According to this, it sounds like the SBC is taking some disturbing positions on baptism and private practice of tongues.

Josh, if you think Bavink is being an ass there, you’re being an ass. Bavink was Dutch, and it’s well-known that all the Dutch are self-righteous prigs who sit around waiting for the predestined collapse of their system of dikes that keep out the north sea, when they aren’t busy frequenting prostitutes or smoking marijuana. Besides, all that pilgrimage traffic does wonders for the economy in places near the relic churches. After all, if I give my neighbor a tee-shirt, I clothe him for a day, but if I teach him how to sell “I VISITED THE CRYPT OF SAINT BLOVIATOR AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT” monogramed fruit-of-the-loom wife-beaters, I clothe him and his family for life.

(see, I can play too.)

Seriously, Bavink was calling his readers out on the whole James thing, and he was for the most part dead on target.

PS: I love you, man.

Alex, your post of the wonderful Bavink quote, along with the Capon quote on the masthead, brings up something I’ve been meaning to ask of the bar:

I collect quotes. I have a huge file full of things I’ve come across. I’ve got software agents that go through the file and try to build a taxonomy based on the quotes content. This is sort of the undercurrent project of my life; I’ve been working on it since I was a kid (with notebooks). Some day, I will publish the most comprehensive subject guide to noteworthy quotes in the history of language. But I need some help.

Could I please request that if you post something here that’s a direct quote, please give it as much attribution as you can? Author, of course, but also either a book name or a link? Please? I’d really appreciate it.

Frankly, I’m ashamed to be a dog. This sort of thing makes me want to return to my own vomit. Is it possible I am actually just a similar mammal? I need counseling.

How ‘bout this Bavinck quote someone sent me (from The Certainty of Faith):

Far be it from us to immediately denounce the [Roman Catholics who try to live pure lives] with the Protestant judgment that since such piety issues from a false principle—righteousness by works—it is therefore worthless to God. For no matter how much truth that judgment may contain, before we utter it we must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a Protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride.

HT: the Presbyteer

There was something in the air that night, the stars were bright, Fernando.
They were shining there for you and me, for liberty, Fernando.
Though I never thought that we could lose; there’s no regret.
If I had to do the same again I would, my friend, Fernando.

Time for the other Lutheran to come out of his corner and contribute…

Enjoy this nine-minute trailer for LW&W. I was drooling!

Leave the room for about 15 minutes after loading it the first time, and then when you come back, hit refresh on your browser. Otherwise it bogs down and has to re-buffer about every 5 or 6 seconds. And you’ll want to see it straight through.

Well since they have 9 more Boar’s heads maybe they think we need to start a franchise and they want to be part! We can start a chain of taverns, all with a boars head mounted on the wall. What else could it mean? It is not like we love pigs or anything. We do not have a boar as our mascot; we have a boar’s head on the wall.
The only good boar is a dead boar (IMO)!! The whole thing is humorous.

Update: The morning after, these pics were removed.

Update: The pics weren’t removed. They were restored to their origninal date, along with the anouncement that “Fide-O never capitulates,” which should end forever any speculation about whether Mr. Robertson is living in his own cartoon or not. More »« Less

Could the LOTR be made again? Certainly. I think it’s too profitable for it not to be. Will any more versions be better than Jackson’s? I think it’s entirely possible. Would they be better? Maybe. Jackson’s a great filmmaker (indeed, the only reason I’m interested in King Kong is because he’s the director), and he has an obvious flair for epic films. I don’t know if another filmmaker would have that same flair. Another may have more detail and stick closer to the text, but I don’t know if they would make a great movie. After all, movies are not books!

That said, there are things in the movies that I can’t imagine why Jackson changed. For instance, in the first movie, Arwen saves Frodo on the journey from Weathertop to Rivendell. Yet, in the book, Glorfindel and Aragorn fight the Ringwraiths while Frodo rides across the Fords of Bruinen, which has a magic spell placed on it that swallows up the enemies of Rivendell (ie, why the flood happens). That’s much cooler than Liv Tyler carrying Frodo. She’s not so pretty that she should trump that part of the story!

At any rate, I saw the new Harry Potter movie over break, and I loved it! The first two movies captured the plot very well, but not much of the excitement. The third, IMO, just sucked. I think the fourth movie balanced the excitement and the plot of the book very well. I was impressed with everything, and I’m happy that the kids aren’t such bad actors anymore.

One thing I don’t think the movies will be able to convey, though, is the torture that Harry Potter goes through constantly, internally and externally. You can only understand that as you read.

One question I had about the movies, though, is are the Hogwarts grounds different in the third and fourth movies than in the first two, as if they moved locations or something?

May I also mention that a “Christianity of loose associations” is really a manifestation of a thoroughly modern trait, namely, individualism? (Since everything modern is “bad,” I figured I throw that in).

Community isn’t just “hanging out” or even “hanging out a lot.” Though it’s not less than that, it is so much more, and involves things like sacrament, ritual and shared space (sacred space perhaps?) and leadership.

Kent: My problems with Barna- and many other brothers/sisters- in this regard is simple. We cannot make Jesus into the founder of a movement that is expressed in a general appreciation for the larger picture of Christianity, but that does not exist in intentional Christian fellowships, with confessional boundaries, with leaders, wth sacraments, with actual forms of accountable community. Jesus did, absolutely, begin a movement that leads to some form of the institutional church, and not just to loose associations of Christians.

The Christian movement that produced epistles is not a general association. It is a specific community with the problems of specific communities. It has leaders. It has elders. It has traditions, rituals and yes, some form of understood membership.

I simply cannot take Barna seriously if he can’t read enough New Testament scholarship to know that morphing Christianity into a group of loosely associated individuals united around ANY interest or ANY ministry other than Jesus simply won’t stand the test of authenticity. Too much of the New Testament becomes irrelevant when read this way. (And I say this as part of a community that educates students in the name of Jesus. That’s why we aren’t the church. We are something Christians do together, and the fellowship we share is real, but it isn’t what Jesus and the New Testament have in mind.)

Barna is surely aware that hundreds of thousands of the “de-churched” are open to a Christianity of loose association. The New Testament shows a movement that manifests itself in church planting across cultural barrers and in the midst of hostile cultures.

Kent: I’ve got a serious problem about the idea of “media, arts, and culture” forming someone’s primary access to Christianity. I can counter that suggestion in two ways: the individual-centered one and the probably more Scripturally-consistent way.

Individually
Hey, I appreciate the BHT as much as anyone and more than most. It’s been literally life-changing for me, and all in very positive ways. I’ve developed relationships here that would survive the death of the site. It’s awesome.

But.

But when someone asks me on whom I depend for the things that define Christianity for me, I immediately think of my local church. My pastor, my friend, the people with whom I break bread every week. Those are my family in a way that all of you in the BHT just aren’t, even though I wish you were.

Talk to me ten years ago, and my answer is radically different. I didn’t have much use for local congregations then, and I blamed it on the churches in my area. Looking back now, I’m not so sure it was them. I suspect it was me. But I don’t live there anymore, so I’ll never know for sure.

Talk to me three years ago, and my answer is different. Then, while I attend a local church, the BHT was my primary source of Christian life. Some of the difference is in the BHT, as it seems we talk about practical doctrine slightly less than we used to (not that we’ve ever been a doctrine-only blog), but most of the difference is in me.

My respect for the BHT and what I receive from the BHT hasn’t diminished in quantity or quality, but in percentage. In other words, let’s assign some numerical values. Let’s say that the value I was getting from the BHT was 95, and it was also 95% of the value I was getting from Christian sources in general. Fast forward three years to today, and the value I’m getting from the BHT is now 99 or 100. But it’s only 30% of the value I’m getting from Christian sources in general. My connection to the BHT hasn’t shrunk—my connection to Christian community has grown! The role of the local church has grown from nearly-nothing a few years ago to 60-65% of how I connect with Christianity now.

I couldn’t have forseen that, nor can I explain how it happened or why. I’m tempted to suggest that it is mystical and unknowable and simply the result of God’s work in my life, but I think that sounds Barthian, and I’m given to understand that Barth is Bad.

Experientially, I think it’s true for many others as well that while events and circumstances may combine to make staying from local churches seem like a good thing (and maybe even be a good thing) for a while, part of the healing process is to plug back into the Body of Christ in a local-church way.

Scripturally
Which leads me to the other way in which I view this. The Westminster Confession of Faith and other catechisms make the point that ordinarily there is no salvation outside the church. There’s a ton of room for misunderstanding there on all sorts of levels, of course. I will say that my study of the Bible leads me to believe that God deals with us as individuals primarily (though not exclusively) through the local church. I can’t categorize that into an axiomatic proposition any more than that, but I think it’s a theme throughout the Law, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospels, and the Epistles. Did I cover everything there?

It isn’t that God can’t or even that He doesn’t deal with people outside the scope of the local church. It’s that He primarily deals with the local church. So that seems like a good place to be!

Does that make sense?

Michael & Terry, I haven’t read Mr. Barna’s new book nor do I feel a particular need to defend his work. Some material I’ve read regarding the new book states that in his prior demographic work he noted a trend that was interesting, this trend was that many of the persons that he’d (correctly or incorrectly) identified as ‘strong believers’ (or something to that effect) had moved away from attending traditional modality churches toward another sort of expression of church.

This is fascinating to me, and if you know me, you know why.

Couple that with the chart that TSK linked, and an interesting question is formed (which I asked) in my mind. That question was: Are “Media, Arts and Culture” a valid ‘Primary Means of Spiritual Expression and Experience’? The reason I ask this question, knowing that many in the Tavern will disagree, is to hear the thoughts of people I respect. As I stated in my post this is the spiritual expression in which I’m currently immersed, and I might add I’m currently enjoying. I’ve never had as much Christian community on a day-by-day basis in my life; it is a wonderful struggle and a blessing.

Mr. Barna’s research may have caused me to form the question, but my own wondering provoked me to ask it. My question does not stand on his shoulders, though I do wonder Michael if he just may agree with your last statement. The seeker sensitive model that you stated that he helped to create is, in my opinion, devouring many forms of genuine Christian community.

TRO: Please just don’t start singing again.

Now….now…..Good thoughts, boys. Good thoughts. Remember that no matter what others may think about you, you can always fight bad thoughts with good, and good always wins.

Besides, finally we have something that Michael DIDN’T do. Isn’t that worth a hug?

I have more issues with Barna than Clay has chicken pox.

First, I have been annoyed for years that this guy shows up every year with a new information breakthrough that we all have to buy.

Second, I’ve been annoyed at his shameless ADD, which picks up any new trend and immediately announces it as the next big thing we must support or die.

Third, I’m annoyed at his previous shameless shilling for the seeker-sensitive movement. Every mega church ought to have something named after this guy.

Fourth, I’m tired of his endless chorus of “I’ve FIIIIINALLY FOUND IT, DOCTOR!!”

While I am sure Barna gets a lot of things statistically correct, he has absolutely played the church like a master, making thousands of young men believe that the answer to ministry’s hardest questions are right there in the research. The resultant movement to put lots of really smart entrepreneurs in the pulpit and call them “pastors,” has been a primary reason a whole bunch of people are pretty disappointed in the local church. It’s become shallow and secularized, and despite a lot of calls for authenticity, Barna’s promise that the research would tell us what the Spirit is saying to the churches is just wrong.

Local churches may die by the thousands. I expect it. But it will be for a simple reason: the paganization of American culture, and the dying of the Greatest Generation. Baby Boomers aren’t interested in the church on the corner half as much as their parents and grandparents….and the result will be about half of them closing before my children arrive at my age.

In the TSK (TallSkinnyKiwi.com) post referenced by Kent, there is a significant misunderstanding of what Barna predicts about the future of the church and the role of the emergent church in that future. TSK reports that Barna describes “the emerging church as hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of people, comprising one third of American churchgoers (and non-churchgoers). That group is a minority right now but Barna predicts it to rise to two thirds by 2025.” Sorry, but that’s not really what Barna says at all.
In “Revolution” (which, btw, I found to be tremendously disappointing by several measures), Barna mentions the emergent movement only in passing, and what he does say is unflattering: “The ‘emergent’ or ‘postmodern’ congregations really are not new models but simply minor refinements of the reigning model.”

TWK correctly duplicates Barna’s chart, on which Barna prophesies that by 2025, the local church will decline as the primary form of spiritual expression of U.S. Christians from its current 70% to 35%, at which time the local church will run about even with “alternative faith-based communities” and “media, arts and culture.” Barna gives precious few details about what the latter two “church substitutes” will look like—offering passing references to Internet groups, homeschooling, “marketplace ministries,” and “Christian creative arts guilds.” But he makes it quite clear that he believes that the emergent churches are a part of what is in decline—not a part of what is on the rise.

Yes, as TSK points out, on his website Barna says something positive about “the emerging church” , but Barna immediately clarifies that he is not talking about the postmodern emergent movement. Rather, Barna’s Revolution is a future in which local churches of any stripe will be increasingly a thing of the past.

Dan Edelen takes a shot at the idol of excellence worshipped by much of the church today. I think it is good to do what we do as well as possible. But is it right to strive for “professional” excellence in every aspect of the ministry of the church? Is there not a place for imperfect servants in the house of God?

TSK contrasts the Carsonian Critique and Barnanian Breakdown and comes out on the Barnanian side. Any thoughts in the Tavern? Is the expressive demographic of the church changing as Barna supposes or is this ‘emergence’ of sorts a ‘flash in the pan’?

TSK quoting Barna:

I suppose I am hopelessly Barnanian. I see the emerging church in USA as a missional, ecclesiological response to the one third of Americans who are impacted by and are impacting the emerging culture. This is the Barnanian Breakdown, which sees “what is happening in the emerging Church – not the postmodern, candles/coffee/couches types of anti-modern ministries, but the Revolutionary ministry that is percolating to the surface of American society through new forms of ministry such as the cyberchurch, house churches, marketplace ministries, and tribal faith experiences.” George Barna, New Directions.

I’m part of the current 20(ish)% that Barna documents as finding their ‘Primary Means of Spiritual Expression and Experience’ in the Media, Arts and Culture (see table). Will this group really grow in the community-at-large as Barna projects? Are “Media, Arts and Culture” a valid ‘Primary Means of Spiritual Expression and Experience’? I assume that many Fellows will say “no”, am I incorrect?

Also interesting in his post are the costs cited in church planting as well as the comments discussing the same. Scot McKnight states in comments that there is an ecclesiological revolution going on and it far far far bigger than what we can document. Is this true?

Josh: Four hours in the extended editions, which are the definitive versions. {:)}

Douglas: I forgot the smiley, but don’t worry, I didn’t take it personally. Imagine that I said it like this, “Oh no you ditn’t!” {:)}

Nothing personal, Philip. You just happened to be the last person in line to berate my views on PJ’s LOTR when I cried “uncle”.

I make one comment about LotR and it’s dead-horsed? I don’t think so! More »« Less

I am surrounded by literary and cinematic Philistines. (JN)

why would a much longer remake of LotR sell even one-fiftieth as many tickets? Because not everybody has the attention span of gnats on caffeine.

Now that this expired equine has been thoroughly thrashed, on to the other topic at hand. Has anybody been keeping up with the discussion of biblical authority at Scot McKnight’s blog? 130 comments and rising. I think he hit a nerve.

Douglas: Humbug! Such idealism is quite at home at TechCentralStation, but is ridiculous on its face. “If it sells half as many tickets…” Um, why would a much longer remake of LotR sell even one-fiftieth as many tickets?

Books are not movies, and movies are not books. Jackson produced the definitive movie edition, and any subsequent efforts can really only fall ridiculously short. Think about it: Where a new movie achieved perfection, it could only be said, “That was as good as the original.” And anywhere the new movie fell short, it would be said, “That wasn’t as good as the original.” The handful of people who would actually find bits of a new movie to be superior to Jackson’s would kill each other squabbling over whether Tom Bombadil should have been ten pounds heavier or ten pounds lighter.

And yeah, I’m using the term “original” to describe Jackson’s trilogy. Such is the glory of the trilogy that I’ve already forgotten animated precursors.

Movies are more like short stories than novels, which is why Jackson’s accomplishment is so incredible.

I will cheerfully admit – I liked the Jackson films, but I won’t be 100% satisfied with anything less than a Shogun-like 24+ hours long fully faithful to the books mini-series. ;-}

And there’s a chance somebody, someday, just might do it.

Let me suggest something else: Every theological claim about the inspiration and authority of the Bible is evidence of the social psychology and reality assumptions of the community the speaker/writer is choosing to identify with.

We have a Student Handbook that summarizes all OBI rules for students. Listening to compliant students, uncompliant, parents, sympathetic staff, unsympathetic staff, houseparents and administrators discuss/quote that book is quite revealing, to say the least.

The idea that Rev. Bob simply read the Bible and came up with his elaborate defense/critique of whatever strictly from the text is completely misleading and errant. Bob got to his claims through an unspoken may of the terrain, and he read the Bible with a boxful of assumptions about what it is, what its up to, what it says, how it says it, how you use it, what is good/bad, etc.

None of us can disentangle from this situation, but it would be good to admit it. We can see it clearly with other texts and other communities, but we persist in acting like what is true for the Muslim and his reading of the Koran is in no way true for us and our reading/use of the Bible.

Joel: I think we’d agree that the “money quote” from Jason’s post is The problem is that these are theological claims masquerading as textual claims.” A while ago, I posted a rant here on BHT against the use of “biblical” in which I said, “When someone claims to be that their practices or ideas are ‘biblical,’ they often are front-loading their hermeneutic onto their argument.” I think Jason put it more elegantly than I did, but in essence I had hoped to make the same point.

Tommy, Matthew, that was just weird. You quoted what the bishop said in so many pithy words what I was meandering around below, hopelessly stumbling in search of a point.

Great. Another book to load in the queue.

Jim, thanks for that link to Jason Fout’s post on “Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon.” For the most part, I agreed with his analysis. I think his prelude in which he posits a quandary between the anti-authoritarian axiom underlying American religion generally and the attempt to uphold the authority of the Bible (something external, that does not originate with each individual) is suggestive, but needs to be fleshed out to determine how (if at all) this socio-politico-historical phenomenon is connected to the practice of hermeneutics.

But on the issue of biblical hermeneutics, I think he hits a triple (maybe he can turn it into an in-the-park home run). More »« Less

Douglas, some thoughts. Generally, I agree with you on Jackson’s changes to the story points, although I’m a bit more forgiving on the ones you raise.

The Scouring of the Shire, from the book, although it tied into the whole “war/evil/innocence” theme, was – it seems to me – more about how the mechanization of industry that marked WWII was changing the face of England – how the countryside was being “de-ruralized” by the machine culture that rose out of the post-war economic expansion. Taken in that light, I understand how Jackson – who, in my view, was well intentioned but simply doesn’t get Tolkien at all for the most part – would think that his handling of the topic of industrialization were enough to cover his decision to not film the scouring. Jackson’s depictions of Isengard especially resonate with Tolkien’s dislike for mechanized industry, and his “lunar desert” imagery of Mordor is definitely a “post-apocalypse as envisioned by a green.” Tolkien did have that in mind to some extent; Jackson picks up on it, and ignores a whole host of other, more subtle themes.

Similarly, the mis-steps with the Ent council are more of an oversimplification of the story than a deviation. Remember, the real-life character that inspired the Ents (esp. Treebeard) was Lewis. My read of the book’s account of the council is more of an incredibly subtle jab at the academic elite; I think Tolkien might have seen them as a group of Oxford dons gathering to debate some incredibly esoteric point to extreme lengths. What Jackson does is to most of the subtlety out of that sub-plot, and then (as is typical of someone in the 21st century, informed by our popular culture) Jackson imports the near-classic error of assuming that nobody ever deliberates and decided to take action, but rather they must be forced by circumstances to act. That’s miles away from Tolkien’s view of the Ents. It’s also a mistake Jackson makes over and over – with Gandalf, with Aragorn, with Arwyn, with Elrond, and I” sure we can find more examples.

As for Faramir, it’s not just Faramir that gets rewritten in Jackson’s tale. There’s an incredible amount of subtlety in the characters of Boromir and Denethor that is simply discarded in the films, in favor of a typical 20th century “dysfunctional family” drop-in plot. I suspect that either Jackson again completely missed Tolkien himself, or (if he did understand the book at all) didn’t think that his audience would find the book’s version of the three men’s story line believable. And that’s a big part of what’s “wrong” with all the LoTR movies; it’s as if key parts of the stories were changed simply because the filmmaker didn’t trust his audience.

For my readers: pay attention to the gift scene when you see the movie. Will Father Christmas say “battles are ugly when women fight”? I’ll buy a round of drinks for the entire BHT if that line is in the movie!

Dale, I just finished a re-read of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe last night. When I came across that line, I had the exact same thought.

I’ve got to put that new Wright book on my list. I’ve been trying to get to a post on Wright’s view of the Bible as an unfinished drama, but I haven’t had the time yet. Hopefully soon.

Josh: Before you totally dismiss the Scouring, you might want to check out this essay on it, and it’s (lack of a) role in Jackson’s film.

Well, Tommy, he does call dispensationalism “fanciful speculation” (54). :-) He also rejects the use of Scripture in categorical, non-contextual ways, as though we’ve dumped it all out and piece it together like a puzzle. Which, basically amounts to saying that systematic theology takes us away from a true understanding of the authority of Scripture and into a molded, non-dynamic way of living and worshipping. I think this was part of his point when he wrote what I am placing below, especially the last 3 sentences.

Technorati Tags: Christian, Church, NT Wright, bible, teaching

NT Wright has a new book out: The Last Word : Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture

I wonder if there is a little paragraph in there that will generate as much debate as What St. Paul Really Said?

A very well done daily lectionary. If you are looking for an online lectionary, we have several on the sidebar. This one is the best I’ve seen for those who might not be really familiar with the church year. (HT to Barb)

Clay has us watching all the Harry Potter movies in preparation to go see IV. Tonight is Sorcerer’s Stone.

Tomorrow in chapel I am using “O Come, O Come Emmanuel” as a musical sermon. I work this up with our musicians, and it’s fun. I intro the song with some background, then we alternate verses and my talk.

which would have required a good 30+ minutes to tell properly and still have a happy ending. Having a huge climactic victory followed by a sizable catastrophe is a terrible way to end a film. You want people to leave the theater riding off the high of the heros raising their swords to the sun. As it was, I felt the ending just dragged on an on. I was ready for it to end after the battle.

Well, this gets back to the original launching point of this, the difference between print and screen, author and director. Maybe movies have to be this way. But then again, maybe not – Monty Python and the Holy Grail doesn’t have a “happy” ending, nor does Seven Samurai for that matter. And Tolkien wasn’t about “happy endings”. You got a standard one in The Hobbit, true, but that was a childrens’ story – and LOTR is not a childrens’ story. Tolkien put the Scouring in there on purpose, and its a fitting end if you take his point of view. Jackson did not.

I don’t think length had that much to do with it – different philosophies did.

Peter Jackson deemed it necessary to rewrite Arwyn’s role in his portrayal of Lord of the Rings. After all, egalitarianism and feminism require everyone be equal—equal killing, equal time on stage

I can forgive PJ for that. What I can’t get over is –
1) His cutting the Scouring of the Shire out. That was an integral part of Tolkien’s views of war, evil, and the permanence of lost innocence, and I think Jackson was too cavalier in taking it right out of the movies.

2) His making the Ents look like indecisive idiots. The sense you got in the books – an ancient power, long-suffering, finally boiling over into apocalyptic righteous anger – is just not there. Now, the stunning way PJ depicted the Ents opening up that redwood-forest sized can of whupa** on Isengard almost makes up for this. Almost.

3) Faramir. Faramir and Michael ought to form a “mutual consolation for character assassination” club.

The final post in the Christians and Mental Illness series is up: What Does The Gospel Say?

Christopher Cowan at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood sent Russ Moore over at Mere Comments the following observation about the upcoming Disney film version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:

I just finished reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to my four-year-old son, Zachary.

When Father Christmas presents gifts to the children, he gives Peter a sword and shield. To Susan, he gives a bow and arrows and a horn. He then tells her, “You must use the bow only in great need, for I do not mean you to fight in the battle.” Next, he gives Lucy a bottle and a dagger and says, “The dagger is to defend yourself at great need. For you also are not to be in the battle.”

Lucy responds, “Why sir? I think—-I don’t know—-but I think I could be brave enough.” To which Father Christmas replies, “That is not the point. But battles are ugly when women fight.”

During the battle at the end, Peter and Edmund—-not Susan and Lucy—-are the ones waging war against Aslan’s enemies.

I have read good reports from Gene Veith that Douglas Gresham (C. S. Lewis’s stepson) has sought to keep the movie faithful to the book. I cannot wait to see the film. But I will be thoroughly shocked if Lewis’s vision wins out over contemporary feminism (particularly since I have seen clips of Susan wielding her bow). I hope I am wrong.

I will be greatly surprised if Lucy and Susan aren’t playing the role of Zena during the battle scene.

Peter Jackson deemed it necessary to rewrite Arwyn’s role in his portrayal of Lord of the Rings. After all, egalitarianism and feminism require everyone be equal—equal killing, equal time on stage, ...

Kurt’s Barlow Farm’s link is excellent:

We simply have a critique-culture going on in our circles. We rarely do anything positive, and when we do, positive just doesn’t sell. I don’t have a good answer for a way forward, but I think a good first step is trying to lay off of brothers in other Christian traditions for the most part, especially those who hold to Nicene orthodoxy. Secondly, when our bright students are interested in a thinker outside of our circles, we teachers and pastors should model a kind of engagement that praises where it can, and suggests alternatives where it cannot. We’ve got to stop imagining every potential theological disagreement in the mold of the twentieth century battles over liberalism. We conservative evangelicals still bear wounds from that time, and our continual scab-picking is hindering both our healing, and the healing of the world.

It’s not that I don’t think the mechanics of theories of atonement aren’t there, but if you affirm the essential creeds about Jesus, what is going to be accomplished beyond hearing one another, asking questions, appreciation and friendly debate? What is the point of labeling a fully orthodox (by the ancient creeds) Christian a “threat,” (in terms of his entire work) and then make any agreement with that scholar the bellweather of all-out rejection?

N.T. Wright once wrote a book for Banner of Truth. He was safely in the fold. Of course, he was 21. He kept studying. He left the fold. And where are we now? You read the Resurrection of the Son of God, and you put it down. You mention to your friend that you’ve read a big book by N.T. Wright. “You better stay away from that guy. He’s messed a lot of people up.”

Today it’s all a package. NPP. Wright. Postmodernism. Emergent Church. Betrayal of the Gospel.

The lovely Amy Witt sent this to me with best wishes, and the whole Spencer family is on the floor. Figure it out.

Oh my. Ohhhh my.

If I were going to write anything about hermeneutics, authority and canon, it would look like this post by Jason. But, out of deference to the current cessation of hostilities, I’ll just link it, and say that, for the most part I agree with Jason’s assessment.

Excellent post over at Barlow Farms. Everybody should read this one. It was written a few months ago, but it is sorry that we missed it. Has it been linked here yet? If so, I’d feel pretty stupid, seeing as how I’ve gone the trouble of stealing the keys to the “must read” cabinet.

Here’s some money quotes:

“We Protestants are always protesting about something; it is in our nature as a movement geared toward trying to reform a larger institution, the universal church. We have our occasional apologists, authors, and artists who reach out to the culture around them, though sadly they are all too few. Most of our eminent scholars do battle against other, differently oriented Christians.”

“I was always taught in seminary to devour (read and appreciate) the writings of everyone and to spit out the bones. We can all learn things from brothers in Christ in many traditions. But in the PCA, if you express a little too much appreciation for someone who isn’t on an approved list, then you are immediately suspect.”

(Note, you can probably replace ‘PCA’ with the Reformed or Quasi-Reformed denomination of your choosing)

“We simply have a critique-culture going on in our circles. We rarely do anything positive, and when we do, positive just doesn’t sell.”

Interesting the number of reformed blogs out there whose primary content is attacking the content of other blogs, eh?

Maggie Dawn’s blog. Worth keeping.

Greg Mohr quotes/comments on Robert Capon:

“Almost nobody resists the temptation to jazz up the humanity of Christ. The true paradigm of (our) view of Jesus is Superman: ‘Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. It’s Superman! Strange visitor from another planet, who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of morals, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and (our way of life).’

“If that isn’t popular Christology,” argues Capon, ”(then) I’ll eat my hat. Jesus – gentle, meek and mild, but with secret, souped-up, more-than-human insides – bumbles around for 33 years, nearly gets himself done in for good by the Kryptonite Kross, but at the last minute, struggles into the phone booth of the Empty Tomb, changes into his Easter suit and, with a single bound, leaps back up to the planet Heaven. It’s got it all – including, just so you shouldn’t miss the lesson, kiddies: He never once touches Lois Lane.

“You think that’s funny?” asks Capon. “Don’t laugh. The human race is, was and probably always will be deeply unwilling to accept a human Messiah. We don’t want to be saved in our humanity; we want to be fished out of it.

“We crucified Jesus,” concludes Capon, “not because he was God, but because he . . . claimed to be God and then failed to come up to our standards for assessing the claim. It’s not that we weren’t looking for the Messiah; it’s just that he wasn’t what we were looking for. Our kind of Messiah would come down from a cross. He would carry a folding phone booth in his back pocket. He wouldn’t do a stupid thing like rising from the dead. He would do a smart thing like never dying.”

PWinn: You might see if telling them that Lucia was stabbed through the throat and had her eyes gouged out dampens their enthusiasm.

That’d make for interesting costumes.

Kurt: I can tell you right now that telling my second-born daughter that only her older sister can wear a candle headdress on St Lucia’s day (which we may celebrate for the first time this year) simply wouldn’t fly. {:)}

My wife pushed for it last year, and I said December was too busy already. But I think she’s penciled it on December 13 this year already.

If you post to BHT using the “normal” interface rather than a client program, and you have ever lost a post that way, you might be interested in the rest of this post. (unsolicited technical advice follows)

All: Thanks for your kind words and prayers.

Jeff: I was gonna say “The Ref” too, but you beat me to it. Just for the record, when celebrating St. Lucia’s day, only the eldest girl of the family wears the candle headdress, not everybody.

That part where Spacey tells his MIL (I think it was) off with the line about getting her a cross so when she’s feeling unappreciated she can climb up on it and die was killer.

Thanks for all the good wishes. The first words out of my mouth were praises to God for protecting us. I had said a prayer that morning as I got onto the road for protection and God has certainly answered my prayer. Give thanks to the Lord for He is good!

Michael asked for Christmas movies. I don’t know how well known this one is but my new favorite is The Ref.

Denis Leary and Kevin Spacey are hysterical.

Apparently our patron was adamantly opposed to his Narnia stories being acted out by human actors. He feared that his anthropomorphic animals would become, on film, buffons or else the stuff of nightmare. But, of course, Lewis knew nothing of modern special effects technology. From what I’ve seen of trailers, etc his fears will prove to be unfounded.

Of course, there is always the inevitable changes in storyline that accompany the transition from print to screen, and the differences in perspective between the author and the scriptwriter/director etc.

Touchstone is discussing the matter even now.

Kurt/Amanda: Texas roads, especially outside of the big metro areas, can be terrifying. I well remember a time I was trying to exit I-35 on one of those nearly-90-degree “exits” that should be called “turns,” and ended up sliding sideways in the mud to stop with a metal signpost inches from my wife’s door. I physically shook for hours.

Amanda, Kat and Kurt: Praise God for His careful watch over you all. His providence is an awesome thing to ponder and to experience.

Apparently our patron was adamantly opposed to his Narnia stories being acted out by human actors. He feared that his anthropomorphic animals would become, on film, buffons or else the stuff of nightmare. But, of course, Lewis knew nothing of modern special effects technology. From what I’ve seen of trailers, etc his fears will prove to be unfounded.

Mark Horne on some Wright critics.

This business of the “False Gospel” that’s about Jesus’ person and not his work…...is this something we are really needing to start distinquishing as a major issue? “You can’t trust Pastor Bob. He talks a lot about Jesus, but not enough about his work.” OK if denies that Jesus died, but mediators mediate don’t they? He brings us to God. Is there some further subdistinction that separates believers from unbelievers on that one?

Kurt & Amanda, I join you in thanking our Father for Amanda & Kat’s safety! Wow, what a story!

Laurie went into the ditch a few years ago and I well remember that cell phone call. The thing we’ve got going for us here is that it’s usually when the weather’s crappy and it’s slow going…plus all that nice, soft white snow to land in…

Many here don’t consider you a true Minnesotan unless you’ve ended up in the ditch at least once…so if it’s any consolation to Amanda she’s now qualified to be a ‘true Minnesotan’.

Doug Wilson has a marvelous post on “Christmas: The Holiday of Stuff.” With fine comments as well.

Christmas Music abounds. Anonymous 4. Washington Cathedral. Advent Antiphons from St. Mark’s in Seattle. Patti Loveless. Dan Fogleberg. Anne Dudley. Chieftains.

I must have listed 20 Christmas movies in chapel today, but people had even more. Any favorite “Little known” Christmas or related movies out there?

Thank God for his mercies.

And all too familiar scenario here in the mountains. In addition to no siderails, add hundred foot drops and meth-head idiots in the other cars. Several of our staff have had blood-curdling “drop-offs” into trees, ditchs, and so forth.

Amanda had a close call on the road this morning. Details here. God protected her and Kat, and I am eternally grateful. Please pray for us in the aftermath, as we’re still rather rattled.

Michael: Some might (and do) argue that the Boston CoC’s views on baptismal regeneration make them a cult. Of course, some might say the same of any one of a number of us here on the same grounds!

Bill: I’m in rotation to present the “Prayers of the People” at my church every few weeks, so I’ve had to learn how to write out prayers. The first few times it seemed awkward, both to write them out and to have people tell me how great my prayers were. Beyond awkward, that last part. Downright discomfiting.

Here’s what I do: More »« Less

I want to say a public THANK YOU to Jared, Bill/de, Brad, Scott at the Triplets, David W, Rabbi-philosopher and a dozen other people I don’t know at all. Many of you are people who never listed me on your blogs and never pretended to be a “fan” of mine. You just saw/heard/read something and responded with decency and an appeal for fairness. I am embarassed that some of you have been called liars, wimps and sell-outs on my account. I am sorry you have been “tagged” and blogged. I wish I could have you all over for dinner to make it up to you.

This all started when I read a poem my son wrote that indicated he knew more about my broken life and its effect on him than I ever thought. I wrote “An Apology to My Family,” and my son and wife read it around the kitchen table in my presence. It facilitated healing and the joy of Jesus in this family. I knew, all too well, that there were other people whose wrestling with full-time, church related ministry, has caused pain to those they love. I wrote to open a window of hope for them, and many- especially pastors and preacher’s kids – have written me to say thank you.

Has it all been worth it? I have no idea. Who does? I know this. When I awoke and saw the t-shirt with the gun target on it, I felt like a new man. The whole weight lifted. From that moment on, I realized there was nothing to be concerned about. My wife and son were stunned, but I felt free. I knew, at that moment, that I was not like those who were doing this. I am not like them. Wherever they had gone with this, I was not there. In that, was hope for me.

There have been dozens of factual inaccuracies and many distortions in the posts and comments, but I understand the sincere concern at the core of Frank Turk’s original post. I have admitted that the essay was unclear, and I have removed it until such time as I believe it can be read in its entirety and helpfully.

To the many who have read all this and said nothing, I also thank you if, for a moment, you were touched with some sense that we can all do better as human beings than what we’ve done in this fracas. I totally agree. I think God made us with the ability to exceed this.

At some point, I was called a “wimp” by a critic. This term, which is well known to me as a taunt among the teenagers I work with (and well known in those with Columbine Syndrome as a “rage trigger” taunt), is always aimed by one boy to another, questioning the manhood of the opponent, begging for “manly” retaliation to prove “manliness.” Such a scale of values, where the strongest, angriest, most relentless and crudest win the day, has no interest for me as a man, a dad, a husband or a Christian. But the underlying pain is undeniable; the pain of memory that all of us have with hurtful words from the past. The word “fraud” is an undeniably hurtful term, as is “unstable.” But I look at myself today, and I again, this very day, taught my students, preached the Gospel, kissed my wife, fed my mother and encouraged my son. The emotion that dominates my life this Advent is wonder-joy at the incarnation. This is beyond wimpiness, fraudulence and emotional brokenness. It lasts, and will last.

All of this is because of the vocation of writing; a vocation with the potential to do much to minds and emotions, for good or for ill. I am a writer and will continue writing, in my own voices, before the eyes of God and man. Thanks to all of you who have encouraged me, and I hope to be a better writer in the future because of you. (NO responses please, other than email. Thanx)

Personally I could never see why anyone could get their shorts in a wad over something as fuzzy to me as the ‘filioque’. I’m happy to chime in on the Apostles, even the Nicene, nothing to break fellowship over in either of those. That Athanasian Creed, now that’s a complicated mouthful…but it is fun to quote to JW’s.

I had to memorize all of ‘em for my LCMS confirmation back in 19 and 73 and they’re still rattling around up there, sometimes I can even get them out in an organized and sequential manner.

My grandma and I had a great lunchtime about four months before she died trying to synthesize our somewhat conflictual memorized versions of the Apostles. It was almost as cool as the talk we had about heaven about a week before she went.

Bill, I’ve kept a journal for years and my entries often evolve into prayer, even the entries I made before I was a believer. That sounds kind of weird I guess, but through my journals I’ve observed that I was praying to God sort of in a ‘higher power’ sense about 1-1.5 years before I acknowledged my need for the saviour named Jesus.

I find that writing my prayers out, either on a computer or longhand (longhand is generally better) have the effect of keeping me on-task. I think it’s because it engages me visually and being a visual thinker if I close my eyes to do something (like pray) my mind somehow disconnects the imagery in my head from the words coming out of my mouth. In fact I keep my eyes open when told to close them in corporate prayer (but this may simply be oppositional defiance).

All of this said, I would in no way call this process of mine ‘disciplined’ ;-)

Eugene Peterson’s book on the Psalms and their use in prayer is one of his best. Drop lesser purchases and get this book.

I taught the Psalms for about 1.5 years on Sunday a.m. One of the best sources I found was James Boice’s Expositions. Three volumes. I can’t say enough good about these books. Absolutely wonderful for reading or preparation.

The Church of Christ folk I know treat me like a Christian, except they witrness to me and cheerfully explain that god has one church, I’m not in it, and therefore I will burn in hell. Jesus never makes an appearance in this scheme, so I’m not concerned. Besides, I grew up hearing the same rhetoric from the Landmark Baptists and if I wanted to go that route now, I would just head for the RCC. Which continues to look better all the time, btw. (The Boston CofC is a cult in their treatment of members, not so much in theology.)

I lost a really solid church member to a Church of Christ preacher. They married and the girl turned against her whole family, regularly coming to family gatherings and saying her parents and church- who had led her to Christ- were unbelievers. I really wanted to punch that guy in the mouth. Still do. That kind of disrespect toward those who led you to faith so you could join the church of your choice and become a little jerk is ugly and pathetic.

I preached today on something Bill said: A Christmas Story and The Christmas Story. I gave some pastoral perspectives on the “secular” celebration, and argued for an approach that affirms Christ is the light that illuminates even the empty shell of a celebration the world has moved into. Lots of things to talk about, esp Romans 14 and the way we differ on certain customs. I did my “days of the week/months of the year” bit to say we can’t launder out all of paganism. I suggested Saint Nicholas as a supplement to Santa. I suggested showing the world HOW to celebrate in a way that honors a man known for his parties and banquets. (The long intro on all the various kinds of Christmas movies we enjoy got the whole room going, though one woman was later upset that I had said recent revelations about Danny Kay had made “White Christmas” quite a different movie for me.)

Terry: These days I think I capitalize the “Reformed” to distinguish my views from that of “reformed” Baptists like Michael and Bill. {:)}

Personally, I’m part of the BHT cult, which is as motley a crew of diverse thinking on Christian doctrine that you’ll be able to find. I’m pretty sure all of us currently sign on for the Apostle’s Creed, though a few of us probably choke at filioque and can therefore go no further.

I’ll respond to Bill in a separate post.

Bill: This is not what you suggested—but relates to the topic. Faithfulness in daily prayer has been a huge challenge to me all of my Christian life. I taught a class on the Psalms this fall, and in that process discovered the idea of praying the Psalms. I know now that praying the Psalms has been a well-known practice for centuries, but not in the very independent, very non-liturgical churches I have been a part of. Using the Psalms as my personal prayers to God has been a real boon to my prayer life. The Psalms prompt me and permit me to say things to God that I would not say, if left to my own pitiful petitions.

Since there are more than a few of us here who have admitted that disciplined prayer is difficult for us, and that we (or are considering) using something like the BCP to help in this area, I’m wondering if anyone does or has thought about actually writing out your own prayers? Something that can help you stay focused and disciplined, but are rather more specific to your own life and prayer needs?

Phillip and Mark: Oops…I see that it was Mark, and not Phillip, who certified me as non-cultish. So, Mark, my thanks belong to you. I see by your member profile that you are a Lutheran turned Vineyarder who is now 70% sure that you speak in tongues. I am 80% sure that I don’t know how that is possible, and 100% sure that that puts you in the same category with Phillip and myself.

You can be relatively certain that none of us are cult members—mainly because no cult would accept any of us as a member.

Mark: I know very little about the Boston Church of Christ movement. I see lots of websites that describe them as a cult (but will not link to any, since I haven’t done the research on who is behind those sites). The Boston churches (formally, the International Churches of Christ) have their own website here. On that site, they have a directory of 500+ churches worldwide, but none in Champaign, IL. Nor do the traditional Churches of Christ list a church in Champaign on this directory. So, don’t know.

Even the traditional non-instrumental Churches of Christ historically have been sectarian (i.e., wouldn’t want to have much to do with you or me). More than once over the years I have had former CoC members come into one of our churches, and as a result, be cut off by parents or other family members because they have left “the true church.” My understanding is that such thinking is less common today, and that, in fact, a progressive movement is blowing through the CoC churches.

Phillip: Thanks. I don’t think you are part of a cult either. You are just a former Assemblies of God Pentecostal turned Word of Faith charismatic turned “evangelical reformed low-church Episcopalian.” In other words, you’re as mixed up as the rest of us.

You know, I guess I’ve become as numb as anybody after living in the culture of death, but there are occasions, like this, that remind me that something really chilling is going on all around us. My goodness.

The esteemed Josh S, smiter of us reformed types, has blogged that it’s okay to disagree about, but not divide over Beer, Dancing, Playing Cards and Swearing. He explains: “People who get their undies in a bunch about these things will divide from me, so I’m not worried about what I should do.”

Is this some sort of entrance exam, Josh?

I tend to be a sort of reverse fundamentalist on these matters of Christian liberty. Take dancing for example. I’m a horrible dancer. I just don’t/can’t do it. My skillz are somewhere below PeeWee Herman and Bill Cosby. My poor wife has had to endure this failure in her husband for these umpteen years. So it was a great thrill for me when she got to learn the polka and flit across the dance floor of the Hofbrไuhaus. I think my joy was as great as hers.

But when it comes to the question of whether dancing should be “allowed,” say at weddings, my personal tastes have nothing to do with it. To me the question is not should dancing be permitted. Instead I would wonder why one is not dancing. IOW, in some situations like weddings, it seems to me that there is more biblical reason to command dancing than to forbid it. The marriage of two Christians is a staging of the gospel. What could be more cause for merriment and laughter around the sacred mystery of our Incarnate Lord’s marriage to His Bride? I am mystified by those who would allow this celebration to be curtailed by considering firstly what worldly culture has done to the good gifts of God. Who cares what it looks like out in the world or how it has been perverted? Dancing belongs to God and we are supposed to be His creational stewards. I’m a pathetic steward on this front, so strike a pose for me Josh and rock like a hurricane.

In other news, Hal Lindsey is going to be on Coast to Coast tomor