Does anyone have an understanding of why there seems to be a ‘disconnect’ between the percentage cost rise of a barrel of oil and a gallon of gas? It seems to me that there should be a direct relationship between the two.

More on ID: There’s a basic question that gets skipped over by the opponents of ID, and it’s similar to the question that Josh posed. Put simply, the one thing proponents of macro-evolution don’t want to have to answer is: Why does Occam’s razor not apply to Darwinian theory? As Josh pointed out, it’s a lot less work for them to pigeonhole ID proponents with those with a more obvious anti-evolutionary agenda than it is to actually engage the idea of intelligent design and have to deal with the substantive problems it raises about “macro-evolution strictly by natural selection.”

As for JS’s comments, I’ll confess to being only a modestly well-read layman and not a formal biologist. I’ll respectfully disagree that evolution is “foundational” to understanding biology, but I think it’s fair for those of us who favor ID to acknowledge that many of us do have an agenda; specifically, we’re challenging the “prior commitment … to materialism” that evolutionist Richard Lewontin acknowledged. Whether advocating the introduction of ID into high-school biology is a good strategy for that is up for grabs. I personally don’t think it will work, but I think it also needs to be pointed out that what really bugs Derbyshire about ID is that not that it challenges his particular pet theory of origins, but that it challenges his (self-admitted) philosophical (and, we might as well say, religious) commitment to atheism and materialism.

(Note to readers: By “materialism”, in that last paragraph, neither Lewontin nor I mean what Christians commonly think of when they hear someone described as a “materialist.” Rather, I’m referring to what Francis Shaeffer described as the belief system based on the assumption of “the unity of causes in a closed system.”)

JS: How is macroevolution “foundational”, as you say? What about these fields requires an assumtion of macroevolution?

Setting that aside, in the final analysis Derbyshire is not arguing for evolution per se so much as he is methodological naturalism. THAT is the premise that ID denies, and wants to examine critically. And I say, what harm can come of that? Is that really too “complex” for high schoolers to understand? And given the state of how all science is taught nowadays (and especially as Derbyshire would have it taught), by the time you get to the level where you can “debate” Darwinism you’ve already bought too far into it to really debate it!

I don’t treat public-school support of ID as a fundamental requirement of the faith, but I do say that there is no valid scientific reason why ID (properly defined, as Derbyshire does NOT do in his article) cannot be discussed in science classes – except on the basis of (anti)-religious and (pro-)naturalistic prejudices.

Hate to disappoint everyone, but I agree with pretty much everything said in the Derbyshire article that Dale linked.

His basic point, which is an excellent one, is that Darwinian evolution is foundational to all modern biology. Simply put, you cannot get anywhere in modern genetics, biology, anatomy, medicine, and the like unless you assume some sort of macroevolution, and Darwinism, for better or worse, is the entry-level theory for understanding these things. Darwinism has its problems, but just like the article said they are problems that can’t really be understood until you understand Darwinism itself. If anything, ID is a better option for college-level discussion, with students who understand the standard evolutionary model well enough to be able to see why it’s “irreducibly complex.”

I also don’t understand why Christianity requires that I support teaching ID in schools. I believe in one God, the Father, the Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things, seen and unseen. I don’t believe that he did it in six days. I don’t believe that he couldn’t use textbook evolution to do it, and as Michael has ably argued elsewhere, you can’t make this an article of faith.

>Whenever I see something that is large, formal and impersonal I can’t seem to help but believe that it’s not on the right track.

There are always questions, but the questions are about the Jesus movement in whatever form it takes. Some of those questions are about big churches. Some are about small, dying churches.

“Large” is relative and not necessarily bad, but there will always be questions. “Formal” isn’t a bad thing in many case. It really depends, doesn’t it? And “impersonal” is pretty subjective. I think we’ve really overplayed the “let’s all be one big happy family who all agree and all smile and all do things together and….and….” I mean, no one can live up to the levels of “community” that some people insist must exist for the church to be legit.

It certainly isn’t the case that every small, personal, informal expression of religion is inherently more “Jesus-faithful” than other expressions.

Douglas: I thought that’s what I was reading, but I said….”Nah…...That just can’t be.”

I just read that response. And it’s downright frightening.

Do you realize what he’s saying here?

(T)he clause (“one baptism for the remission of sins”) may indeed mean exactly what you say it means! but rather than it being a sign of orthodoxy, it is a sign that by the year 381 the false doctrines that would eventually form the backbone of Roman Catholicism were already beginning to creep into the established church, which in turn would eventually motivate Luther to begin the reformation!

So the interpretation of this clause of the Nicene Creed as believed by Reformed, Anglican, Presbyterian, and (with caveats to be provided by Josh) Lutherans, is in error – in fact, the insertion of this entire clause in the Nicene Creed was in error!

I wonder what else in the Nicene Creed Mr. Abanes and those he defends would want to revise…

What does it mean to “always be ready to give a reason?” Such a good point by Glenn at Common Grounds, and a good post by the Jolly One.

The reason I’m looking at this issue (responding negatively to ‘successful’ churches) is that I’m beginning to have a reputation with a couple of friends/co-workers of ‘being against whatever is popular’. They are starting to look at it as a combination of rebelliousness and oppositional defiance (we are after all a human services agency and quick to diagnose).

But somehow I can’t shake Jesus’ model for ministry from my mind, i.e., small, informal and intimate. Whenever I see something that is large, formal and impersonal I can’t seem to help but believe that it’s not on the right track.

Back in the day when Billy Graham was the most visible evangelical in the world with a “successful” ministry, Malcolm Muggeridge quipped: “If Jesus had been as famous as Billy Graham is, we never would have heard of Him.”

Update: Re. Abanes on baptism. I live in Valvoline country and this sort of reasoning is what we might call “viscosity breakdown.” This is usually brought on by excessive red-lining.

Abane’s defense of the doctrine of “Get baptized with your family members” is all about why some of us can’t ever see ourselves as part of the evangelical/SBC mainstream. Is this what Christian baptism was meant to be? “This time, I REALLY REALLY mean it/understand it/get it.”

First of all, the policy on baptism at Saddleback is not as flip, casual, and stupid as Scott Hill is desperately trying to make it. Re-Baptisms are for people who: 1) were baptized as infants/children, but they never really accepted Christ and were baptized as believers; 2) want to experience baptism with a family member (or members) for whom they have been praying and who have finally accepted Christ; 3) lived in a backslidden state so seriously that their first baptism years ago was perhaps not valid because they doubt the validity of their first profession of faith prior to that initial baptism (this is often the case of people, for example, who were raised in churches and viewed their “Christianity” as just the thing to do).

I’m not offended at Abanes. I defend Wright, etc with my best posts as well. But this baptism thing is just beyond my ability to sit still. Just say, “We baptize anyone who professes faith or wants to be baptized or rebaptized, without any real pastoral concerns about quick baptism or re-re-re-baptism.” Just say, “That’s what we do.” Lots of Baptists do it, and those of us- Baptist or not- who believe Baptism is once are probably going to be briefly freaked out. No big deal.

Mr. Abanes either has a lot of time on his hands, or is some sort of designated blogwarrior for Saddleback. He replicated his big response (and is currently engaged in the subsequent comment wars) over at Challies’ post on the Fide-O article as well.

Biased against “the successful?”

I’m sure its an issue, but let’s revisit some things that tend to get lost in the evangelical mushy mush mush.

1) Those with huge numerical success are deemed leaders. Therefore, they have a higher accountability for what they do. If I find out that Saddleback baptizes anyone in a family who wants to get in the water with another family member (or friend), then that needs to be pointed out as horrendous. If I did that at OBI, we would baptize 20-30-40 kids every time we baptized one.

2) The claims of the successful need to be examined because the successful frequently exaggerate and lie.

3) The methodology of the successful is going to be marketed as “approved by God.” That’s not a sound assumption. It may be that the successful are simply doing a better job at entertainment, appeals to pride or bribery.

4) The leaders of successful churches frequently ascend to the level of “apostle,” without deserving it. It’s easy to look like a celebrity when you’ve got the numbers and the power of an instant audience.

5) They may be successful, but they have no authority over my church or my ministry. I don’t care how many books they’ve sold. I’ll be thinking for myself. I’m tired of the hype men telling me what to think and who to imitate.

Wow. Is Abanes a full-time blogger now? I’m surprised at the length of that response.

Take another look at the post from Fide-O that Michael linked. Richard Abanes responded in defense of Saddleback.

Which brings up an interesting (though somewhat collateral) point in my mind. Is there something about the very nature of being ‘successful’ that raises or should raise red flags in the minds Jesus’ followers?

I ask this because sometimes I react negatively to ministries for no other apparent reason that they are big, successful and the fact that everyone is fawning over them. Is there an inherent problem with minstries being this visible or is it simply my sin that’s giving me grief?

Has anybody been following the Pastafarian series (links here and here) that Boing Boing has been running to skewer opponents of teaching evolution in schools? Am I wrong to find it funny?

Looks like it made the NYT.

John Derbyshire blows a gasket over ID.

This article is so wrong on so many points. Not only does he misdefine ID, his counterproposal for what should be taught as “science” is jaw-droppingly naive. And these errors are couched in an insulting torrent of insults and ad hominems.

It’s articles like this that serve as a good reminder that “conservatism” and “Christianity” (or sometimes, even common sense) are not as closely joined at the hip as some may believe.

Scott Hill’s post at Fide-O (I know, I know) on “Things I Learned At Saddleback” pretty much confirms everything I’ve heard. I am particularly distressed that Warren is probably counting these “family” baptisms (and re-re-re-re-baptisms) as legitimate baptisms.

Write this down: The success claimed by pragmatists is always distorted. I’m not saying the numbers aren’t real. I’m just saying that their claims of Biblical faithfulness are, in general, bunk, and they know it. Pragmatism succeeds because it entertains. End of story.

On the dynamic planet: Let’s see, what did we NOT have before sin? Rain. Wind. Barometric pressure. Storms. Gravity. The earth’s crust. Oceans. Tides…..

Where are the BHT old timers these days? We hardly hear from you. Post, and let us know you are alive! Don’t make us say insulting things to draw you out! (SW)

Wyman, what they said.

In a couple of my posts below, I spoke of natural evil. I think it is entirely appropriate to speak of devastating phenomena like hurricanes as evil when they snuff out creaturely life (human and otherwise). Are such events a consequence of the human Fall? I don’t think so. To say with the Bible that God is remaking the heavens and the earth is not the same thing as saying that he is repristinating a set of prelapsarian laws of physics under which injury and death could not occur. The sinless Adam could stub his toe as easily as the sinful Adam. Since he had a body like ours, he felt the same kind of pain. I agree with Douglas that thinking otherwise would be adding unnecessarily to the articles of the faith.

So what does it mean that God is refashioning the heavens and the earth? I think it is something that we cannot yet imagine, but which is suggested and alluded to in Isaiah 65, for example, with the wolf and lamb grazing together. This is not a return to some previous idyllic state. This is the complete makeover of creation from the ground up. This is new biology, new physics, new culture. It is not rewinding the clock and starting again. It is blowing up the clock and recreating what “time” means altogether. What we’ve got now, pre- and postlapsarian has been declared “Very Good.” All creation praises God now. What’s coming is better, somehow.

What we know about the new heavens and new earth is very limited. We’ll be embodied. I suppose this means some sense of “space,” some kind of sensuousness, some kind of “time” (assuming that we can speak of these new bodies “moving”). Pain and death are eliminated. This is inconceivable in our present form of bodiliness. I cannot yet imagine an Earth without creaturely destructive events like earthquakes and volcanoes and global extinction events like comet impacts, much less mundane hurts like splinters. Shrugs

But I do believe part of our reconciliation mission is to point others to that time of salvation. We fight against natural evil even while recognizing it is God-ordained. Disasters are not a time to grow weak at the knees. They are times for defiance and courage and redoubled efforts to make manifest what the rule of Christ is all about. We work to defeat or at least contain death and destruction. We work for shalom in a broken city, a broken nation, and a broken people.

Michael, isn’t creation itself negatively influenced by the effects of the fall? Does Romans 8 apply? I think of the effects as being twofold, 1) the initial ‘fall’ and 2) mankind’s subsequent and persistent mistreatment of creation…i.e., ‘failure to appropriately steward’.

Wyman, I don’t manage a church but I do manage people (which is afterall what comprises a church)...who can be full of complaints. The short version of my input is that you are ‘spot on’ in your assessment.

Wyman asks: “Do any of you think it’s ok to refuse to listen to anonymous complaints that are filtered through others? In my own case, I have two deacons who routinely come to me and say, “Now, I can’t tell you who came to me, but there are some people unhappy about…” It’s almost always petty, but I am coming more and more to resent how folks use deacons and others to hide behind. The problem with it is that you never know the context of the complaint, whether or not the person is one of the few constantly unhappy people that every group has, and how many are, in reality, complaining.”

Wyman, I would refer you to Doug Wilson’s post titled Brief
Notes on Anonymity. He has been the recipient of many “anonymous” charges.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between an anonymous recommendation (“change the color of the carpeting to…”) and an anonymous complaint against an elder (1Tim 5:19).

But IMO, if someone doesn’t have the conviction to come forward and talk about something in the light, it should be ignored.

pax,
Dale

Jeff: I’ve read reports on Venezuelan prisons, and the only person I’d willingly send there is Osama bin Laden (except for the fact that Hugo would probably arrange for preferential treatment for him)...

Michael: As I’m sure you’re aware, the pet prooftext for that theory is Romans 8:20-21. Now, whether or not these verses acutally prove that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was not passed and signed into Law until Adam bit the apple is another thing entirely. It has been said that we cannot comprehend the pre-fall order of nature, and that to attempt to extrapolate back from our natural laws to before the fall is “uniformitarianism”, which is the “mother of evolution”. To me, this is not only unwarranted by the texts of Genesis (which state some differences between then and now, but nothing on the order of a whole different system of physics), but merely a call for blind faith in a matter where Scripture does not call for such faith.

BTW, the whole conversation yesterday was for naught. God did not cause Katrina. We did, via global warming. (JN)

Wyman: What they said. Scripture calls us to deal with our brethren face to face. If they can’t bring themselves to do that, then they have no real cause for complaint.

Tommy: For taste per dollar, I’m a big fan of 12-year Glenfiddich. I can get a 750ml bottle for less than $30 at pretty much any liquor store in town any time, and it’s fantastic stuff.

I tend to pour a couple of fingers into a tumbler and either (1) stir it with an ice cube for a few seconds before disposing of the ice cube, or (2) dripping in a few drops of water off of my fingertips.

That’s it! No more water than that for me. The water does change the taste, so it’s worth adding, but not too much. It probably helps that my freezer creates long thin ice cubes that are easier to use for stirring.

A 1:1 ratio of Scotch to water is just tragic, man. Sip more slowly, and keep it much more neat! {:)}

Michael: Thanks for the post from Wilson. It was fantastic. The grace of God is overwhelming sometimes, which is why it bothers me so much when folks minimize sin. (As I believe we do when we try to describe judgment as something deserved by other people.) To think that God loved me while I was His enemy—it’s breathtaking, for sure. Liar, thief, adulterers, and on and on—such was me. Worse, these are activities that I cling to despite God’s overpowering mercy and love for me. Like a dog to vomit, how can I do this? May I become as uninterested in continuing in those activities as God is in hearing about them!

Can we do something to speed this along?

Wyman: You are correct. You should not listen to second hand complaints. Your deacons should make it clear that it isn’t their function to listen to or relay these complaints. I’m sure there are exceptions to this rule, but you need to make it a rule. This kind of thing tears churches apart all the time. It has torn our church apart more than once, until we finally got a pastor (an interim, at that) who simply put his hand up and refused to hear them.

I love Spurgeon, but can anyone cite a passage that says natural processes of a dynamic planet are the result of the curse of sin? Don’t we have plenty of passages that say those natural processes are demonstrations of God’s power?

Wyman: a,b and c are absolutely dead on. I get anonymous notes from staff about things they don’t like in chapel, and it sends me through the roof. Nothing is less compatible with Christian community than anonymity. It’s cowardly, dishonest and usually a very distorted observation to begin with. Talk to me, by name, person to person, like a man. I’m not a dog.

A practical, and somewhat pastoral, question: Do any of you think it’s ok to refuse to listen to anonymous complaints that are filtered through others? In my own case, I have two deacons who routinely come to me and say, “Now, I can’t tell you who came to me, but there are some people unhappy about…” It’s almost always petty, but I am coming more and more to resent how folks use deacons and others to hide behind. The problem with it is that you never know the context of the complaint, whether or not the person is one of the few constantly unhappy people that every group has, and how many are, in reality, complaining.

I have found that in most cases when people do this, that (a) there are usually no more than 1-3 people who really complained, (b) it almost always ends up being a family member of the one complaining, and© it’s oftentimes the complaint of the person himself who just can’t work up the courage to complain openly and directly to you.

So this is what I’m tempted to do: I’m tempted to stop people from here on out who begin with, “I’ve had some people come to me…” and tell them that I either need to know who said it or that they need to refrain from passing it along, go back to the person who complained, and tell them to come to me directly.

I realize that we all need feedback, that I should be able to give an honest hearing to any complaint, anonymous or not (and I do so, by the way), and that I should be able to listen, but after a while that kind of thing just becomes unhealthy, manipulative, and infuriating. What do some of you think?

Tommy, the short answer to your Important Question (What should I do with my fine single malt Scotch) is given in Acts 20:35. You’ve got yourself some fine spirits there, my dear friend. So as not to lead our teetotalling brethren and lurkers astray, my suggestions for your grainy palliative are posted below. More »« Less

I hope Douglas Wilson won’t mind me quoting an entire blog post of his. It’s just a real gem. Go post it somewhere that people have to look at it and gasp.

Although we are a Christian people, we still have a tendency to hide from the sheer goodness of the gospel. One of the ways we have of doing this is to turn the word sinner into a technical theological one, meaning that no one is perfect, and despite this, any one can call on God through Christ. All of which is quite proper and correct.

But let us be more specific. We are gathered here in the name of Jesus Christ. As an assembly this size, we may say that we are not just here under the general term sinners�we are here as adulterers, thieves, liars, blasphemers, procurers of abortions, biters, devourers, Sabbath-breakers, committers of incest, Pharisees, homosexuals, pedophiles, cheats, jerks and creeps. Not only are such biographical items present here, we may safely say this sanctuary is crammed with them.

Now here is the good news. When it comes to receiving you in Jesus Christ, God is absolutely uninterested in whether such things have occurred. If one did not occur, then a bunch of the others did. But God couldn�t care less. Let me restate the key phrase that makes this such good news. Through what Jesus has done for us, God is absolutely uninterested in that part of your history.

Grace takes the breath away. As the Corinthians heard it, “Such were some of you.” But the safety-minded rush into to make this message safe for religious consumption�such were some of you. And rightly understood, this is quite proper, and so St. Paul himself emphasizes it. But the safety-minded don�t emphasize the same way Paul did.

We are God�s saints, holy and beloved. As such, we must always remember the ground of this, which is the biography of Jesus Christ, our good news. As for our biographies, every one of them has a host of pretty grimy chapters, which God found to be so boring that He skipped over them. Absolutely uninterested.

As this is a bar, I’d like some advice on how to drink a good Scotch. For helping a friend move, I was given a bottle of Glenmorangie, 15 year old single malt Highland Scotch (handcrafted by the sixteen men of Tain).

I tried it straight, and I’m not ready for that yet. I tried 1 ounce of Scotch/1 oz. of water – OK, but a little strong. Now I watered it down too much. So does anyone have some tried and true proportions with water or soda, or do I just need to stop being a sissy and drink it straight?

Tremper Longman III on the Divine Warrior. A very rich and important Biblical theme.

So Dale gonna get in my grill with the WCF. Harumph. In total frankness, Dale, I haven’t the slightest idea what WCF 3 and 5 mean by “second causes” religiously speaking. Yes, I think I have a grasp on its philosophical genealogy, but I would have a hard time explaining to someone who doesn’t already subscribe to the WCF why this Aristotelian/Scholastic distinction matters for their faith.

(Don’t worry, patrons. You heard me say ‘philosophical’ and now you’re backing, no, running, to the exits. I can hear the commotion over the wind noise generated by Katrina. Thx, but I have no desire to see everyone break out their duct tape and start wrapping their heads while I launch into a 10,000-word post. Well, actually I do have a desire to see that, but the virtual reality just isn’t as satisfying.)

I did not take an exception to WCF 3 or 5 mainly because I do not understand them. As far as I can tell, they are correct formulations of predestination and providence. But I don’t think I have to understand them to affirm God’s sovereignty, a concept which makes perfect sense to me. I know that God rules; I have no idea how he rules. Yes, by the word of his power, says the letter to the Hebrews. I still do not understand the “how” from this, for when I try to translate it into causal terms, the sort of terms that that involve appeal to evidence and observation, I get images of mouths and lips and the sounds of uttered words which are produced by the flexions of the vocal cords which modulate air passing over them, ... You may object that this is anthropomorphic imagery of a spiritual reality. Indeed. I’m still lost as ever about how causation works in the spiritual realm.

The natural order and humanly devastating phenomena that occur in it do not send me searching for an explanation. I do not need an account of efficient cause to trust God. Ultimately, that’s where these events send me. Not in search for reasons but clinging trustfully and fallibly to God’s good will. Meanwhile, Rachel’s advice is exactly the sort of thing that our “response” involves: binding up wounds, comforting the hurt, feeding, clothing, sheltering the homeless and displaced. Being Christ to others so that he is glorified.

/beating

Ten stages that churchgoers go through.

Pretty interesting. I can definitely say that I’ve been there to some degree or another. Any of y’all see yourselves in any of those phases?

Maybe the hurricane is an opportunity for humans to show the love and mercy of God to other humans.
John 9:1-3 (English Standard Version)
“As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
John 11:4 (English Standard Version) But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.

No need to apologize, Michael! I wasn’t offended, just trying to explain why I ran the risk of offending the barkeep.

As it is, I’m now going to ignore certain fellow patrons in much the same way I ignore Robertson, Falwell, and Phelps, and for much the same reasons. Beat Up On Me day? Gee, I bet Robertson was asking himself the same question a couple of days ago!

My tolerance for those who want to be God more than God does diminishes with each passing day. {:)}