Brandon: Clean Here >>>>

Use q-tip & ajax if necessary. You should be lent-free thereafter.

Brandon: For starters, “celebration” isn’t the mood of Lent at all. It is a season marked by the seriousness of Ash Wednesday, and the approach of Holy Week. The most common Lenten disciplines are fasting, prayer, reading and solitude. Some non-liturgical churches might have a mid-week Lenten service. Liturgical churches simply mark Lent in the regular Liturgy. But it’s not Advent, with its many culturally developed activities. It is a time of preparation and introspection.

Does anyone regularly observe Lent? Can someone tell me how to celebrate Lent correctly? I don’t want to just go to an Ash Wednesday service and give up something for forty days. If I’m going to do Lent, I’m going to do it right.

Today I went into the local book/video/music/coffee place to get some coffee. One of the baristas asked me, “Hey, you’re a Witherington guy, right? Did you see that beatdown Grudem gave him?” Wow.

Anyway, check out BW3’s upcoming books for 2006 and beyond. This guy almost writes as much as Wright. I think he has a goal of writing a commentary on every NT book. I’ve never heard him say it, but it sure looks that way.

PWinn: I tried to post this a couple of times over at IM, but it doesn’t seem to appear there, so here is my response to your comment at IM:

“PWinn, I share your disdain for the “Who’s the real Christian?” game. And I assure you, that’s not what I’m about. I’ve brought my share of shame to the name, unfortunately, so I don’t intend to start a finger-pointing routine. This is more of an inward look, as I am noticing more and more as I go.

I do plan to answer Michael’s question on my own blog, because it is certainly a good one.”

Leif’s nearly apologetic comment that he wasn’t a philosopher, logician or theologian causes me to ponder why we believe that some are better equipped to answer life’s big questions than others on the basis of mere education.

It’s like this: If I, a mere photographer, were to ask five philosophers, five theologians and five logicians one simple question, I would find myself peppered with fifteen contradictory answers and forty-five reading assignments that would put me to sleep.

So basically my point is: Why freakin bother?

Jim, I really, really like the “Posted, ostensibly, by” thing, totally, freakin, gifted. Can we like set up some subject filters?

The Works of John Donne

HT to Steve McCoy for passing on the very definition of Cubs Fandom.

IM is updated with comments on the rigney project: What’s In A Name?

Christopher- Endymion rolled after Bacchus last night. Bacchus got held up by a low hanging cable wire. They did not finish until after midnight. It must have been crazy with the two super crews going back to back. I am considering going and getting some coconuts in the morning.

All right, folks. Here it is: my first foray into recording this crazy experiment which will probably get my tires slashed (or worse yet—have no effect on anyone:-)

If you’re interested, read away and respond. If not, please ignore. And remember: I’m more of an absent-minded professor/shadetree philosopher than a logician or theologian, so be gentle ;-))

Alex, isn’t that true, though, of most terms? i hear “modern evangelicals” lump anything they don’t like into the category of “postmodernism” (e.g.: Open Theism, Relativism, Historical Revisionism). Or, the other category of “badness”: “secular”. Then, we have non-Christians that like to lump things into “religion.”
It seems to be a feature inherent with labels that become commodified and meaningless, not just of “modernism.” And that, i’d suggest, is a reality because of the hypermedia in which everything can be an advertisment. i believe that is what Deleuze and Lacan (they said it before Baudrillard) mean by simulacra and simulations (as opposed to Lacan’s Real and Imaginary).

Alex, I’ve blogged enough from time to time about tempering the postmodern critique of modernism (e.g., we don’t have to be overly suspicious of critical thought and rational deliberation and judgment just because we recoil at the ethical implications of the autonomous self, the neutrality and objectivity of science, the rational transparency of language and triumphalism) that you wouldn’t bring the hammer down so hard on me. “I don’t like x?” A term of abuse? Ouch! Me? I love x. X is schweet. I get all lovey-dovey around x. More »« Less

Aaron, this is my first year totally distant from Carnival in New Orleans. i always liked going to the earlier parades (Lil’ Rascals, Saturn, Apollo, Mid City) because of the small crowds. It feels different being in a place that doesn’t really know what Mardi Gras is like (except for the repeated footage of Bourbon Street by St Ann). Typically for Lent, i do something publically obnoxious (one year, while at a Catholic high school in New Orleans, a few of my friends and i obtained BBQ something and ate it in the school cafeteria on Fridays. One time, we got a priest to eat some, which was interesting to say the least). i also do something a bit more private (such as some kind of fasting), but so that nobody knows what i am doing (i believe fasting and things like that should be low-key and private) or when i am doing it.
Hmm.. and that brings up a topic: Should we publically fast?

I know this may seem shallow, but please pray for me. I’m really close to buying a van (used). I’ve never bought a vehicle before and I’m scared to death.

Joel (ostensibly): Could you or someone please provide some sort of historical argument that ends with the conclusion that “labeling” is somehow “a particular feature of modernism?” I have the sneaking suspicion that whenever anyone says that “x is a particular feature of modernism” that what she is saying is “I don’t like x.” There seems to be no cognitive import whatsoever in ascribing to a thing that it is “modern.”

“Modern” and “modernism” get thrown around as terms of abuse, without anyone ever bothering to explain how they function as so.

Happy Lundi Gras

Is anyone doing anything special or different for Lent this year?

Warp: Dennis (ostensibly) has a point about the nature of church membership in America. Unfortunately, I’m not convinced that Saddleback is the antidote to this. Here’s what it (membership in America) looks like to me: the church untethered from the gospel of the newer testament, and functioning more on the model of the community activity center (with preference for middle and upper-middle class social values). Monday is 20s and 30s small group night, college ministry basketball night, and clothes for the homeless sorting night. Tuesday is choir praise band rehearsal, 40s and 50s small group night, and young marrieds bible study. Etc. etc. etc. Every day at the church the “ministry” schedule is full. This mentality is working its way down from the megachurch (where it functions well for what it is) to smaller churches.

Woof: Labels. Having to name something is a particular feature of modernism. We have to be able to denote our beliefs in one or two words, we have to describe “our time” (Gilded age, Enlightenment, Postmodern). In the spirit of resisting hypermodernity, I support Leif’s (ostensibly) experiment. I would suggest another experiment. Let’s stop trying to name the “proper” model for the church. The ‘postmodern’ church doesn’t say anything at all. Ditto ‘evangelical’. I would even say that describing a church as ‘missional’ is fraught with problems. In one sense, it’s important as a way of quickly communicating that a particular church is up to something different than what popular culture thinks the church is about (see ‘Warp’). But isn’t the ‘missional’ church just…the church? Isn’t it redundant? Again, I think it has a useful, temporary, negative function: to say what we are not in an ecclesiatically confusing time. But if we think that ‘missional’ contributes something positive to the meaning of ‘church’, then if we call ourselves ‘missional’, aren’t we inviting the same kind of sectarian, ultimately insular (isn’t that a paradox?) understanding that encourages smugness, “we’re of the apostle so-and-so,” type of outlook toward the church catholic? The church just is missional or it’s not a church in the newer testament sense, is it? There’s not a missional confession (let’s hope), so I’m wondering if drawing out this distinction as a positive attribute is healthy. Just thinking out loud.

Christopher, don’t go bringing the Bible into this discussion. :-)

BTW, welcome to the chaos. It’s good to have you here.

Jeff, i’ll be really odd and say 1 Corinthians, Matthew, and Galatians. Those seem to echo parts of Isaiah quite a bit ^_

Michael: The turning of the church into an “audience” is the legacy of the Warren segment of evangelicalism. I am not sure that’s a fair assesment of Warren (Billy Graham maybe). I think it’s not! When you see the massive amounts of volunteers (thousands) and people who are committed and actually doing something at Saddleback, I believe it would change your perception a bit. I would in no way defend everything Warrren does…. he’s a Baptist, and they do kooky things (jn), but he does not encourage people to just sit and be an audience.

Michael: Without question, the NT makes being a “church member” one of the primary functions of a believer. I just question whether what we call “membership” in “American Christianity” looks anything similar to what Jesus had in mind.

I am somewhat tainted, having personally attended Saddleback at least 20 times. I am actually very fond of Rick Warren (for a Baptist, he’s a pretty nice fella :-) I have seen him talk about Membership. He does a great job of getting people to realize that being a believer is more then just sitting in the audience.

Jeff, the Interpretation Commentaries, one volume by Seitz the other by Hanson and the Tyndale OT commentary by Motyer are pretty good. If I remember correctly, I read that N.T. Wright also recommended them as well :-)

Does anyone have a commentary on Isaiah they could recommend? I need one suitable for Sunday School lesson preparation.

Dennis: Membership may not be a “requirement,” but there are plenty of important New Testament texts that don’t make much sense without it.

I feel like I have travelled this too many times to blog much about it. I just can’t get on board with the idea that Jesus was starting a movement that is less than an intentional community with members, and boundaried ways in and out. Warren’s notion of freelance baptism may be allowable in some unusual situations, but I fail to see how the communities that we are reading about in the New Testament are operating with freelance baptism as normative.

Being baptized in the swimming pool by your Christian friend and then eschewing any local congregation of Christians requires an edited and spiritualized New Testament, with Jesus wasting most of his time training the twelve. Warren seems to have taken the the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch and allowed it to trump the Acts 2 community: Acts 2:41-42 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

It’s not that I’m not sympathetic. I have communion at OBI because my students are away from their churches. But it’s not normative, and it’s not the kind of communion the New Testament has in mind, but it sometimes happens and I’m not “bad mouthing it.”

Warren’s approach to Baptism is pragmatic. I understand his thinking, but he’s pulling apart what should be held together. If someone wants to be baptized, but not join a church, there are a lot of questions that need to be asked.

The turning of the church into an “audience” is the legacy of the Warren segment of evangelicalism. I appreciate all Warren has done for the church. This isn’t something he should be proud of. (BTW- there are more whack aspects of Saddleback’s baptism policy. Check out the “family/friends rebaptism” deal. Very strange.)

Aaron: My husband says we are not Baptists. We were Baptized in a fousquar church in Montana and he still feels that that is his church home. but there are only 5 churches Within an hours drive of our house and this church is the best among them. I would probably become a member if it was my decision alone.

I am off to Jury duty…1:45 hour away and probably wont have internet acess till it is through.

Bill: I agree. “Membership” is not a NT requirement, (at least not the american concept of membership) and baptism is commanded in the NT. So I guess I’d rather them be baptized then be a “club member” of any given church. I am not sure how it’s considered “cheap grace” to follow the command of Christ?

I can’t see how baptizing someone without making them a member is an example of cheap grace.

Yesterday morning’s sermon text was drawn from the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the “salt and light” passage in Matt 5:13-16. I have some hermeneutical questions for the bar.

1. Do you understand the salt to be a preservative or a seasoning?
2. If a preservative, what are we preserving and how do preserve it?
3. If a seasoning, what are we seasoning and how do we season it?
4. What does it mean that “everyone will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49)? How, if at all, is it connected with the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew?
5. What does the “salt of the covenant” or “covenant of salt” (Lev 2:12; Num 18:19, 2 Chron 13:5) have to do with newer testament saltiness, if anything?
6. Leaven was not permitted on the altar, whereas salt was required. Yeast is a fermenter; salt is a preserver. Significance?
7. Despite these positive senses of salt and saltiness, there are the several instances in which salt indicates some malediction, e.g., Lot’s wife. So is salt merely a flexible metaphor, or is there more to it than that?

Bill, regardless of which of those questions is being asked, all of them are prime examples of what Bonhoeffer calls cheap grace. It’s what happens when grace is abused.

All: Well, I’m going to be out of touch for about a week as I will be in St. Louis with Jen looking at the places she’s applying to for grad school, looking at apartments, visiting professors, etc., etc. Jen has a few interviews, and she’s very nervous, so your prayers would be appreciated, both for safe travel and for Jen’s interviews.

Rachel-Just curious, why yall are not members of the church you attend?

If you are a new BHT, and haven’t gotten onto our frappr map, please do so.

BHT lurkers: join our lurker frappr.

If you have a BHT/IM friendly blog that you would like on the aggregator, send me the address.

I think it is probably a decent policy. We can’t unbaptize the person in our church that is committing adultery but we can kick them out of fellowship or at least stand against any teaching or leadership assignments.

Grace allows sinners in; we don’t have to clean up our lives to be saved or baptized. But the members of a congregation define a church more then anything and some recognition of visible sin is called for.
Non -members should be welcome at most events but excluded from teaching and leadership duties. I say this as a person who is not a member of the church I attend though I am probably one of the most active attendees. (We do not join because WE are not Baptists and it is an SBC church and it is my husband’s decision, though I do agree)
And silly as it seems I am the bookkeeper and write 99% of the checks and do all of the computer entry and the tax stuff (I can not be the treasurer because I am not a member LOL).

I’m not sure I know which question is being asked here. Is Saddleback wrong for baptizing someone having unmarried sex? Or is Saddleback wrong for baptizing someone without considering them for membership? No membership without baptism, but no baptism without membership?

Putting Amazing Back into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel One thing almost every Reformation minded person I know can agree on: Horton’s “Putting Amazing Back Into Grace” is a fine book, and probably a great book to give to anyone just starting out. One of you asked me about curriculum the other day. Here’s a book that would never disappoint as a study for any age.

Ten Best Flickr Mashups. Way Cool.

Yeee. I wasn’t accusing you of anything like that, lief, it was just a phrase that sprung to mind as guiding the general direction of such discourse. My main reason for disagreement followed. Trust me, if I thought you were denying Christ, I’d be more concerned than ‘the way to go’ intimates.

I didn’t think you’d stop at ‘no’, either, but the de facto denial of the label is what I was talking about. We can go on and on about wanting to break free from a label, but that’s verbal currency. Personally, I’d rather polish up the adjective everyone’s applying to me than change it altogether. There’s nothing wrong with my label. Or at least the one I’m called to my face.

Mark Dever discovers just how far baptism and church membership have been separated by Rick Warren’s church: They are two separate things. I’ll leave it up to the bar to debate if Rick is expressing the teaching of the New Testament or dilluting it.

Reformissionary: Story About Tim Keller in NYT Keller has risen to the top of my short list of people who ought to make you happy to be reformed. Our TR friends have plenty to dislike in this excellent piece. Remember that Redeemer doesn’t have a building. The only things wrong with Keller is that he charges big bucks for his sermons, doesn’t write books and doesn’t blog. C’mon Tim. Get with it.

Scott: Don Knotts’ humor wasn’t the “make me laugh out loud” kind. It was the comedy of the human race. Pity. Tragic in many ways. Small towns are so full of people like Knotts’ characters, especially in leadership. (I’ve known dozens of Fife-ish pastors and staff members, especially in their official dealings with people.) The thing about Knotts is that Barney Fife captures a lot of the anxieties and behaviors of teenagers, but he never left them behind. The “mature” Barney Fife never made it out there. And it is quite profound to see how a dictator lurks underneath every person who can’t do anything right.

Now I’ll think about the Andy Griffith episodes that stay with you your whole life. Barney singing in the choir.

Fare thee well, Kolchak. Thank you for some enduring childhood memories. God rest your soul.

I may catch flak for this, but I’m probably the only person in North Carolina who really, really could care less about Don Knotts or the Andy Griffith Show. I always thought Mr. Knotts was a passable comedian, but not impressive.

Oh, well. At least I finally got w.bloggar working again.

CNN.com – McGavin, ’A Christmas Story’ father, dies at 83 – Feb 26, 2006

bob.blog: Prayer for Humility

An important mistranslation in a text forbidding women to teach?

Man, what a crappy way to wake up: Don Knotts dead. Of course God has to “nip it in the bud” for all of us eventually, but there are some people who seem immortal until they actually go. For me, he was one of them.

As Bishop of Durham NT Wright is a lord of the realm with a seat and duties in the House of Lords. I’m glad to see that he’s fulfilling these duties with his customary competence and genius. Wonderful stuff! How does he find the time and energy to wear all his many hats so well???

No “hangups”.....sleeping…zzzz

Michael, How much of Kierkegaard have you read? What are your hangups on him? i’ve had to read for this term: Philosophical Fragments, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Either/Or, I & II, Fear and Trembling, Concept of Anxiety, and Attack Upon Christendom. So far, i haven’t run into too much difficulties, albeit most of Kierkegaard is in direct relation to Hegel.

Someone posted a while back that the term “Christian” was “biblical.” I’ll spare everyone my general rant against using “biblical” as an adjective, and just use the short-hand for it: you are front-loading your hermeneutic onto the discussion when you use “biblical” as an adjective.

Having said that, I’d also point out that claiming “Christian” has some special significance vis. identification with Christ based on “The disciples were first called ‘Christians’ at Antioch” is pretty silly. Yes, it proves that the name was used very early in church history. It also proves that the term was used as a label by those outside the church to identify those inside.

In an interview concerning the recent film “End of the Spear,” Stephen Saint confirmed something I had long suspected: the term “Auca,” which was used throughout the media coverage of the events and in subsequent books on the subject, was actually profanity used by the other tribes in the area to refer to the native group that his father’s team was attempting to reach. Similarly, it’s thought that the term “Adirondack” was actually an insult directed at the native tribe of the area by their rivals (the term actually means “bark-eaters”, a reference to the tribe’s allegedly poor hunting skills.)

If you want to use the term, fine. I don’t have a problem with it myself, because I think the meaning has shifted. But if you’re going to use the Acts passage as a basis for calling yourself Christian, and you’re going to be consistent, then if you’re an American, I have to ask: Are you going to start calling yourself and your fellow countrymen “assholes?” Because, frankly, that’s what a substantial number of those outside the US call us.

Well, let’s be clear on one thing. Nowhere does scripture tell us to call ourselves Christians. The word occurs three times, never as an imperative.

If there are times that identifying oneself as a Christian is wise, it doesn’t change that at all. There is a difference between a formal discussion of religions and a water cooler conversation. I know a lot about eshewing labels. Remember that I am a “Reformation Christian,” and not a Calvinist.

Oddly, I am somewhat infamous on campus for my refusal to use the term “Christian music,” for much the same reason leif has for dropping the label overall. When someone hears me playing U2, for example, and says, “Are they a Christian group?” I never give a straight answer.

So God bless you leif. Or God have mercy on your soul for denying Christ. Whatever. (jn)

Michael: (am I showing my age?)

I wish, I wish,
I wish I was a fish.
‘Cause fishes have a better life than people.

Yes. I remember the “Incredible Mr. Limpett.

leifrigney: Consider all the folks that call themselves “Christian”. IF you call yourself a Christian, you have that in common with those who deny the Trinity, those who call upon the name of the spirit-brother of Lucifer for salvation, those who pray to a god who once once as human as you and I.

“I follow Christ”
“I belong to Christ”
“I am a disciple of Christ”

My kids went through a stage with everything was “random”. I’d reply “nothing is random.” They’d shoot back, “everything is random.”

The last line of the conversation was:
“We belong to a Sovereign God who is in control of the universe.”

I heard one of the barnacles use that line with a friend the other day.

CNN.com – Actor Don Knotts dies at 81 – Feb 25, 2006 This totally bums me out. Talk about the death of your childhood. Keep ‘em laughing up there, Deputy Fife.

Anyone remember Mr. Limpett? Ghost and Mr. Chicken?

I’ll say one more thing and then I’ll shut up and go to bed, because obviously I’m way too grouchy to deal with this tonight.

It seems that a lot of people seem to have a wrong-headed idea about how this “dropping the label Christian” thing will go, at least for me. It seems the assumption is that when I am asked if I am a Christian, I will just say “No.” But that is not the case. Don’t you see that not using the name will offer more chance for discussion rather than less? I’d be lying if I said that was my only motivation, but it is a cool by-product. I am no wretched urgency man, but I love when opportunities arise to talk about God in non-shallow, non-stereotypical ways.

Forgive me for being cranky, but I typed a lot about exactly why I am doing this experiment and what I believe, and I lost it (even though I have been writing on computers long enough to know to save your work early and often—I feel like Chris Farley: “Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!”).

But if someone asks me, “Hey, what religion are you?” and I quote them part or all of The Apostle’s Creed, at what point am I denying Christ? Is it when I decided not to use a single-word label? Or is it when I say, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord”?

I’m sorry, but it’s just way too much of a leap to automatically assume that not using the word Christian is tantamount to a denial of Christ. And yes, the suggestion makes me a little testy.

There seems to be a small percentage of the population that doesn’t understand, and I don’t know how to get the truth across without just saying it, so I’ll say it again, because it really is getting frustrating:

Not using the name Christian is not “denying Christ.”

Not using the name Christian is not “denying Christ.”

Not using the name Christian is not “denying Christ.”

Not using the name Christian is not “denying Christ.”

Not using the name Christian is not “denying Christ.”

Et Cetera

Josh: I hate to say it, but I have the opposite problem. Because of the way my employment status has fluctuated several times (unemployed, self-employed, employed full time, etc.) over the past two years, my average refund is a horrendous amount (because it represents an interest-free loan of my money to the government.) On my last W2, I claimed 14 withholding exemptions, and when all is said and done, the IRS still owes me over $5K this year. For what it’s worth, here’s some advice based on my experience:

1. Leave academia, sell out, and join the corporate rat-race.
2. Get married.
3. Buy a house.
4. Live on one income
5. Have many kids.
6. Itemize.

I can’t imagine denying Jesus is the way to go… If you deny me, I will deny you, etc.

I understand the slant is novelty, but I just can’t see it. It’s dissociative, which is the point, but it’s also the problem. What does this denial signify? Not just to you, but to those who hear it? That it’s okay to ‘follow Christ’ so long as you’re not a ‘Christian’? Or that you can do either? The underlying principle seems to lend itself to extreme reductionism when it comes to the content of the faith. And, forgive me, but if I heard it, I’d feel like I was being sold something via some fancy double-talk. I hates me some fancy, double-talking salesman, yessir.

Leif, unfortunately, the only way I’ve found to be sure not to lose work is to type in a generic text editor (notepad, emacs, vi, etc.), then save early and often. I’ve lost enough work over time that this has become second nature, and it absolutely works.

Matthew, I’d say something witty about that little mixup, but I’m laughing too hard.

So (and I think I know the answer to this), is there any way to, like, recover the hour of typing I just did that Xanga gobbled up? If someone can work that (surely impossible) miracle, you’ll be my new best friend.

If I blog against your experiment, don’t hate me or overcharge my daughter for wedding stuff :-) But I probably will. I respect what you are doing, and I am not hung up on titles, but I think “credo,” “I believe…” is the essence of the Christian faith, which is an articulated, communal, public experience, and not a gnostic “search.” I know some excellent Christians who have taken this approach, such as Kierkegaard and Bono, but I tend to think they have created as many problems as they solved. The idea of diverting the discussion from self to Christ is excellent. The idea that we can’t say “I am a disciple of Jesus” becomes pretty confusing. Baptism has a consequential meaning of some kind. If we can say, “I am Baptized and a disciple of Jesus,” then what are we avoiding saying by avoiding the term “Christian?”

I’ll get to this at IM sometime. In the meantime, I’m off to see “Streetcar Named Desire” in Lexington with my AP IV kids and Denise.

Jason: I am very serious about it, even more so the more I think about it. For one thing, I am really looking forward to some conversations I am bound to have with non-believers as a result of it. When you can’t name yourself in one word, people become more curious. You say, “I’m a Christian,” and people nod and immediately file you away. They may do the same if you say more, but for many people, when you say, “No, I’m not a Christian, but…”, I theorize they will be curious to hear the rest of what you say. In case any of the Chicken-Little-The-Signifier/Signified-Sky-Is-Falling folks wonder, no, I will not just say, “No” when people ask if I am a Christian.

And even though this is of course unscientific, I will keep track of the experience. I haven’t been on my blog in a while (anyone else find it embarrassing to set up a blog and then have no time to maintain it? I do). But what I will do is record developments there (and here, if the bartenders don’t mind) as they happen. Sort of a dispatches from the field sort of thing.

I’m not promising a whole lot. First, it’s a cliche but true: I am very short of time these days. I am not whining, because I love my life; but lack of time is one of those things that characterizes it. Second, I don’t know how much will change. Most of the people I know who have cared to enter into such a discussion with me already know me as “a Christian,” so they won’t likely ask. And I am not wretched urgency type of guy. The times I feel called to “witness” are generally the times when someone asks me outright what I think about God/spirituality, etc. I hold high contempt for the old “If you were put on trial would you be convicted of being a Christian?” routine. Blecch. So I don’t know how much, if any, there will be to report. But if there is any, I will do so. Anyone interested, stay tuned. Those who are tired of all this, peace be with you. But I am serious about this experiment.

You know you’ve blogged too much

From a discussion on “Christian-themed” movies in the Lexington Paper:

Just last year, I saw “Left Behind III: World at War” which followed an
unconventional path of showing on the “church circuit” instead of
traditional theatres. That was a great mid-budget Hollywood-style
thriller with an outstanding cast (notably Oscar-winner Louis Gossett,
Jr.) that would probably have been in most fair-minded people’s top 20
films for the year had it been shown in the mainstream. Everything from
the script to the acting to the special effects were big-budget
quality. It should have been a regular theatrical release.

Jason:

I looked at the Cornerstone Festival. I like it, but can only take it in small doses…

I don’t know how the church thing is going. Nobody seems to think it’s a big deal that we’re sending our kids down there. The youth pastor says that he’ll be there to re-teach if anything goes wrong. My answer was to ask if he can’t discern what’s what from here, where it’s neutral and he has time to reason, how on earth is he going to be able to discern when he’s right in the middle of the emotionalism of it all (and these groups do depend on emotionalism to whip things up).

My hope is that the Firehouse will do their full-bore Pentecostal thing on Wednesday night, when the kids are there – let them see “holy laughter”, folks getting “slain in the spirit”, all of it. Let these little CRC kids get all freaked out and come home and tell their parents.

Or maybe they’ll just find it “cool”

IM is updated with “A Perfect Paul?”

Leif, if you’re serious about that experiment of not calling yourself Christian for a time, I’d be really curious to know how it turns out.

As for me, I think I may start adopting what’s on my Slashdot profile: “bondservant of Christ” – it’s odd enough to start conversations and avoids the word slave, which has all kinds of bad connotation to the present culture.

Ellen, if you like some of those bands, you’d really love the Cornerstone Festival. One week – hundreds of bands of many styles – all kinds of freaky people, mostly in but some not in the Faith. (OK – Christians – is everyone happy?) BTW, how’s the whole church situation over there?

Jason Blair

On labels, yes, they are important if we are talking of nouns, etc. They are not as important when talking about a person’s preference with regards to a particular issue (i.e. the opposite of pro-life is…anti-life? pro-death? Whereas the opposite of pro-choice is…anti-choice? pro-dictatorship?) Labels like these pigeon-hole people into nice, neat, little boxes that they normally don’t fit. i don’t mind if people want to be called “Christian”. i do mind, though, if people feel it necessary to call me a “Christian.” With this, i am reminded of a story someone from a pstmodern theology eGroup (or now Yahoo group) who does ministry with indians. He said that one indian who loved Christ was in a quick stop and someone approached him and asked “Hey, aren’t you a Christian?” He responded, “I ain’t no damn Christian! I’m a Jesus man!’

Christopher

With all the discussion and name changes (how pomo) I’m not sure to jump in, but I’ll just share a thought prompted by the Christian/not Christian discussion. It’s not aimed at anyone in particular. There are times where we need to let unbelievers know that we disavow the words or actions of other believers/Christians. However, we should remember that the Christian, even if they/he/she is a moonbat, is family, and the unbeliever isn’t.

On a related note, it looks like any Duke-haters are going to have to accept this guy.

Mark W

I was at a well known Reformed web site copying the Apostle’s Creed into the order of service. At the top is a glitzy banner ad for a DVD celebrating the faith and courage of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

While I appreciate the text in the ad that states the south was wrong on slavery, I’m afraid this isn’t working for me.

Do Reformed people just not get how their admiration for the confederacy looks to the rest of the world? This really, really creeps me out, and I am not a Moscow Intolerista. It’s the latent effect of having a school that is 40% non-white/non-American I guess. These Calvinists aren’t celebrating the faith of slaves or abolitionists. They are celebrating the faith and courage of Southern military officers. Decontextualize that into another time and place and see how weird it gets.

Sometimes the culture of Reformed people, with their admiration of the confederacy, their over-whelmingly white alternative school system and their continuing loyalty to ethnicity makes me want to follow leif and call myself a sasquatch or something. Explaining this to a room full of young black students (who already have family members telling them Christianity is “white man’s religion”)  would really be a great way to spend an afternoon. Thank God for men like John Piper who openly disavow these connections between Reformed Christianity and the appearance of a cracker Christianity.

MSpencer

I went to a concert last night with my kids. My post has a couple of links to their lyrics and music. Kind of a “celtic-punk-rock-weird-I like them” sort of thing.

(NOTE: mothers should not have to watch their children stage-dive or crowd-surf)

Anyway, the band is quite “interesting” – I wasn’t the oldest person there, but close.

(This really does play into the “what do we call ourselves” conversation)
Here is part of one of their songs:

The line is drawn our minds are set
We now know where we stand,
It’s the brotherhood of man that stood
We follow the Father’s plan
The faith that lies within our hearts doesn’t come from the halls of a church
It’s not about religion
It’s about a friend
And it’s him that gave us worth.

By the way, if I have to be “Bob” or “Pat Robertson”, I’m going to have a little “gender-identity-crisis” going on here. At least a “Boy Named Sue” has a musical precident.

Ellen

True story.

My wife and daughter spent this whole week with my mom and grandparents in my hometown. I drove up there Thursday, spent the night, and drove back yesterday morning. Before we left, my mom wanted us to bring Elisa by so mom could show her off to the teachers at school. My mom is an elementary school librarian and has a little office in the back of the library. While she was taking Elisa around, Heather and I were looking at pictures when we noticed a modest shrine to her only grandchild right behind her desk. One of the pictures was a printout of an ultrasound. Even though she’d written Elisa’s name on it I still didn’t recognize the ultrasound picture which is weird because I stared at them everyday for 3 months.

Upon closer inspection, I notice that at the bottom of the page there is a web address telling the viewer the page from which the picture was printed. “http://www.blar.net….” Strange. What’s even stranger is that at the top of the ultrasound, the mother’s name is printed in big white letters and it ain’t my wife’s name.

It says “NORDSTROM, AMANDA”.

For a year and a half, an ultrasound pic of Kat has been hanging in my mom’s office in a small town in Arkansas.

Thank you, Al Gore. Without the internet, nothing like this would be possible.

Photographic proof courtesy my Razr phone.

P.S. Jim, please turn of that #$%#$ “oooh! everybody has the same name,!” #$%$%. It's #$%$#%$ annoying.

mj

I’ve been corresponding with Bill at Thinklings about his decision to pull the post noting our discussion of the label “Christian.” I appreciate Bill, and the fact that the original post noted that we were discussing, not announcing a position. Bill has been in our corner in some tough bouts and I appreciate him. I’m sorry he pulled the post, but I understand completely how he was viewing the discussion.

And I’m sorry I said I miss Jared, Bill. In actual fact, Jared is a bonehead, and your site is blessed to be rid of his ranting, carping presence. ;-)

MSpencer

Grrrrrrr
It is 7:30am and the bar is still open on the corner. Go to bed!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks again, everyone, for making today special. God loves you very much, so much, in fact, that He’s going to bomb children in Gaza tomorrow in your honor.

Blessings,

Pat

Let me suggest some possibilities.

1. There is a continuity between the baptism of John, Jesus, Acts and the epistles.
2. That continuity is most certainly believer’s baptism, as all Christians agree.
3. That a significant portion of the church inferred paedobaptism from the consideration of old and new covenant as applied to inclusion of “households” is perfectly reasonable.
4. That this development was greeted as acceptable and quickly became settled practice would appear to be reasonable as well.
5. The extent to which this development is contra the faith and practice of Jesus is a debatable matter on which Christians legitimately and sincerely differ.
6. Such differences have repercussions in ecclesiology, but not insurmountable ones. (See Wilsonites for details.)

MSpencer

>Jesus, are you saying that there are three Gods? There’s not a sane Hebrew on the planet who would have asked that question. There were questions, I’ll certainly concede, but they arise from plain texts, not inferences. See the Gospel of John for details.

Josh and Eric have a note from God excusing them from certain days when the basic elements of literature were disussed. “Plain reading” indeed. snort

I kept reading the parts of your post that I understood to find a textual reference to John or Jesus baptizing children brought by their parents. I must have passed it by. I’m sure it’s in there. I mean…it has to be in there somewhere.

You’re at Landover. Stop pestering me. ;-)

MSpencer