The Mercy Me/”I Can hardly Imagine” piece for IM: I Found Heaven on 96.1 FM. Still in the editing shop,

Michael: My wife snuck country “music” into the house this way. The Shania Twain song I heard on the radio was not the version on the CD. So it happens everywhere, but I do think that CCM is the worst for it. When you point out that CCM isn’t very “Christian” they say it’s all about the music. When you point out the music sucks, they say, “Hey, it’s Christian!” There are no winners in CCM.

Excepting, of course, whomever it is you cherish. There are exceptions, after all.

The entire Boston Globe interview with Neville Chamberlain on his religious views and newfound commitment to Jeebus…..uh…...Hay-sus…..uh…...Dr. Suess…..oh, somebody like that. (btw- he sounds deranged. But most people sound a little nuts on this topic.)

Phillip: I think CCM marketers do things that other music people talk about, but seldom do out of respect for the artist and the audience. I am very serious. You’ve hit on one. it works like this.

I have The PWinn Band’s new kickin’ single. I release it with the distorted guitars, and another version with acoustic guitars. I release one with strings and one without. I release one with edgy vocals, and one smoothed over with lots of nice BGVs. I release one for light rock stations and another for heavier rock stations.

My hope is that 1) one of them catches on, 2) a little success with all of them sells a decent total and 3) different stations have different formats and some songs can be redone to cross format.

When I first heard this done to a Phil Keaggy tune- edgy, raw guitar removed- it did not make me happy. Mostly because I know Phil to be a consumate artist who doesn’t relish having marketers do things that he wouldn’t do to a song. But maybe he approved. I don’t know.

I will say that I have heard this done to secular artists as well. Dave Matthews comes to mind.

Tim: One of my biggest peeves with CCM is this absurd tendency to take any popular song and record it seventeen different ways, all playing on the air at once. Remakes of songs that are still in first run is just weird. Everybody and their second cousin seems to want to record the latest big “praise and worship” hit, in almost identical arrangements. What on earth is the point of that? If it sounds the same, why bother? Except to collect a bit of change, of course.

Combine that with The Prayer of Jabez for the Left-Handed, Red-Headed, Oversexed Teenager, Study Guide Edition (with VHS Video), and it sure doesn’t seem to me that the Christian entrepreneurial spirit is lacking.

Josh: Check the archives. It is possible to acknowledge the divinity of Christ and still reject an orthodox Trinitarian view. It turns chiefly into a semantic squabble, and those who do so are clearly wrong, but not wrong to the point of not-being-saved, in my view. In other words, Rejecting the Trinity != rejecting the New Covenant, Rejecting the Trinity = rejecting the orthodox explanation for the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Arius was heretical in rejecting Christ’s divinity, but there are other options, also wrong but not quite so heretical. We’ve been through all of this here before, though, so please check the archives.

Michael: That is the marvel, isn’t it? That the verse could so clearly refer to angels or some other sense of plurality for so long to so many people, and yet still clearly from our N.T. perspective include the persons of God! So could someone have derived the Trinity as a doctrine from the O.T. alone? Of course not. Does that mean it wasn’t there at all? That seems odd to me. More than simply Jesus demonstrating how he fulfilled prophecies, I do think that part of this teaching was to show the various “types and shadows” of himself in the O.T., or even possibly — if I’m right — his own appearances, as “the angel of the LORD” or “the LORD.”

So yes, the NT reading of the OT isn’t the same as the straightforward OT reading. But which is correct? I don’t think it is reasonable to think that God existed as the Trinity for those thousands of years and never once dropped even a hint into his dealings with mankind. Nothing explicit, of course, because we were awaiting the incarnation, but clearly there is more than just prophecy, and I believe more than shadow and type as well.

The bothersome part of what you’ve said is that one could (though I don’t) come away with the feeling that you believe the Son and the Spirit hid out on the down-low for all that time, never acting in any way until the incarnation.

Given the info in Alex’s link, it is clear that people have long come up with explanations for things they didn’t understand, like multiple plural references to God. “The plurality of majesty” indeed. And I’m sure that we do similar things ourselves. But the Scriptural support was there, if obscure to us, all along. At least we could say that God-as-a-plural was there, if the specific number and nature of the persons of God were yet to be revealed.

Happy Kwanzaa to everyone, and don’t give up umoja.

I recommend you all to Glenn Miller’s discourse on the OT data elements supporting a Trinitarian hypothesis. I think the evidence isn’t conclusive, but when it is weighed in conjunct with the NT evidence, those Arians look pretty stupid.

Briefly, because I have to go soon:

You can’t prove the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old Testament. That is impossible, because the doctrine of the Trinity is the intimate knowledge of God prophesied in the OT and revealed to us in the Incarnation, that fellowship which was a shadow in the Old and a revelation in the new. Note that the explicit formulation is held off in Matthew until the command to baptize the nations: it is here, in the New Covenant, that we know God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Remember, the New Covenant is not a simple repetition of the Old, but its fulfillment. However, you can use the Old Testament to show how the knowledge of the Trinity is foreshadowed.

The reason that confessing the Trinity is necessary for salvation isn’t that you have to know it to pass the Heavenly Entrance Exam; it’s that if you reject the Trinity, you reject the fellowship with and knowledge of God that Christ came to bring to the nations. You reject the divinity of the Son and thus his true mediatorship. You reject the Holy Spirit and thus the divine provenance that undergirds the ministry of the Church. And so on and so forth. Rejecting the Trinity = rejecting the New Covenant. You can’t fall back on the Old Covenant, because when God reveals something, you don’t have permission to behave as though he never spoke it.

Phillip: Here’s an example of what really turns me off.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Of course, this is always greeted with the assertion that it’s “the Trinity” talking to one another. Despite the fact that a very convincing case is there for this being God speaking to the Heavenly council of angelic beings that is suggested many times in the OT, this interpretation persists. Now who wants to say they don’t believe the Trinty was involved in creation!? Not me! It is, but interpreting this as it’s written and not as Christ-centered NT interpretation reads it yields two slightly differing results. And I always sound like I am demoting Christ! Hey- if we are interpreting John 1 of Colossians 1 I am right there. But one thing I have learned is that Christian interpretation of the OT theologically is not the same as correct reading of the OT in original context. What Jesus does in Luke 24 is add the “key” to all kinds of passages (like Psalm 2 for instance) by relating them to himself. So there really are two different things: the ingredients themselves and the cake they are finally baking. (Copyrighted Spencer illustration.)

Michael: Argh! Spell-check did a mass substitution on Melchizidek. The “Ignore All” and “Change All” buttons look so similar!

I do agree with you that the Trinity is certainly not explicit in the O.T., only implicit at best. It is certainly easy to think of God as God and Spirit only based on the O.T., and even easy to think of the Spirit within that context as less than a full person with the N.T. material. I’m a little leery of the way you phrased it the first time, but in the end, I’m pretty sure we agree on this.

On The Trinity: BTW, since we’re talking about the Trinity and I have been beat up around here a few times for my lack of strenuous insistence on orthodoxy on the subject as a soteriological requirement, I should state that I have greatly enjoyed the White Horse Inn’s treatment of the Trinity over the last 4-5 weeks. One point they made last night was that we should pray to the Holy Spirit just as we do the Father and the Son. Funny, I don’t think I’ve ever even prayed to the Son! I guess I keep getting hung up on the “Our Father, Who art in heaven” bit, though I must admit that instruction was given pre-ascension and pre-Pentecost, so…

Any thoughts?

P.S. My wife and I spoke about this last night after the show (which airs at 11pm Sunday nights here), and she said that she actually prays to Jesus and the Holy Sprit far more often than to God the Father. For odd reasons, I think, but I’ll keep those between us for now, so the sake of peace and harmony in my home.

On O.T. and N.T. Interaction: It is interesting for me to think about what Scripture was available to different groups at different times. Post-resurrection but pre-Ascension, in Luke 24:27, Christ showed the travelers Himself all throughout Scripture, not just here or there, but everywhere. So nobody was able to reason it out ahead of time, and much of it we can’t seem to suss out now, but he was there all along in some form or fashion. I’m also reminded of the Bereans (?) whom Paul commended for carefully studying Scripture to see if what Paul said was true. What Scripture? All they would have had was the O.T. and the gospels! I suspect out scholarship today is a bit different than that of the Bereans.

Phillip: Melchior? As in the three wise guys? :-/

I don’t disagree with your reasoning at all. It’s just New Testament reasoning, and is based on New Testament revelation. The Chrsitian teaching of the Trinity cannot, in my opinion, be derived from the Old Testament alone, without Christ in the picture. That is a controversial statement, but I stand by it. Of course in Luke 24, Jesus can teach the Trinity from the OT, but the precise reason that happens is that Christ has been revealed and is teaching. So Sure, I know God is always a Trinity, and yes, your interpretation of those passages is sound. But the phrase “pre-incarnational Christ” just doesn’t work in my reading of the unfolding drama of Revelation. But it really is a quibble.

Michael: I choke on the idea that Melchizidek is Christ, too. When Melchizidek is named Melchizidek, I’m inclined to think that he is in fact Melchizidek. I’m referring specifically to passages in which “the angel of the Lord” turns into “the Lord” in the same passage. Genesis 3 is a perfect example of this. In verse 2 we read that “the angel of the LORD” appears, but in the very next verse “the LORD” sees Moses, and “God” calls to him from the bush. It is clear from reading the entire chapter that Moses has a conversation with God, not an angel. So did God trade places with the angel between verses 2 and 3? Maybe, but it seems unlikely to me.

The call of Gideon is another example I remember from reading through Judges recently. In Judges 6:11 and Judges 6:12, we read about “the angel of the LORD” and yet in Judges 6:14 and Judges 6:16, it is “the LORD.” Gideon at first addresses “the angel of the LORD” as “sir” (Judges 6:13) but then addresses “the LORD” as “Lord” (Judges 6:14). Is this another case of a sudden substitution? It sure doesn’t seem so. I should also note here that the Septuagint manuscript keeps “the angel of the LORD” throughout, but has Gideon using “Lord” as the address in both cases. That’s lower-case Lord, not upper-case LORD (Yahweh), which is obviously another factor.

That passage also has the interesting exchange of Gideon expressing dismay at having seen “the angel of the LORD” face to face and fearing death. And in verse 25 it switches back to “the LORD” again, without any apparent surprise to Gideon.

Judges 13 is another interesting passage, in which “the angel of the LORD” doesn’t give Manoah his name, but suggests that they offer a sacrifice to the LORD and then rides the smoke from that sacrifice into the sky. Manoah and his wife fall face-first at that, and despite the fact that other angels go out of their way to tell people not to bow or worship them, this “angel of the LORD” seemed to encourage it by his actions. Manoah and his wife, incidentally, are also fearful that they will die because they had seen God. That is, they clearly believe that they had seen God in some form.

So anyway, it’s not all the time, by any means, and certainly Melchizidek is Melchizidek, but it does seem clear that at least in certain instances, “the angel of the LORD” is actually God in some form.

I’m actually a little bothered by your statement that you think that ”[t]he Trinity isn’t laying around in the Old Testament.” Wasn’t God triune before the foundation of the world? Didn’t the Word exist with God in the beginning? It isn’t surprising to me to see hints of the Son in the O.T., since the Father and the Spirit are explicitly mentioned. Obviously in itself, that’s not evidence of pre-incarnate Christ, and it is certainly possible that he is not mentioned in any way, but combined with the mentions I just made and a few others, one starts to develop an impression.

As for why he isn’t mentioned by name, what name would he have? Jesus was his human name, and Christ was his role, so God seems to be the best name, and if the O.T. writers can use “the angel of the LORD” interchangeably with “the LORD” under certain circumstances, I don’t really know if that is the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit, but it is pretty clearly God.

But obviously, I could be wrong.

[Edited: Spell-check had changed all of the “Melchizidek” references to Melchior’s” so I changed them back.]

Tim, et al: I am not contending about the lyrics. They are obviously only talking about the writer. I am writing on IM about why this song has persisted for a year on secular radio? And the question is: What are non-Christian hearers thinking about when they relate to the song? And my answer will be that they are thinking of themselves and their loved ones in heaven, a frequent theme in a lot of American roots music. It is the same thing they think when they watch John Edwards or believe that everyone who died in 9-11 or is killed in Iraq are in heaven. Americans are near-universalists at heart, tragic times bring that to the surface, and I think this song is being interpreted that way

Michael,
I never took that song to be an all inclusive desire of we’re all going heaven type of thing, here’s the lyrics as I know them, perhaps they have been changed to fit someone elses purposes and that is what you have read or heard? The only people mentioned or referenced in the original song are the person singing and Jesus. I, Me, My, You, Your and Son, as in Jesus..

I will say one thing for the dude that wrote it (and sang it with Mercy Me), he is getting every bit of use from that song he can. I have heard at least 3 different versions of that song now over the last two or three years, and at least one cover version. Maybe that song tells the secular world that Christians can be good business men too?

So while it’s a catchy little song that was well done originally (the only version I have heard enough to comment on), like most CCM stuff I would hardly call it a worship service appropriate song,, but that’s just me.
It is however, one of the few songs in the CCM catergory that I like, the singer delivers a convincing message of his desire to know what he will do when he faces Jesus. He is not questioning whether he is going to heaven, but rather how he will react when he faces Jesus in heaven.

Phillip: I habitually confuse those chapters. My error.

And couldn’t disagree more on the pre-incarnate Christ thing. I have heard that all my life. It seems to want to take passages like I Corinthians 10:4 and abandon all notions of literary style for literal substance. (Sorry Josh :-) I hear it about Melchizedek constantly, but this seems to simply read in way too much into Hebrews 5, 6, 7. The Trinity isn’t laying around in the Old Testament, I don’t think.

Michael: Actually, I was thinking of Luke 1:19 and Luke 1:26, not Luke 2.

As far as the O.T. references go, it seems clear to me that at least some of the apparitions described as “the angel of the Lord” are actually pre-incarnate Christ. I would venture to say that Exodus 3:2 is one of those incidents. So we’re still left with no Gabriel outside of Daniel and Luke, and Galatians 3:19 is too vague for me to even count. In general, I’m annoyed by those who make too much of very few references to angels in Scripture, and this one is just mind-boggling. One out of three, that’s all he hits. Wow.

LOTR is, of course, racist. I feel sorry for people who can’t even go see a simple movie anymore.

Tom: That should be (JE) for Jonathan Edwards. I wonder if we can get Alex to add that verse next time he leads worship? It’s “fun”!! I’m thinking of sending it to our school worship team’s leader, straight-faced, for inclusion in their next “performance.”

The songwriter of this tune, of course, is speaking about himself being in heaven, not anyone else. I think it’s OK to be assured of your own salvation. If secular people like the song because they hear in it that everyone’s going to heaven, that’s their problem. But, just to make sure, maybe another verse could be added:

I can only imagine how hot that fire will be
When some of you go to hell, who are listening to me,
I can only imagine hearing the demons laugh
When you’re immersed head-to-toe in that fiery bath,
I can only imagine.

Surrounded by screaming,
How will you then feel,
Will you burst into cursing,
Or emit a loud, wordless squeal,
Will you stand like a lit torch
Or to the slimy floor you’ll fall,
When the snakes entwine your body
Will you be able to cry at all?
I can only imagine, I can only imagine.

There, I think I’ve solved that little problem!! (JN)

broken body its joints at war
religious vipers sucking royal blood
the price is paid
the final score
the truth exists even through pious mud
who are these people behind the stained glass windows
have they forgotten just what they came here for
was it salvation or “scared of hell”
or an assembly of a social get-together
what’s the mission of the preacher man?
some are true some do lie
what’s the mission of the preacher man
yeah! yeah! yeah!
a threat of justice the lazy judge
the governess teaches his son to scream
adopted child
true path to trudge
no minor plot to undermine his dream
(preacher: bless god! the more i think about it the more i think i was preaching the truth i went down to the cadillac agency and one hour later i drove out a new cadillac hallelujah say praise the lord bless god i’m gonna drive that cadillac down here and get it dusty and dirty and use it for god hallelujah! thank you jesus)

Bill MacK: Of course, if you ever run out of the basic Essence, you can always follow this recipe:

Essence (Emeril’s Creole Seasoning):
2 1/2 tablespoons paprika
2 tablespoons salt
2 tablespoons garlic powder
1 tablespoon black pepper
1 tablespoon onion powder
1 tablespoon cayenne pepper
1 tablespoon dried leaf oregano
1 tablespoon dried thyme

I use it often and mmmmmmmmmm…....

It’s pretty common in the OT for the angel to be God’s physical mouthpiece, but I can’t think of an OT passage other than Daniel where an angel is named.

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” 4 When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” 6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

Phillip: Concerning Gabriel, maybe he was referring to this verse from Galatians.

Galatians 3:19
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

But, I am just guessing at what he meant.

The bishop needs to read his Bible. Luke 2 says “an angel of the Lord” spoke to the Shepherds. It could have been Michael :-) or Fred. As to the Moses thing, he’s talking about Acts 7:53 and Galatians 3:19, neither of which mention Gabriel. Very Hollywood, bishop.

From my church in D.C.:

And what was God thinking… when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the Law to Moses?

And what was God thinking… when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the sacred Quran to the prophet Muhammad?

And what was God thinking… when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

I say “my church” because I’ll be starting confirmation classes in two weeks. Anyway, so obviously the Quran stuff is simply insane, but I’m wondering about the Gabriel stuff, too. One out of the three, I’ll give him, because the Bible does indeed say that Gabriel spoke to shepherds and told them of Christ’s birth. But Gabriel revealed the Law to Moses? I assume he’s not talking about the ten commandments, because I think that was clearly God Himself talking.

In fact, I only remember Gabriel popping up by name twice, in Luke and Daniel. Moses tended to deal with God directly, from bush to Sinai and beyond.

And if Mohamed dealt with anything supernatural at all, ‘twasn’t God.

If you step outside, you can probably hear someone yelling BAM! periodically. It’s me. I got loads of spices and sauces for Christmas including several different Emeril’s Essences and Sauces. I am kicking things up notches unknown to mankind.

Other sundry items I received: Celtic Music CD. Finding Nemo and Pirates of the Carribean DVDs. 10 volumes of Spurgeon’s sermons. Hunting Knife, Tool Chest

Also my son moved into an apartment and my wife, daughter, and mother in law are leaving today for Orlando. Five days of complete solitude, except for the dogs. The couch will be my friend. I plan to move only enough to prevent bed sores. Also looking forward to 45 straight hours of the Twilight Zone on the SciFi Channel.

Soliciting the input of the Fellows (and the lurking community) on a question that truly puzzles me. (Also one that will generate a piece for IM and/or RM.)

How do you explain the huge success of Mercy Me’s CCM ballad “I Can Only Imagine” on (generally nasty, hip-hop and rap playing) secular radio? What does it tell us about the people listening, especially the non-Christians, and about CCM’s influence? Am I correct that the song indicates a general desire to hear that we are all going to heaven?

A recipe from this past Christmas…

Truffles
1 12-oz package of semisweet chocolate chips
1/4 cup heavy whipping cream
2 Tbsp. Butter
2 Tbsp. Cherry Liquer
1 Tbsp Veg. Oil
1/4 cup sugar
1 tsp. milk

Warm 1/2 of the chocolate chips (about 1 cup) over low heat until melted. Stir in whipping cream, butter, and liquer until melted and thoroughly mixed. Place in refrigerator for 15-20 minutes, stirring often. When the mixture is able to hold a shape, pull out of fridge and place (in teaspoon-sized drops) on an aluminum-foil lined cookie sheet. Place in freezer for 30 minutes. Just before pulling them out, melt the rest of the chips and oil together over low heat. Pull drops out of freezer, and dip them one by one into the mixture and place them back on the foil-lined cookie sheet. DO NOT CHEAP OUT AND DUMP THEM ALL AT ONCE. You’ll be sorry. Put the candy back into the fridge for about 20 minutes. Mix together sugar and milk and stick it in a ziploc bag. Take out the cooled candy, stick them in the bag with the sugar and give it a shake.

Candy’s ready. Best served cool to room temperature with a glass of milk.

Ho Ho Ho.

I haven’t touched a computer in almost a week, and it felt goooooood.

This past Christmas at the Ward household was pretty groovy. We all got what we wanted. I wanted to look like Hugh Hefner, so I combined Bart’s gift of scotch and cigars with a robe my in-laws got me. The wife wanted time off of work, so Santa brought her a raging case of influenza.

Hot Buttered Rum Recipe…

Ingredients:

1 lb. Brown Sugar
1 lb. Powdered Sugar
1 lb Butter
2 tsp. Cinnamon
1 tsp. Nutmeg
1 quart of vanilla ice cream, the good stuff like Breyer’s or similiar.

Thoroughly mix and freeze the above ingredients. It’s easier to let the ice cream melt first before mixing.
Add Captain Morgans Spiced Rum to taste and 2 tablespoons (more or less to taste, I like more) of the batter mixture in a large sized mug.
Fill a mug the rest of the way with hot water. Stir until batter is desolved and add whipped (or whupped, depending on where you live) cream and more Nutmeg on top if desired.

We give these out as Christmas gifts with a pint of Cap’t Morgans, they never fail to ask for the recipe. They also warm us up after a cold walk in the woods or shoveling the driveway.

I just read the little sermon Michael linked to, and all was fine until… er, ah..yeah.
I did the same thing I would have done if I was there, I left the page and did not bother finishing it, he has nothing to teach me. If I were there, I’d have walked out.

Welcome back, Monk.

I don’t even need to read the Christmas sermon. I managed to catch a few minutes of it while flipping thru channels here at work.

At first I was pleasantly surprised at the very orthodox-sounding message.

Then he made a tiny remark about Muslims and Christians. I don’t remember the exact context, but I do remember it being way beyond the pale.

I can actually tolerate some of this type of stuff, from a historical perspective. But when sheperds of the flock start intimating that folks who contemptuously reject Jesus Christ “are just alright with God”, I have a problem.

Washington National Cathedral was one of my favorite places to hang out when I worked in D.C. I attended the Easter service there in ‘94, and went to several free organ concerts. As a contemplative and beautiful place, the church has no equal. I am sure there are plenty of members of that particular body who worship in spirit and truth. But as long as that pastor is in charge, guard yourselves, folks.

The dangers of a church being too associated with our beloved state. Even in a secondhand fashion. The preacher will always be tempted to make platitudes to that idol methinks.

According to the link Michael put up, Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins) seems to have converted to Christianity.
I checked some of the lyrics from his new (yet defunct?) band called Zwan.
anybody heard this Cd from Zwan? I was never a fan of the Pumpkins myself.

Slippery Pete over at the comments section of the Reason Mag blog has this to say about his enthusiasim for Neville and the whole ‘04 election madness.:

I’m an atheist, and even I’D be nervous voting for an atheist.

Pandering is one thing. Outright pranks are another. Leaving a church over a dispute over a bike path – no matter how ordinary to workaday types like us – is a kiss of death for a politician. It simply indicates that the candidate has no judgment.

Presumably, an Episcopalian is an Episcopalian for a reason. Also, presumably, bike paths have little to do with it. It’s like deciding you’re no longer a Republican because you’re bothered by Trent Lott’s hair. Independently, the two things make complete sense to us. Together, they spell psychosis.

Howard Dean’s following – consisting, from what I can tell, of radical conspiracy theorists who should be institutionalized today – would suggest that his genius for appealing to the base will NOT translate to the general election.

So what we’re faced with is having the semiliterate mercantilist wipe the floor with the formerly secular former centrist.

The whole tale is sad, though I can’t tell which bit is sadder.

It’s not CCM!!! And it’s wonderful! Check out the Neal Morse songs and samples here. Esp “O Lord My God” and “I am Willing.”

I’m going to try and make crab cakes for my lovely and talented daughter this week. I found some simple recipes on the net, but would love any recipes or suggestions from anyone out there or on here. (We need some new BHT menu items.)

It’s the Christmas sermon by the Episcopal Bishop of D.C. I’ll let you find the absolutely bizarre excursion into heresy in this little gem.

BTW- Neville Chamberlain has now announced to the media that, when he is in the South, he will speak from the back of a confederate flag draped pickup truck about his personal relationship with that examplarary model of Northeastern morality and environmentalism, Jesus. (Neville- one thought here: Dukakis in the tank. Think about it.)

S.T. Karnick over at NRO has sold a few cds with this good article on the current state of pop music and his recommendations for best CDs of the year. Liked this quote, too:

Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) seems to fill a similar niche among today’s more religious music consumers. As the joke goes, you just take a standard pop song, replace all instances of “baby” with “Jesus,” and you’ll have yourself a perfectly marketable CCM song. But nothing that will make anybody sit up and take notice, of course.

I’m back, and everyone at the house is tired of Christmas. I’m reopening the place.

Hope everyone had a great Christmas. Ours was certainly above average. Wonderful really. Just about perfect. No one got that Mad Cow disease.

I’ve had so many things I’ve wanted to post, that I should have made a list. No matter. I have some good fodder for some new IM things and a short piece for RM. (I hope)

Had somewhat of a dialog going with an IM reader who called me “bitter” for not being excited and happy about all things seeker-senistive. When the discussion got substantial, he introduced RACE into the conversation. This has never happened before, and I simply do not discuss topics when the subject of skin color is introduced. ED: if you are reading this, I would love to talk more if you can find a way to not refer to skin color as making some difference in my responses.

Attended a Eucharist this morning at the Episcopal church with no music. Nada. Zero. None. I kept waiting for someone to scream or die, or for the evangelical police to arrive, but it never happened.

I have two new cds of the St. John Passion. One by Arvo Part and the other by Bach. Also a new Mark Buchanon book called The Holy Wild. A fine writer of a certain kind. Am about 120 pages into Marsden’s bio of Jonathan Edwards. Piper needs to read this to see that fananticism isn’t all a good thing.

Just beyond the manger…
I hear no lullabies,
I see no golden hay,
I feel no starlight.

Just beyond the manger…
I hear the hammer fall,
I see a rugged cross,
I feel the chill of night.

Just beyond the manger.

Just beyond the manger…
I see no swaddling clothes,
I hear no angels sing,
I feel no candle glow.

Just beyond the manger
I see a lonely hill,
the Savior crying still,
I hear the the thunder roll.

Just beyond the manger

Forgive us, Lord,
and grant us eyes to see in every Christmas, Calvary.
Inplant it in our hearts.
Help us recall mid trees of red and gold,
on another tree raised long ago,
we hung God’s brightest star.

Just beyond the manger
I hear no lullabies,
Just beyond the manger.

The Child is the Peace of Christmas

Courtesy of Town Hall.com, William Murchison says a fine closing word at Christmastime.

“Supposedly genteel Episcopalians putting each other down; Roman Catholics nursing wounds from the sex-abuse scandal; Christians of various stripes disputing noisily over the war in Iraq and the nature of matrimony—hmmmm. More peace and good will, no doubt, as ordered up by the angelic host.

Christianity’s origins, whenever they arise in conversation, sometimes make Christians attentively examine their shoelaces, hoping the indicated question will not arise: If Christianity is so wonderful and life-changing a thing, what is wrong so much of the time with Christians themselves? What kind of walking billboards are they for Little Lord Jesus, asleep in the hay?

The Spanish Inquisition often comes up in conversations of this sort and of course slavery and the alleged oppression of minorities. There are grunts of disgust when “fundamentalist” interference with “science” or “the separation of church and state” gets an airing.

The history of Christianity, it sometimes seems, is an unholy mess—apart from those instances of holiness and beauty that transfigure life, just not often enough for some.

The key point to keep in mind is the circumstance of the birth at Bethlehem. Now what in the world (or out of it) must the creator of heaven and earth (a k a God) have thought He was up to, pulling off such an improbable event in a backwater province of the Roman Empire? What was the purpose here? You know, the marketing strategy?

The written testimony of the early church has to be weighed. The angel spoke of a “savior,” born in the City of David. Saviors are no small potatoes. This was no rescue party sent out from the Roman barracks in Jerusalem, with a clatter of horses and spears. This was heavenly intervention—very large potatoes indeed. That was because, by the common account of the succeeding centuries, there was this troubling factor in human affairs called Sin, which was to be redressed through the birth and the death of the Son of God in human form.

It was the matter of sin that embarrassed then and embarrasses now. Sin implies fault, shortcoming. What, us? Short in the virtue department? Somehow we weren’t quite … nice? That couldn’t be it. Of course we were nice! Didn’t we help out at home, pay our taxes on demand and hold our cutlery just so?

In truth, the defect implied by the coming of the Lord in human form was more basic: Our human nature was bent, like an overburdened clothing rod. More than smiles and politeness and observance of duty would be necessary to fix it. And, in earthly terms, it really could not be “fixed,” not just yet. Faith in the Little Lord Jesus was a sound step in the short run, but it would take his resurrection and return to dispose once and for all of the “bentness” problem.

In the meantime, Christians would be … people. Of a certain sort, naturally. But, still, people. Not always “nice” to others, not even nice, all the time, to fellow Christians. This was notwithstanding the commandment of the Babe, grown to manhood, that they should “love one another,” as he had loved them. They would try. But—sigh—bentness often would block the way.

Over the centuries, the physical achievements of Christianity—the hospitals, schools, universities and missions—as well as the deeds of mercy, forbearance and sacrifice would surpass all logical expectation. At their very best, the people of the manger—Christians—would speak of themselves as the redeemed, bearing a message of redemption “which shall be to all people.”

The stumbles along the way, the falls, the catastrophes, would remind them of the human mess over which the angels hovered on that silent night: not in approval or confirmation, rather, in love of the wayward humans into whose midst a savior had come. To whom, that is, Christmas had come.”

Merry Christmas to all! – the iMonk

I pray that everyone has a safe and Merry Christmas. I’ll see you when the tavern reopens.

Jim’s parting Xmas shot: Consider that “Bring a torch” is a French carol.

For Christmas, I am handing out these copies of The Story of the Other Wise Man.

One of my brothers at work gave me The Purpose Driven Life in return. Who do you think came out ahead?

One last note, really. One more person said “Merry Christmas” to me unabashedly: the liquor store clerk. I guess they aren’t so worried about political correctness in those dens of iniquity.

I use the label with no sarcasm, because I wasn’t happy with their Marsala wine selection.

Tom: I’m sorry! I meant no slight to those who are single and / or childless.

Again a Happy Christmas to all!

Michael: Church marketing can be scary. How on earth can any church guarantee that a visitor’s experience will be warm and pleasant? They can’t. How can they guarantee no judgment? Or “authentic” relationships? They can’t. It’s a lie in the form of an impossible promise, and it’s a bad start to a relationship when someone lies.

As goals, sure, all of these things are great. As marketing, though, it’s simply garbage.

On Christmas: Every person with whom I’ve interacted professionally lately has said something like “Happy Holidays.” I always respond with “Merry Christmas,” and I’m amazed how many people react overwhelmingly positively when I do. It is as if everybody hates the more innocuous greeting, but it afraid to be more specific. I know it smacks of pride to say that in America, Christians have enough influence to make the greeting safe, but really, how likely am I to run into someone who is actually offended by a single utterance of the greeting?

I was in Whole Foods Market last night, a bastion of hippies, goths, pierced eyebrows and purple hair, and one of the employees greeted me with “Merry Christmas.” I found myself reacting just as people react to me when I say it. I was very pleasantly surprised.

I like to bug Kurt by saying “XMas” (to which he most recently replied that Santa was going to skip my house, passover-style), but I am happy to have the four candles lit for Advent, and excited about enjoying Christmas with my kids. We’ll read the Luke 2 story of Christ’s birth, and the story of St Nicholas of Myra again, and we’ll exchange a gift tonight and a few more tomorrow, and we’ll have a wonderful time.

I am very sorry for those who are spending Christmas away from their families. I remember my Dad being gone for holidays and birthdays when he was out to sea (Navy), and it did suck. We’ve always tried to have single friends or even couples stranded from extended family over to spend the Eve or Day with our family, as have my parents, so Tom, I do hope your Christmas dinner finds you surrounded by love and joy and Christian fellowship, even if the family isn’t your own.

I’m babbling and gibbering and feeling sentimental now, so I’ll shut up. It’s noon, and I’m taking the rest of the day off of work. I’ll be back in the office Monday, just in time for the Tavern to open up. See you all then!

Wonderful Christmas hope from the blog over at World Mag.

How the Left stole Christmas. A good piece at American Conservative on how Christmas is changing. With this free hat tip to the Canadians.

I first began thinking about this while driving to my parents’ in Michigan several years ago to celebrate Christmas. Even though I was driving on Dec. 23, I could not find Christmas music on any American radio station. Then I came across CBC 2, which was carrying nothing but Christmas music and whose announcers were regularly wishing their listeners a Merry Christmas. Their programming featured both familiar Christmas music and some gems in the seemingly inexhaustible treasury of beautiful Christmas music I had not heard before: Anne Sofie von Otter singing lovely Swedish carols, Charpentier’s beautiful Mass for Midnight, with its generous borrowing from French carols, and Praetorius’s stunning Mass for Christmas Morning. The sheer beauty of the music brought home what we are in danger of losing. And that the proudly tolerant Canadians were playing such music led me to wonder why we are, instead, sanitizing our culture of any reference to Christmas.

Tom: I have a family, but I’m sitting in the middle of the ocean, away from them, and will be for the next 3 weeks. I’m one of those who can get the blues around this time. I see some churches having “blue Christmas” services, even. Sounds corny, but in a world of sin, there you go. However, you’d BETTER have a joyous service. Blues make joy necessary.

However, I commend to anyone the joys of being a mariner. Sure, you’re gone half the time, but your kids get multiple Christmases. Talk about loot and plunder. (My “Christmas” was the Saturday before I left home.)

ROTK: Awesome.

I almost didn’t go. Me and the wife had a bad day prior to our date, and almost cancelled it. Providence stepped in and made it impossible for us to cancel the sitter, so we went, still mad at each other.

We spent over 3 hours clenching each other’s hands feverishly. Personally, my free hand spent over 3 hours in a fist of rage. I desired a long sword like nothing else, and wanted to shed some orc blood. What an emotionally wrenching tale.

When it was all over, we were halfway reconciled. Money well spent.

(It turns out Amy was likewise fantasizing about shedding blood, but she mainly just wanted to leap onto and ride furiously all of the horses in the film.)

BTW—the movie actually improved on the book during a key sequence. Yes, yes it did.

A little more on this seeker church spin. I’ve been around churches my whole life. How in the heck do you get off saying things like:

“We have authentic relationships.”
“No one will judge you.”
“Everyone will be your friend.”
“We’re real! Not phony!”
“We accept everyone.”

Now, this is BS, and everyone with half a mind knows it. I mean, this is the biggest con job since a three dollar bill. One I was reading yesterday (Scum of the Earth) said something like “We’re a church where people come looking for someone to help at every service.” Riiiighhht. In the words of Lohn Lovitz…..”ACTING!” It’s laughable, except for being arrogant and manipulative.

My mom’s experience is that as her church has turned into a huge Rick Warren church, fewer people know her and fewer people talk to her. Of course, she’s 82. They have been gracious and kind to her, but they were before.

The idea that emerging twenty and thirty something Christians without ties and drinking cappuccino are way more compassionate and “real” than other people is an intentional lie. It’s a great goal, but saying “It’s who we all are—guranteed!” is just not true.

Here are some of the politically correct carols we ought to be singing, courtesy of John Derbyshire at NRO.

Phillip: Rather sad that people can spend 7 years around such material and come to such a shallow, banal understanding of its great themes. The phobia to Christianity comes leaping off the page over there. God bless John Rhys-Davis!

Kurt and Phillip: I think we ought to sing/hear these songs as they are, and thereby make a judgement as Christians about whether we use them. I love that song, but that verse is problematic. It would be sufficient reason to consider dropping that song from a worship service. Church music is art and message; doubly so when we are dealing with lyrics. I don’t like it when someone changes the words to a hymn to make it more acceptable. Let the author say whatever he/she said, and then do what is right. I’ve learned something today about a fave Christmas tune!

Hi guys! Been on the road for the better part of yesterday, and y’all totally go nuts on the blog. It always gets hot when I’m gone (whine, whine).

Regarding that Bring a Torch Song: I thought it was pretty funny, actually, and, of course, a song is just a song. Same with “We Three Kings”, it is not doctrinally supported, but we forgive it because it has a cool tune and the verses are actually meaningful. But, in reference to that particular line, the humor was that, Amanda pointed it out to me (she was on my left side) and then Phillip (on my right) had underlined “French” and “White”.

There is a perverse joy to subtlely misbehaving in church. Perhaps you pastor-types out there would disagree :)

Oh, and for the record, I think the line is referring to his skin color. Here it is:

Look and see how charming is Jesus
how he is white, his cheeks are rosey

Interestingly enough, it took some effort to google up these lyrics. Most modern versions seem to cut this third verse. Not that I’m big on modifying lyrics. I hate singing “Good Christian Friends, Rejoice”.

There is no real point to this post, now that I think of it. Just getting my digs in before Michael closes the tap. Merry Christmas all you crazy peoples out there. God Bless.

eric: Quest is a Christian and Missionary Alliance church start, and the staff are almost all Asbury grads. So it could be worse. CMA is a great denomination, and even though this church is spun to the point of calling the pastor the “speaker,” it probably has a solid core. If my mom was going to a seeker operation, this would be a good one.

I get interminably weary of hearing garbage like this: “Oakhill Church is a place that anyone can come just as they are. No one will judge you on the way you dress. If you have an arrow through your nose and wear a suit of armor, no one will care. We have real relationships here; we’re authentic. We really do care about you, unlike all the other churches you’ve ever been to. Our pastor is different. He’s really connected to modern culture and he tells jokes. He doesn’t preach, he speaks. Our youth minister has an amazing ability to be cutting edge. yada yada yada yada.”

This is so insulting that it makes me nauseous. Anyone remember the days when churches could promote what they were doing without saying “Every other church sucks!”? And what you get when someone joins this outfit is just as irritating: people who won’t shut up about all the stuff they like, and act as if you are complete moron for not getting the kids in the car right now and joining. And the celebrity devotion to the staff is disgusting. These churches have got a real problem in that department.

As awful as my SBC upbringing was, I am glad that I grew up in churches that tried to be bodies, and not ongoing concerts and celebrity outlets. Some of this spin makes the worst commercials sound intelligent. And I cannot help believing that at the end of the day, it’s the Gospel that gets spun, and sin that gets the biggest spin treatment of all.

Michael: To counter the paragraph you posted yesterday about how much Jackson avoided any sort of religious anything in the movies, I quote Megan Basham from Razormouth, as she says, “the Christian worldview in the books is so strong, it weathers the vaguely “spiritual” interpretations the actors and director try to pin on it tolerably well.” That’s about how I feel about it. Yes, he watered some stuff down, but it was soaked through and through with Christian imagery of one sort or another. Not quite the gospel, but not antithetical to the gospel either. Definitely a few steps above The Matrix.

Matthew: Okay, I didn’t provide enough context in my previous post. The actual line is “Look and see how charming is Jesus, how he is white, his cheeks are rosey.” So no, I don’t think that refers to purity. The carol is called Bring A Torch, Jeanette, Isabella. Amazingly, it was the only song sung by the kids choir. Which makes it worse somehow, though I’m not sure why.

On Editing: Though I should point out that I have not yet eited any posts but my own, and hope to avoid ever doing so. Unless, of course, someone goes a little crazy with closing tags.

You can listen to the mother of all Lessons and Carols Services here on the BBC. It’s on our local NPR station NOW.

At MPC, we have no choir. We sing all our (familiar) carols (except one special) and have communion. And no sermon, of course. So drive over and join us at 7:30 p.m.!

Props to Rigney for the awesome Weezer/ Tenacious D concert poster – I’m looking for a frame for it (and I’m glad you liked the book b/c I was a little worried ;-)

Phillip, I can’t help but think that the “white” the carol was referring to was about purity, not skin color. Of course, since it’s French, the white might signify surrender!

Our L & C service was great. We had two on Sunday and I did one of them by myself. It was a great experience. Tonight we have 2 communion services; at 5 and 11:30 pm. Tomorrow we’re getting up at 4:30 (we don’t even have kids, yet!) to call Heather’s parents in Madrid, then we’re driving to my Mom’s. It’s nice being able to drive 3 hours to see my family instead of the 7.5 it took while I was in seminary.

Merry Christmas!

Moderator Announcement: The Boar’s Head will close on Wednesday at 6 p.m. EST and remain closed till Monday December 29 at 7:00 a.m.

From Lileks today: “Sitting in a ]Krispy Kreme] store with fresh coffee and a fresh glazed: the American secular sacrament.”

Are you afraid we’ll use the f-word or something and you won’t see it?

As usual, you nailed it without me even telling anyone. You obviously know me well. (JN) The rest of the Internet is open. Go try The Dialogue Box at Antithesis. I think you will like it.

BTW- If anyone wondered, four BHTers are enabled and authorized to edit posts. Myself, cause I own the place. Matthew, because he will defend me in nearly every circumstance (JN), Jim, becasue he set it all up, and now Phillip, because he harassed me about my html. (JN) They have my permission to edit any posts they believe need attention.

Ah, you know what, I’m not going to make an issue of it. It just seems to be more of a pain in the neck to shut it down than to let it run. If nobody’s going to be here, then what’s the use anyway. I do have somewhere to go for Christmas dinner, so don’t worry about me. I just think sometimes it’s a good thing to realize that not everyone is blessed with family and kids and all that stuff, that there are others out there.

Have a joyous Christmas, everyone.

Michael: After thinking through what I posted last night, I realized that I was wrong. Lay people have always been readers (lectors), but what was new recently was that the general prayer came from a layperson. All Sundays except the first of the month, we follow the 1928 BCP “Morning Prayer” liturgy, with minor changes here and there. We recently exchanged the venite and benedicte for a particular hymn, and the general prayer is prayed spontaneously and specifically rather than read from the book. When I first started attending, that prayer was always prayed by the assistant rector, but twice recently Bill has had a layperson come up to the lectern to pray instead. No big deal for me, as the evening service always has someone come up to pray every week. Then again, the evening service doesn’t use the 1928, and the pastor doesn’t wear a collar.

So I gave the wrong info earlier, and I’m not sure how it changes your view. But laypeople have long given one or more of the lessons in the service. Sorry for the mixup.

Richard: I had mixed feelings on the L&C, honestly. Kurt and Amanda were along (they’re in Georgia now, and so can’t comment), and I guess I expected (1) more carols and (2) that we would sing some of them. Instead, we got some odd carols of which I had never heard, which isn’t all bad, and most of them were sung exclusively by the choir. One exception: we were allowed to sing two verses and the refrain of We Three Kings.

I was actually disturbed at one point as the youth choir sang a traditional french carol that described Jesus as “so white, so beautiful.” And meanwhile I’m standing next to everybody’s favorite Afro-swede, though I would have been bothered at any rate. I underlined the words “See how white he is” (or something similar) and the word “french” and we agreed that explained a lot.

So actually, I did like it somewhat, but it ran so contrary to my expectations that I fear I didn’t enjoy it as I should. Also, one of my daughter came down sick, so my wife and kids missed it. That would have made a big difference, I think. And next year, knowing better what to expect, I think I’ll like it quite a bit.

Tom: Uh-oh. I sense a bit of Scrooge!

Merry Christmas, All

Richard,
Some of us might be single. At least I am. So “we” doesn’t include everybody.

These are very busy days of ministry. Lessons and Carols service at the old folks hospital/home today. Singing carols and reading the nativity story to some very senile people. Might seem like a waste of time (local rickwarrenite pastor won’t have anything to do with this – “not a priority”). But 90+ year old Fred greeted me after the service with tears in his eyes, saying that this was the best worship service of his life. He is so grateful for the Good News and says “I loved hearing the story again. I may not ever hear it again in this life.” The fact is that many of these people love God, love the Gospel and need to hear it. No wasted time there.

Tomorrow, Christmas Eve, I will deliver Christmas hampers prepared by some ladies of the church, do some last minute shopping, and try to make myself useful around the house. In the evening we have our Festival of Lessons and Carols – a highlight of the season (how did you enjoy your first L&C, Phillip?). Then back home to celebrate God’s good gifts with my wife and kids, a few good friends, maybe someone who doesn’t have anyone to celebrate with, good food (French Canadian tourtiere being the star of the show – my English wife faithfully prepares it every year, along with the more Anglo Christmas Pudding), beautiful BC wine, Egg Nog (for everyone else – personally I never touch the stuff!), Christmas music (from the sublime to the ridiculous – from the Academy of St. Martin-in-the-fields to the Grinch!), reading from St. Luke and, we pray, the kind of holy good cheer that is appropriate in celebrating the birth of the King! All the while we’ll think of our neighbour who won’t be celebrating – she became a widow yesterday. We need to learn to rejoice whith those who rejoice and to mourn with those who mourn in these days.

Monkish bartender, I congratulate you on closing this fine establishment for a few days. The last thing we all need is to spend the holiday in front of a computer. We have kids to play with, new toys to assemble, tired spouses who need some lovin’ ;-) and “tidings of comfort and joy” to be shared!

Happy Christmas to you all

Umm, OK, question here, since I haven’t been through a CHRISTmas with the BHT: Why shut it down completely, and why for five days? There may be some of us that get bored and may want to hang out. Not saying the moderator has to hang out, but why keep the rest of us from doing it? Are you afraid we’ll use the f-word or something and you won’t see it? No comprende.

Merry Christmas everyone..
For those travelling, I hope you and your loved ones have a safe journey.

Peace,
Tim

Merry Christmas and happy X-Mas everyone! Santa has already been good to me. He used Matthew Johnson’s address to send me a cool tie and a Faulkner criticism book that I foolishly passed up a chance to buy once and have kicked myself for ever since. Thanks, um, Santa!

Michael: A Christmas Carol rules, in almost every manifestation (I even watched the Mr. Magoo one with my daughter today—I was surprised at the pretty-good-for-a-cartoon faithfulness to Dickens, at least in terms of language and some direct quotes). This is just a rumor at this point, but we may be doing it next year for our community theatre Fall production. A good excuse for you to come to a performance (since me in a dress, barking, apparently was not enough :-)

Here’s the church my mom is going to these days and is excited about. She keeps gushing about it and wanting me to go there with her when I’m in town. I hate to say anything to her about where she goes, especially when she’s so excited, because she is very sensitive about it. But when she took me to the website tonight and I asked her to help me find any sort of statement of beliefs (it has not one of the Four C’s, Michael, as far as I can tell. Note the brief mention of Jesus on the “Core Values” page, followed by nebulous and poorly defined “beliefs.”), I think she could tell what I was thinking, at least a little. So I said, “Mom, I’m boring in my old age: I like more traditional worship, like Presbyterians and Lutherans and stuff. You know, more liturgical.” I didn’t want to get into the specifics, because I think God can grow my mother wherever she is (I’ve seen it happen), and I didn’t want to discourage her. But she is so, I don’t know, gullible may be too strong a word—but she is so taken in when she likes the energy of a church and looks up the staff. She is not totally naive, but she won’t hesitate to go pretty far down a path when the circumstances are right.
Anyway, I guess any of you who care could just say a prayer for her that this place will be as harmless to her spirituality as it seems like it probably is.

Everyone have a great time with your families and friends! I know I will!

Alex and whoever: Here’s the thing for these emerging “churches.” If they are an outreach – a mission point- of an existing church I don’t have a problem with them morphing, spinning, hyping, presenting themselves anyway they want to attract their target. The idea that there are all kinds of cultural subgroups that need a unique approach is totally cool with me. Print the t-shirts. Where I start getting iffy is saying it’s a church. Like the guy who wanted to build a youth “church” at my old haunts, I think there are some important things missing here.

So beware iMonkheads, it’s time for the Famous Four Cs to return:

Creed- You recognize some universal standard of orthodoxy outside yourself, like the Apostle’s Creed from time to time.
Confession- A particular statement of faith that is as comprehensive as it needs to be in your situation to define what you believe. Maybe it’s denominational, maybe it’s just yours. But you wrote down what you believe, so we have some boundaries on important things.
Covenant- To be a MEMBER of this Body/Community whatever, you affirm some specifics. Not beliefs as much as responsibilities, understandings, relationships and so forth. You know what it means to be a part.
Constitution- The body has a process- you may call it legal- for doing things like choosing leadership, carrying out its mission, handling money, membership matters, discipline process, assigning responsibiltiies. Call it whatever, but it keeps the pastor from making it all up and taking all the money home in a grab bag.

Now, best I can tell, a real church like Mars Hill has all this going on. They even have an annually renewable membership covenant. I’m pretty sure many of these emerging churches aren’t there and probably some don’t want to go there, particularly in the matter of joining, membership, supporting, church discipline, etc. But I think you better think more than twice about calling yourself a church if these things aren’t there. A bunch of kids who like the band and the teacher’s jokes don’t make it a church. I’m sorry, it’s a good thing, but it’s probably not a church.

BTW, our fifty year old local SBC church has no interest in any of these, and that isn’t all that odd.

I echo the same fear of the iMonk concerning “generational exclusivism.” That’s partly what motivated my recent post about generational solipsism. It worries me that churches, especially of the Gen-X type, are overwhemingly composed of Gen-Xers. This means that the generational tendencies of one generation dominate the church, and this has its bad points.

My church emphasises what it calls “intergenerationalness;” we encourage both young and old to fellowship with one another, and nourish one another spiritually.

I have a criticism of pomo spirituality waiting in the wings, but Baeder’s article worries me when he uncritically notes the rise of “new epistemologies, ecclesiologies, et al,” as if biblical Christianity has nothing to say at all about these new things.

Maybe I’m getting crotchety, but I tend to side with the wisdom of B.B. Warfield: what is new is probably not true.