May all the BHT Family and Lurkers have a happy and joyous new year!

that Game Show Network is the single greatest threat to mankind today.

That’s all.

The Courtneys just got back from a 12-day West Coast adventure (from Idaho to Fresno, Monterey, Concord, and Bremerton) to spend the holidays with relatives.

Lost within the bowels our local post office was a wonderful gift from the Crawfords: a coffee cup with our Coat of Arms and the Latin inscription Quod verum tutum: What is True is Safe.

A perfect gift for a family with 4 kids at a classical Christian school and where both parents also teach.

Many thanks, Crawfords!

Bill: Right now Dennis Hopper is trying his best to be a good little Nazi, and will soon get a little help from a…shadowy figure…

my own life is weird enough. Besides, all journeys into the Twilight Zone have ceased since we have the canon of the entire Twilight Zone tv series hosted by Mr. Serling. You should know that!

(On a totally unrelated note, I made muffins this morning. The kind where all that is needed is to put milk in the stuff from the bag. All I could think of while I was mixing the batter was, “What would Capon think?!?”)

if at least some of you aren’t watching the Twilight Zone Marathon.

Matthew, it’s the Episcopal church in Greensboro, Georgia, where we’re visiting family.

Thanks, Dale. I’m still unsure what to expect, except for lots of candles. :-)

Travis: I think most Christians are practical cessationists. They have never manifested the miraculous gifts, or seen them manifested, and probably (prior to the Charismatic movement of the last few centuries) never even think about it. But we are extremely reluctant say “God can’t or won’t do such and such” when it appears (in our view) that the bible doesn’t clearly support it. We are also reluctant to label all our Charismatic brethren as:

Liars, or
Demon possessed, or
Mentally self deluded

Which I believe are the only 3 options if cessationism is true.

Bill wrote: “But, cessationism simply isn’t taught in the bible. Sorry, but it isn’t. Not everything in the bible is clear, and some things are complex, but if you have to turn yourself inside out to make your hermeneutical point, then you need to rethink your thesis. This is exactly the same thing that those who argue for teetotalism from the bible are doing. They take a personal conviction about an issue where they see great harm being done, and force the bible to conform to their view.”

Cessationists have been around a lot longer than the modern pentecostal/charismatic movement, so I’m not sure you can say it’s a response to the harm being done by those movements, though many of its modern formulations are.

There is indeed crazy eisegesis that goes on in the name of cessationism, I agree. The way 1 Cor. 13 is often handled is out of control.

While I’d agree that there is no explicit teaching on the cessation of the miraculous gifts, I wouldn’t put it in the same camp as teetotalism, and I don’t think one has to do hermeneutical gymnastics to arrive at that position. I think Gaffin does a pretty good job of putting cessationism into a history-of-salvation framework that makes sense, and you can’t do that sort of thing with a simple legalistic moral obligation like teetotalism. (Gaffin doesn’t lean on 1 Cor. 13 to prove anything, if I recall).

And yes, I’d agree that cessationism has to do with miracle workers, not miracles themselves.

Um…am I the only cessationist in the bar?

Joel,

See: http://www.stpauls.net.nz/wr-cse.html

There’s a Flash explanation from Helene Mann holds

She holds a Masters Degree in Celtic Christianity from the University of Wales and is an expert on Celtic ceremonies and history.

pax,
Dale

What church is it, Joel? I know some of the EC’s in Lexington. I can at least tell you if they are wacky or not :-)

Mark-
Good to hear from you. I had a link to a great place that would ship beer anywhere, but it was on my old work laptop that I traded in. I think they were based in California, if anyone can find it please email me the link. Black Butte Porter is available in Colorado if you’re ever traveling that way.

I did find one place but they wouldn’t ship to a lot of states, including Texas and Missouri, so you might be out of luck.

By the way, if you Google “Black Butte Porter shipping” the BHT is on page 3. Excellent.

Would any of the resident Episcopalians (or those informed on such matters) kindly explain what is a Celtic Eucharist? A local church here near my in-laws has recently started one for their evening service. Is this just a regular litugy but accompanied with pipes, whistle and bodhran? Or is it a whole different liturgy? If so, what is it like?

Is the argument for cessationism an argument for the cessation of miracles, or the cessation of miracle workers? It is my understanding that it is the latter. I also am not a cessationist, even though I have never witnessed anything that I would judge to be a true manifestation of the miraculous gifts. My argument is simply biblical. I have read the recent arguments for cessationism and I really do marvel at the hermeneutical contortions going on to make the argument. It is eisigesis of the most blatent variety.

I’m sympathetic to cessationists, because I know why they are doing what they are doing. They see charismaticism as one of the most dangerous and destructive (and embarrasing) movements in the history of the church. No offense intended to the charismatics in the bar, but I can almost agree with them. My own church has been damaged repeatedly by charismaticism over the last 30 years.

But, cessationism simply isn’t taught in the bible. Sorry, but it isn’t. Not everything in the bible is clear, and some things are complex, but if you have to turn yourself inside out to make your hermeneutical point, then you need to rethink your thesis. This is exactly the same thing that those who argue for teetotalism from the bible are doing. They take a personal conviction about an issue where they see great harm being done, and force the bible to conform to their view.

My position is that there is no case for cessationism that convinces me, but I am pretty sure “miracles” (clearly defined as the stuff Jesus did) have never happened anywhere in my experience and I’m skeptical about most elsewhere. “Healings” – such as I do know about- are interesting, in that God does them, not some guy, and I am happy for God to do whatever he pleases to help or heal. Of course, most of the time, God doesn’t heal, and we need to accept that.

Michael: For me, the problem isn’t just cessation, it’s the place that cessation holds in the idea of canon, the definition of “revelation”, and (ultimately) the whole epistemology behind them. Cessation follows logically from the belief in a closed canon of special revelation; if the point of sign gifts is to provide the apostolic teachers with validation in lieu of a complete universally (or at least widely) accepted set of writings that were understood to contain the revealed words from God, then those gifts cease to function once the writings are finished.

For my part, I can’t seem to find much evidence that the apostles themselves understood that whole model. Sure, Paul makes the point (in passing) that some sign gifts will “cease”, but it takes serious hermenuetical gymnastics to understand “the perfect” as anything other than the return of Christ.

But once you decide that sign gifts are still (at least potentially) given today, the problem becomes how we are to understand them. If sign gifts still function to authenticate teaching, then shouldn’t those teachers be considered inspired – once their gifts have been authenticated?

Oops.

Hi Mark. There’s only a couple of brief mentions of clothes in that program. They weren’t trying to make a case for suits. The program is really focused on informality in the content of worship and the ascendency of casual egalitarian individualism in the way we approach worship. For instance, there is a lot about pastors and how Americans relate to the pastoral role in a very informal, casual, “joe ordinary guy” manner.

December has been kind of a rough month for me, and I have been pretty scarce, but I hope to be posting more soon. Fortunately, Dennis has stepped up admirably into the “Hey, look what I’m drinking” role.

I haven’t gotten a chance to listen to the WHI “Radical Informality” show yet. I certainly don’t mind not having to wear a suit everywhere, nor do I think it’s important to wear one to church, though I respect those who take the view that you should dress up in God’s house. However, there’s a big difference in creating an atmosphere where people aren’t ashamed to come worship as they are, and one that evokes Delta House. I would label preachers in Hawaiian shirts as Radical Informality, or an attitude that’s hostile to reverence. MAYBE they’re ok if people were on vacation at the beach and wanted to have a service, but anywhere else…

My beer of the moment? Sam Adams Black Lager. I’d love to try some Black Butte if anyone knows where to find some in the dark domain of Anheuser Busch.

Adrian Warnock links the Jack Deere argument for continuationism. The selection ends with this quote:

But how were they ever going to deduce that miracles were intended to be temporary from a book that begins with miracles, persists in miracles, and ends with miracles?”

The Deere comment is the kind of comment that I feel needs some clarification.

Yes, there are miracles all through the Bible…..but not that many. Seriously. Not that many at all.

Think about it. Creation. Then…what? Where are the miracles in Genesis? God is talking….to one guy….and then taking years and years off. Angelic appearances? How many? And to whom.

Miracles get ramped up in Exodus and the ministry of Jesus, but aside from those very specific parts of Biblical history, there just aren’t many miracles happening.

If you hung around the right people and places, you would see a lot of Biblical miracles, but I think it is equally important to say that the Bible doesn’t make miracles normative or normal, that there is good evidence the disciples don’t compare to Jesus in the number or frequency of miracles, and that after Acts, the epistles and pastorals rarely mention miracles at all in the life of the first century Christian communty.

In other words, it is misrepresenting the Bible to leave the impression that it’s miracles here, there and everywhere all the time. The miracles in Biblical history are concentrated exactly where the action is in redemption history (Exodus/Jesus), and aside from that, they are actually rather rare.

I think it would be helpful if we clarified that the Christian life is not a life of constant signs, wonders and divine messages, at least not if we ask what we “typical” in scripture (especially the later New Testament.)

If we make this clear, the apologetic task changes, and we aren’t defending the views of people like Hinn, but a revelation where occasional miracles are part of the story, but frequent miracles now aren’t part of the story.

Sinclair Ferguson is now pastoring in the states, and his sermons will be available on-line here.

Right now, 5:25pm PST….. I am drinking a spectuclar Jubelale.... if you get your hands on one… it’s Gold baby!

†Back to our regularly schdeuled programming!†

I generally avoid WND links, but David Kupelian’s review and analysis of Brokeback Mountain is a BHT must-read. Especially his suggestions on how this same method could be used to create sympathy for other types of deviant sexual behavior.

What really needs to be explored is how the “compassion of Jesus” is twisted into a pro-homosexual agenda, rather than allowing that compassion to create a truthful, redemptive Gospel message to sexual sinners of all kinds, which includes all of us.

John 8 is very clear that Jesus was compassionate toward sexual sinners, but the redemption he offered included a repentant affirmation of God’s stated moral boundaries for sexual expression. “Go and sin no more” is just as compassionate as “Who condemns you?....Neither do I.”

Why talk about Jesus and the Christian story….when you can spice up your preaching with POLAR EXPRESS. And special thoughts by Max Lucado! (HT to Slice of Laodecia)

UPDATE: You know, someone needs to suggest some other movies with “spiritual overtones,” Christian celebs to pimp them, and possible talking points.

“Hello pastor. I’m Derek Webb, and I’d like to talk to you about the new pastor’s edition of the hit film, “Walk The Line.” This story of adultery and redemption through country music romance is only part of the true story of Johnny Cash. The new kit from Lifeway will let you pick up the story of Johnny’s conversion that the movie left out. Talk about a great sermon series. (And imagine how good you will look in black!)....”

Michael: You’re so very right, even though Max Lucado is “one of mine”, my guess is that everyone’s “mine” is habitually marketing their wares in almost the same way. Have you been in a “Christian Boobstore” (yes, I spelled boob on purpose) in the least 10 years? It’s a mental midget extravaganza!

”...is it just a matter of Christians buying anything with a stupid slogan as if it actually is a breakthrough into hitherto unknown realms of the Christian life.”

Yes it is…. they do and they will continue to as long as there are “Christian Marketing Firms and Secular publishers owning us. I have absolutely no answer for you, only questions. It’s the opposite of those who constantly fight and wound each other over theology. It’s the “I’ll buy anything that is marketed to make me successful” mentality. Remember “I FOUND IT” in the late 70’s? It’s the same crap, taken to its logical extreme.

Major Awards!

From CT:

CURE FOR THE COMMON LIFE: Living in Your Sweet Spot
Max Lucado
W Publishing, 240 pages, $22.99

We’re made to fill an empty spot in God’s jigsaw puzzle, says bestselling author and pastor Max Lucado; we’re custom-designed for a one-of-a-kind assignment.

In this slim volume, bulked up by Lucado’s delightful trademark anecdotes, a comprehensive study guide, and a personal assessment questionnaire, Lucado encourages readers to look for their “sweet spot.” It lies at the convergence of what we do, why we do it, and where we do it (our everyday life).

Being “sweet-spot-centered” requires that we periodically step away from our lives and reassess what we are doing. The assessment questionnaire will help readers find their “tools” or gifts. We should use these gifts, Lucado says, to serve others and glorify God.

Lucado urges readers to “spelunk these verses with me,” and observes, “When you do the most what you do the best, you put a smile on God’s face. What could be better than that?”

Lucado devotees should find this a satisfying read.

Aside from the double entendre possibilities, what the hexx is it with these slogans? Does anyone anywhere give any thought to whether this is remotely combatible with the Gospel, or is it just a matter of Christians buying anything with a stupid slogan as if it actually is a breakthrough into hitherto unknown realms of the Christian life.

“Hey Bob, what’s up with you?”

“Hey Sam. I’m into my sweet spot these days. I’m putting a smile of God’s face.

“Wow. Tell me more.”

“I was leading a miserable life selling appliances, but then I read Max Lucado’s new book, and now I’m running a pet cemetary and painting/selling watercolors of Chihuahuas. My whole life is different. It’s like there’s a smile of God’s face….finally!”

“Amazing. Where can I get a copy?”

Music up

With the battle for spiritual influence now moving into the world of fashion, I suggest the BHT start a line of “Purpose Driven Clothing.” PDL pants, Hawaiian shirts, those cool clothes Benny Hinn wears, Rob Bell sunglasses. Whaddayathink?

Since this excellent letter to Keillor/response from Keillor over a Prairie Home Companion piece on the Pope has no permalinks, I publish it all here. Worth reading on both sides. More »« Less

Douglas: I agree, only the punch will do on a fine cigar. Plus, those other cutters bring back memories of Lorana Bobbitt... I cannot have one near me. It FREAKS me out man!

Someone ought to lock Andrew Sandlin and Doug Wilson in an iron cage together. Kevin Johnson is also a viable contender in this hypothetical PoMoSmackdown.

Probability, Certainty, and the Wikipedia debate (HT to the Tall Skinny Dude)

Redefining the definition of “redefining” definitions of theology (Say that three times, fast)

How to become a church music minister (any comments here?)

How to cut a cigar (fine as far as it goes, but any real cigar nut will tell you that punch cuts are the best – I only use a guillotine on torpedoes)

How to properly light a cigar (it takes a bit of practice)

Join the Society for Creative Anachronism (want to bash your friends with big wooden swords?)

Pronounce Latin (for when Josh finally swims the Tiber (JN))

I love this one: How to Come to Terms With Feeling Ugly hehe…. I saw your pictures…. you’ll thank me for this article.(JN) If nothing else, you can use it as a “feel-good” sermon title.

Let me know when your coming to the Oregon Coast. I will brew up a special batch of Ale for ya! I’m serious! We’ll give a special toast for the “IM”.

This is a cool idea, especially for those of us with kids.

I’m listening to the White Horse Inn on “Radical Informality.” You should listen to this.

Horton just made the observation that what is going on in evangelical worship now- radical informality, the loss of symbols and archetectural meaning, the removal of sacramental worship, the rise of entertainment and its gadgetry- all is premised on what is NOT PRESENT IN GATHERED WORSHIP any more. thud Killer point.

We are walking around in Hawaiian shirts, listening to recorded music, watching movies, judging “pastors” by their humor and informal, “everyman” style….all because we are not meeting God, not hearing from God’s via the sermon, not engaged in worship, but coming to be motivated and given a feeling. The pulpit can go, because anyone with the gift of gab and charisma is all the pastor you need.

Well worth listening to. It will make some of you angry, but the rest of us are, so why not you.

>These are people who, by and large, would have nothing to say at all – and no audience outside their own circles if it wasn’t for the fact that the BHT and internetmonk.com exist to fan the smoldering sparks in their puny brains.

I simply have to disagree here. I understand that, from the perspective of BHT members for whom all of this is of no interest, it may seem that the TRs are obscure and that we give them an audience. That is, in fact, not the case.

The TRs and Reformed folks (yes, Virginia; there is a difference) that have interacted with IM/BHT are (in order of size imo):

A. People related in one way or another to Macarthur, Grace Church, Master’s Seminary, Master’s College, Shepherd’s Fellowship. This is the largest group, and includes most of the bloggers in Rule 40.
B. People associated with SBC Calvinism, some in the Founder’s movement, but many outside of it. Many- many- of these are past/present Southern Students or students at other SBC seminaries.
C. Students/members in other Reformed/PCA seminaries and churches.
D. People who are related to other reformed ministries, mailing lists, web communities.

The discussion of the nature of reformation Christianity is ongoing. I didn’t write “Machen’s Warrior Children.” The discussions in the blogosphere mirror the discussions in the real world, and there are thousands of young Calvinists who read Phil Johnson/Steve Hays AND listen to Derek Webb AND listen to Piper AND are into Driscoll and Keller AND read the BHT/IM. Our contribution is one part of a discussion, and best I can tell, a rather unique and provocative part.

IOWs, we have been included in a larger discussion that many reformed types don’t even want to admit is going on. We aren’t creating publicity for anyone. McMahon’s quote was at Alistair’s and Barb’s blogs today. It is being discussed on Wrightsaid as we speak. We are simply part of the discussion.

The closest we’ve ever come to initiating a discussion was my attempt to blogstorm the Osteen business.

We are brothers, you and I

Probably, Michael has never been more glad that he’s an only child :-D

Michael: Of course, all language is a semantic device to wrap my head around what I can’t understand, so what are we saying here? We are saying, of course, that communication is impossible, which anyone knows if they have ever attempted to carry on a telephone conversation with a home-schooling mom in the middle of the day.

Actually, my question about the brainless infant was as close to serious as anything in my post was. As I wrote it, I thought of something I heard my pastor say during the most recent infant baptism that he performed – that the baptism was a sign of the parents’ faith and commitment to raise their child to love and know God. As a presbyterian, he made the point that we don’t believe in baptismal regeneration, and that started me thinking about what the point of the parents making a sign of their faith was; if their faith doesn’t have a bearing on the child’s salvation, and it doesn’t have a bearing on their own, then what’s the purpose of the sign? But my head exploded at that point.

You didn’t offend me. Steve Camp offended me. “Masthead Bob” offended me. You can’t offend me. I know you’ve tried your best: you brought Josh back, remember? I consider myself offense-proof as far as Southern Baptists-Ministers-Lurking-In-Presbyterian-Clothings go. We are brothers, you and I. (Admittedly, I’m probably the weird brother who ran away to New York, started talking funny, is suspected of being gay, and isn’t ever mentioned when the family gets together anymore.)

I understand why you consider it important to challenge TR blogdom, especially considering the ways they have sought to undermine you and your ministry (not to mention the personal attacks I’ve weathered – which have had about as much impact on me as throwing twigs at Godzilla, considering what I’ve run into in real life.)

The problem I have is this: how can we challenge the TR point of view, and call them on their Phariseism, without in effect becoming a mirror of them? These are people who, by and large, would have nothing to say at all – and no audience outside their own circles if it wasn’t for the fact that the BHT and internetmonk.com exist to fan the smoldering sparks in their puny brains. I’m concerned that, at some level, we’re giving them unwarranted legitimacy by blogging about how they are blogging about our blogging? In other words, I wonder if it isn’t it the case that far more people are finding the BHT first, and then getting exposed to the embarrassment that is our critics just because we get our dander up when they do their pittiful Charlton-Heston-Throwing-Tablets act at us?

For me, if I’m going to be a missionary to the heathen wretches lost in the sinful depths of Reformed Theology, I’m going to do it by being saved and having a face that knows it. I’m going to behave like the Kingdom of God is the party that Jesus says it is, and I’m not going to pay too much attention to the folks caught outside without oil for their lamps – because the doors are open, and if and when they get tired of own sour countenances, self-righteous indignation, and small, dark existence, they can come in.

Father Capon will be here with us, serving Cake. And there’s plenty to go around.

(And, for Tommy’s sake, please apply JNs wherever you are led to.)

Dennis – You are my 2006 favorite BHT member – I have here loudly sung the praises of Black Butte Porter before and now you are rooting for my alma matter. When we visit Oregon in the summer this year, we will have to meet up with you. That is, if you last around here that long . . . ha ha ha ha.

Back to the game.

Dennis - this is Tommy from the other side of the house as Annie. I know its not 2006 yet, so you can’t possibly be my favorite member of a year that hasn’t even started.

edit - crap, now my post isn’t funny anymore because my wife apparently figured out how to delete a post. Some might say it wasn’t ever funny…

Tommy, here at the BHT, we hold by faith that, in the original autographs, the BHT rules are inspired and inerrant. Many scholars hold that, in those original manuscripts, the wording of Rule 8 was such that it made it clear that all of my posts had an “implicit” JN on them. That the current manuscript lacks such wording is, sadly, yet another case of problematic textual transmission, and has been the source of much confusion and misunderstanding. We can only hope for the bright Someday when we will be able to all read the Rules in the unblemished light of divine guidance; until then, please muddle along as best you can.

I know the pictures on my church’s website are legit because I took them, which is cool.

We claim that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are “one person.”

Jim, I’m 99.9% sure that you caused more than one TR’s head to explode by saying “one person” instead of “one nature.” So I’ve been here over a year now, am I supposed to put JN on this or not? Jim, how am I supposed to write this to not piss you off further but point out the irony? It made me laugh given the context of Michael and PWinn’s discussion, and given the fact that 2 years ago I would have written you a serious email pointing out what was wrong with your statement and giving a complete history of the Trinitarian development. I will now pour myself another Real Ale from Blanco, TX, watch the Holiday Bowl, and hope that you stay around.

Watching holiday bowl…..... GO DUCKS!!! QUACK!

Michael: Good IM piece. I hate Fazoli’s with a passion; it sucks, and the pictures have annoyed me as well.

My church uses real pictures on our web sites, and as I just checked to make sure that was still the case, I notice that we’ve switched to a new batch of five (they rotate as you refresh the front page). Too bad, I liked the old pictures. They had a habit of including a now-departed assistant rector, though.

You line about “The contemporary church, which often knows as much about the Jesus of the New Testament as the cooks at Fazoli’s know about Italian food…” is wonderful and sad both. So true, and so tragic. How can we have a church without Jesus as the center? It turns out we have lots and lots. So, so sad.

Taste test results on Monty Python’s Holy Grail – nothing to write home about. Nice commemorative bottle, but that’s about it.

I had a dream a couple of weeks ago that my wife and I somehow wound up in the iMonk’s living room. The iMonk kindly looked at us and ignored us. Boy, was I bummed. I’ve read this guy’s stuff for years and am on his blog, but he treated me like a looney toon!

Then again, I had a dream later on that a friend of mine was trying to get me to believe that JFK was murdered by a conspiracy. I then proceeded to beat the crap out of my friend.

I don’t have a cat, but here you go!

Now back to the regularly scheduled program…Jim, the iMonk, and the Trinity!

>If I encountered anyone who claims to “understand” the Trinity, I’d be tempted to walk out of their church. I don’t understand the Trinity, but I confess that I believe Jesus reveals God as a Trinitarian God, and to deny this is to deny the single most important revealed truth in the New Testament. To not understand it is to be human. To understand the confession of “One God, eternally existing as three persons,” and to disavow it is to deny the core of what Jesus means.

>As far as I’m concerned, “Trinity” is a semantic device along the lines of “black hole”. It’s a word we use to talk about something that we can imply from what we observe, but we can’t actually get our heads around. All our metaphors and analogies break down. “Trinity” is a semantic device. Of course, it’s not even a Biblical term. The sentence, “One God eternally existing in three persons” is a semantic device as well- to wrap my head around what I can’t understand. Of course, all language is a semantic device to wrap my head around what I can’t understand, so what are we saying here?

>We claim that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are “one person.” Fine, OK. Now tell me, exactly how does that work? When you get that one, please put the answer on a bumper sticker or a cap. I’d like to know.

>Michael asks, Does faith exist without some level of understanding? Well, how does faith save an infant born without a functioning brain? Christ saves. Faith depends on Christ, trusts Christ, confesses Christ, etc. It’s the word for whatever I do that relies on the reality of Jesus and not my own. Faith doesn’t save. It appreciates that Christ does. He’s been known to do remarkable things for people who had no idea who he was or confessed nothing. (See John 9 for details.) But whenever asked, he always seems to give the same answer about salvation and faith, one that includes those of us who have a brain and understand John 3:16.

I know it’s a problem to believe in a God who doesn’t need understanding or faith to save, but goes to a lot of trouble to communicate the place of both, but that’s what we’ve got.

>I really wish we wouldn’t link to it. I’m very close to giving up on BHT over this. Nothing that’s happened here has ever made me more angry, and more pessimistic than this crap.

I’m sorry to have offended you, Jim.

This trip home, Denise came up with a picture of us in the first two or three months of our married life, almost 29 years ago. It’s disturbing on several counts. She is the most beautiful girl in the world. How did I ever deserve her? I look really happy. We are happy. It’s a golden moment.

I look back at this picture, and I realize that in front of this couple is a lot of things that they couldn’t anticipate. One is the years I spent in the cul-de-sac of TRdom.

If I could, Jim, I’d really like to have avoided all that. Like most of the other things in my life, I’ve tried to learn to say that God knew why I needed to spend that time reading those books, listening to those tapes and preaching those sermons. I didn’t avoid it because I had no mentors to talk me into a more moderate position.

What I really wish is that when I was introduced to Reformed theology by Dr. Timothy George in 1984, that I had attached myself to him and turned out just like him. Instead, I wound up in the world of Macarthur, Al Martin and a host of other folks, with no one to talk to me, no one to balance me, no BHT to challenge me…nothing. I spent years listening to tapes on predestination, when I could have been learning something that mattered.

I’m grateful for the good that came of that time- Piper, Founder’s, Horton- but I surely could have used a mentor to point me away from much of what I became embroiled in emotionally and in ministry.

Now, I have been blogging my time away at two web sites, and I am sure I am pissing off a few people along the way, but if my mail is any measure, there are some bright and wonderful younger versions of myself who have been warned off the cul-de-sac as a result of what I’ve said, you’ve said, others have said on this blog. Warned away from TRdom, and given the option of thinking freely about some things they will never hear in that neighborhood.

I consider that somewhat of an accomplishment, and I’m actually quite proud to have had some small part in it.

Whatever crap this dredges up from your OPC past, I truly regret. I don’t intend to torment you.

Go back and read what I wrote. I posted the quote and I asked the reading audience to consider what it meant. That’s an invitation to think about what it means to condemn N.T. Wright as a necessary condition of being a good reformed person.

Not everyone who reads this blog is running to your theological position, or to mine. They are doing their own theological construction or deconstruction. I post to give them grist, direction, companionship, thoughts, warning, resources and amusement. Your posts have contributed to that, and are a valuable part of the BHT. If you are quitting because I have kept this battle on the front lines too long, I am sorry. But when I see these young people at SBTS, when I read their blogs and comments, and when I see how teachable and impressionable they are, I think they ought to have something to read beside Steve Hays and Fide-o. And if they read Hays and Fide-o, they ought to hear another perspective. If they find the BHT, they will.

You’ve contributed to that dynamic, and I hope you will continue to do so.

Your friend, Michael

“Good theology” – is that like “righteous dope?” Since it functions within the TR subculture in the same way that drugs do in the drug subculture, I guess that’s appropriate.

If I encountered anyone who claims to “understand” the Trinity, I’d be tempted to walk out of their church. I know a few Muslims. Not one of them “understands” the Trinity. They reject their understanding of it, but that hardly counts.

As far as I’m concerned, “Trinity” is a semantic device along the lines of “black hole”. It’s a word we use to talk about something that we can imply from what we observe, but we can’t actually get our heads around. All our metaphors and analogies break down.

We claim that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are “one person.” Fine, OK. Now tell me, exactly how does that work?

Michael asks, Does faith exist without some level of understanding? Well, how does faith save an infant born without a functioning brain? Can anyone be saved, and not understand? Is Tony Campolo saved? The Pope? Here’s what Steve Brown had to say on this a while back:

Certain things about the Christian life are important, and certain other things are far more important than the ones that are important. If we focus on the less important, we will build a prison for ourselves and for others that will rob us of our freedom. You can focus on rules, regulations, propriety and programs for righteousness; or you can focus on Christ and your relationship with Him. You can hardly do both.

... and then later, he adds this:

If I have the time to tell people either how to be good or how to love Jesus, I don’t even question which to say. If they love Him and mess up everything else, it’s no great loss. If they don’t love Him and do everything else right, they can lose eternity.

I’ll leave it up to Joel, Alex, Josh, Doug, and the rest of the brilliant guys here to figure out what it all means, but I suspect strongly that we’re not really talking about things like “faith” and “beliefs” at all. I think what we’re really grappling with is this: which of our beliefs are falsifiable? To what extent are we required to be rational in our beliefs? Can we set up standards for “orthodox belief” that include things that can’t be rationally articulated and established, like the Trinity?

And, of course, the bigger question is, does God play by the rules, and does He insist that we do too? Is that what the Christian life is meant to be about? Because if it is, frankly, there are better options. Forms of Islam and Buddhism , for example, offer a far more coherent formula for making sense of the world than believing in a God who

• Makes a garden, sticks the one thing he doesn’t want humans to have in it, and then puts a man and a woman there.


• Lets the snake into the garden


• Waits until things have fallen apart, and then sends humans out of the garden – while promising that someday, He’s going to do something that will fix it.


• 6000-odd years later, after spending most of His time fusing over how meals should be cooked or who should sleep with who, His “something else” turns out to be a terrific plan: He will send himself to earth, be born in an animal food trough, grow up to be an itinerant preacher, piss of the authorities and get himself killed


• and then, three days later, return for a limited engagement for 500 or so closest fans, disappear into the clouds, and leave the business of getting the news that this great “fix” has finally happened to a rabble of ex-fishermen and a myopic Pharisee.


• These guys will, obviously, spend a few years laboriously writing everything down to preserve the message, an enterprise so successful that it results in the incredibly monolithic body of faith-knowledge we all subscribe to, on pain of ridicule and scorn from various weblogs.

Lest any of you worry, I actually do believe all that.

I’m sick to death of the whole ‘what the TR blogsphere is saying’ pile of dung. I’m tired of reading what people who have abandoned Christ in favor of the god of their own intellect have to say. I hate the anti-Catholic spew from people like Steve Camp; I find it personally offensive, and I really wish we wouldn’t link to it. I’m very close to giving up on BHT over this. Nothing that’s happened here has ever made me more angry, and more pessimistic than this crap.

IM is Updated with: “Theology In Fazoli’s.”

Lief, don’t be too impressed by my ipod-generosity. Since I work from home, I can listen to whatever I want off of my hard drive all day long, which had made my iPod almost entirely superfluous. Once I realized that it hadn’t been disconnected from my computer for several months, together with some gentle prodding from my wife (who is the most generous person I have ever met), it was the only logical thing to do.

Kent, for Minnesota I recognize that is actually pretty balmy. But I’m making my comparisons with Seattle and the zones where most of the tavernites live. Anyway, outside my window I now see that it’s starting to snow… woo hoo!

Michael/Phillip: OK, now I understand what you’re trying to do. I’m sure you get more mail from the peanut gallery than I do, so I’m sure you’re in a better position to judge what others glean from discussions like this. For my part, my transition out of TRdom was based much more on experiential reasons than on arguments like “TRs are nutjobs”. Hell, I knew we TR’s were nutjobs even when I was a TR – but we were nutjobs with right theology, darnit, and that was all that mattered! IMHO, until a person gets beyond the point of “propositional theology is all that matters”, arguments aren’t going to have much of an impact.

I know some TR blogs that know everything, but Michael says I can’t mention them anymore.

Get the sticks that have chocolate ice cream on the outside.

My daughter and I are wanting to make a popsicle stick house, but I am no engineer and she is 8. Any sites we can go to for good tips on proceeding? I tried google, but came up with nothing helpful.

What I got for Christmas from the bar. Thanks, guys.

Brandon: I think PWinn’s “Christian Mystic” label is as close as you’re gonna get. Van has a lot of songs that seem explicitly Christian, but then he has some bitter-sounding gems like “No Religion” that seem to indicate the opposite, or at least a change in perspective. And then there are the pretty new-agey sounding tunes, particularly from the ‘80s (“Vanlose Stairway,” “Give Me My Rapture,” etc) that seem to be where he rests most comfortably. If you asked him, he would probably say (if he answered you at all—he’s notoriously grumpy) that he doesn’t like to think of himself as tied to any certain confining label, even “Christian.” But one of the things that I have always admired about him is his willingness to totally buck any trend he didn’t want to be a part of, consequences be damned. That’s why he is a cult favorite with about 4 mainstream hits instead of a pop phenomenon. He’s still making great albums today, but they rarely dent the “charts.” All that has nothing to do with his spiritual state—I just admire it.

JS: Your casual statement about giving away your iPod amazed me. Were it possible to get along without it, I would (literally) give up my car before my iPod. I am very un-Buddhist about that gadget, even though most of the material things in my life I can easily let go of if need be.

Michael: For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure that T.D. Jakes is a convinced modalist, and not just a sloppy Trinitarian. {:)}

Moderator: Well, he’s always very dodgy in public statements, but I agree. BTW- I am not all about roasting these people. That half of Christianity was once Arian has never been a fact lost on me. I love and appreciate these people, and I assume they know what they are up to and don’t need my approval.

PW: I am trying to write an IM piece. Take your heresy and leave me alone (JN+)

I would never announce that someone is damned. Ever. That’s God’s business. Not mine. I might exclude them from some aspect of the visible church, but I would not play God and make the big announcement.

Let’s lay down a few planks here and then try to stand on them: More »« Less

I stayed away from Reformed theology for a long time not because I disagreed with the theology itself, but because I couldn’t get around the arrogance of many popular proponents of Reformed theology. It was one of my very first disagreements with Michael (the first of many!) after I joined here, as he claimed at the time that Reformed == arrogant was a myth, and suggested I must have meant Hyper-Calvinists.

I suspect his views on that, at least, have changed somewhat. {:)}

Moderator Note: Uh….yes. I have received quite an education from those days, and that is one reason I hope to save a few others from some of the errors of the same path.

Jesse: I envy your Minnesota cold (just a tiny bit). I just “enjoyed” my very first green Christmas in Canada (I’ve had one before, in England). It’s been positively balmy up here in British California. I can go out with a light sweater and be perfectly comfortable. It’s strange to celebrate Christmas and see the green grass outside.

On the Masthead quote: Words truly fail! It seems to me that Mr. McMahon is playing with fire here. Matthew 7:1-2

Michael: I’m sorry. I’m in a rotten foul mood after reading that stupid link you posted, and lashing out. It really, really made me angry to see people—pastors!—tearing people down and mocking them and attacking them for even asking questions. The sanctimony makes me sick. The lies make me sicker, and there were clear lies on those pages. More »« Less

If you look at what is going on in Reformed Christianity today, there are a lot of thoughtful young people stopping by to benefit from the theology of the reformers. You see it at every conference, on hundreds of blogs, on any discussion thread, etc. These young people are showing an enormous interest in theology, and that is a good thing.

But much of that theology is being articulated and interpreted by “these guys.” It is quite easy to assume that all the good and the bad are one, big package called “Reformed Theology.”

So, Douglas, that banner isn’t up there for you. It’s up there for the many readers who are still working through their theology or the many readers who are deconstructing the theology they bought without sorting through all they were buying into. I’m trying to direct a few people away from the cul do sac of “to love God is to hate N.T. Wright” that exists in much of reformed blogland.

So please be patient with my efforts to be a lone prophet in this wilderness.

Whew, it’s hot in here.

Well, I’m reading a little Wright right now – his book(let) The Meal Christ Gave Us: Understanding Holy Communion. I hope I don’t go to hell for doing so. You know, “guilt by association” or “aiding and abetting (sp?) a heresiarch” and all that stuff.

I want to shamelessly draw your attention to a series I’m doing on church discipline over at Communio Sanctorum. I’ve got three posts up and a few more to go.

Earlier today I spent a couple of hours helping a deacon replace water-stained ceiling tiles at a Dollar General store (STRAIGHT out of the book of Acts I tell you!). After that we went by a demolition site where another church member is preparing to bring in a wrecking ball and demolish three huge concrete silos so that the peanut company can instill a peanut-oil manufacturing plant. I found myself sincerely begging the guy to call me before they begin demolishing the silos so that I can come and watch the wrecking ball. Why I REALLY want to see something destroyed is beyond me. It’s been a long year…

Why are we giving “these guys” so much air time? Who ARE “these guys”, anyways? I looked up the guy from the masthead. He’s a doctoral student at a small Presby seminary. Nothing wrong with that, but does that qualify him to make broad judgments about the salvation and character of NTW? Why are “these guys” almost always from fundamentalist Calvinist Baptist circles, or near-sectarian “we’re more orthodox than thou” Presby circles? Who cares what they think, really? I don’t anymore.

On a happier note, I saw this in the beer aisle of the local grocery store. I couldn’t resist picking up a few bottles. Taste test results to follow.

Jesse, you’re a whiner…it hasn’t been cold at all since before Christmas.

Michael, Maybe NTW and Johnny Cash are ‘Christian Mystics’; that’s my new aspiration thanks to Phillip.

I’m getting ready to begin an absolutely heretical New Year by reading my new Capon book (Genesis, the Movie) and continuing to work and waddle my way through the books I have that NTW graciously ‘dumbed down’ to social worker level.

I am not calling you stupid or insinuating that you are. Forgive me if I sound as if that is the case. I apologize for any implied tone. But we do seem to have talked about this before, yet when you see me get into the ballpark, you bring back up a version of this question that doesn’t represent me, and we run around the topic again.

Imputation and the Trinity are very different. There is no Nicene level discussion of imputation.

Does faith exist without some level of understanding?

Probably not, but how much? In my opinion, so little that faith in scripture is directed toward a God who has revealed almost nothing about himself (a la Abraham) and towards promises that make no sense at the time they are uttered, (hence the relation of faith and “hope” in scripture.)

What we have with these guys, however, is a level of understanding that basically equals a full sign-on to high levels of Reformed theology, right down to the footnotes, with all debates settled and all conversations ended except what are you going to wear to the reenactment next month?

Michael: I understand you, but 98% of what you said could just as easily be said about Wright and imputation. After all, ignorance of imputation isn’t as bad as denial of imputation, etc, etc, etc.

Please, please, stop reminding me that you’ve said this 25 times. I know—since I’ve said what I’ve said exactly as many times, remember? I can hang out on Puritan boards if I want to be called stupid.

“This is impossible. You cannot have faith in something your do not understand … Understanding is essential to faith. Faith cannot be faith without understanding.”

Wow, I’m screwed then. Come to think of it, we’re all screwed. There are so many things about God I don’t understand, starting with the fact that He saved me while I was a reprobate sinner, His enemy. I know He did, but I don’t understand it. So apparently, I can’t have faith in it, which means I’m not saved. Now that’s a quandry! I know God has saved me, but I can’t be saved!

Straining at gnats, swallowing supererogation. Reading that sort of thing makes me sick. Christ died to save mankind, and folks spend their lives personally attacking those who have the temerity to ask questions, send all the little ladies along to talk to their pastors—who are responsibility for their souls, after all—and never actually engage the original questions except to sidestep them and attack the man.

When I think of how many church fathers would be excommunicated by these guys, it makes me weep. Starting with Peter, of course.

Phillip: And one of these days you are going to be able to understand that I am talking about denying it, not being ignorant of it. Have I failed to make that clear? I seem to recall typing it at least 25 times, always to be followed by you chiding me for an example of someone ignorant of some doctrine.

A Modalist is denying the Trinity. He/she isn’t ignorant of it, I hope.

:-(

Imputation is a thing God does. The Trinity is the absolute essence of who God is. Even at the level of ignorance, there are important differences. But I have always said that I have no comment on those who are ignorant of the Trinity. Working with students, I am well aware that almost none of them, and almost none of the staff here, could use a single correct sentence about the Trinity. But they don’t deny it.

The modalist who has written me here understands and denies the Trinity. What can I do for that guy? He denies what he plainly understands about who God says he is. He is denying the essence of the person of God as revealed. He’s not failing to grasp it (like millions of people). He’s denying what he understands. He is doing exactly what a Muslim who understands the Christian doctrine of the Trinity does.

I do NOT believe anyone is condemned to hell for not understanding the Trinity.
If someone explicitly denies it, I do not believe they are subsequently talking about the Christian God.
Imputation is an arguable and debatable aspect of God’s work. The Trinity is not an arguable proposition at the foundation. One God eternally existing as three persons is who God is.
We can be as clumsy, inarticulate, confused and ignorant as possible and not deny the Trinity, even when stating something about the Trinity as correct.
But if we understand the Trinitarian definition, and deny it, I do not see where the rest of gospel comes into the picture.
There are some errors that are horrible, but they are errors. Then, there are intentional actions that are wrong, and were wrong from the intention to the performance.
THAT’s what I mean.

Michael: I keep thinking that one of these days you’re going to have to finally see my point about the Trinity being in a similar category as imputation (or whatever). Could Johnny Cash have ever passed the exam on the Trinity than seminarians give? Do you think that 99% of the professing Christians on the face of the earth could write 2 sentences on the Trinity that didn’t rehash some ancient heresy? If the most ardent defender of the resurrection in ten years is a modalist…

And so on. :)

Brandon: Trinity doesn’t do gimmicky things like that, or they haven’t in the past. Our idea of outreach night involves bringing in speakers like J.I.Packer or Brother Andrew or John Chapman.

We do have a new projector, though, (the old one died) and there some debate about whether we can get Superbowl-worthy reception in the big room. :-)

Wright is a heretic. A heresiarch. He will forever burn under God’s righteous wrath and under the solemn and scornful gaze of the Lamb of God for all eternity if he does not change his theological views before he dies, or rather, his lack of good theology! -C. Matthew McMahon

I think it is useful to see what happens when good theology is your Gospel. You take the most articulate defender of the resurrection in the world today and pronounce him headed for the wrath of God because he isn’t in your camp on imputation.

Let’s name a Christian. Hmmmm…......Johnny Cash. Do you think Johnny Cash could have ever passed the exam on imputation these guys are giving? Do you think 99% of the professing Christians on the face of the earth could write 2 sentences on imputation?

“Good Theology.” If you don’t believe that Jesus is nothing more than a part in a recipe for “good theology” for some of these people, you aren’t reading slowly enough.

Eric, I bought my wife the first season of the tv show “Felicity” on DVD for Christmas. As a co-worker said upon buying the Carpenters box set for his wife, “It was the most unselfish gift I ever gave.” She’s certainly enjoying it, which is nice, and I’m using the time to study math for my upcoming Praxis test and to listen to Van.

Phillip, maybe Trinity could set up a DDR outreach night? That idea has all kinds of good potential, hmm? (JN)

Does anyone ever travel near Bloomington? If so, may I recommend the Bloomington Brewing Company’s “Freestone Blonde”? It tastes like what Budweiser would be if it were good. Their Java Porter rocks too! “It’s like a little bit of coffee with a lot of beer, or a lot of beer with your coffee!”

The BHT is corrupting me. I’m ordering some heretical Wright material. Yikes!

I’m here in frigid Minnesota, tremendously enjoying the frozen north, my wonderful extended family, and nearly breaking my arm after foolishly catapulting myself over a sledding jump in a saucer sled. (My arm turned out to be merely sprained, not actually broken, though it hurt like the dickens. Two days later, it’s mostly better.)

Just wanted to give a thanks to Matthew, who gifted me with $20 of iTunes goodness. The irony is that I gave my ipod away for Christmas, since it had been little used lately, and my college-aged little brother could put it to much better use…. but that doesn’t mean that I won’t use the gift. I still intend to download and listen with glee :).

Doug: thought you’d like that :).