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 tomorrow night. You west coasters have all the fun.

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.

in real life. It’s only my internet persona. JN

Phillip: You may be right on that. I don’t have any CoC experience beyond Champaign. I was trying to be extra clear to the new guy that I don’t think he is in a cult.

Terry: I don’t think you’re in a cult. :-)

I have been a member, and for a while a minister, of a church that I would now consider cultic, if not a cult.

Michael: Manic? It’s an act.

Annie: Thank you! But it’s an act. I’m often grumpy - just ask my kids. That post? Secretly, there was one person on the list I really did hate, and I made all that other stuff up to be able to state my hate publicly.

Okay, not really. Hate happens to not be something that plagues me. But grumpiness is different from hate. My grumpiness is an unfocused unintentional malaise.

Mark: Your experience with the Church of Christ closely mirrors my own. Aberrant? If so, it’s a widespread aberrant! Terry will know more, but I do believe that there are two major groups of the Church of Christ. My friend B—- hasn’t ever actually mentioned with which group his background is.

Over on the Advent blog, Richard posts a great reminder of one of the foundational verses of Christianity. While it does not explicitly mention Christ, Micah 6:8 positively reeks of the Gospel when talking about mercy. What greater mercy is there than the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for us, miserable offenders that we are?

Like most modernists (I confess, as if it wasn’t obvious already), I’m fond of succinct lists of things to do or not do. Christianity is much more difficult than that, since there is nothing really to “do” and it’s all about a relationship with God almighty.

But there are still lists in the Bible, nods to those of us who crave them, and Micah 6:8 has always been a challenging one to me. More »« Less

Terry: Belated greetings to you!!

In Champaign, IL, there is a Church of Christ that thinks that they are the only true church in town. They recruit people from other churches, and are cultic in their control over members lives. One of my friends joined there and proceeded to declare the rest of us to be unbelievers. They may be associated with a group called the Boston Church of Christ.

Does this group sound like an offshoot of one of the three groups of CoC that you mentioned, or are there other Church of Christ groups that have a different ancestry? I realize that this church is very aberrant, and doesn’t reflect on other CoC churches.

Phillip – I’ve met you. You’re not grumpy. You are more of a jolly cynic. Remember your post when you had to try so hard to hate people?

Brad makes a point that I’ve noted for years: Many of those we revere in Christian history were remarkably open about their emotional life and struggles. Spurgeon, in particular, said and preached a great deal about his personal melancholy. In fact, he said far more than I ever would in the pulpit.

As I wind up the Mental Illness posts at IM, one of my key points is that the presence of brokenness among God’s people is a sacramental presence. It isn’t just broken bread that shows us Christ; it is the broken people in whom the Gospel is true. To see the Gospel’s “wholeness” as an erasing of the reality of human pain and experience is to make the Gospel gnosticism, and a rather dull, flat gnosticism at that.

“Why, O my soul, art thou disquited within me?” Another question: Why, Holy Spirit, do you inspire those words for the edification of your people?

PW: I have it on good authority that you will make the “manic” list, but not the grumpy list.

I’m gonna kick that relentless optimist dude in the seat of his britches for skipping me. Who on earth thinks I’m not the grumpiest guy in here? Okay, second-grumpiest.

It is truly an amazing Savior we serve who laid down His life for the group of losers I find in this bar. Wow. {:)}

Remember to send Santa (me) an ‘opt in’ for BHT Christmas, don’t forget your physical address.

The Relentless Optimist here. I hope everyone has had a great day, because we are going to take a significant step toward making the BHT a happier place.

It’s been pointed out by people who care about you guys that the bar has gotten gloomy. Too much smoke (not healthy). Not enough air. Bad music. Lights dim. It’s not a place that children would find very welcoming, guys. This isn’t Chuck E. Cheeses, that’s for sure.

So we need to get to the root of the problem, and I think that problems with happiness are always people problems. Happy people. Happy place. Happy place. More happy people.

So, don’t think I’ve gone all “Nanny 911” on you, but we need to name some names. We need to talk about the five grumpiest people in the bar.

Let’s sit in a circle, hold hands, and all promise to be grown ups about this. Here we go. (Big big hugs when we’re all done.)

#5 Bill: Bill…I know you haven’t killed anything this year, but you are drinking, and you’ve had Hillary Clinton in your lap. So can’t we work up a little smile? Please.

#4 Kurt: Now come on my Afro-Sweetie. Admit that you are a surly one. You don’t like your diet and you’d rather be at the movies, but is that any reason to sit back there and grouse? Cut that hair, have a “Happy Ale” and bring out that smile.

#3 Jim: Now Jimmy. Times are bad in New Jersey. Yes….there’s been a little trouble knocking on your door. But can we please straighten those glasses? Can we sing a happy song? Can we lose that “jn” and add a smiley face to those posts? I know there’s a happy man in there somewhere. You’ve hugged Brennan Manning. Act like it.

#2. Josh, Josh, Josh, Josh: When life gives you lemons, you have to make lemonade! Don’t think that the only woman in the world is a Catholic babe in Spain. There’s some bright eyed little cheerleader at one of those mega churches just waiting to praise and worship her way right into your heart. Play a happy tune on that big guitar. How can anyone so slim be grouchy? Cheer up!

and…

#1 Michael….get that lip off the floor. Get out of that corner. Give that man a kleenex. It’s alright. We’re all here for you. When they pick on you, you just need to blow this happy whistle and say “I’m good enough, I’m orthodox enough, and I’m not going to be ashamed of all the emotionally outrageous and highly inappropriate things that I write!” You stand up to those boys! You show them that nothing is going to get you down. In fact, we’ve all chipped in and bought you a “Happy Monk Puppet,” so if you are ever tempted to say naughty words, you can put on the puppet and say happy things.

Now…that wasn’t so bad, was it? We’re going to have a happy bar from now on. I can just feel it comin’ on!

What’s wrong with Jack? Oh My!!! What did he say!?!

So, to quote my good friend Pedro, “Was she hot?”

InternetMonk.com, a web site some of you may have heard of, recently updated:

I reran “Does The Story Matter?” You won’t be surprised that answers differ.

I linked an older piece by RLP: “There’s Something About The Way You Use The Bible.” One of his best.

And I wrote installment #5 on the Christian and Mental Illness, suggesting how the church should think about the mentally ill.

The Relentless Optimist had a large post that got killed by power blinking, but that won’t discourage him. He’ll have it back up. Hint: He’s naming names of the Top Five BHTers who need to cheer up.

Why do I keep thinking of this?

Barney Fife: Well, today’s eight-year-olds are tomorrow’s teenagers. I say this calls for action and now! Nip it in the bud! First sign of youngsters going wrong, you’ve got to nip it in the bud.
Andy Taylor: I’m going to have a talk with them. What else do you want me to do?
Barney Fife: Well, don’t just mollycoddle them.
Andy Taylor: I won’t.
Barney Fife: Nip it! You go read any book you ant on the subject of child discipline and you’ll find every one of them is in favor of bud-nipping.

Terry: that if I stick to Bible terms and phrases—and make a reasonable attempt to avoid some of the most obvious theological buzzwords—I can teach the truth without disrupting a church or becoming a martyr.

Ha! And again I say Ha!! I have found just the opposite. When I stick to bible terms and phrases and avoid theological buzzwords (I call it churchspeak) that is precisely when I am most disruptive, as evidenced by my latest foray into teaching my men’s study about Decision Making and God speaking. I still have the bruises.

Phillip: You might pass along to your friend that I have found that in teaching an alternative doctrinal view (e.g., shades of Calvinism in a traditionally Arminian church), that if I stick to Bible terms and phrases—and make a reasonable attempt to avoid some of the most obvious theological buzzwords—I can teach the truth without disrupting a church or becoming a martyr. (After all, was Paul a Calvinist?) I also have found that if I teach it as one possible way to understand these things, confessing that I may not have the final answer on hard questions that Christians have been wrangling over for years, that I am more successful in prompting some new ways of thinking.

Don’t forget, Josh went to Southland a time or two :-)

That was before he went all international on us.

Terry: I have a friend, someone with whom I break bread every Tuesday morning, who is still in a Church of Christ, but clings tightly to a Calvinist soteriology. Quite often our weekly Bible study becomes “Phillip and B——share how the backgrounds undermined assurance, or faith, or what have you, in stark contrast to the clear presentation of God’s sovereignty and the Gospel in 1 John, Philippians, Isaiah, or whatever the passage we’re studying this week is.”

I have often wondered how he remains in the Church of Christ, but all of his family and many of his friends are there, and they wouldn’t take kindly to him leaving. As it is, he will soon beging teaching an adult Bible study at his church, and he plans to soak the class members in the positive marvel of God’s grace in election.

On a related note, I can understand how, for some people, God’s sovereignty becomes the be-all and end-all of life, because it’s so foreign to what most of us have been taught as children, and yet so permeates Scripture that it seems inconceivable that I never saw it before. As it happens, though, while God saves whom He wills, we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by faith in Calvin, which is how I cling to the same Savior that my Arminian friends do, and even—though this more difficult—my non-baby-baptizing “reformed Baptist” friends like Michael and Bill. {:)}

Since you’re here, I’m assuming that your experience and beliefs are somewhat similar in some ways. See, there’s a label for you!

Michael: Those are the churches. Yes, I thought somebody in Kentucky would surely be familiar with our brand of evangelicalism. Every independent Christian church looks to SECC in Louisville as the ultimate in churchdom, and Bob Russell is our Rick Warren.

I’ll discuss baptismal regeneration with you whenever you force me to, and no sooner. I’ll say this much for now. In earlier days (i.e., my Bible college days), the Christian churches loved to take issue with what they described as the “faith only” churches. But I decided rather early on, that since the Apostle Paul is the first and premier spokesman of the faith-only position, I really didn’t want to position myself in some opposing camp. Any view on baptism must complement the Scriptures’ clear teaching that we are saved by grace through faith.

Please remember physical addresses when you send Santa an ‘opt in’ for the BHT Christmas.

I know your branch well, and thank God for them. The largest churches in our state are all Indy Christian Churches: Southeast in Louisville, Southland in Lexington and Owensboro in Owensboro. All experienced incredible growth the last 25 years. The larger two are examplar mega-churches in every respect. As far as mega-churches go, these are good, solid examples of conservative evangelicalism. Bob Russell is, of course, pope in these parts.

I have been amused at Russell’s methods of morphing the Campbellite position on baptism from its historical roots to something quite palatable to Baptists and Catholics alike. (These churches have claimed a huge number of baby boomer SBCers and RCs coming back to church. Singles and youth programs in the thousands.) Don’t think you will hang out in here and escape a discussion on Baptismal regeneration, complete with Campbellite stereotypes as I learned them as a Baptist boy.(jn) (My CofC friends helped me stay in practice.)

On the road past my house, there is a “Christian Church of Christ.” I don’t even want to take the smallest chance :-) If you haven’t been worked over by a Church of Christ zealot, you aren’t fit to preach around here. Now, if the Lord would grant me three wishes, a busfull of Christ of Christ fanatics to send wherever I wanted would be one great reality show.

Michael: In my introductory profile, I described myself as part of the “center branch” of the Restoration Movement, aka Campbell-Stone Movement. That movement, which I believe to have been, at least in its origin, a genuine movement of the Holy Spirit, began in the early 1800s here in the U.S. In the 200 years since then, that movement has splintered into at least three branches. The churches I attend are “the center branch,” the “independent Christian churches.” The other branches are the non-instrumental Churches of Christ on one side and the Disciples of Christ denomination on the other—both of which you mentioned in your post. While recognizing that there are good Christians, good preachers/thinkers, and good churches in each of those branches, I would not wish to be identified with the legalism and sectarianism that often exists in the aca pella churches or the liberalism that is common, as you say, in the DOC.

The independent Christian churches are my home church—I grew up in them, found the Lord in them, received my Biblical training in their colleges, and have been a preacher in their pulpits for many years. However, that one label is not a sufficient description of my faith.

For example, the Christian churches tend toward Arminianism. However, one of the most significant events of my faith—a day I still remember vividly more than 20 years later—was the day my eyes were opened to the sovereignty of God. I have often said that you can open the Bible to any page and I will preach the sovereignty of God from that page. Because it is there, plain to see, from Genesis to Revelation. Recognizing the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, and its practical application in seeing God’s hand at work in the details of my life, has transformed my relationship with God.

However, I did not learn that teaching in the Christian churches of which I am part, but rather from a little booklet I came across that contained nothing but scores of Bible verses—and which had a picture of a tulip on its cover.

Douglas, MT is too slow for words today.

Is it me, or is Movable Type acting funky today?

The Disciples of Christ/Christian Church in Kentucky is quite liberal. The seminary is very liberal, and the ministers I know would probably be comfortably calling themselves liberal. Of course, the folks in the churches are a different story, varying widely depending on where you are. I have a good friend who is a DOC pastor in a university town. The DOC/CC is a large presence in my home community of Owensboro, as are the Churches of Christ, non-instrumental, obnoxious and aggressive.

So Terry can be whatever he wants to be. Campbellites have the options. But I was putting my money on someone left of center. But you can stay no matter what. Just give the dog a peanut.

Labels: I’ll happily wear a label if it fits. Or maybe I should say, to the extent that it fits, and isn’t deceptive or confusing, I will wear a label. That’s why I no longer call myself a Calvinist. I probably believe 80% of what any Calvinist believes, but explaining that you are more Eugene Peterson than R.C. Jr is just too difficult. Plus, to use the house analogy I used at IM back in the day, you have to decide how much you want to be pre-judged by association with other people who live in the house. I’m at the point where some names work for me- like conservative- and others don’t work at all- I am not emergent, and only people who with an agenda would say I am.

But all of us should grant other people the courtesy of letting them explain their labels. Phillip is ECUSA but he isn’t looking to ordain Gene Robinson. I’m Southern Baptist, but more in terms of heritage and minimal confessionalism than identification with the current wretched urgency. We have to be aware that some people use labels to escape the truth completely, but if we would just explain how we use our labels, and take people at their word, it would be helpful.

I say on my bio that I am a “theological adventurer.” I tell anyone who will listen that I am a Christian humanist. Or a catholic Christian.

BTW- there is an astounding amount of posting all around on simple factual matters about me. Good grief. Read!

Terry: Welcome! Don’t worry about keeping up with whatever you may have thought was going on here recently. That’s all behind us now, as we’ve sprayed the inside of the Tavern window with that snow-in-a-can stuff so we can ignore the folks pressing their faces and other body parts against the glass. {:)}

I’d been staying away for a while, but as the gentle mantle of snow has fallen on the sidewalk outside the Tavern, it seems a peaceful and tranquil place again, so I’ve parked myself in my usual chair and am picking up the same conversations again. Have a drink on me!

My only problem is labels is that there aren’t enough of them. I understand the desire to not start from scratch, but it seems like most labels go just a bit too far, and few people want to hear “I’m an X except that I don’t believe Y or Z” or “I’m an A-B-C guy, plus a little of G.” The next thing you know, people are claiming that it is impossible to combine B and G, which seems quite a silly thing to say when faced with one who has!

Mark me down as the guy who picked major arguments with so-called “post-modern Christianity” until (IIRC) people left the bar. I picked up Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and McLaren’s New Kind of Christian recently and couldn’t even bring myself to finish McLaren. Awful, awful stuff. Dreadfully ignorant and badly-focused to boot. Especially lacking when compared to the masterpiece of Orthodoxy.

And yet don’t assume from that that I wouldn’t break bread with McLaren, or that I consider all of his criticisms of modern Western evangelicalism to be misguided. Many, if not most, of his criticisms are actually pretty familiar to me, and accurate when applied to the subset of churches against which he is reacting. I just think he mostly misses out when he tries to offer alternatives. Give him time. I doubt he’ll ever be the writer I would wish for, but then, neither will I!

So how do you label me on that basis? Call me “post-modern” or “emergent,” I’m likely to ask you step outside to tussle in the snow. But call me whatever those that want to burn McLaren’s house down are called, and you might get a similar reaction. {:)}

Douglas: I once thought that myself. But after the 234,945,346th repeat of ACS on cable TV, its charms start to wear thin. (JN)

I’m only up to about 234,932,477 times, so it’s still fresh and new to me. Besides, it’s tradition. I thought all you liturgical types would appreciate that.

Terry, I actually entered the Tavern right at the start of the very first bruhaha, after Michael wrote, “I’m Not Like You.” Welcome to our craziness.

I was really hoping for a liberal hippie, though. (jn)

Josh: To be fair, it was not Challies himself who wrote that reply I quoted, but one of his co-bloggers at the Community Blog over there – the one who has been blasting the Emergents in a number of posts.

Bill says, The second best part about Christmas? A Christmas Story (movie)

I once thought that myself. But after the 234,945,346th repeat of ACS on cable TV, its charms start to wear thin. (JN)

Wow. After dropping into the BHT for the first time just five days ago, I absented myself for a few days for some holiday travel, family, turkey, etc. Stopped back into the tavern this morning to see what’s on the breakfast menu. Amazing.

• I am amazed, first, that I happened to grace this place at the precise moment war was erupting with several other fine establishments in the neighborhood. Story of my life. Timing has never been my strong suit. It will surely take me weeks to identify all of the talkers and cross-talkers and really cross-talkers, before I dare open my mouth here about anything substantive. I confess to a temptation to hit the door running – but looks like the fuss has died down a bit, so guess I’ll hang around awhile longer.

• I am amazed, also, to discover that BHT is not the quaint little neighborhood bar at the end of the alley that I thought it was. Michael posted some statistics to prove it. Quite impressive. Even without the stats, the last few days of blogs and links make it apparent enough. I thought I was strolling into a pleasant little place where one might find a quiet corner, settle in with a frosty mug, while away some time, and make a friend or two. Not as easy to do when you discover that there are so many others – some friendly and many not so much – with their noses pressed up against every window, ringing on the telephone incessantly, and even clamoring around up on the roof. Oh well, guess I’m just exposing my naivet้. After all, this is the “world wide web.” That causes me some pause, and should, perhaps, cause all of us some pause. The whole world really is watching.

• I was amused that Michael introduced me as one who promised some liberal posts. I don’t know if he was pulling your leg, my leg, or his own. I don’t have the same taste for labels that many of you do, but one label I am certain does not apply to me is liberal (theologically). I imagine you will find my doctrinal tendencies to be more conservative than some of yours. I can live with that if you can.

• Re (theological) labels: They serve a purpose, I suppose. After 2,000 years of exegeting the Christian faith, it would be hard to have much of any kind of discussion if we had to start from scratch each time we talk. The labels help us define where we agree and disagree, to give a context to our conversations. So, yes, labels can be helpful tools—but the danger is that the conversation becomes all about the labels, which is just one step removed from the conversation being about nothing at all. In surfing several sites caught up in the recent blogstorm, it appears to me that the talk is often more about the labels than about anything of genuine value. At least every now and then, Christians should agree to exclude all capitalized words and all words with more than three syllables from our conversations, and see if we have any words left with which to express what we really think.

• Thanks for the hearty welcome many of you extended. Look forward to getting to know you better. A couple of you responded with follow-up questions/comments to my brief introductory comment about hearing God’s voice. It is a subject I like, and in fact, the subject that provoked me to join this conversation in the first place. Perhaps I will say more on that subject, if the conversation swings around that way again. For now, I think I’ll just sit here in my corner booth and listen awhile longer.

• Can’t resist commenting on “The Relentless Optimist.” I just want everyone to know, he may have showed up at the BHT about the same time I did, but we did NOT come in together. Try as he might, he is not going to get me to start singing. I guess the BHT will let anybody into this place. First me, and then a Brianite. But wait a minute. Is “The Relentless Optimist” really just another avatar of our gracious host, Michael Spencer? If so, that fellow has more names – and labels – than we had empty seats in church yesterday. I’m just getting to know MS/IM, but I have a gut suspicion that this label may fit him better than even he would care to admit. Welcome, TRO. In this pub, even your acronym is an interesting one.

Whenever people start to debate about the proper role of Scripture or Liturgy, I tend to think of Jesus responding to His legalistic critics who questioned Him for allowing His disciples to eat wheat from a field through which they walked on the Sabbath. “Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man.”

This does not mean for us (and did not mean for Jesus) that people are the supreme authority over all, and did not negate the basic principles of Sabbath-keeping. Since Jesus was speaking, we can be sure that He was being consistent with the Law, while pointing us to the correct way of understanding it.

It’s how I feel when I hear stories like the popular one about the Orthodox priest who was greeted one morning by a completely empty church. He continued on with the Divine Liturgy as if he had a full house, and is praised for it. I don’t fault his choice, and understand the underlying point that the Divine Liturgy is God-oriented and not man-oriented. And yet I still think that man was not made for the liturgy, but the liturgy was made for man.

Man was not made for the Scripture, but Scripture was made for man.

Does this mean that liturgy or Scripture is unimportant? God forbid! Does this mean that people have ultimate authority over liturgy or Scripture and do with them as they will? No, of course not. Should either be twisted to suit human sensibilities? Never.

But it means that we should not be using either as a weapon, or a set of legalistic rules with which to attack people or point out their failures. The whole point of Christianity is not to reach the end of time with a perfect canon of Scripture or a universal liturgy, but to reach the end of time with a church, the body of Christ, made up of people who recognize Jesus Christ as Lord.

Inasmuch as liturgy or Scripture points us to Christ, which I believe both do, then we are using each correctly. When either starts to point to some other goal, we’ve screwed up. When man serves liturgy or Scripture instead of the other way around, I think we’ve blown it.

(I’m cross posting this here and at my blog)

Well, now it’s my turn to do a “confessional blogpost”. More »« Less

I don’t grok how the ‘church’ can be viewed as being a separate entity from the ‘people’. They are the same. God’s people are ‘the church’ and yes, those people are to be informed and shaped by the Word of God, which we all know is simply another name for Jesus.

If the ‘church’ and ‘God’s people’ are dichotomized, or if ‘Jesus’ and ‘God’s Word’ are dichtomized; the inter-relational intimacy between all of the above is divorced from the reality, which is that we (the people) are the Body of Christ (God’s Word).

The church is not to be shaped by the people in it. It is to formed and informed by the Word of God.

Without people, there is no church. There was a church before there was a bible. The church can both be shaped by the people in it and informed by the Bible.

Michael: Can you send me the keys to the advent blog?

The best part about Christmas? The Christmas Story (bible)
The second best part about Christmas? A Christmas Story (movie)

The reply to that lurker’s post on Barth floored me…

Either you don’t understand the Reformation or I don’t understand the Reformation—and I understand the Reformation. The church is not to be shaped by the people in it. It is to formed and informed by the Word of God.

(I)f (XYZ) has such a stellar view of the Bible, why don’t they come out clearly and unequivocally in favor of inerrancy and infallibility?