1) It’s not a major premise, more of an aside. However, the shape of James is overall more semitic in character than Paul’s letters and seems to hearken to the period before Gentiles began to outnumber Jews in the Church. Placing James in the pre-Pauline period I think gives it a much more vital link with Matthew and lets you understand it as a development and application of christology for the entire Church in Hebraic terms. Also, you get Paul being influenced by James for free. Otherwise, you get kind of a bizarre tension between the two and the explicitly Semitic character of James’ epistle becomes somewhat unexplainable.

2) What I mean is that Wright is operating in a scholarship context that would make most intelligent non-liberals pretty uncomfortable if they understood some of its implications. A major example would be the new development of a fundamental article of the faith after the Ascension. I suppose it also depends on how Christocentric one sees revelation. Is the Church simply charged with preserving and explaining what Christ taught, or is it given permission to add new dogmas on top of that? I’ve heard the argument about the Trinity; I believe that at Nicea, the Church re-affirmed what Christ taught about God in technical language rather than developing an entire “new” doctrine. The Church was condemning trinitarian heresies long before Nicea. Futher, there’s nothing wrong with “historical methods” per se. There is a world of difference between the historico-grammatical method and the historical-critical method, however. Frankly, I can’t tell if Wright is using the former or the latter, but he does seem to make his case entirely to appeal to the latter. I’m afraid I don’t have a terribly eloquent reason other that his Jesus doesn’t seem divine enough, and his Scriptures don’t seem inspired enough. He seems to read Paul like I would read Luther or Chemnitz, not how I would read someone I believed to be inerrantly and verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Maybe I’m wrong on how I read the Bible and should just treat its authors like ordinary men who just happened to be right all the time.

3) Since you’re Reformed, it’s fine, since the heart of your theology is the sovereignty of God, and Wright leaves that untouched. However, I’m a Lutheran, and I believe that justification by grace through faith is the heart of Christian doctrine. Hence Wright stabs at everything the Incarnation means to me. My point was that he dismisses all the exegesis and work coming from the Reformation with a wave of his hand and assumes he has nothing to learn from them, when the fact is he really doesn’t understand what the Reformation was about. When Mike Horton points out that Wright’s definition of “justification” is unsupportable by any Greek Lexicon or the last century of Greek scholarship, Wright devotees accuse Horton of ignoring historical context and true scholarship and blah blah blah.

The entire point is that there is a mountain of evidence that the Reformation was basically correct, and the fact that it remains to be seriously engaged by Wright instead of being misrepresented and abused should alert the reader to exercise some caution when reading him.

Josh: A few questions prompted by your post.

1) On dating James before Galatians. Yes, there is a case for an early dating of James, but it is not a case that has persuaded the vast majority of NT scholars of whatever kind. Commonly, James is dated 70-ish, while Thessalonians/Galatians are very early 50’s. I’m just curious why you felt the early date of James is such a settled matter that it can be a major premise in your response? (I know the case btw. I also know it is a minority report.)

2) Also, keep in mind that Wright is essentially a Barthian on inspiration and as such reads the Bible through the lens of higher criticism. While he certainly comes up with many useful insights, he is prone to dismissing large portions of biblical data and over-humanizing the text…

Wright, by contrast, since he sets the development of Christian doctrine in historical-critical parameters…

All this may be quite true, but you are arguing from a particular set of suppositions there. For example, “higher criticism” is generally a perjorative some conservatives use when they don’t like what some scholarship comes up with. Reading the Bible through the lens of scholarship is not unusual or wrong. Academic bookstores have shelves of people reading the Bible through the lenses of various kinds of scholarship. Such lenses need examination, but they are there with all of us.

Overly “humanizing the text” also confuses me a bit. On one level, the text is 100% human. Inspiration doesn’t DE-humanize the text does it?

Same with saying he sees doctrine developing in historical sequence. Don’t we recognize that with say, the Trinity? Yes, we believe scripture teaches the Trinity, but the development of the doctrine happened along historical lines, doesn’t it?

I can see objections of Wright’s conclusions, historical methodology, exegesis. But saying he uses “higher criticism” sounds like the fundamentalist church I grew up in, where they warned me not to listen to anything those professors had to say. Differing with an academician is one thing. Seeing academic methodology as suspect seems another matter. I disagree with Wright’s strong advocacy of realized eschatology (though he has changed his views as well I think) but I can’t fault the fact that he uses the same tools others use that come to different conclusions.

3) I sense in your post this idea that we presuppose the Reformers were right and shouldn’t be called wrong. Isn’t this an anti-reformation principle? Maybe Wright reads Luther, etc totally wrongly, but it seems to me obvious that Luther COULD be wrong, and to say Luther is wrong isn’t a betrayal of anything vital. Now if what we disagree on amounts to the plain teaching of scripture, then the quarrel is with scripture. But I think we have to be able to say, as Wright and many others do on many subjects, “The Reformers were wrong or inadequate, etc.” For instance, I find the Refomers totally inadequate on the subject of missions.

The problem with Wright is that he isn’t right. The first major didactic discussion of justification occurs in James 2, not in Galatians. Further, we get a major clue as to the development of the use of dikaioo in Christian thought in Acts 13:38-39. Here, of course, is the obvious link between justification and the forgiveness of sins. Compare also the language of John 3: while John prefers not to use the word “faith,” he uses the word “believe” constantly. Certainly the two can be considered synonymous, especially seeing how they are used in Galatians 3. In John 3, believing is most certainly a matter of having eternal life or not having it. Futher, throughout the book of John, the two are constantly linked: belief and sharing in Christ’s resurrection. Also see Acts 10:49. While it sounds scholarly and perhaps theologically titillating to speak of eternal life and forgiveness of sins as being a later concern of the church that was hardly momentous during Paul’s day, the biblical data simply does not support such a notion. Also, keep in mind that Wright is essentially a Barthian on inspiration and as such reads the Bible through the lens of higher criticism. While he certainly comes up with many useful insights, he is prone to dismissing large portions of biblical data and over-humanizing the text. Hence he feels quite legitmate at eliminating what the Reformers saw as the concern of Scripture (remission of sins) from the first-century consciousness and seeing it as a natural (but later) development of Paul’s rabbinic Gospel of table-fellowship. An uncritical reading of the Gospels quickly ascertains that Jesus taught a great deal about these things, and that questions of table-fellowship follows from what is now known as the doctrine of justification by God’s grace in Christ through faith alone, not the other way around. He also has been demonstrated repeatedly to have a remarkably poor understanding of medieval Catholicism and the Reformation—the Reformers (*sigh* including the evil and diabolical Calvin) had a much “bigger” idea of Scripture than Wright thinks they did. Luther, for example, read Bible as being concerned primarily with the universal, eternal truth and revealing it in and through history. Hence Galatians is seen as Paul using universal, eternal truth to answer a narrow and focused problem. Wright, by contrast, since he sets the development of Christian doctrine in historical-critical parameters, sees Paul as giving a narrow and focused answer to a narrow and focused problem, and only later did Christians derive (perhaps correctly) universal truths from it. Remember, this is the NT Wright who teaches that Christ neither believed in nor taught his own bodily return, but that it was derived later by Paul as an implication of his teachings.

I couldn’t quite let this one pass, but it’ll be quick…

Is the Liberal Christian Concept of Absolute Pacifism a realistic possibility in a world that still actively seeks to kill Christians, such as those in Sri Lanka, Africa, and Pakistan?

I will grant that police action and national self-defense are justifiable from a scriptural perspective. However, I don’t understand why the examples given above are supposed to convince anyone, when persecution in the name of Christ is something we are repeatedly and explicitly told to endure.

Otherwise, it was a decent quiz :).

In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight…”

The Liberal Blog Test for Bad Christianity Translator Questionairre Generator

That’s right, ladies and gents… today’s Translator has been replaced by the Translation Industries Questionairre Generator. We figured that since He Who Briefly Sojourned Among Us™ was kind enough to show the members of this blog how evil, mean, and nasty we are, we here at Translation Industries figured that it’d just be plain neighborly to return the favor.

So, we now present for your viewing pleasure… The Are You Conservative or Stupid Test

Violence

1. Do you believe that violence is inappropriate in all cases, despite the fact that God used violence in the OT repeatedly to deliver justice to people that had set themselves against His chosen people?

2. Does it stick in your craw that Jesus never once told Roman Soldiers to give up the military, even using one as an example of a person with the greatest faith in all Israel?

3. Since violence is all mean and nasty in general, is it therefore nice and pleasant to not use violence to protect someone in need of protection? In other words, if you walked into your house and found someone raping your sister, is it more Biblical to ask them politely to please stop violating her civil and human rights, or is it more Biblical to grab a baseball bat or other appropriate instrument of destruction, and begin the re-education process with the individual, sending them for the Ultimate Education™ if needed?

Modernity

1. Should Christian Conservatives have the same rights as liberals?

2. Is the Liberal Christian Concept of Absolute Pacifism a realistic possibility in a world that still actively seeks to kill Christians, such as those in Sri Lanka, Africa, and Pakistan?

3. Do you accept the validity of conservative, non extremeist Christians?

4. Do you have anything you can learn from them?

5. Why didn’t you?

Secularity

1. Should non-liberals enjoy completely equal civil rights with liberals?

2. May a liberal convert to conservativism and not be condemned as an unthinking robot of GWB?

3. May a liberal person marry a non-liberal person? (See how much more politically correct we are here?)

4. Do you accept the laws of a majority conservative government?

5. When liberal customs conflict with conservative theology and common sense, which should give way?

Christian Pluralism

1. Are Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and George W. Bush Christians?

2. Do you understand why nutcases like Spong and Borg are generally seen as nutcases by conservatives?

3. Are accusations of being mean old conservatives and hateful orthodoxers acceptable practices?

4. By the way, if Spong and Co. are allowed to take out the parts of scripture they don’t believe in, like the Creation and the Resurrection and Hell and those unfortunate wars fought at the command of God in the OT, can we take some out, too? I’d sure like to get rid of those rules about murder, sexuality, oh – and the Psalms. Too many of them.

Self-Criticism

1. Do you accept the complete rejection by conservatives of goofy things like the Jesus Seminar?

2. Who was responsible for making the US and Britain spend a bunch of money on protecting the President during his trip to England? What type of person represented the greatest threat?

3. Saddam, over the 1990’s, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq from non-enforcement of treaties and a laxidasical approach toward human rights under the Hussein regime. Since Liberals and Socialists and the Protestor Ilk were so interested in seeing Saddam remain in power, doesn’t that make them responsible parties for those deaths by default?

Defense Against Liberal Christianity

1. Do you accept the need to toss people with ideas that are based in the writings of Karl Marx, who represent those ideas as of a higher status than Scripture, out of the Christian Church?

2. Do you agree that organizations that fund or support terrorists and dictators are potentially dangerous? Do you agree that countries that hide known terrorists from us are not our friends?

Goals in the World

1. Do you accept that the majority of churches in the world are non-liberal and that many governments are non-liberal? Would you submit to the rule of those nations and churches as instructed in scripture?

2. Do you realize that Benny Hinn has more things right about scripture than you?

3. Do you realize that Jack Chick is probably a better representative of the love of Christ than Bishop Spong?

OK… that’ll do for now…

Saturating myself in N.T. Wright for a few hours was enjoyable. I have one of his books, The Challenge of Jesus, and I have ordered two others. I listened to several of the audio clips at the N.T. Wright page and read many of the articles there as well.

One thing that has really been a source of joy and encouragement to me is this: I wrote Wretched Urgency (I) BEFORE I ever read or heard a word of Wright. Consider this key paragraph from that essay as compared to the extended Wright quote below.

Here. Quote me. There is no urgent concern for converting people in the New Testament. Did you get that down? There is also no urgent concern for the numerical growth of churches by the efforts of members to convert others. There are no burgeoning church programs. There are no plans to train everyone to door knock and sell Jesus. There is an urgent concern for doctrinal and personal Christ-likeness. There is a concern for leadership, integrity, honesty and obedience to Christ in our personal lives. The idea that we are here to “win souls” and not to know and show God is bogus.

Whooha!

I am going to spend some time at Monergism.com where Lurker John has a full page of articles critical of the New Perspective on Paul. Having read Wilson’s Reformed is Not Enough and Piper’s Counted Righteous In Christ, I know a bit about this controversy, but I am reading The Paul Page and the critics listed at Monergism with an open mind.

Just a few observations at this point.

1) Some New Perspective scholars clearly go a bit far in some of their reinterpretation of Paul. I particularly think some of Wright’s view on “righteousness” may be forced.
2) I am very concerned with the canonizing of the Reformers. I mean really concerned. Saying the Reformers couldn’t possibly be wrong is ludicrous. Saying that new light can’t come from the Word based on further knowledge of first century Judaism is a betrayal of Reformation principles.
3) Just how much depends on a technical understanding of imputation? Piper says that faith rests on all that God is for us in Christ. If we differ on some aspects of imputation, but agree that all our salvation is “in Christ” and Christ alone, how much blood needs to be spilt over that?
4) Wright’s views on the centrality of Christ’s resurrection and the prominence of historical resurrection are sound, imo, especially in rejecting the view of “heaven” that is common in American culture. I appreciate his calling out Darbyism by name as the culprit in misunderstanding much of the New Testament.
5) Wright’s polemics against Roman Catholicism (on purgatory and Mary especially) and liberalism are strong. Much stronger than many evangelicals today. I can’t see Wright signing on to ECT.
6) Shreiner and Canaday had a lot to say about the Reformers misreading of scripture on Justification in their book on perseverance, The Race Set Before Us. I think some New Perspective correctives, particularly on how justification was viewed in the first century Jewish mind, are healthy. (Future, Present and Past dimensions, and the corporate/individual relationship as well.)

Michael: For the record I was pushing Tom Wright stuff in this space last month. Very good stuff. And a very excellent and wise choice as the new bishop of Durham, which is traditionally considered to be the third most influential voice in the C of E (after Canterbury and York). I look forward to following his episcopate – the C of E needs more like him.

Spending some time listening to and reading N.T. Wright on the recommendation of a friend. This is interesting:

Look at what Paul actually says when he talks about how people become Christians. Look for instance at 1 Thessalonians where he says quite a lot about it without ever using the word justify or any of its cognates. He talks about the gospel coming to you in the power of the Spirit. You accepted that word not as the word of man but as what it really is, the word of God that is at work in you believers. It’s quite clear what Paul is talking about, that he comes into town announcing that Jesus is Lord, as a royal herald. He is saying that the crucified Jesus is the Lord of the world. And this is not, “Here is a way of salvation. You might like to apply it to yourself.” It’s not, “Here is a new way of being religious and you might enjoy it.” This is really an imperial summons: “On your knees!” Nobody ever went into a Roman town and said, “Caesar is lord and you might like to have this experience of acknowledging him as lord if that suits you.” They said, “Caesar is Lord, get on your knees and we want the tax right now.”

And when that message is announced, some men and women find to their astonishment that they believe it. I say to their astonishment because it’s stupid. Paul says that it’s stupid. He knows it. You can just imagine it. It’s like someone telling a joke in a foreign language and not knowing why people laugh. Paul was going around the Roman world saying that this crucified Jesus is the lord of the world. He must have felt many times this is the craziest thing imaginable yet when I say it, lives are changed, the community emerges, people love each other. That is grace. And it is all of grace. But then the minute they say, “I really believe that Jesus is Lord, I really believe that God has raised him from the dead” and so on, then the doctrine of justification comes in and says you are all one in Christ Jesus. And, the proof is right there in Galatians 2:11-21. The first major discussion of justification is really all about who you are allowed to eat with. It’s not about how to go to heaven when you die.

Added some links, dumped some. The Holy Observer will treat us to this sort of SATIRICAL food for thought:

Des Moines First Wesleyan Church, Iowa’s largest church, has broken ground on its third espresso bar, announced Shirley Wilson, pastor of hospitality and expansion. The new cafe will meet the needs of the church’s increasingly coffee-needy lobby, which routinely fills to 800-1000 people between each of four Sunday services.

Meanwhile in Africa, Setenghi Christian Church, Namibia’s oldest Protestant church, recently celebrated the 10th anniversary of its bread for orphans ministry. For a decade now, the ministry has met the needs of children orphaned by the AIDS pandemic, which has claimed the lives of 25 million Africans.

Ouch.

Added the N.T. Wright page, which in addition to lots of what you would expect, also has great daily lectionaries/BCP stuff on the sidebar.

Spot on, Michael. The parallels between Clinton and Bush are many, and it helps to keep things in perspective. When Clinton was elected, it was treated as something akin to the apocalypse among the conservatives I knew. “Here come four of the worst years this country has ever had,” a friend said. But really—what did Clinton do? He reformed welfare, lowered trade barriers, balanced the budget, and presided over a huge economic boom. (That last was dumb luck, but he’ll still be remembered for it.) It was hardly the pandemic of liberalism that the conservatives were afraid of.

Likewise, when Bush got elected in 2000, I had liberal friends who seriously talked about moving to Canada, and it’s only gotten worse since the war started. Bush inspires a kind of irrational loathing on the left just like the hysterical Clinton-hatred we saw last decade. Bush’s stupidity is “obvious” to the left just like Clinton’s phoniness was “obvious” to the right, and they both can’t understand why everybody else (the sizeable majority that liked both of them) can’t see it.

So I try to keep perspective.

Bob the Angry Flower.

There are a couple of ways to interpret all this hothouse hostility towards evangelical Christians. Here’s one. Maybe I’ll talk about the other one later.

Andrew Ferguson at WS says that we are living through a plague of Billy Bob Gasket disease. This is the malady that afflicted conservatives during the Clinton years, as fear and hatred of the Clintons drove conspiracy theorists and right wing nut cases off the meter with tales of murder, drug running and organized crime in the White House. In actual fact, Clinton was just a scummy, slimy small southern State politician doing what such characters have been doing since reconstruction. Hear the man for yourself:

As Clinton was returned again and again to office, Gasket was at first disbelieving, then agog, and finally crazed. Why couldn’t his fellow Arkansans see the truth? Why couldn’t they penetrate the governor’s sheath of bogus empathy and concern to see the creature of seething ambition and power hunger and raw cynicism that writhed so self-evidently beneath? Gasket became a hair-puller, a lapel-grabber, a mid-sentence interrupter, a nut. When, in the late 1980s, national reporters began trickling into the state to look over the promising young governor with national ambitions, their search for knowledgeable Clinton watchers led them inevitably to Gasket, and they found a madman.

Clinton became president. Gasket Disease trailed him like a cloud. It laid waste to Republican ranks in Washington and far beyond, to vast stretches of the country at large—by the end, if I read the polls correctly, roughly a third of all Americans had succumbed. Those who caught the disease didn’t just dislike Clinton, as, say, they might have disliked Jimmy Carter. The crux of Gasket Disease was not contempt but unendurable frustration. They could not fathom why everyone else didn’t grasp his essential, transparent fraudulence: the phoniness of the lower-lip-bite, the moist insincerity of the smile, the vanity in every tilt of the carefully coifed head. As with syphilis, so with Gasket Disease: Some Republicans recovered, others were driven mad.

Now this disease has morphed into the Bush-hating variety, and one symptom is a fear of Bush’s religion. From the left-wing Billy Bob Gasket crowd comes all sorts of fears of theocracy and The Handmaiden’s Tale come true.

Of course, this fails to take into account a fundamental fact about conservatives, Christian or otherwise. Once in power they are 1) breath-takingly inept and 2) generally tend to govern more like liberals the more opportunity and power they have. Our left wing friends need only look at the Bush budget to see how much loyalty we have to the far-right in this White House. He’s spending 440 million on Americorps. What greater proof do you need?

But I know there is little hope for these people. They will panic at anyone who goes to church, says “God bless you” to a sneeze or confesses to attending a Bible Study. Leftist Billy Bob Gasket disease produced our questionaire. The fact that none of these violent screwballs ever appears on TBN, at a Billy Graham Crusade, in a Family Bookstore, on 99% of Christian radio or at your local church doesn’t matter to Billy Bob Gasket. He’s decided Bush is the Brigham Young of Christian theocracy, and pretty soon we’ll be rounding up the opposition.

BTW- One really interesting fact that has come out in all this is proof positive that the left knew Clinton’s religion was mainly a tool, and only secondarily real. (I do believe Clinton is an evangelical. I recognize his liberal SBC approach to Christianity as the same stuff coming out of the Moderate liberal CBF.) Leftist evangelicals tend to see Christianity as a poltiical grid first, and a personal faith only secondarily. It’s mostly about loving your neighbor as a political minority who needs the assistance of the federal government to get into college or receive reparations.

Clinton was the one with three ministers in the Oval office to keep his pants up. Clinton was the one making half his speeches from churches. Clinton was the one quoting scripture all the time and getting those weekly photo ops coming out of church with his Bible in hand. But no one was afraid of the guy because it was about as dangerous as being a member of the Elks lodge.

What an a**hat.

I’m sorry, but that’s just what’s stuck in my head from Mr. “Waaaah! I don’t accept the beliefs of Christianity, but want you to call me Christian!!! Waaah!”’s little Test-O-Violence.

Violence

1. Do you condone or condemn the Christians who end the lives of others, in the name of Christ?

Condemn. There is no reason for it. Period.

2. Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such Christian individuals and organizations as Timothy McVeigh, the Army of God, Paul Hill, Christian Identity, John Salvi, the Ku Klux Klan, Clayton Lee Waagner, Aryan Nations, the National Alliance, John Noster, American Coalition of Life Activists, and Eric Rudolph?

I’m not familiar with some of these. However, I am willing to argue that groups and people such as Tim McV, the Army of God, Paul Hill, Christian Identity, etc. are evil and wrong and are as representative of true Christianity as Bishop Spong. The only difference I can see: one group shouts at people they don’t like, the other demands that people they don’t like or agree with accept them for everything they aren’t.

Modernity

1. Should Christian women have equal rights with men?

Socially, yes. There is no reason for a woman, Christian or otherwise, not to hold a position like CEO, President, or General.

Within the church, it’s a little hairier (and I know there’s a heck of a lot of people who don’t agree with me). In short, I believe that within the church, God has assigned certain responsibilities to men, and others to women, and it is inappropriate for either to fill the other’s shoes except in extreme cases. In short – no women pastors, preachers, teachers, or elders. No woman is to hold a position of political authority over a man within a church. I’m up in the air on deaconesses.

2. Is the Christian concept of a just war acceptable in today’s world?

Yes. Of course, I have to ask why we should judge our concepts by the world in the first place. Last I checked, God’s standards were more important and of higher regard than those of the world.

3. Do you accept the validity of other religions?

They’re religions. They’re valid. It doesn’t make them right. It’s a hard thing, but people who reject Christ in favor of the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are headed to Hell.

4. Do Christians have anything to learn from those who reject the Gospel?

Sure. God’s big enough to use anyone He wants to teach us the truths that are already in the Gospel.

Secularity

1. Should non-Christians enjoy completely equal civil rights with Christians?

Uh… yeah. Outside of the church. A non-Christian has no business as in ministry or church leadership.

2. May Christians convert to other religions?

If they’d like to fry in Hell, yes.

3. May Christian women marry non-Christian men?

Or… may Christian men marry non-Christian women? I thought he’d be more politically correct about this. Meh. In short, if I were asked to, I wouldn’t. I just don’t believe it’s supported by scripture. On a legal level, it’s up to the government.

4. Do you accept the laws of a majority secular government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government?

So long as that government does not enforce laws on me which would require me to go against my God and my faith, I would do so. So the “unreservedly” doesn’t work. In short, yes. Then no.

5. Should the state impose religious observance, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings?

No. Nor should it work to prevent the practice of those observances. If a group wants to erect a nativity scene in a public park that offends local atheists, the gov’t should not prevent that. Nor should it prevent the atheists from posting a display complete with Santa Claus, Madilyn Murray O’Hair, and the Thanksgiving Theonomist.

6. When Christian customs conflict with secular laws, which should give way?

Customs? I would go with secular law (which shouldn’t go out of its way to end religious observances either). Commands from Scripture, on the other hand, would hold precedence over secular law.

Christian pluralism

1. Are Catholics and Mormons fully legitimate Christians?

Catholics? If they have a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, yes. Just like Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists. Mormons, however, cannot be considered Christian at all.

2. Do you see Christians who disagree with you (for example, Bishop Spong) as having fallen into unbelief?

It depends on what they disagree with me on. Bishop Spong has rejected the bodily resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, and most of Scripture, so I wouldn’t say he’s fallen into unbelief as quickly as I’d say he probably never had a saving knowledge of Christ in the first place.

3. Are accusations of apostasy or heresy acceptable practices?

Yes. On a side note, Bishop Spong and crew are a bunch of heretics. How’s that?

Self-Criticism

1. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the historical Jesus?

Sure. They can study whatever they want to. It doesn’t mean that I’m going to agree with or accept their conclusions just because they declare themselves to be scholars.

2. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings?

A couple of terrorists. It was in a couple of papers. Maybe you missed it. One of them was last seen twitching on the end of an IV filled with sodium pentethol.

Defense against Militant Christianity

1. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Christianity, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, FBI monitoring of churches)?

Militant Christianity specifically? No. I am in favor of enhanced security measures that don’t interfere with our civil rights, so long as they’re in place to protect us from violent extremists of all sorts.

2. Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism (such as anti-abortion violence) should be shut down, or do you see this as a symptom of bias?

Accused? No. Proven? Yes.

Goals in the World

1. Do you accept that the majority of the countries in the world are majority non-Christian and many goverments are secular or non-Christian, or do you seek to transform them into majority Christian countries ruled by Christian principles of morality?

Absolutely. As far as I’m concerned, people’s need to go to Heaven far outranks liberals’ need for feeling all ooey-gooey about protecting someone’s culture that legitimizes stuff like female circumcision.

2. Do you accept that the U.S. governmental system is secular, or do you seek to transform the U.S. into a Christian nation?

Last I checked, our government wasn’t allowed to be a religious government. Something about a first amendment.

Violence

1. Do you condone or condemn the Christians who end the lives of others, in the name of Christ?

Let’s see, Mr. Bonhoeffer wanted to do that very thing when he participated in the plot against Hitler, didn’t he? And the guy is respected even by liberals. So I think more specificity is needed here.

2. Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such Christian individuals and organizations as Timothy McVeigh, the Army of God, Paul Hill, Christian Identity, John Salvi, the Ku Klux Klan, Clayton Lee Waagner, Aryan Nations, the National Alliance, John Noster, American Coalition of Life Activists, and Eric Rudolph?

Condemn: Isn’t that like sending someone to hell? Isn’t that God’s job? Oh, wait, there is no hell in liberal Christianity. I will speak out vigorously against these types of terrorist groups, although they are not Christian no matter what they claim. I never heard Tim McVeigh talk about his love for Jesus, anyway.

Modernity

1. Should Christian women have equal rights with men?

Yes, in general, but some definition is required. They should get equal pay for equal work, they should be allowed to be ordained into ministry, but as far as, say, allowing girls in the Boy Scouts and that type of thing, no.

2. Is the Christian concept of a just war acceptable in today’s world?

Well, if the enemy is on your doorstep ready to invade, I say kick their butts. Is that a just war?

3. Do you accept the validity of other religions?

Again, a loaded question. What religions are we talking about? Buddhism? Satanism? The Church of Elvis? They may be “valid”, but that doesn’t mean they are the way to salvation.

4. Do Christians have anything to learn from those who reject the Gospel?

You mean, like Spong?

Secularity

1. Should non-Christians enjoy completely equal civil rights with Christians?

Yes.

2. May Christians convert to other religions?

If followers of other religions may convert to Christianity, then it’s only fair that the door is open the other way. But that leaves the question of how valid was their Christian committment in the first place.

3. May Christian women marry non-Christian men?

Hmm, why don’t you ask if Christian men may marry non-Christian women? Happens all the time, but it’s generally not a good thing. You know, all that stuff about being unequally yoked and all.

4. Do you accept the laws of a majority secular government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government?

Not all laws, even though I try to abide by them, and not unreservedly, although when I’m saying the Pledge of Allegiance I don’t think about possible exceptions.

5. Should the state impose religious observance, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings?

In the first place, the posting of the Ten Commandments is not imposing religious observance. It’s easy to walk around it, not look at it, etc. Nobody is asking anyone to pledge allegiance to the Ten Commandments. On the other hand, don’t make such a big stink if you are asked to remove them. There are bigger battles to fight, James Dobson notwithstanding.

6. When Christian customs conflict with secular laws, which should give way?

I haven’t seen a Christian “custom” conflice with secular law yet, although if they make a law outlawing Christian practices, then what do you think?

Christian pluralism

1. Are Catholics and Mormons fully legitimate Christians?

It depends. I don’t even think ALL Methodists, Presbyterians, or Baptists are necessarily fully legitimate Christians, either. I mean, just because you label yourself and sit in a pew on Sunday doesn’t mean jack.

2. Do you see Christians who disagree with you (for example, Bishop Spong) as having fallen into unbelief?

There are Christians on this very blog who disagree with me. And yes, they have all fallen into unbelief!! (JN) Seriously, there is a point to where one’s “Christianity” is no longer recognizable as Christianity, as in the case of Spong. You just cannot remake it the way you want it. If you want to call that unbelief, so be it.

3. Are accusations of apostasy or heresy acceptable practices?

Yes. See the above.

Self-Criticism

1. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the historical Jesus?

Absolutely. I’ve read several books on the subject and find them fascinating. I also reserve the right to call them BS if need be, as in the case of John Dominic Crossan.

2. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings?

Duh!

Defense against Militant Christianity

1. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Christianity, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, FBI monitoring of churches)?

What is “militant Christianity?” If you are talking about these so-call “Christian” militia groups, they are not Christian in the first place, any more than Spong. I don’t think a legitimate Christian group should be subject to government scrutiny.

2. Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism (such as anti-abortion violence) should be shut down, or do you see this as a symptom of bias?

Well, there again, its a matter of definition. Institutions that fund terrorism should be shut down, yes. Picketing an abortion clinic is not terrorism, although bombing one or killing doctors or nurses is, but that activity seems to be the work of individuals and not organizations.

Goals in the World

1. Do you accept that the majority of the countries in the world are majority non-Christian and many goverments are secular or non-Christian, or do you seek to transform them into majority Christian countries ruled by Christian principles of morality?

Well, I believe in the Great Commission, if that’s what you mean. I believe in a just and fair government, whether guided by Christian principles or not.

2. Do you accept that the U.S. governmental system is secular, or do you seek to transform the U.S. into a Christian nation?

Once again, I believe in a just and fair government. Is there such a thing as a “Christian” nation anyway?

Michael: I think you are right about the political agenda coming into play with the M. gibson movie. I understand the emotional connection to the RCC as well.

However, I have been hearing this type of bigotry against Christians for decades. This is the first time I have ever publicly commented on the issue. The initial mystification is turning into frustration and impatience on my part. I am tired of the slander. It is time for Jews and Christians to call this for what is, i.e., a “reverse type of bigotry”.

Several weeks ago I read an article by Rabbi Daniel Lapham who takes his Jewish brothers to the woodshed for their viciousness over this movie. I thought I added it to my favorites list, but , alas, I cannot find it.

Thanks for the feedback and comments.

WHAT A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. I HAVE LEARNED MORE ABOUT THE CONFUSION OF LAW AND GOSPEL BY ANSWERING THIS INSIPID QUESTIONNAIRE THAN I HAVE FROM GROWING UP IN A FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH. THE SENSE OF FEAR AND LOATHING IS PALPABLE. THE SENSE OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY AND JOY IS ABSENT. ANY SENSE OF ADULT JUDGEMENT IS COMPLETELY ABSENT. THIS KIND OF THINKING IS PUSILLANIMOUS AND MEAN (IN THE ANCIENT SENSE OF THE WORD).

ANYONE WHO THINKS LIKE THIS—JUST GO AHEAD AND CASTRATE YOURSELF. QUIT WASTING OUR TIME. QUIT WASTING SOCIETY’S TIME. STOP ASKING FOR GRACIOUSNESS FROM ME. YOU WON’T GET ANY.

1. Do you condone or condemn the Christians who end the lives of others, in the name of Christ?
I CONDEMN IT MAN IT REALLY SUCKS WHEN THOSE MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS GO BATTY
2. Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such Christian individuals and organizations as Timothy McVeigh, the Army of God, Paul Hill, Christian Identity, John Salvi, the Ku Klux Klan, Clayton Lee Waagner, Aryan Nations, the National Alliance, John Noster, American Coalition of Life Activists, and Eric Rudolph?
NAH I DON’T HAVE TIME I’M TOO BUSY SHOOTING THEM, WOULD YOU MIND DOING THE CONDEMNING? THANK YOU
1. Should Christian women have equal rights with men?
YEAH THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO FATHER BABIES I’M SERIOUS
2. Is the Christian concept of a just war acceptable in today’s world?
NO NEITHER IS WAR EVERYBODY STOP IT! PLEASE!
3. Do you accept the validity of other religions?
YEP ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHERE YOU GET TO SMOKE POT I’M SERIOUS BUT WAIT THOSE HUMAN SACRIFICE ONES ARE KINDA LAME
4. Do Christians have anything to learn from those who reject the Gospel?
YEAH ESPECIALLY OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO REJECT THE GOSPEL THOSE DUDES TEACH ME A LOT
1. Should non-Christians enjoy completely equal civil rights with Christians?
YEAH ESPECIALLY THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP GOD
2. May Christians convert to other religions?
YEAH AS LONG AS THEY’RE NOT CHRISTIANS THEN ITS OKAY BUT IF THEY’RE CHRISTIANS IT’S KINDA LAME
3. May Christian women marry non-Christian men?
YEAH AS LONG AS THEY’RE NOT VERY SMART BUT IF THEY’RE SMART MATURE CHRISTIANS IT’S KINDA LAME
4. Do you accept the laws of a majority secular government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government?
YEAH ESPECIALLY WHEN CHRISTIANS ARE IN THE MAJORITY
5. Should the state impose religious observance, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings?
NO I HATE IT WHEN THE CONGRESS MAKES LAWS RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION THAT SUCKS
6. When Christian customs conflict with secular laws, which should give way?
THE CHRISTIAN ONES ESPECIALLY THOSE STUPID ONES ABOUT MURDER BEING BAD THOSE SUCK
1. Are Catholics and Mormons fully legitimate Christians?
WELL THAT WINE THING AND THAT POLYGAMY THING ARE COOL, SO, OKAY
2. Do you see Christians who disagree with you (for example, Bishop Spong) as having fallen into unbelief?
NOBODY DISAGREES WITH ME! IF THEY DO, THEY’RE NOT BEING VERY NICE!
3. Are accusations of apostasy or heresy acceptable practices?
NOT FOR ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS, BUT FOR OTHER CHRISTIANS ITS OKAY (ORTHODOX HAVE A HIGHER CODE, THEY HAVE TO BE NICE)
1. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the historical Jesus?
YEAH I ALSO LIKE SCHOLARLY INQUIRY INTO THE LEGITIMACY OF HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP THAT ROCKS
2. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings?
SOME DUDE WITH A BUZZ CUT AND A BOMB I FORGOT HIS NAME
1. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Christianity, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, FBI monitoring of churches)?
YEAH MY FAVORITE CIVIL RIGHT IS THAT ONE WHERE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO GET BLOWED UP
2. Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism (such as anti-abortion violence) should be shut down, or do you see this as a symptom of bias?
YEAH ACCUSE THEM AND THEN SHUT THEM DOWN WE DON’T HAVE TIME FOR DUE PROCESS DAMMIT THIS IS WAR
1. Do you accept that the majority of the countries in the world are majority non-Christian and many goverments are secular or non-Christian, or do you seek to transform them into majority Christian countries ruled by Christian principles of morality?
NO! IT IS OBVIOUS THAT EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS MAJORITY CHRISTIAN WITH LIBERAL DEMOCRACY WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM
2. Do you accept that the U.S. governmental system is secular, or do you seek to transform the U.S. into a Christian nation?
NO I DO NOT ACCEPT IT I WANT TO TRANSFORM THE U.S. INTO A LIBERAL CHRISTIAN NATION

Ooh, goody, a quiz.

1. Do you condone or condemn the Christians who end the lives of others, in the name of Christ?

Absolutely.

2. Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such Christian individuals and organizations as Timothy McVeigh, the Army of God, Paul Hill, Christian Identity, John Salvi, the Ku Klux Klan, Clayton Lee Waagner, Aryan Nations, the National Alliance, John Noster, American Coalition of Life Activists, and Eric Rudolph?

Yep. These people stain the name of Christ.

1. Should Christian women have equal rights with men?

For sure. BTW, this includes the ability to be ordained and serve in church leadership, as far as I’m concerned.

2. Is the Christian concept of a just war acceptable in today’s world?

No, but what does “today’s world” have to do with it? Did war suddenly become unacceptable when we got enlightened in the 60’s?

3. Do you accept the validity of other religions?

Define “valid”. Are they equally true paths to God? No. Do they contain real wisdom and insight nonetheless? Yes.

4. Do Christians have anything to learn from those who reject the Gospel?

Yes.

1. Should non-Christians enjoy completely equal civil rights with Christians?

Yes.

2. May Christians convert to other religions?

It should be legal, but don’t expect me to support or encourage it.

3. May Christian women marry non-Christian men?

Same as the previous.

4. Do you accept the laws of a majority secular government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government?

Absolutely not. I’ll accept the laws as long as they don’t conflict with Christian principles, but I won’t unreservedly pledge allegiance to anyone.

5. Should the state impose religious observance, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings?

No.

6. When Christian customs conflict with secular laws, which should give way?

Christian law trumps secular law. There are usually allowances and compromises that can be made, though, that won’t violate Christian integrity and still respect secular law.

1. Are Catholics and Mormons fully legitimate Christians?

Catholics, yes, Mormons, maybe. They don’t recognize us as Christian, so . . .

2. Do you see Christians who disagree with you (for example, Bishop Spong) as having fallen into unbelief?

Depends on what we disagree on.

3. Are accusations of apostasy or heresy acceptable practices?

Yes.

1. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the historical Jesus?

Hrm, what do you mean? The scholars should be allowed to study, and their studies may shed light on our religious understanding. But don’t expect me to jettison the Jesus of the Gospels for a historical reconstruction.

2. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings?

McVeigh and that other guy. (I think the comparison here is meant to be with the Two Towers bombings—was it Islamic funadmentalists or the Jews? If you think the latter, you’re an Islamic radical.)

1. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Christianity, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, FBI monitoring of churches)?

To a limited extent. A very limited extent.

2. Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism (such as anti-abortion violence) should be shut down, or do you see this as a symptom of bias?

Sure, provided that the relationship is real and not spurious.

1. Do you accept that the majority of the countries in the world are majority non-Christian and many goverments are secular or non-Christian, or do you seek to transform them into majority Christian countries ruled by Christian principles of morality?

I don’t seek to transform national governments. I do seek to evangelize the world.

2. Do you accept that the U.S. governmental system is secular, or do you seek to transform the U.S. into a Christian nation?

See the previous answer.

I think that adds up to 6 extremist points. Darn, I was hoping for more.

Violence

1. Do you condone or condemn the Christians who end the lives of others, in the name of Christ?
2. Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such Christian individuals and organizations as Timothy McVeigh, the Army of God, Paul Hill, Christian Identity, John Salvi, the Ku Klux Klan, Clayton Lee Waagner, Aryan Nations, the National Alliance, John Noster, American Coalition of Life Activists, and Eric Rudolph?

I don’t know 2/3 of these people but I certainly oppose murdering in Christ’s name (come to think of it I oppose murder. Period.)

Modernity

1. Should Christian women have equal rights with men?

Of course! And non-Christian women too!

2. Is the Christian concept of a just war acceptable in today’s world?

Yes. Just is just (of course I don’t accept just any reason for calling a war “just” – I also would agree that in the nuclear age the Just War approach faces new challenges. But I would deny that these new challenges renders the whole concept invalid.

3. Do you accept the validity of other religions?

Yes in the civil sense. No in the theological sense.

4. Do Christians have anything to learn from those who reject the Gospel?
Of course!

Secularity

1. Should non-Christians enjoy completely equal civil rights with Christians?

Of course!

2. May Christians convert to other religions?

Do you mean “should it be legal?” Of course

3. May Christian women marry non-Christian men?

See previous answer

4. Do you accept the laws of a majority secular government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government?

No one should be “unreservedly” loyal to any government.

5. Should the state impose religious observance, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings?

No. But I don’t think that it should nessesarily be illegal to post such religious symbols on public buildings.

6. When Christian customs conflict with secular laws, which should give way?

The secular laws should prevail BUT the secular laws should protect and not hinder Christian (and all religions’) customs. I will also say that civil (secular) laws should be informed by the moral heritage of Christianity (and many other religions’ moral codes)

Christian pluralism

1. Are Catholics and Mormons fully legitimate Christians?

Not the latter (pun intended) in any orthodox sense

2. Do you see Christians who disagree with you (for example, Bishop Spong) as having fallen into unbelief?

This is a poorly worded question Kynn (and I think you know it)! There are plenty of Christians who disagree with me on a variety of topics who have not fallen into unbelief by any stretch of the imagination (nor would they say that I have). Bishop Spong, however, certainly seems to have lost “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”.

3. Are accusations of apostasy or heresy acceptable practices?

Yep. But no one should be burned at the stake for the same!

Self-Criticism

1. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the historical Jesus?

Of course! (Who doesn’t?)

2. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings?

Mc Veigh and the other guy (What’s your point exactly? This is a silly question)

Defense against Militant Christianity

1. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Christianity, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, FBI monitoring of churches)?

Nope – although I don’t mind any legitimate/reasonable scrutiny – nothing to hide!

2. Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism (such as anti-abortion violence) should be shut down, or do you see this as a symptom of bias?

To the full extent of the law. A bomb is a bomb, a gun is a gun, no matter who fires it.

Goals in the World

1. Do you accept that the majority of the countries in the world are majority non-Christian and many goverments are secular or non-Christian, or do you seek to transform them into majority Christian countries ruled by Christian principles of morality?

I believe in making disciples of all nations, according to Jesus’ command. I don’t believe in coersion as a means to this end.

2. Do you accept that the U.S. governmental system is secular, or do you seek to transform the U.S. into a Christian nation?

I am not a US citizen and I don’t live there – but I would not want my country to be a strict theocracy (Interestingly we do have a certain theocratic element in that only an Anglican can be our head of state – Queen Elizabeth II right now. Honestly I don’t have a problem with this! Does this make me a raving theocrat?)

I think you should give the usual disclaimer that the results of this survey are not scientifically accurate. Really!

What one man and his family went through in one Episcopal Church. This is a MUST READ GOTTA READ piece of personal history from Willard Fishbourne of Asheville, N.C. It’s the experience of thousands of Episcopal laypersons who have seen their church taken away from them. Read and Pass this on! (Thanks to Coffehouse at the End of Days.)

Charles: I think there are several things at work here. 1) It’s Mel Gibson, a Hollywood Conservative. Who let the dogs out? The Hollywood establishment and their media lapdogs. 2) The knowledge that this is a very Roman Catholic project. The RCC brings out emotions that other groups never hear or see. 3) The general liberal attempt in the pre-election year to paint Christians as bigots and haters. 4) The general post 9-11 over sensitivity about these matters. 5) Most of these critics are just leftist Democrats with a political agenda. Treating this movie differently than the Jesus Movie or a dozen other films is absurd, and betrays an agenda.

Bill: I think you are right on; more right than you realize. The weakness here is not one of theology, but one of literary interpretation. This is a question of reading the text, and the literary options that explain this language are definately NOT restricted to the literal. This is the best counter argument. But unfortunately, hardly anyone wants to talk about the literary interpretation of scripture anymore. It’s like the Bible is just a series of propostions that are all read like a catalog.

The criticism of the movie Mel Gibson is making about Jesus at first mystified me but is now starting to anger me. Some – not all – Jewish leaders are still lining up to throw mudballs at the film. Many of them probably have not even looked at this film yet.

This unfolding drama seems to highlight the uncomfortable tension between Jews and Christians that still exists but is rarely talked about. From an overall historical viewpoint I can understand why Jews are uncomfortable with – if not fearful of – Christianity. The persecution of the Jews by the church in Eastern and Western Europe in centuries past is a very dreadful part of church history. The Jewish communities of Russia experienced their own persecution as well. The pogroms, expulsions and property destruction and seizures were just as dreadful.

However, I have a problem with Jewish leaders applying the broad brush of bigotry to every Christian who wants to promote their faith in the media at large. Some probably do it out of genuine fear of Christianity. Others may be doing it for political reasons. The motivation of each individual is impossible to discern. Yet, the “bigotry painting” is still being done.

At first I found this extremely disappointing. I was raised evangelical and Arminian. My earliest heroes were Hebrew/Jewish. I can still remember my mother teaching me about Daniel, Moses, David, Abraham, etc, etc, etc,. I knew the Bible was of Jewish origin. I knew the drama of God revealing Himself to the world came through the Jewish people in the middle east. Most important of all: 1) I knew Jesus was Jewish; I have known this for as long as I can remember, 2) He was a practicing Jew, 3) His followers were initially mostly Jewish and his opponents also were Jewish, i.e., the religious leaders of the day, 4) my church nor my parents never taught me to hate Jewish people or to blame them as a people group for the crucifixion of Jesus. The Romans and the Jewish religious leaders of the day were in fact involved in arranging the crucifixion, but not every Jewish person in Israel was involved. I know that. The scriptures record those things. However, in fact, the faith of my childhood taught me that He went to the cross for my sins. That truth alone overshadowed every other circumstance invovled with the crucifixion. I am of course gentile and everything I believe in from a spiritual point of view is rooted in the Jewish tradition and scriptures. I have read through the gospels many times. I have watched other films either about the life of Jesus or somehow included Him in the storyline. None of these sources have ever caused hatred to well up in my heart for Jewish people.

Looking at church history throught the personal lens I just described horrifies me when I read of the persecution of Jewish people by professing Christians. Such thinking is alien to me and the faith I have gleaned from reading the scriptures.

Given my understanding of the scriptures and the origins of my faith, how could I ever hate Jewish people?

The truth is that I cannot and I never have. I have never met any practicing Christian who is serious about their faith that practice the hatred we are routinely accused of.

The accusations of bigotry against M. Gibson and people who profess a like minded faith are growing increasingly absurd.

So I read the Wilken article and have a few observations. It was a good argument and I can see how those that don’t affirm the Real Presence fall short when they use the metaphor angle (door, sheep, etc). After all, Wilken says, the passages say “This IS my body”, “This IS my blood”. Fair enough. The bread really IS Jesus’ flesh and the wine IS Jesus’ blood”. But wait, that isn’t what the RP folks are saying. (correct me if I’m wrong here) They are saying that Jesus flesh and blood are present in the elements in some mysterious, undefinable way. But wait. That isn’t what the passage says. It says “This IS my flesh”, This IS my blood”. Not, my flesh is somehow present in this bread, even though it looks, feels, smells and tastes like bread. So obviously a striclty literal intrepretation, which Wilken insists upon, doesn’t quite work for either group. Leaving the door and lamp metaphors aside, Jesus said quite a few things that if taken literally, pose some interesting problems. Do ALL people who commit violence die by violence? Did John really become Mary’s son (by blood) after the crucifixion? Was there really not one stone left upon another when Jerusalem fell?

Last observation: So what? Seriously unsnide question. So what? Is taking communion without affirming the RP eating and drinking unworthily? If so, why aren’t all the Baptists dead by now? (or vice-versa) What are people that aren’t convinced by the RP argument (myself included) missing? Is grace not conferred upon us during communion? (obviously another doctrine I don’t accept).

Giving Thanks For the Invisible Hand by Jeff Jacoby

The Top Ten Myths About Thanksgiving from History News Network

Todd Wilken (LCMS) on how to answer people like Bill Mackinnon on the real presence in the Lord’s Supper.

Extremist answers indicated by *

Violence
1. Condemn
2. Most of these aren’t Christians. I’ll play along. Yes

Modernity
1. Yes
2. Yes*
3. As religions, yes. As ways to God, no.*
4. Sure ( what did you have in mind?)

Secularity
1.Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes and No*
5. No, not as a religious observance.
6. This question makes no sense.*

Pluralism
1. Catholics, Yes. Mormons, No.*
2. He’s fallen into unbelief because he rejects the content of any reasonable standard of Christian self-definition. He’s a one-man religion. So he hasn’t “Fallen” into unbelief. He’s rejected Christianity, but still wants a paycheck.*
3. Of course. What a silly question.*

Self-Criticism
1. Sure, though scholarship has to be judged by standards and not just treated as a monolith.
2. Tim McVeigh, best I can tell.

Miltant Christianity
1. I accept reasonable law enforcement measures against criminals. I don’t care what their religion is.
2. Accused? If you want to say “accused,” No. Proven? Sure.*

Goals in the World
1. absolutely*
2. No. That’s ridiculous

My Score: 9 out of 21 WHOOOOO HOOOOO!!!!!!!

Scott: You really have to make up one of these for extreme liberals.

Violence
1. Do you condone or condemn the Christians who end the lives of others, in the name of Christ?
Condemn (duh, although I would add that their Christianity is suspect also.

2. Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such Christian individuals and organizations as Timothy McVeigh, the Army of God, Paul Hill, Christian Identity, John Salvi, the Ku Klux Klan, Clayton Lee Waagner, Aryan Nations, the National Alliance, John Noster, American Coalition of Life Activists, and Eric Rudolph?
I’m not familiar with all the names on the list but ditto my first answer.

Modernity
1. Should Christian women have equal rights with men?
Yes

2. Is the Christian concept of a just war acceptable in today’s world?
If it is acceptable at any time, it is acceptable now. Yes.

3. Do you accept the validity of other religions?
Yes, as long as validity is not synonymous with truthfulness.

4. Do Christians have anything to learn from those who reject the Gospel?
Yes. (duh)

Secularity
1. Should non-Christians enjoy completely equal civil rights with Christians?
Yes

2. May Christians convert to other religions?
Yes, but true Christians will not.

3. May Christian women marry non-Christian men?
Yes they may, no they shouldn’t.

4. Do you accept the laws of a majority secular government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government?
Accept, yes. Unreservedly, not necessarily.

5. Should the state impose religious observance, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings?
The question is misstated. It that is the State’s goal, then the answer is no.

6. When Christian customs conflict with secular laws, which should give way?
Again the question is misstated. A law certainly has more weight than a “custom”.

Christian pluralism
1. Are Catholics and Mormons fully legitimate Christians?
Another poor question. The denomination one belongs to does not legitimize their standing with God. Mormons are not Christians in the orthodox sense of the word.

2. Do you see Christians who disagree with you (for example, Bishop Spong) as having fallen into unbelief?
That depends on what the disagreement is about. Bishop Spong specifically is unrecognizable as a Christian in the historic and orthodox meaning of the word.

3. Are accusations of apostasy or heresy acceptable practices?
Certainly, when justtified.

Self-Criticism
1. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the historical Jesus?
Yes.

2. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings?
McVeigh. I can’t remember the name of the other person. What does this have to do with anything?

Defense against Militant Christianity
1. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Christianity, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, FBI monitoring of churches)?
I don’t know what you are talking about.

2. Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism (such as anti-abortion violence) should be shut down, or do you see this as a symptom of bias?
Accused is not the same as convicted. Convicted terrorists and their supporters must be dealt with.

Goals in the World
1. Do you accept that the majority of the countries in the world are majority non-Christian and many goverments are secular or non-Christian, or do you seek to transform them into majority Christian countries ruled by Christian principles of morality?
I have no such goal. I will seek the salvation of all people, but that is God’s job, not mine.

2. Do you accept that the U.S. governmental system is secular, or do you seek to transform the U.S. into a Christian nation?
See previous answer

He who briefly sojourned amongst us™ has this test on his blog. It will tell you if you are an EXTREEEEEEMMMMIST Christian, or a good moderate. I shall post, and perhaps respond later.

Violence

1. Do you condone or condemn the Christians who end the lives of others, in the name of Christ? 2. Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such Christian individuals and organizations as Timothy McVeigh, the Army of God, Paul Hill, Christian Identity, John Salvi, the Ku Klux Klan, Clayton Lee Waagner, Aryan Nations, the National Alliance, John Noster, American Coalition of Life Activists, and Eric Rudolph?

Modernity

1. Should Christian women have equal rights with men? 2. Is the Christian concept of a just war acceptable in today’s world? 3. Do you accept the validity of other religions? 4. Do Christians have anything to learn from those who reject the Gospel?

Secularity

1. Should non-Christians enjoy completely equal civil rights with Christians? 2. May Christians convert to other religions? 3. May Christian women marry non-Christian men? 4. Do you accept the laws of a majority secular government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government? 5. Should the state impose religious observance, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings? 6. When Christian customs conflict with secular laws, which should give way?

Christian pluralism

1. Are Catholics and Mormons fully legitimate Christians? 2. Do you see Christians who disagree with you (for example, Bishop Spong) as having fallen into unbelief? 3. Are accusations of apostasy or heresy acceptable practices?

Self-Criticism

1. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the historical Jesus? 2. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings?

Defense against Militant Christianity

1. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Christianity, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, FBI monitoring of churches)? 2. Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism (such as anti-abortion violence) should be shut down, or do you see this as a symptom of bias?

Goals in the World

1. Do you accept that the majority of the countries in the world are majority non-Christian and many goverments are secular or non-Christian, or do you seek to transform them into majority Christian countries ruled by Christian principles of morality? 2. Do you accept that the U.S. governmental system is secular, or do you seek to transform the U.S. into a Christian nation?

Massive changes happening in the Spencer home as the college daughter hauls out all the Christmas decorations, puts up the tree and prompts her mother to bring out the the thousand-and-one nick-nacks (sp?) we’ve accumulated over these 25 years. I have an impression collection of traditional Santas that has a special place of honor. I am trying to stay out of the way, as this has evolved into an all-female ritual.

I tried to prepare for all this with some major moving of personal property (and trash) earlier today. Went through the shelves and picked out about 40 books to give away. Sent most to a place where the staff can have first pick. Will send a few others to one of our teachers who seems to like the kind of thing I’m getting rid of. It created almost 2 shelves of free space, which I quickly filled up with books that have been laying around everywhere. Slowly I am reducing the size of my library, something I must do seriously at some point.

Jonah cites this blog entry and discussion about the question/criticism, “Should the President attend the funerals of soldiers killed in action?” Some interesting history, and entertaining discussion.

As is required by law, we’ve been into leftovers, both our own and those served at the school. We’ve got McRibs for dinner! Talking about living the life! (This is especially helpful since I picked up my paycheck and while driving home, figured out that after taxes, the school is paying me less than minimum wage. Ho Ho Ho! I’m not counting the fabulous perks or my church salary or what I get paid in tithes and offerings on here.)

Denise is making me listen to the Nutcracker. I hate this music. For some reason it makes me think about one of those movies that has installed itself in my brain and won’t go away no matter how many times I hit myself with a hammer: Babes in Toyland. Canadian Brass Christmas CDs, however, are wonderful.

Watched a trailer for “The Gospel of John.” This is one of those new media Bible projects, and the one I have- Acts- is horrible. I mean shock and awful. Useful only to show a small portion of the Bible to a class. This looked——better. Much better. The trailer is meant to impress, and it did. I may have to try this out.

Listen to the last two White Horse Inn Programs: Fundamentalist Phobia (of the Movies) and The Use and Enjoyment of Movies. Part of a four part series on movies.

The guys mentioned their favorite films, and several mentioned an unheard of Vampire flick called “The Addiction.” They played a clip and the vampire was quoting R.C. Sproul! Most of the guys also liked “Tombstone” very much.

Robbins is a big disappointment. He’s put out a great body of acting work, as has his wife. He obviously has some brains. But he’s sold himself out to the tired old progressives’ paranoid conspiracy theorism.

“In Arab culture, it is almost an insult to visit unannounced, and he didn’t even stay for the traditional hospitality.” – CNN’s Nic Robertson

The Thing That Wouldn’t Go Away II: Tim Robbin’s Play “Embedded.”

I just got off the phone with R.C. Sproul, and he says that the seminar on “Merton and Eastern Orthodox Spirituality” at this year’s Ligonier conference was cancelled for lack of interest. Man…..8-(

There will be the usual seminar on “1001 Insults To Use On Your Arminian/Lutheran Friends.” But you gotta reserve your seat early for that one. (JN)

Meanwhile, Oxford’s Richard Dawkins launches his latest attack on Religion in general. (If there is no God, I plan to worship Dawkins.)

Wake Forest University votes to do away with opening prayers at faculty meetings.

Barry Lynn sings another verse of the usual song: make evangelical Christians into the new Taliban. (Yawn.) Someone needs to tell panic-attack liberals like Lynn that few Americans take any religious leader so seriously. Have a diet Coke.

He probably got the bug from Robert Reicchhh-uh.

The Jesus Box ping pong match continues. Authenticity has scored a point.

Radio Free Rocky does an interesting review of “Elf.”

Speaking of movies, Hollywood Jesus deserves a link on the sidebar.

While I have my doubts about the war in Iraq (see Luke 14:28-30 for the reason, admittedly taken out of context), that was a gutsy, brilliant move by W yesterday to go to Iraq and visit the troops. One thing the man is not, and that is stupid. The press, who think they are the 4th branch of government, are whining and crying, but I think it’s because they know that this gives W some great PR, and every time the clip is shown as the soldiers cheer, there go more votes slipping away from Deano.

Just a thought—at that Merton conference, wanna bet the guy won’t be talking about Calvinism vs. Arminianism vs. Lutheranism?

Bush Secretly Visits Space Station.

Thomas Merton: Bridge to the Christian East by Jim Forest

Tuesday, Feb 3, De Kalb, Illinois

sponsored by Touchstone. bound to be good.

From over at the NRO Corner:

“How right that he went; how heartened I am that he saw the rightness. Enjoy the moment. Tomorrow, Maureen Dowd will tell us it was a glitzy, glammy secret sideshow; Paul Krugman will explain that it distracted from the good economic numbers, which are really bad economic numbers; Frank Rich will compare it to some old TV shows; John Kerry will say that the troops should have stayed home in the first place, and by the way, he went to Vietnam. Whatever W’s limitations with the talkoisie, he does seem to know how to talk to the Armed Forces.”- Rick Brookheiser

“It was a brilliant, decent, generous, crafty, glorious gesture. President Bush was nearly in tears when he saw the gratitude and excitement on the faces of the troops. Obviously this White House saw a political angle. But that was a side-benefit. The troops deserved it. The troops appreciated it. And the American people, I bet, believed it was the right thing to do.

The Democrats will make fools of themselves if they go too far criticizing Bush. In fact, I think they’ll make fools of themselves if they criticize him at all. They should just say, “It was a nice thing to do, our troops deserved it, in fact they deserve…blah blah blah.” But I wouldn’t be surprised if we get more flight jacket hysteria.” -Jonah Goldberg

From Mona Charon:

“The world is rid of one of the most vile, depraved dictators in human history. His regime no longer tortures and rapes people by the thousands, nor encourages acts of murder in other nations by financing bombers, nor trains terrorists, nor encourages radicalism in the Middle East.

Because he is gone, 60,000 Iraqi children under the age of five will not die this year, as they have done for the more than 10 years since sanctions were imposed following the Gulf War (UNICEF figures), and Saddam will not be in a position to share weapons of mass destruction with his friends in Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Those ties, stretching back 10 years, are documented in The Weekly Standard magazine.

We can be grateful that Saddam’s WMD program was not as far along as we had feared. Thought experiment: Suppose, through a well-placed phone tap, we had been able to thwart the Sept. 11 hijackers on Sept. 10, 2001. Is there any doubt that many in the chattering class would have complained that there was no hard proof that these men were planning anything? Others would have accused us of anti-Muslim bias. Still others would have complained that the ends don’t justify the means: Just because we thought these guys might be planning mass murder is no excuse to trample on their civil liberties.

Well, we are in that position now. Saddam has been beaten and driven from power. Just as we would never have known for sure what Mohammad Atta had planned if we’d captured him before Sept. 11, we’ll never fully know what havoc Saddam was capable of, though we have strong reason to believe it was severe. And therefore, despite the naysayers, we have reason to be grateful.”