Mark Roberts (the best of the blogging pastors) has a new series on Mary (in progress) and a new book on prayer.

Whoa! NTW covered by Baptist Press. Has a black hole opened up in the universe? (He’s beating up on postmodernism Joel!!)

David Wenham on the Sermon on the Mount also in BP. Whats going on here?

McLaren’s new book is excerpted here. (It’s a sample chapter in .pdf.)

I find it rather amazing that anyone engages in theological conversation to actually get someone to change their affiliation or church. I mean, I would talk with anyone about theology if we just agree that all of us are where we are for reasons that are partially Biblically, but mostly about other things we don’t ever talk about. I would love to write something about how we love to act like we all belong to our churches because they are “right” and “teach the Biblical truth,” when actually, most of us are where we are because of family, personality, marriage, kids, paycheck, etc., etc., etc. I have no plans to change based on any argument- I don’t care if you destroy everything I believe. I LIKE where I am, and it works for me. So if we talk, let’s just agree we aren’t trying to drag one another into a new church. OK?

And on this pressing issue, we’ve checked with the Supreme Court. Students don’t have an absolute right to a bathroom break whenever they want it.

Are you checking in at “The Sacred Sandwich?”

Once again, the Boar’s Head sets the tone for major discussion on the web.

N.T. Wright makes the point that the recent Third Quest for the historical Jesus, which may be misguided at places, still does us the favor of helping us to appreciate the real world in which Jesus lived rather than just the “theological world” of Jesus debates. It certainly has helped me in that regard. From my first reading of Charlesworth almost a decade ago, to my reading of Witherington and Sanders, to Marcus Borg’s books, to N.T. Wright today, I owe these scholars a great deal.

One of the things that I really don’t like about Calvinism these days is the almost total lack of interest in the historical Jesus. I believe that the more we understand Jesus in his world, the more we know of the God who revealed himself in Jesus.

I got to work with pitchers for several hours today. It was a wonderful way to spend what started as a very stressful day, and I recommend it to everyone.

Richard, that was a wonderful and wise post that convicts me that I need to stop saying “I hate theology” and start saying “I hate what people can do with theology”. I too struggle with the “kneejerkism” that takes place. I love it when someone is willing to be brave enough (like Jesse) to bring up a topic or thought that’s completely out-of-the-box. That’s what Jesus did and I think that one of the best things we can do for people is to rattle their theological “cages”, thinking about God should not be confining, it should be freeing.

Tom: I love theology but I often find myself quite uncomfortable with the spirit in which theological discussion is often carried out. So many are too quick to accuse others of heresy for merely voicing opinions or questions which are outside a particular “orthodoxy”. I know some people who would be all over Jesse for even suggesting that there may be some grounds for perpetual virginity. I know others who would be quick to condemn Michael for his views on innerancy. I’m sure I hold some views might cost me my job if I was in a church that is more representative of our denomination than the church I’m in. I feel that we shouldnt be afraid to ask questions and to pursue original lines of theological thought (this is one of the reasons I enjoy the BHT). There’s too much kneejerkism out there (eg. the attitude of Piper, Duncan, Dever, Carson etc to NT Wright… Bizzare!).

I was encouraged to find this call to “Generous Orthodoxy” recently. Here’s a document I could sign. There are many theological tenets that I would be willing to take a bullet for but none for which I would fire a bullet.

(BTW – I’m not the Richard who commented on your post earlier. He makes a good point but I think he misses your point)

An IM/BHT reader with important questions. Please read and comment at IM Underground.

Kent: In the midst of the BHT bad mouthing theology, you ask a very theological question. ;-) I’ll give several answers.

1. Westminster Chapter VIII: II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by he power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

In other words, the divine nature was always fully aware of the human nature, but the human nature GREW in apprehension of the divine nature. Scripture is very clear on this. Jesus grew in understanding. I don’t think the HUMAN nature ever had a DIVINE grasp on all things (Omniscience), but did obviously grasp his own relation to the Father. (See John 5, etc.)

2. The Synoptic Gospels paint a very human portrait of Jesus, except for those moments when the divine is on display. This leads me to the conclusion that for most of Jesus’ human experience, he experienced “ordinary humanness” in all ways, but at particular moments he experienced divinity. How he sorted through this in his self-understanding is a mystery to us. I, personally, am quite happy to leave Jesus very much on the human side of the fence almost all the time, as I tend to see the Gospels highlighting the “divine” events for their own purposes.

Further, remember that Jesus did fit into many roles that were known in Jewish society: prophet, healer, exorcist and rabbi especially. Of course, eventually, as Messiah and Son of Man. But Son of Man moves into a “divine” way of thinking about Jesus. (Daniel 7) So I think there was always a depth and a progression to Jesus’ self understanding, much of which we won’t ever capture.

His message and actions were also quite political, and led many to conclude he wanted to be a king. Only the disciples seem to experience most of the “divine disclosures” of Jesus. So I really think the best to understand Jesus during his earthly ministry is in Jewish terms: religious, cultural and political.

3. Christians have a habit of finding the highest Christology in the New Testament and then bringing it back into the Gospels, so that the high Christology of Colossians or Hebrews takes over the lower Christology of Mark. Bad move. Let each book have its own message. Don’t fear the humanity of Christ.

It isn’t a sin to grow up, or to grow in self-understanding. Nothing about the incarnation is threatened by speaking of Jesus in human terms, then doing what the New Testament does- go back and look again at what GOD was doing IN CHRIST. But we distort the scripture if we take the highest conclusions of the later New Testament and the creeds and then force them into places in the Synoptics that they don’t go.

For instance: We can read Luke’s account of Christ’s birth with a high Christology, say Hebrews 1:1-4 or John 1:1-18, but let’s at least leave Luke’s writing alone, and not insist that his account is deficient without Christology from elsewhere.

Michael, I know you’ve read Capon’s parables. I’m working my way through the trilogy, a combined version of the three; Kingdom, Grace & Judgment, that Laurie bought me for Christmas. Wonderful stuff and I’m only through the Forward and the first two chapters. We’ve probably discussed it at the Tavern before but I’ve a quick question based on one of Capon’s contentions…(Phillip may chime in and point me to an archive)…do you (or anyone) mind answering a quick question?

Where are you at with Capon’s contention that Jesus during his incarnation was in the process of learning about his destiny as Messiah? Somehow I can grasp that in the flesh He was subject to pain and suffering, but I’m struggling with the idea that He was subject to ignorance.

Tom, I thought of you when I read this quote this morning from the book mentioned above:

Trust Jesus, then, after that, theologize all you want. Just don’t lose your sense of humor if your theological surfboard deposits you unceremoniously in the drink.

Just thought I’d post this for those following the Federal Vision controversy.

Mark Hornes, who was cited in a report by the Mississipi Valley Presbytery, has posted the defense (pdf) that he wasn’t asked to provide. I don’t know much at all about the FV mess, but it seems like some folks are being too quick to write the other side off without fully hearing them out.

Hat tip to Barb.

The original report is here (pdf).

My hands are trembling to the point I can hardly type. Such a silly boy.

Took a blood test Wednesday. The Dr. called last night and said for me to call in. This is utter terror for me. It was too late, so I spent the night in one of my worst mentally obsessive states. The terrors of death surrounded me, as the scripture says.

I obsess on death. It’s truly sick. Pastorally, I have watched people die of everything so many times, and my family has been so blessed to not have any health problems, that I think our number must always be up. I inherited from my father an obsessive mind that dwells near the edge more than I like to think, and it focuses on death and disease. A very dark cloud sometimes. It can be overwhelming. So I have lived the last 16 hours in unimaginable hell of thoughts of what is happening inside me and my cowardice about death. I have taken every physical symptom I have and turned it into a chain of increasing cancer. I’ve lived and relived my cowardice in facing pain and loss of my health.

I called this morning and my cholesterol and triglycerides were up. She wants me on Lipitor now. I said I’ll work on diet and see her in a month or so. She said it was up to me. I appreciate that.

The mental state of relief is completely irrational, of course. The cancer obsessions were fantasy. The cholesterol/triglycerides are real. Yet I feel delivered. Why? Because I can do something. I can control my eating and my exercise. I have good reason to believe my body is very responsive to that. So I walk out of here feeling cured, when in fact, I’m quite sick. The human mind is so strange.

(I know this board is made up of twenty-somethings, but any words on Lipitor would be welcome.)

Eric: Nothing profound. One comment, though. It appears to me that my Lutheran friends make the assumption that Lutheran unity on all issues is duplicated in Calvinism. For instance, Josh tells me the Calvinism he reacts against comes from John Gerstner Calvinism. My first thought is, “Gerstner is a good representative of a kind of Calvinism, but I don’t know 1 Calvinist in 100 that is a “Gerstner” Calvinist.” Same with Piper. He’s a whole different flavor of Calvinist. The various Reformed groups- OPC, PCA, Ethnic Reformed- all have very different flavors of Calvinism. Then you go to CredoBaptist Calvinists like Sovereign Grace and Founders…it’s completely different again. Steve Brown and John Macarthur. Both conservative evangelical Calvinists, but different as night and day. The faculty of Calvin College and the faculty of Westminster seminary are all Calvinists, but they are very diverse on cultural issues as well as theology.

All this to say that Lutherans obviously have a necessary doctrinal unity (see young earth creationism, for instance) that Calvinism doesn’t have, and when pointing out something about the theology of Calvinism- like a “trust” in limited atonement or double predestination, the Lutheran is soon going to be arguing with a large portion of the gallery who, while perhaps not denouncing those beliefs, will have great exceptions and unique versions of interpretation. The Lutheran may be RIGHT about what Calvinism is on paper, but he will be wrong about how it is lived and worked with by those who claim it.

Example: Josh frequently cites a passage from Berkhof that says, in effect, you are saved by obedience. Josh quotes this a lot, and he should. If that is what Berkhof meant, it’s wrong. And there are Calvinists- Macarthur, Piper- who have been guilty of saying that or coming quite close when not being careful. But then Michael Horton corrects them. So does Steve Brown. So do dozens and dozens of grace loving, cross centered, Jesus trusting balanced Calvinists. To say that nne confessionally serious Calvinist theologian said it, therefore that is the view (or should be the view) of all other consistent Calvinists, isn’t going to work. I can’t speak for your side of the fence, but our side doesn’t have- or want- that level of unity.

Maybe Richard Mouw’s “Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport” would be a good read to make this point. Mouw is to Gerstner like I am to Jesse Jackson.

As some of you know, I’m a seminary student. Right now I don’t know why the hell I am (at one point I felt called to the ministry, but so many doors are slamming in my face I just don’t know anymore) but that’s a different subject. I’m also a pretty good student. I’m not saying this to brag, but I carry a pretty good GPA (about 3.8). As many of you know, a big part of seminary is writing. I could not have a GPA in that range if I were not a good writer, including theology, biblical studies, and the like. I’ve had some tell me that I should be a writer, and I would if they made any money at all.

When I get on the BHT, for some reason I can’t write worth crap. That is especially true when it comes to theology. Now, I have strong opinions about certain aspects of theology. But sometimes when I come to the BHT I’m just lost. Maybe I just think that some things don’t matter as much as some people think they should, so I don’t care as much. Terms get thrown around that I either don’t know or don’t care about (examples: monergism, supralapsarianism just to name a couple).

I don’t think it’s that important anymore that I identify myself as this brand of Christian or that brand of Christian. I don’t think it’s that important if you’re a Calvinist or an Arminian or something in between. I’m not even that concerned if I’m labeled an evangelical anymore. Some might call me a liberal, but there are things about liberalism I just can’t buy. At my seminary, I actually come across as rather conservative. I really don’t think other people should get overly concerned about keeping their Calvinist credentials or their evangelical membership card. I’m tired of all the crap. I just want to be a Christian.

Sometimes I feel like I’m on a different planet. I love theology, but the theology discussed here doesn’t do a lot for me about 80% of the time. I don’t get into theology that’s just a bunch of unrelated scriptures thrown together to try and form some kind of coherent doctrine or series of doctrines. There was a time when I thought Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” was da bomb, and now I regard it as a big lump of uncreative proof-texting. I think even the beloved creeds may need to be questioned sometimes, and that people shouldn’t be so quick to kick someone out of the Christian tent if they have a slightly different view of, say, the Trinity.

I don’t know why I’m saying all this. I’m glad I’m a BHT fellow and I want to stay that way (I’m sure i-Monk came really really close to kicking me out a couple of times) but sometimes I get a little lost. Which is to say that I agree with Michael’s point about sometimes being sick of theology and just wanting to talk about Jesus. Jesus. Now there’s something to talk about!!

Just remember….I didn’t bring this up ;)

Eric has laid down quite a challenge to the Lutheran doctrine of assurance. When someone explains to me what it is that I really believe, I can’t help but speak up :) Have a beer, your man. More »« Less

What will Jesus smell like when He returns?

God Hates Shrimp

In addition to my two jobs and my work on the BHT, I am now also writing for an online theological forum called Aaron’s Beard (cf. Psalm 133). Lurker Aaron Adams, one of my best friends from college, has brought together many people who are of protestant, Bible-based faith, and we are in a form of discussion community.

None of us is terribly sophisticated (well… maybe one or two of the Calvinists are). Our aim is to hone each other for future ministry/academic endeavors.

It’ll be updated monthly, and it can be found at http://www.aaronsbeard.org. Please feel free to drop on by, read the articles, and register for the discussion board!

At the very least, please let me know how you think I’m doing! ;-)

Hey, Herr Rigney! Didn’t you go to EKU? They hung tough with UK this afternoon. Good thing I picked Louisville to do better than UK :-)

Well, I’m once again attempting to find some CCM I would enjoy. I got a couple CDs from the Library.

long line of leavers by Caedmon’s call: This one wasn’t too bad. If I was in a folky mood, I could see wanting to hear some of these songs again, which is quite rare for me and CCM. I liked the Derek Webb songs the best.

illuminate by the David Crowder Band:I really did want to like this. I mean, the guy looks like a cross between Napoleon Dynamite and a Civil War colonel; how cool is that? It just didn’t do anything for me. To me, this kind of music is in kind of a musical No-Man’s-Land. It has the contemporary P&W lyrics, but the style is a bit too personal and idiosyncratic for congregational singing. And it’s a bit too churchy polite to work as rock for me. I respect what he’s trying to do, and more power to him. He has a rock band, and he is using that to play worship songs. I think that’s far superior to having a church service, and using that to have a rock concert. It’s just not something I want to listen to.

I’m not trying to rip on CCM bands. As a musician myself, I know it’s tough. I’ve never worked in the CCM business, but from everything I hear it’s way more restrictive and image-conscious than the secular business. I know it’s a lot harder for me to write a good song that’s explicitly Christian that one that’s about whatever. It seems like I have this internal creative inhibitor that kicks in. There is some CCM music that I will listen to if I want to hear something positive spiritually, but after walking as a Christian for 15 years I have yet to find a CCM album that I would choose to listen to for music’s sake. I’m not blaming anybody, I just think that’s a bit of a shame.

Bill: “Blasphemy?” “Idolatry?” Whoa. These are expressing more than just your feelings. These are serious, fellowship-breaking words. We’re not talking about followers of Zoroaster; these are followers of Christ. I can’t explain why I feel compelled to come to their defense (which they certainly don’t need). All I can say is that I think my fellow Catholics deserve to be heard on this subject from their perspective. I certainly don’t understand the role of Mary in their theology. But I’m willing to listen to a reasoned discussion of it and how they understand it fits into revelation and the context of the gospel. And I say this not because I’m particularly interested in Mary but because I think our Catholic brethren deserve our respect and forbearance on doctrines that are not part of our tradition. They have their own post-Vatican II issues that mirror a lot of the wackiness in Protestant churches, but they consistently generate some of the most sober-minded and kind-hearted missionaries, intellectuals, and pastors (both ordained and lay). Chesterton, Tolkien, Muggeridge, and Wojityla are as fallen as the rest of us, but when it comes to showing the richness, the majesty, the beauty, and, what I think is most lacking in my fellow Protestants (present company excepted), the playfulness of God, they tower over most others on my bookshelf.

Lots of faith traditions have things that I don’t agree with, but can live with. Incense? Weird, unnecessary, but nothing to get in a twist over. Robes? Not my thing, but knock yourself out if you like them. Baptize infants? Pretty strongly disagree there, but I respect the why of it. I don’t really believe it compromises the Gospel. Don’t eat meat on Fridays? Good. More for me. Handle rattlesnakes in your service? Fine, you’ll be dead soon and I won’t have to worry about you.

Marian Mythology? Blasphemy. A dilution (at best) of the Gospel. Idolatry. I don’t have enough words to describe how I feel about it.

The only comfort I take in it is that every Catholic I have ever spoken with about Mariology doesn’t believe it. Serioulsy. Every single one. No, it’s not alot of people and only qualifies as anecdotal at best, but it’s something.

Did anyone watch the PDL segment on CNN last night? I did not.

Michael, I had a close friend at the time I became a believer that had decided to become a Buddist, which wasn’t weird considering he spent a lot of time in Boulder CO. When he would get really pissy about Christianity he’d start out by saying something like; “Yeah, I hate that sort of Calvinistic BS that says…”. This friend saw Christianity from the point of of either (I can never remember) George Bernard Shaw or Bertrand Russell who said; “Christianity, great idea, too bad no one’s tried it.”

Personally/professionally, I’m finding that unless I can explain a theological point to someone mild mental retardation it’s pretty useless. I’m not saying I need a pragmatic gospel when I say that, I’m saying I need to be able to simply explain the gospel of hope in Jesus that we’ve all been given. If you can’t explain that in words of two syllables or less then yes, you need a life.

Finally, the part about virgin adoration I can never understand is why being a virgin is preferable to not being a virgin. Explain to me exactly how marital sex defiles someone, then explain to me how the mother’s sexual activity after a child passes through the birth canal affects the child (at least physically). Where does scripture condemn sexual activity in the context of marriage? This is the sort of theology that comes from religious sexual opression (social worker talking here), and I’m thinking that maybe other sorts of weird beliefs can come out of this sort of thinking, like maybe religious leaders should remain celebate and not defile themselves with sexual behavior. Do you see how something like that, should it happen, could potentially incite sexually abusive behavior and predation on the part of it’s practitioners? (ironic jn)

We are created to be sexual (male and female He created them)—get married—enjoy. I’m sure Miryam and Yosef did, obediantly, after the miraculous birth of their first son…if you were God would you want to grow up around a couple that never enjoyed the close, physical bliss that marital love brings?

Okay, so there’s a huge debate as to who actually sang the Magnificat, and for whatever reason, the Catholic Church ties it in with the belief that Mary was ever-virgin. I am going to side with those who say it was Elizabeth and not Mary. I could go into the Greek grammatical reasons why I say this, but I won’t right now. Yes, it’s beautiful poetry. Yes, Mary is blessed (although if Elizabeth sang the Magnificat, every generation calls her blessed, as well). Mary’s singing of this song is a huge deal in Catholic circles, for some reason. But I don’t buy it.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is a somewhat romantic idea (not for Joseph), but many theologians take it so far as to say that when Jesus was born, a certain tell-tale sign of her virginity was left undisturbed. Where was that in the Bible? Was Jesus fully human or not? From what I’ve seen of Catholic theology (and, to be fair, Luther’s and Calvin’s as well) surrounding this issue, most of them have seemed empty and based entirely on “could-bes,” not definites. In fact, most of the arguments I hear go contrary to normal Greek grammar.

Why does this issue matter? It really doesn’t—at least not as far as my own faith is concerned. If she was, she was. But there has been nothing to lead me believe that she would not have a normal sex life after Jesus was born. Beforehand, she was a virgin, no doubt. That is the power of God. That she might have remained one even after that… while she was married… You’re really pushing the bounds of reason beyond what I’m willing to accept.

Dave has a good post about altar call manipulation and spam.

Ochuk doesn’t have permalinks [edit] Ochuk has permalinks, so go down to “Speech in praise of my church.” It’s a good post from someone choosing to NOT attend Piper’s church.

Boundless has a new look.

One church’s statement of the “Simple Gospel.”

Barb has Rich Lusk on Baptisimal Regeneration.

There are times I get so bored with reformed theology, I could break things. It just about drives me up the wall. Two incidents today. A conversation with a well-meaning brother who is somewhere between knowing it all, but actually knowing very little. And an exchange with a friend that reminded me of how much some people dislike anything called Calvinism, and how it represents all that can be wrong with Christianity, at least as some see it. At the end of all this, I don’t want to debate it, read about it, or hear about it. I am bored with it. BORED with it. I have thought it ALL a thousand times and I don’t want to think about it again.

Jesus is interesting. Theology is really boring. And mostly just tells me about the psychological condition of those of us who spent large amounts of time talking about it. We need to get out a LOT more.

Other than all of the wonderful things I’ve learned from my brethern at the tavern I suck at theology. I don’t have the right mind for it (or maybe the “left” mind?!?). But I do know psychology, regardless of the “Christian Flavored” words sprinkled on top of Warren’s words, what I heard him teach was pop psychology, not theology.

On another note; theology brings us stuff like perpetual virginity, psychology wonders why the h-ll that would be a good thing.

I think one can see the evolution of much in evangelicalism in the leading personalities who represent various eras. I would say you could track evangelical history and cultural impact through these chronological leaders:

Finney: Sectarian. Revivalism. Methodologically oriented. Theology conforms to methodology. Repudiates the Reformation. American.
Spurgeon: British. Popular, but theological. In touch with the Reformation. Church oriented. Highly Biblical. Innovative, but Gospel centered. (If Spurgeon had come to America and started churches, much would have been different in evangelicalism, in my opinion.)
Moody: Popular, much less theological. Finney vs Spurgeon= Finney’s tendencies win, and evangelicalism is forever changed. Emphasis on the “Love of God.” Music employed to move emotions. Parachurch oriented. Anecdotal. Anti-intellectual.
Sunday: Brazenly American. Moralistic. Highly anti-intellectual. The imagery of war and crusades. Invitationalism and decisionism honed. The bottoming out of evangelicalism (and the soon ascendency of Azusa St. Pentecostalism as a result)
Graham: A distinctive evangelical identity. Southern American, but international in his maturity. An emphasis on essentials and cooperation. An evolution from the style of Moody/Sunday to his own more reasoned, softer style. Apocalyptic. Arminian Gospel. Invitationalism. Altar calls and counseling. Multiple ministry methods, including media. Theology is lite, but respectable. Missions oriented. Parachurch oriented.
Warren: Pragmatism. Church oriented. Church starting. The “Wal-Marting” of theology, i.e. theology only matters as it causes churches to grow. Methodologically sophisticated. Deephasizing atonement and Gospel. Using culture, especially psychology to make salvation understandable to “seekers.”

Prediction: Warren, Osteen, Jakes are the new wave of a pragmatized, psychologized, substantially pentecostalized evangelicalism. Numbers and size of churches/ministres are now king. Media saturation is now possible. Political culture in America will give these men unprecedented audiences.

Just think of this: Could any political leader of our country write a book that 25 million people would read?

it’s no wonder Joseph died early.

Paul Proctor- who is clearly near the far right edge of the galaxy- is outraged at the Warren LHJ piece. If you can overlook the moonbat endorsements, decide for yourself what you think.

[edited]

Jesse: You’re clearly going to join the RCC, and probably soon, so I say this not for your benefit. I’ve wasted enough time answering silly side-issues with people who want to pretend the justification-by-faith-alone elephant just isn’t there.

But for others: The early church didn’t beging screwing up as soon as the apostles set their pens down. They didn’t wait nearly that long! Of course, most of the epistles are corrective, addressing errors in the early church, and Peter and Paul tussled over the proper role of Gentiles in church, and Pete came out on the wrong side!

I don’t give a fig if Martin Luther and John Calvin and Augustine or even Peter and Paul believed that Jesus was born during a pain-free delivery that left Mary “intact,” that’s just stupid and irrelevant. The arguments in favor make about as much sense as saying, “There is nothing in Scripture that expressly denies that Paul had four arms,” and turning it into a major point of doctrine that Paul had four arms. So what? Who cares? If Mary didn’t have sex, that was her mistake.

I don’t waste time arguing such silly issues when there are so many more important ones, including the ridiculous and unbiblical teaching of the immaculate conception, which runs entirely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“What is truth?” when the state is all-powerful and can decide the way things will be? Why does this question matter in a time when we can recline in luxury to dispassionately debate it? Or is that the only time it matters? What can we add to our understanding of the nature of truth such that we cannot be satisfied with the words of Jesus in John 14:6? Right there in the gospel of John is the most profound conception of truth ever formulated and yet evangelical apologists never tire of calling us to take up arms in defense of propositional truth. Recent posts and links have been provoking me to post on this subject, but Mohler’s most recent article, “Modernity’s Assault on Truth,” has sent me over the edge.

Is the propositional form of communication the only or the best way to convey truth? There is no doubt that contemporary accounts of truth hold propositional logic as central. One would have to have very good reasons to question this hegemony. And even with very good reasons there are strong disincentives to seriously pursuing the critique of the proposition. Before I present what I think are the very good reasons to dethrone (but not abolish) propositional truth from Christian thought, I want to mention the disincentives. These are fairly easy to see in Colson’s response to McLaren and Mohler’s claim that “truths…reduced by…anti-propositionalism…[are] something less than biblical Christianity.” In the view of these and like-minded thinkers, critique of the notion of propositional truth is equivalent to discarding propositions. I have to wonder whether this is willful obfuscation.

One disincentive is that to many, challenges to the supremacy of propositional truth imply that the alternative is some form of epistemic relativism or subjectivism. Propositional truth is presumed to be the privileged vehicle for Objective, Absolute, We’re-Not-Kidding-Around Truth. I say ‘presumed’ because I don’t think I’ve ever seen a positive argument for this linkage. It seems self-evident to these folks that the alternative to propositional truth is the slippery slope of subjective, private feelings. So if anyone proffers a critique of propositional truth, it is most often heard with extreme suspicion of the critiquer’s motives. This is ironic, as their own motivation is precisely what gets covered over by the defenders of absolute, objective truth. That’s the privilege that comes with being on the side of objectivity. You don’t have to disclose your personal investment in your views, expose its role in your position of power and authority, or assume responsibility when you come out of the quiet of your study. But can we not admire objectivity as an ideal while at the same time remaining humble? Isn’t there an ethical component to our knowledge that constrains us in the way we communicate to the public? Or are we such zealots that we believe that we speak in pure, time-transcendent openness, non-partisan in our loyalties?

A second disincentive is what I would call “market orthodoxy.” Many good people with a sincere and passionate desire to present the Christian religion in an intellectually serious way by means of a certain style of apologetics have written many books that have been published, printed, marketed, and sold to millions of (mostly evangelical) believers. This market saturation is a common phenomenon in academia, too. A certain “school” or fashionable interpretation becomes dominant in a field and a “church” develops around the school or interpretation to uphold its orthodoxy. If you worship in a manner pleasing to the “authorities,” your articles or books will be heard and possibly published. As far as I can tell, I think “market orthodoxy” dominates thinking and writing in evangelical Christendom. And I’m not saying there’s a conspiracy to suppress alternative views. I’m simply saying that the groupthink creates a tin ear when it comes to taking criticism seriously; they just don’t hear what’s really being said.

Now, to the reasons we ought to dethrone propositional truth. First, one of the goals of a formal system like propositional logic is to eliminate ambiguities in natural speech. It is thought that if precision and clarity can be achieved, then our truth-claims can transcend the limitations of natural language. But in the attempt to restrict speech to univocal propositions, we rely on the very same natural language whose vagueness and multivocity we seek to transcend, not least in the very construction of the formal system. Indeed, we cannot even understand a formal system except by translation, by translating the formulated truth-claims back into some terms of the natural language from which it originates. No proposition is true as such. It can only be judged true relative to an entire language of which it is a part. This language “holism” is closely connected to the second reason we ought to dethrone propositional truth.

“There is no proposition that can be comprehended solely from the content it puts forth. Every proposition is motivated.” Propositions function as answers to questions and to make sense of a proposition, one must understand its motivation in terms of prior questions. Just think of an experience you’ve had in which you didn’t understand a proposition (e.g., “N. T. Wright has a defective view of imputed righteousness”). In these situations, you overcome your lack of understanding by reconstructing the questions to which the propositions function as answers. One quickly discovers the web of questions linked to even more questions. Speech cannot be reduced to its propositional content. Propositions are not primitive; truth is not assured by formulating a system of true beliefs from atomic propositional building blocks. Propositions presuppose questions, which themselves can only be understood in terms of prior questions. We apprehend truth within this ever-present and unending play of question and answer. We do not begin with some context-independent “first truths” and then deduce all the other truths from this supposed foundation. Only philosophers and systematic theologians think they can do that :-)

OK, here comes the payoff. More »« Less

Why do we accept the doctrines of the Trinity formulated by a church that’s also professing the exaltation of Mary?

It’s called discernment. It’s the same thing we’re doing when we talk about what Warren gets right and what he gets wrong. Same for Piper. Luther. Calvin. Lewis. Good grief, people were getting things wrong before the apostles put their pens down. The apostles were getting things wrong themselves.

Why does anyone care if Mary was a virgin? Because sex is dirty and Mary wouldn’t sully herself doing something dirty. It exalts her. But wait, that’s not good enough. She was born without sin. How do we know? Trust us. We’re THE CHURCH. We’re protected from error. Who says? We do. But wait there’s more! She didn’t die and rot. That’s dirty. She was assumed. Mary jumps up another notch. Pretty soon she’s the queen of heaven. Co-mediatrix. Our Mother who art in heaven. Who’s Jesus? The guy upstairs that will listen to his mother, so go to the Mother in prayer, and she’ll see that her Son toes the line.

This is the last I’m going to say about Mary or anything related for a while. The site I linked to offers a very good Biblical argument that the people called Jesus’ brothers in the Bible are not in fact sons of Mary. As commenters pointed out, this doesn’t exactly demonstrate her perpetural virginity, it just knocks out one of the major Protestant counter-arguments. To actually find positive affirmations of her virginity, we have to go to early church sources, which is something that most of us aren’t willing to do.

Michael said that the early church was wrong about a lot. This is the Protestant position, but I’m finding it problematic. If the early church got so much wrong (Mary, the sacraments, the saints, church government), then they must have set about making things up willy-nilly immediately after the Apostles put their pens down. And if that’s the case, how can we trust the things they got right? How can we trust a Bible transmitted to us by a body that had long since abandoned its teachings? Why do we accept the doctrines of the Trinity formulated by a church that’s also professing the exaltation of Mary?

And most importantly, if the Apostolic teachings were lost just a handful of years after the Apostles, how can they possibly be found again at a 1500-year remove?

I’m yet to see a Protestant source that seriously answers these questions. Mostly we assume that having the Bible means we can ignore Church history and what the early church actually believed.

DISCLAIMER: I am not casting aspersions on the motivations of Warren, Dobson, or anyone else. This is sheer speculation.

In recent times, I have been watching how in Europe and Canada the preaching of the Gospel is coming under attack with “hate speech” laws and the like. I believed, and still do, that we may well see the same thing here soon. But WHAT IF the bigger threat isn’t from the left?

Let’s look at a couple points.

1. The seeker-driven agenda is growing, and there are many who think that if you criticize it you are opposing God’s will.

2. The evangelical right is growing in influence, and there are many who think that it is God’s will to Christianize, (or bring back values, or however you want to put it) the nation through the political process.

Let’s fast forward 10-20 years. What is these trends continue and converge? What if the seeker-driven American church has gained great political power? Is it inconceivable that it would pressure or persecute noncomformist Christians? You don’t have to hold to “Left Behind” eschatology to see the possiblity. Misguided and even well-meaning Christians will use ungodly methods against their brethren to accomplish what they think is God’s will. It happens just about every time Christians hold the political power. Many of our Reformation heroes did it. The Puritans did it.

I’m not saying I think this what will happen, I’m just saying…

>>He [Mohler] wants the stage and the SBC leadership has been willing to give it to him. Therefore, the SBC gets a pass.>>

Michael, I think you are dead on with your assessment of Mohler. You can also add Patterson, Rankin, Land, et al to the list as well. I have to admit you are more balanced in your view of these guys than I can be because of my personal feelings toward them (just being honest). But these guys have consolidated control to such an extent they only have two enemies left – those outside the SBC (McLaren) and their own people who may not be in lock step with the current regime.

It just occured to me that the reason CNN and now Fox are running with specials on the Purpose Driven Life is really simple: Ratings and dollars. This is that red state, evangelical audience that everyone wants. Not soccer moms, but megachurch moms and dads. We’re talking ratings and COMMERCIAL dollars. See who buys the advertising during tonight’s CNN PDL special. CNN isn’t stupid. When Passion was in the news, they made bucks off of it. Same now. Of course, evangelicals will just continue saying the book is anointed.

Mohler calls today’s essay “Modernity’s Assault on Truth,” but the critique of Modernity pretty quickly turns into more blasts at postmodernism.

In the name of narrative some have discarded propositions, and are thus unable or unwilling to make any statement of propositional truth. In the name of pluralism some have excluded the existence of absolute truth, and have thus abdicated the foundation of Christian truth, only to land in various relativisms. In the name of perspectivalism, some have rejected the unity of truth and embraced unconditional subjectivity. In order to gain distance from “foundationalism,” many evangelicals have abandoned the foundation.

Evangelicals are faced with a stark choice: either to join the postmodern descent into a truthless, foundationless confusion, or to stand with conviction on the truth of God’s Word. Of course the glory of God can never be captured in propositional statements; but neither can it be denied that the God’s glory is seen in the propositional form of Christianity’s revealed truth claims. Christians understand truth to be more than propositional, but never less than propositional. Jesus died for sinners. He rose from the dead. And He is coming again to judge the world. Make no mistake—when those truths are reduced by postmodern anti-propositionalism, what remains is something less than biblical Christianity.

This is increasingly leaving me with the feeling that Mohler’s critique of modernity and postmodernism are substantially straw men that neglect more pressing issues in the SBC now. “Postmodernity” is apparently anyone who isn’t comfortable with fundamentalism or Calvinism. Mohler identifies “Modernity” with secular humanism, but is that all there is to it?

What about the “Life Management Jesus” being sold in every Lifeway store in America? How about “Life Coach Jesus and His Twelve Principles for Success” being hawked in thousands of pulpits? (because “unbelievers want to hear about something they can use on Monday morning.) Isn’t this a kind of modernism that Mohler should critique?

I supported the conservative resurgence in the SBC, mostly because my mentor Dr. Timothy George did so. Today, I see leaders with so little capacity for self-criticism that it’s frustrating. (With a few exceptions, like Dr. Jimmy Draper.) I see a dishonest standard when it comes to what is really eating away at who we are and what we do. Mohler continues to bash at Spong and McLaren, while Warren and the Pragmatariat rule the day in Mohler’s own SBC. Go figure.

Larry King’s Interview with Rick Warren on PDL. The CNN PDL Special is Wednesday at 10 p.m.

Nobody stresses about a simple trip to the doctor like I do. It’s ridiculous. Especially when the forecast is for snow.

After several days of reading around in them, I have a first impression of McLaren’s books: Zondervan is using him as a figurehead for this movement. It’s an attempt to create that market niche. Zondervan thinks there is money to be made with this emergent thing. As a writer, he’s really a minor leaguer, and the books are really a stew with so many ingredients that never come together into a dish. The feeling is like a detailed map, but you aren’t really ANYWHERE on it.

Russell Moore on Bugs Bunny and Brian McLaren.

The most overplayed card in the hand of the RCC is the idea that the antiquity of the church somehow insures that moonbat interpretations are actually truthful interpretations. The ideas that God brought Mary into the world immaculately, that she was sinless and impeccable, that she was perpetually virgin and assumed into heaven, ALL depend on the Roman Church having the inside story by way of the antiquity of the church. The church admits that these doctrines cannot be fully sustained by the explicit teaching of the scripture, but must have the supplement of church tradition and church pronouncement to become matters of Christian belief.

This link contains an excellent summary of contemporary Catholic teaching about Mary. The extended quote from John Paul II is quite comprehensive and accessible. When I read it, it is hard not to sense that the church is highly invested in all that its doctrine of Mary does for the church. Mary has become necessary for the RCC to be itself. It has become dependent on these Marian doctrines as doctrines of devotion. Mary makes God accessible. She draws Christians to Christ through herself.

This may have the argument of antiquity on its side, but it is simply unsustainable scripturally without the assumption that the ancient church knows what it is talking about before we start talking about the Bible.

Those who go to the RCC are usually well aware that the RCC says “Trust Mother Church, and be saved from the uncertainties of Protestantism.” It’s quite appealing to think of how the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church will exempt us from the zoo of Protestant Biblical argument, perversion and distortion. But on Mary, the church has to go so far beyond the scriptures, and ask for so much of our trust, that I simply can’t go. The early church was wrong. A lot. It isn’t to be trusted more than the New Testament.

Commentor Phil brings up an interesting question, what would Jesus drive?

What is this? Going soft on PDL and translating Chick tracts without even bothering to make fun of them? Why don’t we just invite Osteen into the bar and get it over with? (JN)

So I’m going to throw a bomb and see if someone can save me from my impending apostasy. Take a moment and read this Scriptural defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, especially the beginning and the responses to objections at the end. I simply did not believe this thing about “Mary, wife of Cleophas” when I first read it, so I looked up all of the relevant verses myself. Now I feel all naked, finding that those papists have read the Bible more closely than me, and that they might actually be right. Who wants to argue against it from Scripture?

I also can’t help but notice how calm and reasonable the Catholics sound next to people like this. Why must Protestants turn into Michael Moore when it comes time to talk about Mary?

Also, puppets are demons.

Scott, from where I sat (way up in the back row) when I visited Saddleback Church a few weeks ago, Pastor Warren was a motivational speaker, not a minister of the Gospel. I don’t give a rip about styles, personally I lean toward the more casual most of the time, my fuss was with the content.

I listened for an hour or better to someone using Christianese to convey the motivational message of great leadership. I’m not saying that some of what he had to say wasn’t helpful, I’m just saying that all evening (except during the songs) I didn’t hear much about the Gospel. Sure, he said “Jesus” and quoted Jesus, but he was talking about a Jesus that wears a three-piece suit, drives a BMW and wears power-colored ties to high-pressured sales meetings in Southern California.

OK, I’ve let Rick Warren marinte for a while. I’ve thoguht about him and his little empire he’s built, and about the effect he’s had on Christianity. I’ve filtered it through scripture, and after much thought, here’s what I’ve come up with:

It’s not all that bad.

(Ducks an empty bottle from Michael’s direction… looks up as Michael says something about it being a Coors Light and my statement wasn’t worth a worthier beer bottle…)

Seriously. OK – here’s where I draw the line that I think Warren and, really, most of his followers and imitators have crossed… There is nothing wrong with a church or life model that encourages people to come to the Gospel. If that means that I have to lay down some of my traditions, then so be it. If that means that the preacher is no longer dressed in his robes, behind lit candles, singing songs that are older than my college English History professor, then so be it. I’ll give it up, if it brings people to Jesus.

The problem that I have with the PDL and PDC mindset is that they’re allowing the wrong purpose to drive them. In the end, they are ultimately driven by a purpose that is centered on growth and special effects instead of being centered on the Gospel. It’s like the difference between the original Star Wars Trilogy and the new one. The original trilogy was centered around a fairly unified message: Good will overcome evil. The new trilogy may have a similar message, but it’s been muddled by special effects and selling Jar Jar Binks toys to 6-year olds.

My point is that anything that we do MUST not just include the Gospel – the Gospel must be the purpose that drives us.

Da na na na… Da na na na… Shake yo’…

Chick Tract Translator

That’s right, boys and girls… we here at Translation Industries return today with a brand-spanking new edition of the Chick Tract Translator, and sure to form, Jack has graced us with a brand-new tract called “Something in Common”. Frankly, I hate doing these types of tracts, because they’re actually what Jack Chick does WELL. It’s the simple Gospel, with no global conspiracies involving the Masons and the Catholic Church teaming up with the gays to send you to Hell with Christian rock music. But it’s why I’m here, folks… I’m yer freakin’ clown, here to entertain you.

That’s right. I’m just like Joe Pesci, without the money, talent, filmography, or stunningly good looks.

Our story opens with a few things we all have in common. According to Jack, we all eat, sleep, live somewhere, get sick, and die. On that cheerful note, Jack reminds us that we all have another similarity: we all come from the same parents. Although Jack does take the time to remind us that the parents we come from aren’t Jumbilla and Ook-Ook the orangutan couple, I’d just like to point out that Ook-Ook looks an awful lot like my dad.

But I digress…

We all come from Adam and Eve, but we also all come from Noah, his wife, their 3 boys, and their wives, which means we all came out of the ark. Goody. I can’t wait until Indiana Jones comes and discovers me in that big pit in Egypt with all those snakes and then they drop Karen Allen in on us and then there’s the cool guy who became Gimli.

That’d be cool.

Jack also tells us that we come in a variety of colors, which is kinda odd, because when I look at his comic, everyone’s white. Except the chick in the burka. We don’t know what color she is. Anywho – we also all have emotions. Yay. This is a perfect segue for Jack to ask us why we do bad things. He says it’s because we’re all sinners. Some of us lie. Some of us get angry. Others of us read the NIV. And it’s all Tarzan’s fault.

Yep. Tarzan. Him and Cheetah. Probably Jane and Boy, too. Johnny Weissmuller has led the entire human race to hell in a handbasket.

So Tarzan and Jane gave us all sin by honkin’ down on a couple of what appear to be pears with serious cases of acne. And the bad news is that all us sinners are headed straight to hell. We’re riding a giant arrow over a pit o’ fire… fortunately, there’s a way out. Unfortunately, this is where Jack actually preaches the Gospel, and I just can’t make fun of it.

Jack, ya done good.

Mere Christianity is hard to beat.
More Apologetics oriented: Long Journey Home, Os Guinness
Essential Christianity, Jim Berkley
The Christian Life, Sinclair Ferguson
Five Minute Theologian, Rick Cornish
Decide For Yourself, Gordon Lewis
Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, R. C. Sproul (excellent book)
Fundamentals of the Faith, Peter Kreeft (Also excellent)

PDL is not a survey of Christian belief, and doesn’t claim to be. It’s an odd book in that I am not sure who is audience really was supposed to be.

Since PDL is on everyone’s mind today, what books would you recommend for a beginning Christian? Mere Christianity of course is one, but I am looking for something more doctrinal: justification, Trinity, worship, fellowship, etc. Some pure milk of the word, not watery soy substitute.

A very complete collection of Christian symbolism, explained. Good thing to keep in your files. Artists would enjoy it.

With the media going full speed ahead in promoting PDL as the most significant book in recent history, I was reminded of other evangelical books that have made similar splashes.

Top of the List: Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth. Numbers are hard to get straight with this book, but purchased and free copies appear to be over 30 million copies. It was easily one of the most significant books of the 1970’s. It changed evangelicalism profoundly, and really influenced all of American Christianity towards a kind of dispensational eschatology, and more significantly, towards a kind of historical, cultural pessimism. Between the Scopes Trial and The Late, Great Planet Earth, evangelicals felt they were fully justified in abandoning culture.

Right alongside of this are the 55 million copies of the Left Behind series. LB is an echo of the same kind of “Bible and newspaper” apocalypticism, with similar results.

In that sense, Purpose Driven Life is a much more positive book, and one that should have some positive effects on evangelicals. Despite the mediocrity of the presentation, Warren has written a “Wal-Mart Theology” for a Wal-Mart time in history. PDL is the book one would expect with the most prominent evangelical in the world being President Bush. He’s the perfect example of the kind of Christian PDL is promoting. If anyone has the “purpose driven” approach to faith, it’s President Bush. Warren understands the soccer moms and Nascar dads that make up Red State culture, and PDL provides an apologetic of sorts, a “non-systematic, devotional” theology that explains what evangelical faith means.

In comparison to the usual Charismatic/Pentecostal/Fundamentalist voices that speak through evangelical publishing, Warren is solidly evangelical and middle of the road. I am grateful that he, rather than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, has the ear of the public. With Osteen ascending, there is some hope that Warren will provide more Gospel in his books (though I want to be clear that Warren’s Gospel presentations are woefully muddled and deficient in their explanation. But they do lead you to the real Jesus. However, his recent column in Ladie’s Home Journal demonstrated that Warren may use his audience power to say little about the Gospel, choosing to draw readers in to his books or other presentations. One hopes Warren learns from Billy Graham that if you are a famous evangelical, you should not be afraid to sound like one in any media setting.)

It is the perfect book for a post-literate, consumeristic church. It’s the perfect book for a church that really doesn’t like theology, can’t make up its mind about Bible translations and doesn’t want to argue about homosexuality and women in ministy. It is the pop and fizz version of Mere Christianity. In fact, realizing that Mere Christianity and Purpose Driven Life really set out to do much of the same thing will demonstrate what has changed in evangelicalism in half a century. Both are books that seek to make the essence of Christianity understandable to the masses. Both are written by men whose skills at communication are highly valued. Both have the non-Christian as the audience, though Warren’s book is often criticized for not being more plainly evangelistic.

PDL is a book that is meant to take the reader into the church. That’s a good thing. It is also an optimistic book, with a strong emphasis on missions and vocation. That’s good as well. The theological, Biblical sloppiness and shallowness of PDL are the reasons the book is popular. If it had been more theologically correct and Biblically founded, it would never have gotten out of the evangelical ghetto and into the culture.

Warren has a via negitiva that should be noted. He built his church around what people DIDN’T LIKE about the churches they attended. In much the same way, PDL is a book that is written with an awareness of what NOT to write, and a purpose of providing what people WANT TO HEAR in the times in which we live. This isn’t The Cost of Discipleship. It’s not a biography of a great- but inimitable- Christian, like Born Again, Joni or Cross and the Switchblade. It’s not a trendy topical book on the end times or how to get wealthy. It’s miles ahead of the positive thinking pablum of Osteen or Schuller. As flawed and mediocre as PDL is as compared to hundreds of other books, it is by far the best “smash hit” Christian book to overflow into the culture in the last decade.

Yes, I said it. I apparently need my medication.

And the beat goes on....

...the beat goes on…

Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.

La de da de de

La de da de di

John 1:1-18 by Snoop:

Warning- there’s some profanity. Hopefully I have not lost my soul for eternity.

[Guys- I edited this because I do have a lot of OBI students and staff who visit the site. If you want to put the site of the translator, that would be great. Nothing personal. Thanks.]

That sound you heard at 9:19 am CST was my head exploding as I read the quote of the day. That, my friends, is one of the best examples of eisegesis I’ve seen. Ugh.

It’s been fun reading the BHT through the Shizzolator this morning.

Whistle blows. Yellow flag is thrown high in the air and lands at Michael’s feet. Referee turns to the home crowd for explanation of the infraction. Unsportsman like conduct, taunting, fifteen-yard penalty. Penalty is for deliberately taunting the tavern with Warren quote today. Michael undeterred knows his team will over come the lost yards and keeps pressing on.

Aaron: Where did your post go?

I once had a seeker sensitive pastor tell me that the rushing wind, etc in Acts 2 means we can do anything we need to do to draw a crowd and create excitement.

Michael asked me earlier today:

This is a fair question, and here is a longer response. I have so many thoughts in my mind, I could write about this for days, but I’ll just try to get the gist here. It will be easier if I just ramble a bit, so bear with me. Also, this isn’t a defense against any accusations, because nobody here accused me of anything. More »« Less

Tim Challies had an interesting discussion with CNN today. They are planning a one-hour special on Warren’s book, or something similar.

Welcome to Mark as a BHT fellow. I know several of you want in, but I am really going to be cautious on letting in commenters or lurkers who I don’t have a “feel” for at this point. Nothing personal.

Since we talked about music today, I am rerunning one of my favorite IM essays: Looney Tunes. (Yes, I know about the formatting quirk. Sorry.)

GetReligion has a post on the Hostage/PDL story.

I was born in Gary, Indiana and grew up near Peoria, IL. My Lutheran Sunday School teacher preached the Good News, and I repented and believed one night on my bed when I was eight or nine. After some very dark teen and young adult years, God made His prescence and truth known to me again at the age of 22.

After going back to the University of Illinois and graduating with a physics degree, I taught at a Christian high school, then was a professional guitarist before I got engaged and decided I didn’t want to house my family in a van. I have been married since 1998 to a beautful, God-fearing woman from Kenya. We live in Minneapolis and have a boy and a girl. I work as a database programmer. We fellowship at a local independent church with a young Piper-loving pastor.

I began my adult Christian life at the Vineyard, and after many spiritual and theological adventures I now maintain an uneasy coexistence between Reformation theology and mildly Charismatic practice. I am 70% convinced I actually speak in tongues. I am two classes into my MA in Theology from Covenant Theological Seminary. My favorite way to study is to read my theology text while enjoying a tasty ale, porter, or stout and pretend I am hanging out with Lewis. Outside of family, church, work and school I like reading, playing music, meeting new people and seeing new places, and playing corny Sci-fi computer games.

Warren’s take on the PDL miracle in Atlanta.

Has anyone heard about this?

Really…what is this world coming to?

Frankly, I think it’s ridiculous. Absolutely stupid.

Just sitting here realizing that every news channel and religious leader in America will now proclaim Warren/PDL as clearly anointed of God is making me physically ill.

What if she’d been a Mormon? A Roman Catholic? A Buddhist? An Atheist?

What if the book was A Course in Miracles? Seven Habits? Lord of the Rings? Goodnight Moon?

My head hurts.

I’ve been around the block, musically. I grew up in a church that sang camp-style praise and worship songs with a folk guitar and a piano (sometimes). I moved on to a church that had 30 minutes of repetative praise music coupled with a 30 minute message. From there, it was to a large SBC church that had about 20 minutes worth of music that ranged from praise and worship to hymnal stuff to Southern Gospel. Now, I’m at a PCA church that, according to my pastor, is completely unlike any other PCA church out there, with 3 hymns.

Really, in my humble opinion,