orthodox.

The liquor flowed freely, and as these men got in their cups, they began to sing old gospel songs. To her astonishment, they knew all the tunes and words by heart. Then it dawned on her- these atheist and liberal Bible scholars must have grown up in evangelical churches.

I posted a long entry at The Scriptorium about a discussion we had in my adult Bible study class on what the Bible says about women staying home or going to work. I’ll just link to it and you can read it over there, but if you have a comment bring it over here. This comes out of a growing movement at our school that seems to be saying our women should all be at home, even though it is specified in our contracts that both spouses work for the ministry, and a good day care, run by our staff, is right in the middle of campus, literally a few yards from most people’s offices or classrooms. So you can see the context for some of this discussion.

Here’s the thoughts on Titus 2:2-10.

I’ve been teaching Titus for a while in my Sunday morning adult Bible study class. This morning’s passage, Titus 2:2-10, reminds me of some frequent problems Christians have in interpreting passages that come from the social world of the first century. So here are some of my thoughts on a passage that is commonly interpreted as a commentary on women in the workplace, and is sometimes used in a way that is hurtful. I anticipate some disagreement, but I hope the study will stimulate some discussion. More »« Less

Hello everyone. How are things in the world of working computers? I finally get a shot at one, and it won’t even let me read the entries. So sorry I can’t comment on anything that’s being said (what’s the emoticon for “fuming”?)
I miss you guys. You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone, indeed.
Please pray for me: the eye Dr. told me the other day that I have bad neural scarring behind my eyes. It’s one of the signs of hystoplasmosis, but he says that’s not what’s going on—he thinks I was born with it. It’s not an earth-shattering surprise: I’ve figured for years that SOMETHING was causing my vision to get worse every year. Anyway, the prayer is that I will not have to have surgery for this stupid problem. The Dr. did not mention such a thing, but some of the people I’ve mentioned it to say they know so-and-so who had that problem and had to have surgery. I spend most of my day trying to keep sharp objects AWAY from my eyes, so I’d rather avoid any occular cutting.
Life is good—just got back from the 30th annual Faulkner and Yoknapatawpha conference (Faulkner and the Ecology of the South), and I’m going to Kings Island w/ the fam tomorrow. I’m back in the classroom again soon (which means back in the office, which means back at a computer—yea!!), and I got a small raise. God is good.
Hope everyone is well!

Rob: I certainly have no objection to all sides being heard, though I have strong suspicions that it is impossible to have a purely scientific- or even consistently philosophical- conversation with the YE creationists. When scientists are disagreeing over a matter, the primary differences are at the level of the interpretations and not at the level of basic presuppositions. Scientists tend to agree on the nature of the scientific method and the use of a philosophical “authority” structure. But the discussion between YE Creationists and other scientists tends to be less over what is evidential and more over what is fundamental, eventually getting down to one side defending and depending on a particular interpretation of a particular text. I find it extremely, extremely significant, scientifically speaking, that there appears to be no one who interprets YE evidence into the YE conclusion but does not also accept their interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as an authoritative scientific text. I mean, even the pro-life position has atheistic adherents, but such does not seem to be the case here, which leaves me feeling quite a bit of sympathy for those who say that we are not dealing with two comparative evidentiary cases for origins and teaching both in public schools along side one another is impossible. (Not so with the Intelligent design position of origins, by the way, which does not use Genesis 1-11 as an authority structure.) I think we are dealing with two cases for origins, one of which must defend a particular interpretation of a religious text as an essential, fundamental component. No matter how much good, alternative science the YEs present, they must, at the end of the day, defend their use of the text. Not just a philosophical position, but their interpretation of Genesis 1-11. It is essential to key components of their view of everything. And a discussion between Christians defending Genesis 1-11 and scientists defending a philosophical position and interpretation of evidence seems to be a totally fruitless conversation, much like an atheist and a fundamentalist Muslim debating why The Hussein brothers died.

My YE creationist friends- who are quite up to date on the latest level of creationist argumentation- are presently quite enamored with evidence the speed of light may not be constant. Apparently Science Magazine cover storied some of this evidence in the last couple of years. One of my general complaints about creationist science is that it tends to 1) be a counter-argument to whatever mainstream science is saying 2) unless mainstream science says something they like. So science is corrupt, evolutionist, flawed, etc, unless some maverick out there is doing research on the variable speed of light, then all of a sudden this is the most important, most established fact in all of research.

YE creationism makes me feel like God is deceiving us without purpose. Wine, Fish, the age of Adam- it all has a purpose. A 6,000 year old universe that looks 15 billion to the best minds we have- that seems a far different matter. I also see my creationist friends telling young people to ignore reason and believe the Bible, as if the Bible does not present a reasonable worldview, and as if our perceptions of the universe are completely deceptive. I think this contributes majorly to abandoning Christianity as flawed, and even evil.

Mike: I have an amusing story about a drunk guy trying to play my first drum kit three years ago. My bandmates and I were practicing at this comic shop, and this guy from the local public house stumbles in, and announces that he works for Viacom. Of course, we’re skeptical, but we play along since we hope to see some good drunken antics. He says he likes our sound, and that he could “hook us up” to play some “hot backyard parties.” He says we could “get paid, and get LAID!” Then he asks if he can play my drumkit. I say no.

Then the guy stumbles out muttering something or other. We felt robbed, since we didn’t get to see any good drunken antics. But the “get paid, get laid” statement still makes us laugh now.

Besides, what sort of party would want to listen to metalcore anyway?

Charlotte 3, Louisville 2. But a great game at a wonderful park on a perfect night. We’ll go back.

Rob: I’d just call it science. Science admits its imperfect nature and also admits its dependence on previous science. It is less eager to admit presuppositions, but Christians doing or analyzing science can admit that, and many others do as well. It is imperfect science, I’d say. To call it guessing seems to imply a lack of method and a lack of real serious consideration of the evidence. I can tell when a student is guessing on a test and when the student is using the right method, but imperfectly. Same with an auto mechanic trying to solve a problem with my car. Guessing and intelligent, but imperfect method are very different. I see science more in that light. I think that the critique that science can’t recreate the beginning so all it has to say about it is suspect is a given, but it doesn’t undercut real work in astrophysics, radio astronomy, etc. to the point of dubbing it all as guessing.

Some of you guys didn’t categorize your posts. Do I have to or can you do it?

Korg Triton Pro
E-mu VK-1
Yamaha CS2X
Korg Prophecy
Zoom MRT-3 MicroRhythmTrak
Peavey KB-100 Amp

Role in the band: Look pretty while being drowned out by guitars and drums. Actually, I don’t even look that pretty.

Bill, email sent. I’ve also verified that I can connect via dialup from my laptop. As to how to reach us, here’s a map. Mapquest to “Dewey Road” in Hermon should get you directions.

All: I’m off. To the woods. By the Lake. For a week. nnaaghh nnaaghh nnaaghh nnaaaaaaaghh nnaaaaaaghh. Be good. Try to survive without my incisive wit and pleasant personality. If I get bored of swimming, canoeing, hiking, fishing, sunbathing, and taking it easy, I’ll drop a post.

BTW, Judd: It gets so loud in hear on a Friday night that for a second there I thought you said “skin” whistle, not “tin” whistle.

Mike Birch

Primary instrument: Six piece, midnight blue Tama kit with oversized everything. 14” Zildjian K hats; 16” and 18” Paiste 502 crashes; 20 Paiste Rude Power Ride; all Tama hardware except for DW 5000 double bass pedal; cowbell; and, of course, one Rhythm Tech tambourine mounted on the hat stand for that John Henry Bonham sound.

Secondary instrument: Roland TDE 7 electronic drum kit with eight dual trigger pads, kick trigger, and hat trigger. That’s right, kids, over 500 percussion sounds at the touch of a button.

Overall role in the band: Mentoring young Alex in the fine art of “accidentally” spilling stuff on drunks who ask to play your kit between sets.

Jim: Email me your cell # and how to find you at Trout lake. billmac@slic.com

Instruments:
Button accordion. Tin whistle. Unkeyed wooden flute. Beer bottle.

Primary role:
Providing tuning notes for the band, since my instrument is fixed pitch.
Sitting in corner playing beer bottle since nobody in the band plays Irish dance music.
Being the comic foil for the lead vocalist.
Repeating the following dialogue with audience members:
“What is that?”
“It’s an accordion.”
“I thought accordions had keys?”
“Real ones have buttons.”
“Is that a flute?”
“No, it’s a tin whistle.”
“What is that?”
“It’s a flute.”
“I thought flutes were silver, with keys.”
“Real flutes are wooden with no keys.”
“Huh. Why aren’t you amped? Everybody else is.”
“Because electricity is of the devil, and these guys are all going to hell.”

Primary instrument: four piece, cranberry stained DW drum kit, Pearl steel snare drum, Gibraltar drum rack, two Sabian AAX sixteen-inch crashes, a Sabian AAX twenty-inch ride, and fourteen-inch Sabian AAX fast hats. I have a Pearl double bass pedal and a Tama Iron Cobra single bass pedal, although I like the double bass a lot (ex-metal drummer). Oh yeah, and a cowbell. More cowbell is always good…

Secondary instrument: A Gretsch acoustic/electric guitar with Fishman pickup.

I like the indie rock and the metalcore/hardcore stuff, so none of these white Southern Calvinists wanna play with me (sniff). They like their bluegrass and Garth Brooks (JN).

Hunting for Bambi was a hoax. Read my comments when Michael suggested it might be. Then turn off the news once and for all.

Rob, one thing is certain: I’m no reliable indicator of age. Half the time, I feel like I’m 80 years old because of the arthritis; the rest of the time, my wife is telling me that I’m acting like a child.

I like this guy. And, for the record, I also refuse to fly domestic flights because so-called security measures do nothing to protect me, and are a complete inconvienence. I, for one, think it would be tremendous victory for the good guys in the war on terrorism if the entire airline industry went out of business. We’ve subsidized and rescued the commercial airlines for far too long; we can’t afford to keep unprofitable businesses going at taxpayer expense.

I’m off to pack.

Primary Instrument: Yamaha RBX-350 4-string bass, run through a Zoom Multi-Effects Device, an Ibanez Guitar Chorus, into a Marshall amp. Am willing to upgrade amp to something that doesn’t suck.
Secondary Instrument: Washburn Acoustic-Electric Guitar.

And if anyone has a piano, a drum set, a psaltry, a strumstick, a banjo, a harmonica, or a kazoo – I’m there. Oh, and I’ll go ahead and volunteer the services of a clarinet-playing wife.

Tim Veenstra

Elec: Washburn J-9 Washington/Hamer Eclipse/Lee Jones hand made telecaster
Acoustic: Fender F-270SEC/Yamaha Classical
Danelectro Dan Echo delay, Danelctro Stereo chorus, Ibanez Tube King (not used).
Top secret all tube tone monster amp that will never be revealed through a Vox 2×12 cabinet or a 1×12 or 2×15 cabinet.
Hammond M3 w/Leslie
14 Harmonicas that I am still learning to play.
and other assorted things I don’t use.

Has no fear and will sing lead even though he sucks.. But keep it in the key of F or Bb…actually any key but E/E#.. Better at harmony vocals though. Usually let’s (makes) the wife sing lead.

Favorite line,,:
If you make a mistake live, do it again, that keeps them guessing,, then do it again and they think you meant to,, then once more so they know that they were wrong and what you just did was beyond them!!

Bill, email me or IM me or call me or something. I’m leaving for Trout Lake tomorrow morning.

Here’s an explanation of radiocarbon dating methods, written from a sympathetic perspective. I also would be interested in seeing criticism of c14 dating by anyone who is not a young-earther. My experience has been that the only people who are skeptical of the radiocarbon method are those who don’t like the conclusions its application leads to. On the other hand, I don’t want to paint creationists with a broad brush. ICR has a page about radiocarbon dating that appears to be quite balanced.

Multi-instrumentalist.

Related to someone who’s almost famous.

Will release a solo album real soon now.

I really don’t want to get into the whole Young Earth/Old Earth Creation/Evolution thing, but I’ll say a few things anyway, because I’m foolish.

Even those who believe in a young earth are being a little silly if they follow Ussher’s chronology or the Jewish year. Harold Camping demonstrated that Adam was created in 11,013 BC, and that settles it. (And don’t think I’m kidding, either. Read Camping’s study for yourself, in PDF or Word format!)

I was astounded to learn in college, relying exclusively on accepted evolutionary biological texts, that the various dates assigned to discoveries of “pre-human” remains were frankly bizarre, without rhyme or reason. Granted, the apologetics teacher was cherry-picking, and the majority of “pre-humans” fall along a generally understandable and accepted curve. But there are many dozens that were dated based on several factors that put that very strangely out of time. I’m not one to necessarily say that since you can can’t be sure how much carbon has changed since the flood you should pitch out the whole thing, but I’m also unwilling to accept the ages I’m told until I’m told how those ages were derived.

My belief in God doesn’t require the earth to be 13,015 years old, or 6,000, or 60 million. I generally hold to a literal six-day creation, but I understand why many people do not. I don’t have answers for every objection raised to a young-earth view, and I submit that old-earthers have similar problems. I’ll make up my mind for sure after I’m dead, I think. :)

A good word from Sandlin over at RazorMouth today about the tricks and techniques that we use as substitutes to the Holy Spirit’s power in ministry. Even the non-Willow/Saddleback ministries are guilty of this. All of us need to hear this, regardless of what camp we’re in (SS or RPW).

BTW, I note that RM have done away with the reader comments and debate on every article. This is a good move.

Phillip Winn: Played a 43-note calliope until an unfortunate incident with a roadie resulted in its destruction. Switched to banjo after touring briefly with Béla Fleck.

Has an unfortunate habit of spending his share of the band’s gig money on butterscotch Zingers. Sings BGVs only while on tour since most studios don’t recognize the inherent beauty of his voice.

Michael Spencer: Fender Jazz Bass, Sun cabinet, Carvin amp. Various cheapo pedals that don’t work. Shades.

Has kept perfect time for the entire history of the band. Once was told by Stanley Clarke that he really, really needed to change instruments.

Can sing bgvs, if he’s not playing at the same time.

Here’s your project while I am off to the Louisville Riverbats, Charlotte Knights game this evening.

I’ve added “The BHT House Band” as a category. Everyone who wants to be in the band, please make a CATEGORIZED post with your name, instruments you play and your overall roll and/or history in the band.

Thank you for your support of the arts at the BHT.

You can sponsor earthquakes? What’s next? “Tropical Storm Alice, brought to you by Pepsi”?

ScrappleFace: Survey: Many Germans Believe U.S. Sponsored Hitler

(2003-07-24)—About a third of young Germans believe the United States attacked itself on September 11, 2001, and that Adolf Hitler was a Cleveland-born foreign exchange student sponsored by the FBI.

The survey of 1,000 people for the weekly Die Zeit (The Pimple), also showed that most Germans believe the following:—The U.S. paid the Emperor of Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in hopes it would lead eventually to more fuel-efficient cars.—The U.S. has sponsored four of the last five San Francisco earthquakes.—David Hasselhoff really drives a talking car and is the greatest rock and roll singer of the past 100 years.—CNN and MSNBC are American news organizations.

If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is “God is crying.” And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is “Probably because of something you did.”- Jack Handy

Tom: Good post.

Jim: You are a bully allied with Hitler.

I insist that you retract your off-handed one-line reference to NRO in the light of my penetrating and informative post which immediately follows it.

Michael, Jonah Goldberg picked up on the same study as David Fein did over at Breakpoint. Some of Jonah’s observations might provide a helpful grain of salt. “the data is skewed because researchers found what they wanted to find. They were only looking for their car keys where the light is good.” He documents some of the bias that the psychiatric profession has toward conservatives; in fact, he makes the case that the very fact that psychiatric researchers choose to study conservatives (there are a plethora of such studies) and not study liberals (there are virtually none) shows that the whole enterprise begs the question.

Of course, psychiatry itself largely is an example of begging the question. They posit that that naturalistic materialism can account for behavior, and then set out to prove that naturalistic materialism can account for behavior.

All of this adds up to what I call the “Other Side Principle,” which can be stated as follows:

In any political or religious discussion, there is a tendency for the level of discourse to deteriorate to the point where one side says, “The other side is ”

is one or more of of

stupid
evil
stupid and evil
not nice at all
mentally imbalanced
allied with Satan
the enemy of liberty
the enemy of humanity
the enemy of God
gay
fag-bashing hate mongers
plain ordinary hate mongers
child molesters
fascist
communist
trying to destroy the environment
trying to hinder progress
engaged in a vast conspiracy to destroy us
engaged in a vast conspiracy to enslave us
engaged in a vast conspiracy to distract us
attempting to marginalize us by accusing us of being engaged in a conspiracy …
... [add your own to the list]

James Glassman with a Seven-Point Basic Investment Guide for you twenty-somethings out there to Invest now and become millionaires someday. Really, at 46, I now realize that if someone had collared me at 20 and made me do this I would be doing a lot more good in the world. Read it and pass it on.

Stacio Orrico update. (We’re trying to book here for next Friday night’s BHT navel piercing party) This is CCM, and they are so proud.

Lights. Camera. Optimism…..uhhh Apocalypse. Cloud Ten Pictures keeps the evangelical popcorn club upbeat about the future.

Michael:
To answer your question, which I didn’t see until after I posted my last post, no, I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that. However, I was really young when I came to Christ. But that’s another story.

Michael, when I talk about “seeking God”, I suppose I need to define my terms, and possibly when I do, I might find my position closer to what you are saying. It’s doubtful, maybe impossible, for an unregerate “seeker” to consciously say “I am seeking God, the Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Who fully revealed Himself in Jesus the Christ.” Most “seekers”, indeed, are seeking something to fill the void, something they might call “God”. Now, with nobody or nothing to guide them, they could seek “God” in the wrong places or in the wrong things, such as LSD or the “Oprah Winfrey Show”. Or, they could seek God by going to a church that preaches and teaches the true God of the Bible, or even by reading the Bible themselves (although without someone to help them interpret, that might be fraught with perils). Even with seeking a nebulous idea of God, I believe that God is faithful and will meet them more than halfway. So, how can you search for God if you don’t know what you’re looking for? Well, I guess I’ll know Him when I find Him! Of course, I’m sure at that point we find that He’s actually the pursuer instead of the pursued!

Addressing the issue of the possibility of doing good when held up to the divine standard, I suppose we all fall short. In fact, I look back at my life and I don’t know if I’ve done ANYTHING good from totally pure motives. I remember the first time I ever gave a devotional (actually a short sermon) was when I was about 15 years old, at an inter-denominational men’s prayer breakfast in the small town where I was raised. People loved it, they thought it was great, and it blessed them. But the reason I asked to do it in the first place was that one of my classmates gave the devotion a week before, and I thought “I can do better than him.” I’ve written songs that have blessed people, but the reason I got started was because my best friend’s brother wrote songs and sang them and got good feedback, and I thought I could do just as good or better. So maybe I’m a good poster child for total depravity. “Total depravity”, in modern language, is “We all suck.”

I’d like to weigh in on the creationism thing as well, but I have to get ready to go to work, so I won’t be back on here until after midnight, probably. Dang!!

Tom: I just gotta ask. Would you be comfortable standing up and saying, “Before I trusted Christ, I could do truly righteous things and I truly sought after God.”?

Jack: Seems to me Lewis is stating why something is a “miracle,” i.e. a one of a kind event with a particular significance during Jesus’ ministry, and therefore goes against the normal workings of the universe as usually observed. Miracles aren’t the way we would build a Christian view of the scientific method, though as Christians we would allow for miracles in their theologically appropriate place.

The young earth creationists that I know are constantly telling me three things that have serious theological implications, and really bother me as a Christian who believes the heavens are telling the glory of God and the firmament displays his handiwork.

1) Don’t trust your senses. They are lying to you.
2) Don’t trust evident reason either.
3) Anything that occurred beyond the time science could repeat it in a laboratory was likely done totally differently than you would observe today.

These three things make me feel slimy, and do not make me feel I am trusting God. But that’s just me.

Rob: Congratulations. I thought I had the lowest view of science on the planet. (jn) Even I wouldn’t say the entire scientific enterprise of dating the universe or human history is a “guess.” I think it is well beyond that, and I say that on Christian premises, not philosophical skepticism.

Tom: Bad boy, quoting me against myself. Can’t let you do that.

The hermeneutic I advocate- that of accurately discerning literary genre- works on your interpretation of Psalm 14 in its original context, but not in its Pauline context in Romans. In chapters 1-3, Paul is clearly saying that human beings do not do “good” or “seek God” if these things are measured by divine righteousness. By the standard of divine righteousness, I sin when I help you with the tire, I even sin when I save someone from drowning, in that I do not seek God’s glory purely, totally and completely without any competing motivations present. Sin is present even in the compassion of a great Christian act of charity, because we are fallen creatures, and every act is tainted. (I get the feeling that you don’t believe that.)

In the same way, the Greek philosophers were like many today in “seeking God.” They sought a God of their own intellectual conception, a God acceptable to their own preferences. But they are not seeking Yahweh who wiped out thousands for disobeying the commandment against idolatry!

Yes, we have a God-shaped void, and yes, we try to fill it with God-shaped things, including very appealing human ideas of what God should be like. But when Isaiah saw the Lord, he did not have a “seeking” response, he had a horrified response. The God we seek isn’t holy, so he isn’t real. He may be an answer, a helper, a giver of meaning, but no one seeks the God of the Bible. Instead, we are at enmity with such a God, and by nature prefer ourselves to him. Only grace and regeneration can change that situation.

That’s what Paul meant, and what I mean when I read and teach Romans within its literary genre.

The Ole’ Age of the Earth Controversy

Before I toss this stinky dead horse-head into someone’s bed, I will acknowledge that the evidence tends to indicate that the universe is somewhere along the lines of 15 billion years old. Having said that…

The Bible tells a number of stories about miracles. As CSLewis aptly points out in his brilliant little book, “Miracles”, the nature of these miracles did not run contrary to nature, rather, they took the natural order of things and compressed and/or extended it. For example:

Water into Wine
It takes a couple of years, minimum, to make a drinkable wine, and water is the main ingredient in wine. The older the wine, as a rule, the better it is. The testimony of the scriptures is that the wine Jesus made was the best the wedding party had yet consumed. In other words, it was probably the oldest.

But it wasn’t the oldest. It was the youngest. And it was not just young, it had been nothing but water mere moments before. If we could have subjected that wine to chemical analysis, every bit of evidence would have told us that the wine came from a certain kind of grape, probably from a certain region in a certain year. And yet the FACTS were that the wine came out of the mind of God and a jug of water mere moments before.

Fish & Bread
Same song, different verse. Hillbilly accent make it worse.

The fish and the bread Jesus conjured to feed a crowd of 5000 was real fish and real bread. Anybody know how long it takes to make that much food? If we could grab a couple of those loaves and fishes and run them through our handy-dandy spectro-analyser, what do you suppose the evidence would indicate?

I’ll tell you what the fabulous Dr. Science would say after he examined the evidence. He’d say, “this was a fish taken from the Sea of Galilee. It was about 6 months old when it was caught. And the bread was made from a grain that grows on the other side of the Sea. From the time the grain is sown until harvest is about 4 months, plus preparation time.” The evidence would tell us – indisputably – that the stuff was several months old.

And the evidence would be completely, utterly wrong. Wrong as wrong can be. So wrong you could hang your laundry on it. Wrong-o Mudflap, thanks for playing. We have a parting gift for you.

So how old is the universe? The scientific experts, (who should know) say 15 billion years. But God apparently doesn’t bother to check with the experts when He does His thang.

I really don’t like the implications of this.

Did Robert Schuller write that definition?

I want to make a little clarification on my Psalm 14 statement yesterday that Psalms should be taken as poetry and not necessarily literally. When David said, “There is no one who does good, not one” and other statements in that Psalm, he was using hyperbole, which is an exaggeration to make a point. The hermeneutical principle I use here is just simple observation. There ARE people, even unregererate, who do good. If have have a flat tire and someone stops to help me change it, they are doing a good thing, and that doesn’t necessarily mean they are Christian. I believe there are people, even unregenerate people, who seek God. Otherwise, the story about Paul finding the monument to “the unknown God” could not be true. Even Jesus used hyperbole in the opposite direction when he told the parable of the mustard seed, because, in reality, the mustard seed is NOT the “smallest of all seeds”. Either Jesus was ignorant (not a possibility as far as I’m concerned; I’m of the Dallas Willard school that Jesus was the smartest person who ever lived, along with being Lord and Savior) or he was using hyperbole. When the Psalms speak of God’s majesty and greatness, that’s not hyperbole, because, really, how can you exaggerate that?

In reading Michael’s entry about the scientists who believe humans migrated to the Americas 18,000 years ago, it prompted me to go back and read his IM article “To Be or Not To Be”. Michael makes statements in that article about respecting literary forms and taking the forms into consideration when interpreting the Bible. I totally agree with that approach. (By the way, Michael, the point Paul was trying to make in Romans 3:9-12 is that Jews are no better than Gentiles when it comes to being “under sin”). Therefore, while I believe David was using hyperbole in Psalm 14, Paul was NOT using hyperbole when he states that “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” In that case, ALL means ALL.

Not everyone has to agree with me, of course, but at least hopefully you can see where I’m coming from.

Michael, for me the show-stopper has always been the age of the Universe, which is something that can fairly easily be detected (and simply understood) from red-shift and other astronomical phenomenon. Those who hold to the young-earth position are left with a God who intentionally deceives us into thinking that the earth is old when it isn’t. I’m not buying that.

Just in case there is anyone out there who still cares :)

This is an article from Mark Coppenger called “The Ascent of Lost Man in Southern Baptist Preaching.” It is a superb article that really rings your bells if you grew up in the SBC or in evangelicalism, and you have some appreciation for what has happened as preachers have sought to make the Gospel more acceptable to each generation. It is a stuffed full of primary sources and illustrates why I believe we have to teach, explain and using a distinctive attitude toward the language of faith. Please read this, if for no other reason to get a good idea of what the Bible teaches on depravity!

BTW I thought of this answering our old friend Jake over on the IM Forum. Here was his post:

Does this definition of sin from a church’s doctrinal statement look right?
“We are all made in the image of God, to be like Him in character. We are the supreme object of God’s creation. Although mankind has tremendous potential for good, we are marred by an attitude of disobedience toward God, called “sin”. Sin separates us from God.” It looks a bit wrong to me.

Now I cite this to stimulate the discussion along these lines: What has the writer of this statement done and why did he do it? Does the result accomplish his ends, and does it have other effects? (Hint: how and why is the word “attitude” in there?)

The science guys are saying human beings came to our side of the pond 18,000 years ago. I have a question. When my creationist friends shake their heads in wonderment that I don’t believe the Bible (jn), they usually make the point that ALL dating is done by using evolutionist geologic assumptions of the age of the earth, etc and that these are totally presuppositions with no evidence backing them up whatsoever. I don’t buy this, in fact I think it’s looking the evidence God left us right in the face and saying you prefer your own presups. But, be what may, is there GENETIC evidence for the age of human beings, or in general genetic evidence that is not tied to some Darwinist created geologic timetable that creationists won’t ever believe?

BTW, the firmness with which these people insist that a 6,000 year old earth is THE test of whether you are a Christian or not frightens me.

Michael: Don’t worry, I wasn’t accusing you of being exclusionary with language, or at least I wasn’t meaning to. I’ve heard people who are, and I was again projecting. I’m well aware that your environment (and your general style) means that you speak to people where they are, which is why I suspect that the main point of disagreement between you and Kevin is still one of defining terms and understanding what the other means.

Kevin: Of course, with “slain in the Spirit” as your example, you might have problems around here… :)

All in all, I’m a geek, and a brainy type. I read constantly and voraciously and love to learn. So I’m with Michael on the idea that people must understand the truth in detail of the Gospel, not just the truth generally speaking. Of course, I am also referring to the understanding that grows after one is already a believer. Jesus, after all, didn’t spend much time going over the details, but explained the Gospel to different people in different ways, and not in much detail at all. Paul, on the other hand, laid it all out and was quite specific about it. So for salvation purposes, it seem that rough analogies like rebirth and so on are fine, but for practical Christian living, I would say that it is important to explain in detail about things like substitutionary atonement and so on.

Using the actual historical English words is still unimportant to my in concept, but since teaching those words opens up an entire wonderful world of historical exposition on the subject in the form of lots and lots of good books, I strongly favor teaching the words.

I’m also in favor of challenging people every day. I try to challenge myself intellectually as much as possible (that’s one reason I’m here) and I’ve always spoken to my children using words and concepts far above what most people think their age makes them capable of understanding. Amusingly, some of the same people who used to laugh at me when I answered simple questions with detailed and complex answers now gasp when they hear my 2, 4 and 5 year old kids carry on perfectly reasonable conversations with adults and use fantastic adjectives and interjections readily.

You want pragmatism, here’s some for you: Studying the psychology of groups and cliques, one thing that is common is exclusionary language. Slang, you know? And social groups don’t tend to slow down to make it easy for people to catch up – they just barge ahead at full speed. The people on the outside who see something they like make an extra effort to come up to speed, learning the slang, unconsciously adopting the mannerisms of the clique, and so on. It is the very presence of the slang and mannerisms and so on that is part of the appeal of the clique. So apply this to Christianity, if that’s what floats your boat. By defining the church in the terms of secular society, we lose many of the distinctive that might otherwise cause people to educate themselves and learn about Christ. Odd, that.

I’m all for dropping stodgy traditions that aren’t Biblically-based, and lyrically sound music to a decent beat doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I’m also very reticent to speak “church-ese” as I’ve mentioned before, as I see no need to use words that people have to strain to understand. But I don’t believe in toning down the concepts, not one bit.

Guys… start taking up a collection...

The Boar’s Head Monastery… I kinda like the sound of that.

Charles, a regular BHT lurker, says I should have a “Wretched Urgency” contest. What is “Wretched Urgency?” (Reading my IM piece not required.)

Charles says…

1) The urge to relieve oneself while in a very long meeting one cannot be excused from,
2) Sitting on the front row during an invitation lasting 2 hours while a Finneyesque preacher bears down on you,
3) Getting stuff in the mail from Christians that is manipulative.
4) Listening To Dick Gephardt say that Bush has made our country less safe.
5) Pew Packer Sundays?

July/August 2001 – Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc If you enjoyed our discussion today- or if it left you baffled, upset and agitated- read the two articles posted from the Summer ‘01 edition of Mod Ref. Both Dr. Hart and Dr. Horton have helpful, thoughtful, surprising things to say to all sides.

Study links Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, Limbaugh. Hey Jim, is this Krauthammer’s law, or something beyond? The study also says that dictators are basically conservatives, and want to be mean.

The NAACP lawsuit against the gun industry didn’t get out of the gate.

Reuters took this woman’s story and spun it as they wished, changed key words and left her name on it after she asked them to remove it. Unbiased journalism indeed.

The Germans are freakin’ nuts. Or at least a large chunk of them. “One-third of Germans under age 30 believe the U.S. government may have sponsored the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, according to a poll published Wednesday,” Reuters reports from Berlin. “And about 20 percent of Germans in all age groups hold this view, according to a survey of 1,000 people conducted for the weekly Die Zeit.”

Os Guinness Quotes:

In the old days the fundamental and evangelical community used to be world denying by definition. Today there is very little world denying faith left. And much of the Church is a pale copy of the world, which means for the thoughtful seeker there is no real contrast. It’s interesting that all the great thinking converts of the 20th century despised the liberal or seeker friendly expressions of the faith. And came back to a red-blooded orthodoxy. What I’m giving in the book (The Long Journey Home) is the classical Christian faith in a tough way but couched for seekers. There is no dilution of the faith in any relevance.

What I really learned from Schaeffer, which has remained with me all my life, was his combination of a passion for God, a passion for people, and a passion for truth.

C.S. Lewis used to talk about what he called the, “resisting material.” In other words if you only preach what fits into your generation you’re bound to leave out a key part of the Gospel which doesn’t fit in. But if you preach the whole Gospel, what fits and what doesn’t, you’ll be relevant not only to your own generation but the next one too. Dean Inge put it, “He who marries the Spirit of the Age soon becomes a widower.” The trouble with many of the seeker churches is that they became so relevant to the Baby Boomers that they were rejected by the Generation Xers that followed them.

Our passage this week is the temptation of Jesus recorded in Mark 1:12-13. Like so many things in Mark, this passage seems highly abbreviated when compared to the other synoptic gospel accounts. Matthew and Luke add details of the temptation that have become the center of many sermons and lessons. As a result, some of Mark’s version has been obscured.

The most striking thing about this passage is the verb ekballo used by Mark to indicate how the Holy Spirit drove Jesus into the desert. Mark uses this verb 17 times, often in the context of exorcisms. The force of the verb is not captured by the NIV’s “sent”. Better is the NASB “impelled.” We are not to think that Jesus is reluctant to experience this chapter of his life, but to see the strong hand of the Spirit leading Jesus in his ministry. The Spirit of the Lord is truly “upon” him (Luke 4:18). We read of similar strong directions by the Spirit in the Old Testament (I Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, Ezek 3:12, 14 ff, 8:3, 11:24, Acts 8:39 ff.) John’s gospel records many statements of Jesus explaining that he is in the world to do and say exactly what he is directed by the Father. We are not to think of Jesus as a puppet, but we are also not to think of the Holy Spirit as anyone less than the sovereign God! God’s Spirit is the mightiest of powers and we should expect strong leadership of the Holy Spirit in those things that are in the plan and purpose of God. More »« Less

Kevin: I’m buying the drinks for your sheer tenacity that I be wrong today. And all done in remarkably good spirits without personal acrimony. Salute.

I’ll accept that Piper is wrong, but not me. And I’ll look into that Luther and Jesus not speaking English thing. Whaddayaknow? (JN) And as a church-goer, I’ve hated myself for years. (JN)

I’ll just throw this rock in the general direction of this discussion. I listen to young men (twenty-somethings) by the dozen preach in my chapel every year. Such bright young fellows, eager to get at the kids who have had to suffer under my preaching. The vast majority of them agree with you, not me or that other guy, on how to use language. I will not use specific examples, but you can read Last Gasp and get what I feel like when they are done.

Where does all this leave us? In a perilous position that may endanger the actual existence of Christianity in its authentic form. We may be experiencing the emergence of an aggressive gnostic Christianity that places experiences and feelings above scripture. Gnosticism is, of course, a Christian heresy, but it is interesting how many liberals and radical revisionists speak longingly of a reapproachment with our gnostic Christian roots. Freed from the bounds of the practical use of scripture, evangelicals will be floating on a sea of cultural relativism, without an anchor other than someone’s idea of what Jesus and God ought to be like if they are going to relate to us as we are. Released from the obligation to be literate, logical, propositional and coherent, Christians will become, well…illiterate, illogical, experiential and incoherent. The dregs of postmodernism, so to speak.

“Freed from the bounds of the practical use of scripture.” Free to equate their ideas of God with scripture. Free to equate their experiences of love with scripture. Free to equate their ideas of commitment with discipleship. Free to define- Not ILLUSTRATE mind you, but define- Christianity in the language of the emo, hip-hop, hacked off, unplugged generation. Freed from the burden of any concern to study or know the original languages or the nature of language as conserving reality and coherent thought. They shut their Bibles and walk the stage and aisles talking about their Jesus and their personal relationship with him, a personal savior you can ask into your heart. (Whoops. Sudden lapse into someone’s idea of relevant language.)

And when they are done, it wasn’t the Gospel, or even close. No depravity. No sovereignty. No atonement or substitution. No explanation of Biblical faith. No theology about who is Jesus or what is sin. Just one felt need after another. But it is the future of evangelicalism, and the future of the church shaped by a desire to not just understand the world’s language and images, but to adopt it rather than conquer it. What did Leithart say: “To keep her integrity, must the church refuse to succeed?”?

Acts 17:23 What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. As I said, given one shot, I’ll use the language of the audience. Given time, I’ll teach the audience God’s language. If anyone out there cares to know what that means, skip a meal and buy The Language of God, by Crabtree et al.

A few years ago, I started noticing that preachers didn’t read good books. There was a column in our state baptist newspaper where they would recommend books, and the books were always froth or pop psychology or motivational or how to. No theology. No Biblical studies. No Commentaries. No Good IVP books. Nothing but malarkey. I used to puzzle over this. Was it a conspiracy? One day, it occurred to me what was going on. These men couldn’t read Packer or Frame or Piper or Sproul. Because they couldn’t understand them. They needed something that had the vocabulary of television, because these ministers had lost their vocabulary.

To anyone who considers themself as catering to the needs of “seekers”, I would like to offer a slight twist on your perspective, which may help to put the matter in a more stark relief.

Perhaps you ought to consider yourself one who caters to the needs of “hungerers and thirsters” (Matthew 5:6).

By thinking in this way, you may begin to see those “seekers” in a different light. Unfortunately that light may show some of them to not be seekers at all. But it will make you a better churchman, I think. And hopefully it will be of benefit to the “seekers” too.

So I thought that I’d let everyone know that I have a new weblog called The Red Fire Hydrant. And a new email address: alexATwearvirtue.com. Apparently Kurt already found it.

Anyway, go back to your drinking…

A few thoughts on the seeker movement…

God is the seeker (John 4:23). To be truly seeker sensitive, then, is to be sensitive to God, His truth, His kingdom/kingship, His glory. In practice this requires some form of the regulative principle, a strong emphasis on the Word, God-centered hymns and choruses (in whatever style), a recovery of the “language of faith”, genuine sensitivity to the Spirit, and more.

While it is true that God is the seeker and people are not (Romans 3:11) there are still people who in some way “seek” God. They are wired that way. Let’s call them the “yet-unconverted-elect”. We need to be sure that when they encounter our ministries it will be possible for them to: understand what we are saying; hear the Good News; recognise our message as the answer to their deepest longings. In practice this will require clear language, an emphasis on the objective Gospel, an uncompromising message that may stink to the world but be sweet to God’s own (2 Corinthians 2:16).

So our churches only need to be “elect sensitive”.

On a related matter I certainly can attest to the truth of what Michael is saying about the ill effects of the seeker movement on the poor small church pastor who is just trying to be faithful to God, His word and the historic faith. As I wrote here several months ago, deep pastoral insecurity “comes from the barrage of unsolicited “church-growth”advertising that comes across my desk every week. Well produced glossy brochures for this technique or that program that is “sure to boost your attendance and effectiveness”. A common claim is that the pastor needs to downplay doctrine and replace it with technological pizzaz and touchy-feely self-help sermons. Subtly these adverts tell me that I’m a loser because I don’t run a “prevailing church”“ (a term that is never defined in a biblical sense but in a sense that has everything to do with numbers- attendance and finances).

Phillip: I understand Kevin’s point too. That’s because- in all humility here :) – I have to talk to more face to face unbelievers per week than the pastors of 99.9% of the churches in America. I have to teach the Bible to hundreds of kids from every culture you can think of and every worldview. If anyone on Planet earth understands Kevin, I do, trust me. It’s a daily, passionate, focused concern for me. And if my list of words led anyone to think that I am some Calvinist making students create songs about infralapsarianism, then please revise impression. I am a good communicator and I do have a little trouble keeping my emotions under control on this subject because I doubt if anyone who critiques or challenges me has or ever will be charged with communicating to as many out and out pagans as I am. (Drains IBC) I’m not the greatest at conversations where I have put in the miles and the other guy is reading a map. (Comparatively)

My responsibility for making the meaning of Biblical words clear is the essence of my calling as a preacher/teacher. If I were to take ANY Biblical term and throw it out without careful attention to teaching, then I would be incompetent. Let’s pick a word like…...GOD. How do I tell my Buddhist kids what that one means? See, the problem isn’t just with these so-called “church words” that the adv