JS: I asked if “Truth War” is a good way to describe what Jesus was creating through his ministry. For example, in training and teaching disciples, how much would “Truth War” accurately describe what Jesus is doing?

It’s plain that Josh thinks the question doesn’t matter. He says so.

I assume that “truth war” is a limited metaphor. It has some usefulness, and it has a lot of dangerous misapplications.

It makes me angry when Josh immediately says a question “doesn’t matter,” and when the response amounts to “duh,” it makes me angry on a lot of levels. I didn’t attack anyone with the question. I didn’t say “missional conversation.” I didn’t defend people with cool hair and buzzwords. Why Josh feels this is the way to respond to a question here on the BHT is a mystery to me. A dozen fellows have told me that Josh knows how to push my buttons and I agree. It’s why he has to continually demean- and that’s exactly what he does- a question with a full ridiculing attack puzzles me. I don’t know why I allow it to continue.

I just want to say that I have no idea what Pirate is responding to, and no idea why it’s making iMonk upset. Something about a war? Did MacArthur call for a jihad crusade and I missed it? If there’s a war, I’ll be a pacifist so that I can piss everybody off again.

UPDATE: Okay, I found it. He’s answering Michael’s question here. I’m assuming that there was some earlier, more insulting version of his post that I didn’t see, because none of the rest of the conversation makes sense to me.

>Or is that benefit of the doubt something we’re only supposed to give to guys with cool hair that can drop totally cool philosophical buzzwords?

I love this ___. It’s so darned spot on. I wonder who it refers to?

Jesus described what he was creating as a Kingdom and as a church. There are places that war language applies to the Gospel, but somehow I’m doubtful that what Jesus was all about was creating an army of theological polemicists writing volumes of definitions. The entire “war” metaphor has a checkered history for Christians, with some of our better moments and a whole collection of our worst ones. One thing’s for sure: if being a Christian means joining a war, Jesus told us that war wasn’t fought in the same terms as other wars, and when we define our “enemies” in that war, there’s the constant temptation to transform the “war” into a personal vendetta. I work with hundreds of unbelievers and I am not fighting a truth war with them. I’m presenting the Gospel to every person’s conscience in the power of the Spirit.

NOTE: Just for the record, in Macarthur’s version of the “Truth War,” I’m not a Christian. So it is of interest to me.

>I’ve never thought WWJD? was a clever question. I’ve noticed that.

Well I’m curious as to the relevance of the title of MacArthur’s book is. It does seem quite apparent to me that we are having a “truth war” both in our culture and in the church (there’s that one fellow everyone insists is completely irrelevant to a certain movement despite the millions of books he sells and millions of hits his website gets, for example), so one can’t really accuse the title of his book of having no connection to reality. And it does seem to me that our culture should matter to us somewhat as inhabitants and members of it…citizens of two kingdoms, if you will. So it’s hard to argue that a Christian should not write about such a subject.

I’m no MacArthur fan by any stretch of the imagination. I could write plenty of material criticizing works I’ve read by him that would probably go way beyond anything you would write in terms of polemics…but I’m not going to slam a book I haven’t read or say “Yeah, Jesus would never write a book with that title!” There are a lot of things Jesus probably wouldn’t do, but I’ve never thought WWJD? was a clever question.

Is it appropriate to ask if it’s appropriate to critique a book when no one’s critiqued the book?

I’m not smart enough to answer this question without help.

Jesus said that he is the Truth. Then the Romans went to war.

QED.

Would it be accurate to call what Jesus was creating a “missional conversation?” Does it matter? I’m pretty sure that “homoousios war” isn’t a good metaphor for the Gospel, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t have one or that it was irrelevant to the Church.  Is it appropriate to critique a book solely based on its title without appreciating the nuances of the position presented in it?

So there are Christians actually wrestling with whether shunning a pregnant 16 year old would be the right thing to do? Who in hades writes these stories?

And then there’s this guy:

Jimmy Hester, who founded True Love Waits with Ross, voiced concern that Christians will miss an opportunity to explain to teenagers why Castle-Hughes’ situation is not ideal.

“This is just another illustration that our society does not truly value the biblical plan for sexuality,” Hester told BP. “Platforming this actress in this movie only serves as justification for sexually active teenagers and others who support such behavior, and makes it more difficult for young believers to hold up God’s plan for sexual abstinence until marriage.”

Really…the Onion will go out of business with these kinds of people handing out press releases.

John Piper and Kevin Corcoran exchange emails and Piper admits he may not have fully understood all the nuances of Corcoran’s views.

Question: John Macarthur’s new book is called “The Truth War.” Would it be accurate to call what Jesus was creating a “truth war?” Is the metaphor of “culture war” or a “truth war” reasonably accurate to the Christian Gospel?

Work continues, but the new look at Internet Monk is basically done. The new IM banner can’t be far behind.

Ben Myers completes his Theology for Beginners with a wonderful meditation on the End.

By the by, anyone care to offer their views about Barlow’s post that I linked earlier? It’s generating lots of comments there.

As Michael, I can’t help but assume that something’s fishy about the editing there. It’s just too radical a move away from what he’s said in the past.  It’s probably important to point out that if his comment about “christendom” has any continuity with his previous use of that word, he is speaking about nominal Christianity as a compromised collusion with earthly powers and abuse of political and cultural authority.  And I can see how within that model, exporting the message of Jesus as Lord has to be carefully contextualized into the message of love and forgiveness, not imperial domination – though one wonders what to make of the Second Coming and Jesus returning to destroy all His enemies.  It is, of course, a Christian value to be longsuffering, and even, at the risk of their own lives, sponsor the right of others to believe and practice whatever they want without the fear of retribution—and they could do all of that without at any point being shy about why they would do such a thing.

Reading Capote’s two holiday short stories is a tradition in our family. Now I see both are coming to the stage in Lexington. These are great reads and should be fine plays.

As edited, some of Camp’s statements are problematic. And that’s exactly why I’m suspicious.

What do I mean by the “authority of Christ” when I talk to my Muslim students? (I teach Muslims every day.) I don’t mean what radical Muslims mean about the treatment of other religions. Heck, I don’t even mean what moderate Muslims mean about the treatment of other religions. I mean that Christ is the authority over all, but that belief won’t be expressed politically by me in exerting authority over other religions. Christ can do that. I will respect and protect the rights of others to practice their religion.

Michael:  I realize that.  Hopefully everybody reads the article.

A bunch of religious people got together at an “interfaith gathering”.   A lot of things were said.

Camp said, ”... how can a Muslim or Jew trust us, if we say Jesus is the Lord of all Lords?”

The Muslim said, “we worship the same god.”

Well, we don’t.  And that Muslim cleric is NOT quoted as asking Muslim, “how can a Christian or Jew trust us, if we say “there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet?”

And that question – I don’t believe will ever be asked.

Lee DID say,

“I’m committed to not killing you, but to serving and honoring you. It’s an exclusive commitment to the way of Christ, not to the exclusive authority of Christ.“

Lee says that

Instead, he believes, Christians must not back away from their beliefs but further examine them and their own history.

He wasn’t saying all of these things in a vacuum – he was saying them in an arena of “let’s all get along-ism”.

What do Christians have to stop saying in order to get Muslims and Jews to trust them?

What do Christians have to commit to (and NOT commit to).

What good is a commitment to the goodness of Christ without the authority of Christ?

Ellen: Lee Camp didn’t say what you just quoted. A Muslim spokesperson said that. Camp said 1) Christians may have to give up some things to get along with others. (OK…that sounds like a bad idea, but what does he mean?) 2) We should give up the Christendom model (To that I say Amen. The Holy Roman Empire was a bad idea as are all state churches.) 3) How can we get along with Muslims and Jews if we say Jesus is Lord? (Good question. Is that a question, Dr. Camp, or a statement? The article doesn’t make it clear.)

Good grief. No wonder our country is in the state it is. The government is wasting taxpayer time and money on crap like this.

Michael:  I didn’t see anywhere that Muslims were asked, “how can Christians and Jews trust us if we keep saying that there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet?”

In the same article, it says,

‘Allah, the God Muslims worship, is the same God Christians and Jews worship, and the Quran recounts the same biblical stories of Mary and Jesus, he said.

Well…maybe.  Except that their Jesus isn’t God and their God didn’t come to dwell on earth to save His people from their sin.

Their God didn’t become fully God and fully human and die on a cross.

We don’t worship the same God.

1. I am very leery of this article. The Lordship statement sounds rhetorical. I ask our internationals all the time “How can we say you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven? Isn’t it wrong of us to do that?” Take that statement out of context and I am denying the Gospel. The fact that I then TELL THEM HOW and WHY may or may not be reported.

2. Forsake Christendom? Wikipedia says Christendom is a theocracy; a Christian political kingdom. I gave up on that when I pledged loyalty to Jesus as King. I don’t believe Christians have any reason to ever say to a Muslim “We want to establish a Christian Kingdom on earth.” If by Christendom something else is meant, then we may need to talk.

“We need to forsake the Christendom model,” Camp said. “The most basic Christian commitment … is that we say we believe in the Lordship of Jesus. But, if we claim that, how can a Muslim or Jew trust us, if we say Jesus is the Lord of all Lords?“

The Muslims say, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet”

The Jews say,
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is One.
You shall love the LORD your God
with all your heart,
and with all your soul
and with all your might.

Early Christians did not cave when facing Nero (although some did), later Christians didn’t cave when facing their own tormentors (although some did).

God helping us, we will not cave when facing one of our own saying that we “need to forsake the Christendom model…saying that Jesus is the Lord of all Lords!

I will say it over and over again. Jesus is the Lord of all Lords!

Jews and Muslims don’t need to trust us. They need to trust Jesus and for that to happen, Jesus as Lord needs to be preached.

Rick Warren getting flack over invitation to Obama.

The geek in me was compelled to decode the puzzle. So, here are the potential results for the quiz:

Internet ‘Chip’-Munk
Been Mires
Kim Fantabulous!
Centuri ‘Prime’-0n
Hi Yo! Ken Silver
Ingrate Shooter
Tim ‘Swiss’ Chalet

Someone has too much time on their hands…

(amendment to initial statement – I was trying to get the post up in between craziness at the office.  Kudos to hubby for assisting my geekiness with his.)

Jon Barlow wonders whether presbyterians aren’t really episcopalians. I know this may sound like an in-house discussion for PCAers, but there are several levels to the issue that Jon is raising that apply broadly to all church governance. I’d be keen to hear what you think.

Here’s a quote from the post that I think reflects a situation that lots of non-presbyterians can relate to:

Not only does this one example suffice to demonstrate how presbyterianism can very easily become a luscious democratic candy shell on an episcopal chocolate filling, but there are other things we all know to be true that illustrate our de facto episcopal system. Every presbytery has its bishops – pastors that have been around for a while, or who pastor very large churches, or who have personalities that attract people to them, etc. These men can speak at presbytery and sway votes – they can work behind the scenes, communicating in networks to influence the activities in other presbyteries beyond their own. These bishops influence issues in ways that sometimes stretch far beyond their competency in various issues or beyond the consent of the governed.

I wonder if the NT “model” and the democratic model are ultimately incommensurable? Does the democratic model of church governance entail corinthian problems of party fealty, with problems being resolved by political quarrelling between followers of Paul, followers of Apollos and followers of Cephas? Rather than thoughtful deliberation and considered judgment in public fora, do we settle difficult questions by force of personality and flimsy compromises? Should we try to better realize democratic principles or should we work toward a different model altogether? In other words, how radically should we reform?

Challies concludes his post on the regulative principle and says that the RPW has value, but isn’t always to be followed.

I am speaking in a black and white church.

I’m quite willing to let the “Christendom” model go. Why should I hold on to it? Now…what does he mean by that? I know what I mean.

“I’ve noticed that when God wants me to follow Him in a particular direction, He usually doesn’t get me to do it by sending people to scream at me, argue with me, threaten me or poke me with sticks. He does it by heading off in that direction and relying on my new heart’s desire to be with Him. Maybe we should try to be more like God when it comes to getting people to follow us.”

_{Today’s Pithy Jim Nicholson Quote is a public service of Fire Hydrant Ministries.}

Jason: I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m pretty sure that Been Mires is a convolution (is that a word?) of Ben Myers – Faith and Theology.

FYI – there are five other outcomes besides Been Mires and Chip-Monk, but I haven’t played with the quiz long enough to get them to come up

From the article:

“We have such short historical (memory) spans as white Christians,” he said. “There is a history of anti-Semitism, the violence and bloodshed of the crusades and cultural imperialism. We have to deal with the reality of what Christians have done, which in some cases has been to kill people.”

Hey, sometimes you just gotta kill people.  And what’s wrong with cultural imperialism, anyway?  Everyone’s pro-cultural imperialism; they just disagree on which culture should win.  F’rexample, trying to persuade folks that murdering a woman after she’s been raped isn’t a good way to protect your family honor is certainly a form of cultural imperialism and one that I wholeheartedly support.  This is my favorite bit:

If I hold to a model of Jesus … what I’ve committed to in my baptism is loving my enemy…It’s an exclusive commitment to the way of Christ, not to the exclusive authority of Christ.

I mean, I’d say something, but I’d have to quote the Bible, which is uncool these days.   You don’t respond to philosophers and theologians by blindly proof-texting.  If the Scripture were clear, we wouldn’t have these disagreements.  Statements like “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me; therefore go and make disciples of all nations” could go a million different ways, y’know?

What the . . .?! Lee Camp wrote a little book called Mere Discipleship, which I absolutely loved for its emphasis on Jesus’ lordship - I even gave copies to all of our high-shcoolers in order to help them think through the political ramifications of being a Christian.  The subtitle was about living a “radical Christianity”. 

I’m hoping that his comments were grossly distorted or taken out of context – otherwise this is a sad departure indeed.

From the Tennessean:

To live peacefully with Muslims and Jews, Christians must put aside the notion that their faith requires the creation of a Christian kingdom on Earth, a Lipscomb University theologian told an interfaith gathering at the university.

“We are not going to get very far in our relationship with Jews or Muslims if we do not let go of this idea,” Lipscomb professor Lee Camp said at Tuesday’s conference.

The unusual gathering of several dozen clergy and lay people was devoted to resolving religious conflict in Nashville and around the world.

“We need to forsake the Christendom model,” Camp said. “The most basic Christian commitment … is that we say we believe in the Lordship of Jesus. But, if we claim that, how can a Muslim or Jew trust us, if we say Jesus is the Lord of all Lords?“

Are none of you getting a result other than the chipmunk?

I got this:

You are Been Mires. You love theology, Karl barth, and Rugby.

I’m OK with the written part, but Pirate or someone will have to enlighten me as to who this character is or isn’t. The Oracle at Google had nothing to tell me.

And so I’m puzzled why Piper is “freaking out” on this issue. Is this something like “Uh-oh: Books and Culture is sliding down a slippery slope. Soon they’ll be denying the Trinity“? I’m baffled by this whole thing.

Me, too. If any of you have tried to introduce Piper’s “Christian hedonism” to someone who’s never heard of him before, you might have gotten the same kind of “freaking out” response to it. Now whether C.H. has anything meritorious about it or not is one thing, but to dismiss it out-of-hand as nothing more than a misguided oxymoron completely misses the point of Piper’s reinterpretation of the meaning of hedonism. No patience to hear him out? Fine, but don’t bother peppering Piper with prooftexts about the evils of loving pleasure. In the same way—ironically—this critique of “Christian materialism” comes from the one man who should know not to take the term ‘materialism’ naively, nor be aghast at someone who suggests that there might be something worthwhile in appropriating a term of controversial pedigree and that superficially appears in conflict with its “Christian” modifier.

Here is the site of a company which makes a $3 personal water filter.   I found the site a bit confusing, but the company is called Vestergaard Frandsen, and according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune they sell these in bulk to charitable organizations to distribute to people who lack clean water.

Kent, I tried to take the test, but I couldn’t finish it. Around the middle of the quiz, I found there weren’t any answers I could pick. I ended up with the chipmunk, which appears to be the default result.

BTW, iMonk: taking this to a private list is very
charming. I wonder when someone from BHT will break
it to your blog rather than keep it here? I have
added two people to the list for my own edification,
but I’ll bet you a free t-shirt that one of your folks
takes this to open bandwidth before end of business
Wednesday (5 PM PT). One shirt, any size, any style,
your choice. A mug if you don’t like the causal look. You don’t even have to ante up.

I’ll take the teampyro mug, cent.

Piper’s response is pretty amateurish. Waving the Bible around at philosophers (especially self-avowed Christian ones) rarely works. As if they haven’t heard every objection supposedly pulled from Scripture already? The fact of the matter is that the Biblical evidence on the ontology of human persons underdetermines an answer to the dualism/physicalism debate.

As a sociological observation, let me mention that Christian materialism is a rather hip thesis in the Christian philosophical community. Prominent Christian philosophers like Kevin Corcoran, Trenton Merricks, Peter van Inwagen, (who is one of my professors), and Lynne Rudder Baker are Christian materialists. Of course, there are old stalwarts of dualist orthodoxy, among them Dean Zimmerman and Alvin Plantinga.

Now, I must confess that I’m not a Christian materialist (but I’m not sure if I’m a dualist either). There are some serious philosophical issues with Christian materialism, and perhaps even some serious theological ones (particularly with the Incarnation). Some of these will be addressed in the forthcoming volume Persons: Human and Divine.

Quite frankly, I don’t see why it is important one way or another whether physicalism with respect to human beings is true or not (Peter van Inwagen shares my bafflement, so he tells me). And so I’m puzzled why Piper is “freaking out” on this issue. Is this something like “Uh-oh: Books and Culture is sliding down a slippery slope. Soon they’ll be denying the Trinity”? I’m baffled by this whole thing.

Wow, I wish I had time to respond to Piper’s critique of Corcoran’s “Christian materialist” thesis. I will just say that the facile conception of the soul that most of us have rattling around our heads is positively bursting at the seams with unstated assumptions. The same is true for our conception of matter. Read the biblical passages that Piper quotes without those assumptions and I think we have virtually no idea what they mean ontologically. They are full of metaphor and suggestive imagery; there are no obvious theses about “immaterial substance” or “personal identity.” To see such theses so plainly indicates high-powered theory-laden prejudgment, not simple clarity, on the part of the reader. I, for one, am glad Books & Culture saw fit to recognize a christian thinker who dares to contest our Caspar-the-friendly-ghost notion of the soul. I look forward to reading Corcoran’s book and hope Piper will reconsider his criticism in light of more thoroughly argued and documented research.

John Piper responds to a Christian materialist’s critique of the idea of the soul...and wonders why Books and Culture gives a platform to someone denying such an important tenet of the faith.

We’re continuing to reel around here from the resignation and reassignment of some of our younger staff members. It makes me want to write some things about ministry, but I’m leaving IM to the tech elf right now and have to be patient. So instead of going on and on over there, I’ll post a very pertinent scripture passage:

II Corinthians 6:3 We live in such a way that no one will stumble because of us, and no one will find fault with our ministry. 4 In everything we do, we show that we are true ministers of God. We patiently endure troubles and hardships and calamities of every kind. 5 We have been beaten, been put in prison, faced angry mobs, worked to exhaustion, endured sleepless nights, and gone without food. 6 We prove ourselves by our purity, our understanding, our patience, our kindness, by the Holy Spirit within us,* and by our sincere love. 7 We faithfully preach the truth. God’s power is working in us. We use the weapons of righteousness in the right hand for attack and the left hand for defense. 8 We serve God whether people honor us or despise us, whether they slander us or praise us. We are honest, but they call us impostors. 9 We are ignored, even though we are well known. We live close to death, but we are still alive. We have been beaten, but we have not been killed. 10 Our hearts ache, but we always have joy. We are poor, but we give spiritual riches to others. We own nothing, and yet we have everything.

Ministry to many Christians these days amounts to a lot of talk. I’m not saying that in a bad way, I’m saying it truthfully. It’s a lot of talk about theology. A lot of talk about ideas and doctrines. A lot of talk about what ought to be done, etc. Sometimes I look at all my blogging and at the blogosphere in general and all the talk makes me sick of myself. What counterbalances things for me is going into that classroom. Doing the work. Subjecting my own ideas to the place and the reality of serving these students. It’s the two Muslim girls sitting in front of me 1st period and the two communist Chinese boys in my 4th period class. It’s doing my job as a teacher for their sake. When the fellow said the other day that evangelicals forget people after they are born, I appreciated what Ellen said about my work, but really, the question is why aren’t there a thousand schools that work with our kids? Why aren’t there a thousand schools that call us to community-based repentance from materialism and the idolatry of money? Why aren’t there a thousand schools where ministry means sacrifice for the ministry to exist? The reason is that most evangelicals don’t know what ministry is unless its a lot of talk in a comfortable setting. Someone last week really hurt my feelings with one sentence: You are always talking over our head. It shouldn’t bug me, but see I have to think daily about the fact that talk isn’t ministry. Life- real life- in a place, at a task, with real people- is ministry. Look at what Paul is describing. It’s not Calvinism. It’s suffering for the cause, and its choosing that life for the cause. Folks….life is short. Really, really short. Get busy doing something. I had a 40+ year old friend who is now deceased tell me late in life that she never found what she really wanted to do. She did all kinds of things but none of them were what the heart wanted. She got involved in an affair and wasted so much of life. It breaks my heart that she never found a place she could put her life into, go to every day, deal with people and serve them for Jesus and feel life wasn’t being wasted or just endured. Young people…read Piper’s Don’t Waste Your Life…and then DON’T. Find a way to serve Jesus and go do it.