“Or how much curious and loving attention was expended by the first man who looked hard enough at the insides of trees, the entrails of cats, the hind ends of horses and the juice of pine tree to realize he could turn them all into the first fiddle. No doubt his wife urged him to get up and do something useful. I am sure that he was a stalwart enough lover of things to pay no attention at all to her nagging; but how wonderful it would have been if he had known what we know now about his dawdling. He could have silenced her with the greatest riposte of all time: Don’t bother me; I am creating the possibility of the Bach unaccompanied sonatas” (Robert Farrar Capon, The Supper of the Lamb, p. 19 HT to Doug Wilson
Travis, we are, in general, trying to write somewhat serious defenses. Of course, the more idiotic you consider the belief to be, the more you will be unable to avoid satirical tone (I tried unsuccessfully to avoid this in my WO post).
I think that post must have been on the old I Think I Need a Stiff Drink blog, because I can’t find it in my other blog’s archives, which still exist and are accessible only to me. But if I remember correctly, the gist of it was that a lot of modern contemporary worship is highly erotic by nature. Step back and look at it—attractive, heavily made-up young women pant and sigh into microphones (if you’re really hip, you have dancers cavorting around, too), everyone’s passions get whipped up into a frenzy, and if you’re really in the spirit of things, your whole body is swept up in the passion. Worship in the contemporary setting could practically be defined as exciting one’s passions in preparation for a climactic spiritual experience. Of course, the same definition could be used of foreplay with the change of “spiritual” to “sexual.”
Let’s point out the obvious: replace the buxom blonde babes with stout matrons in their late 50’s, and the worship experience just plain doesn’t happen. Hire an older fellow that walks with a cane as your worship pastor instead of that handsome, young, energetic Cedarville graduate, and Sunday morning just won’t “work.” That should indicate something is wrong. This kind of “worship” isn’t anything new. Maybe fog machines, synthesizers, and colored lights are new, but sensuality and eroticism in worship aren’t. It’s just that in the olden-tymie days, you had to go to a pagan temple to get that. They did a remarkably bad job of incorporating the pagan culture into their worship. A few things changed with the imperialization of the Church, but the damage had already been done. Christian worship was doomed to centuries of reverence, formality, seriousness, regularity, and deliberation until the 20th century brought Aphrodite back to her rightful place as the orchestrator of our worship.
It’s kind of terrifying to me how ashamed we are by our neediness. We are dependent. We are on our knees at the foot of the Cross. Like the man said, we can’t do it by ourselves any longer. And we feel awful because we can’t save ourselves. We feel (I feel) deep, miserable, abiding shame because we think we should be Pelagians. We genuinely believe we should be able to save ourselves by being sinless.
Oh, good luck with that, honey. You let me know how that works out for you.
N.T. Wright book on Evil, agree some, disagree some, take the good, critique, compliment, toss the bad. Generally be an adult. Something the bright side of the blogsphere finds very hard to do where the Bish is concerned.
I have tried to describe to my kids the dancing that I saw at Glide. I never thought about it as spinning. But, that’s just what it was. Now. I’m trying to find a video to show them. I was fascinated. They think I’m crazy but I said, see! Michael saw it too!
I’m just returning from the 2007 version of the [Place where I work] Student Government Sponsored Talent Show. The best we’ve ever done. The diversity of [the place I work] really makes such events a blessing. Guitar, dance, rap, duets, all kinds of music. Just wonderful. Made me want to work here a little longer.
The Filter is a music selection program for iTunes. It’s great. Maybe still a little quirky in the Mac beta, but it’s working great for me now that I know what it wants. Picks wonderful song lists. I’ve been putting my music collection on the iMac and really getting some mileage out of The Filter. I highly recommend it. (Yes, it’s free.)
Pizza sounds really good. The fact that the nearest one is 17 miles away is not a deterrent. We’ll take a frozen one and morph it into something.
A Reds team with no names I recognized other than Bubba Crosby lost to the Toronto Bluejays today. I love this weekend before Opening Day. The team disappears and then reappears Monday. BTW- if you can get to a TV with the Cinci-Cubs game Monday, there is going to be a moment in that game when a kid named Josh Hamilton comes to the plate. You want to see this if you can. 17 at bats in single A. No major leagues at bats. Drafted #1 three years ago, blew his career on drugs and booze. Jesus found him. He’s clean for a year. Back with his family. The Reds got him in a rule 5 deal, and he’s been AMAZING this spring. When that kid comes to the plate Monday, I am going to be in tears. He’s a success already. Go Reds!
Watch Hamilton nail a runner with this arm of his. He was a pitcher in high school throwing 95 mph from the left. Any day Griffey doesn’t want to play centerfield, this is what’s on the bench.
1) I am a really normal guy, with a very healthy, earthy, grateful, humorous, un-prudish attitude about all things related to sex.
2) Dress codes- which I am surrounded by in my life- have never impressed me. I get the point, and I can see where they can be helpful. But I mostly see the limitations, problems and legalism.
3) I am generally annoyed by hyper-modesty appeals. Though I am wired up by God to think like a male, I am still responsible for my own thoughts and actions. I don’t need to see whatever to think about whatever.
That said, I say the following to the sisters:
1) I don’t want to see your stomach, or your hips, or your back, or your lower back exposed in the context of worship. Men, double for you.
2) Cleavage is sometimes unavoidable. I realize that. It is also sometimes on purpose, with no other purpose than to say “Here! Look!” That puts the pressure on guys to not notice, and I feel that it’s a bit gamey. The “I just won ‘t think about it” option isn’t available for guys. Sorry. Complain to the manufacturer.
3) Back to #1. I don’t want to see the large tattoo just above your backside. Not in church and for free. As a fundraiser at a Catholic picnic….maybe. (jn)
4) Certain motions in worship draw attention to you in sexual way. If you believe the spiritual intent of these motions removes the attention factor, you’re wrong. Ever see kids do “Pharaoh, Pharaoh” and do the “Umph” part with the big thrust? OK….if a normal attractive female does that motion, even with a big “Praise Jesus,” it’s distracting.
5) The sexual subtext of a lot of worship motions seems obvious to me. I’m mad at Pirate for deleting a great post he wrote on this once at his old blog, but it seems undeniable that some worship actions on stage and among responders are extremely sexual. It’s like kids telling me that hugging isn’t sexual, because its friendly. male crickets
And finally….
6) If you say men are gross, and shouldn’t think like this, you’re an idiot.
7) Oh yeah. Low cut pants + no belt + bending over with short shirt = embarrassment for you, a ruined sermon/service for me.
A soli deo friend just gave me a cd full of sermons by Alan Redpath. I’ve read the bio stuff on the internet, but I’m wondering if anyone can locate Redpath for me on any kind of doctrinal map. Since he preached at Moody Church, I am assuming he was generically evangelical. Any information to fill out the picture would be welcome.
If you are an IM reader, you may have read some of my notes on the various physical demonstrations of worship I saw at the conference this week. (“Spinning” especially.) What struck me is that the people who were involved in spinning, dancing, and other demonstrations were entirely female. (There was a guy who looked like Jesus headbanging, and some guys doing the usual charismatic things you can see anywhere.) Is there some significance to the fact that out of a crowd of 300 (?) the only ones participating in these kinds of actions were women? (Pirate: be nice.) I’m not trying to be sexist, but if you have read me, you know that I value the regulative principle because I believe all God’s people should be included in worship. Much of what I saw this weekend- in terms of worship responses- was divisive. Physically. I don’t want to stand up for an HOUR. My back hurts. At age 50, I am not going to do some of these responses.
That’s not a putdown. Just a fact. I experience it in RC churches that don’t exempt some people from kneeling, so it’s not just a college-age thing. But it is the bastard child of age grouped Christianity, and while I like the worship that “emerges” from the creativity of cultures, I am always put off by the divisiveness of many of those responses.
Finishing John Shore’s book, “I’m OK, You’re Not.” Shore is a humorist, but his premise- that the Great Commandment needs to be the priority of American Christians instead of the Great Commission- is very interesting and entertaining. I have some disagreement with his read on the Great Commission- I think it is more about discipleship than evangelism and therein is part of the problem today- but the book is short, provocative, and full of quotes from non-Christians that we need to hear. A full review coming at IM.
This morning, I have more vocational clarity than I’ve had in weeks. I’m struggling with it, but it’s there. If it won’t vaporize like a dream and leave me thinking I’m finished in ministry, I’ll be OK. I’ve remembered one thing about leadership this week: when you build a team, if the person you hire does the big thing you asked them to do, don’t start nitpicking over the little things. A team isn’t there for you to fix and tinker and critique. It’s there to win, or accomplish or build or do or whatever your mission is. Nitpicking leaders are disliked by their team, because it looks and feels like the big things don’t matter, and the little things are all that matter. This is also true with parenting and marriage, etc.
Can I jump in on this defending what you don’t believe thing? One clarification: is it supposed to be satire or a real attempted defense? (I’ll do either). And just for the record, I had dinner with the elder of the PCA church we’re about to join – if that helps in my topic selection.
Bob Myers has thrown his hat in the ring. He’s a PCA minister, so we could predictably make him defend any one of the Articles of Remonstrance. Some other good (and by “good,” I mean that I like them) topics would be closed communion, entire sanctification, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (you get 7 years’ indulgence for capitalizing), icon worship, baptismal regeneration, or dispensational premillennialism. If it were me, I’d make him defend the communication of attributes, but it ain’t me. ;-)
One of the people I work with has spent the past week babysitting her two young granddaughters (ages 4 and 1.5) while her son and wife are away. So as not to disrupt the girls’ routine, my co-worker has been sleeping on the couch at her son’s house.
She called me at the office this morning with this statement:
“I have no way of proving this, but I’m convinced that a harried stay-at-home mom with a fridge of juices must have been the brains behind the bloody Mary, fuzzy navel and screwdriver.”
Has anyone here had any experience with getting pointlessly spammed in their blog comments? By pointless spam, I mean mass spam (LOTS of comments) which have no link to anything. Just general, “Nice site, can you come visit mine”? with no link to any site. I’m getting them like crazy at SoG right now, and it’s irksome. Askimet doesn’t catch them, so they’re just cluttering things up.
MOD: Usually the spam is about the URL under the name, not the message. I get tons of spam on both blogs, but Akismet takes care of it.
AUTH: That’s what’s weird about this spam. No URL under the name, none in the text. None at all. Just a pointless message with a fake email address.
Focus Clarifies Dr. Dobson’s Comments on Sen. Thompson
U.S. News story mischaracterized ministry founder’s views on possible presidential candidates
Colorado Springs, Colo. – Focus on the Family issued the following statement today regarding a story that appeared Wednesday on the U.S. News & World Report Web site quoting the ministry’s founder and chairman, James C. Dobson, Ph.D: More »« Less
I wonder what they are going to do with it now. There is a strange and slightly whimsical part of me that wonders how many more people would come to church if during the Lord’s Supper we ate from a giant Chocolate Jesus body instead of stale bread.
Sorry for my long absence but I finally have internet at home again so you may see more of me for the next two months. The first of June I head back to east Asia to build a playground at the school I worked at there. It is a small boarding school with 900 students ages 6-16 who stay there 10 months a year and no playground (pit toilet no hot water anywhere) The kids come in from the farms and nomads so they are used to the hardship, but unused to the fenced school that they can seldom leave…...
Have any members of the Tavern ever been asked to stop blogging, remove a post, or avoid posts mentioning or on topics related to their real-life employment?
Yes – more than once, usually for the protection of the “easily decieved” of the “good” of those Christians “confused” by opinions other than the ones held by the self-stipulated wisdom of the critic.
Have any members of the Tavern ever had anything they blog come back at them in court, been threatened with legal action related to a post, or been advised to stop blogging, avoid certain topics, or avoid mention of certain people/places/things by legal counsel?
Advised to stop blogging (repeatedly) but not by legal counsel.
Have any members of the Tavern ever received threatening email or communication in response to a blog post (either here at the Tavern or on another blog)? If so, how did you respond?
Threatened to take action with my church leadership, based on my own blog (Soylent Green). I’ve responded by posting some clarifications, and snorting in their general direction.
Phillip: I wouldn’t want this taught to my kids without a capable refutation either. And i’m not sure their writings should even be dignified by this kind of thing. I mean, is anyone a Theonomist/ Reconstructionist except for a few do nothing bloggers? I think it’s faded away, right?
And the refutation would have to deal with the wrong assumptions that Theonomy/ Reconstruction is built upon, how they miss the point of scripture, and how they totally screw up the agenda of Jesus Christ. But that said, I think I want my kids inoculated against this stuff before they leave home… it’s like Polio. It’s rare, but the vaccine is worth it….
The well-meaning taunters who want the BHT to have comments need to be reminded that BHT comments brought us c.t. calling the wife of a former fellow two words that make most average swearers wince. The same era saw a [name deleted] fan writing Modern Reformation magazine and eventually my employer saying things about me that are slanderous. Another TR blogger made a sexual innuendo on my career in youth ministry. (Later apologized.) I’ve been called emotionally unstable and a phony who does not need to be in ministry in high profile blogs. My calling to preach and my ministry here at [the place I work] has been ridiculed in long posts by several big names. The “Big Brain” has said things about me that are libelous.
I’ve had several people show up at [the place I work] looking to meet me. I’ve also had some phone calls, which I really don’t like at all. I’ve received very few real pieces of hate mail. Sadly, with almost seven years of blogging, several of them in the top levels of Christian blogging, the worst hate I’ve gotten is from Calvinists who wanted Rob S II.
The worst thing to me is something simple: When someone says something like this: “Spencer is a Barthian liberal. Liberals deny all of scripture and reject the Gospel.”........”I didn’t question your salvation.” Or this one: “I haven’t commented on the validity of your profession of faith.” sigh
Rejecting another person’s profession of faith is a big deal to me, but it’s as common as clouds in March on the blogosphere.
Pirate: Part of the reason is that some would argue that Malkin “asks for it,” dishing out invective herself from time to time, while Kathy Sierra is a tech-blogger, which should theoretically be a safer domain than politics. While tech arguments are often passionate, they rarely devolve into death threats.
Part of it is that the web is still dominated in large part by the tech-savvy, so Kathy Sierra is “one of our own” to a lot of people who are quite prominent on the web.
Part of it is timing, as this comes on the heels of a wide-ranging discussion on the web, involving some of the same people, about the lack of prominent women speaking at certain tech conferences.
And part of it is her reaction. She reacted dramatically, and so people are taking it seriously. Most people respond more calmly or quietly, and so even with all else being equal (which it’s not), it doesn’t become as big of an issue.
Personally, I think it’s dreadful, and I don’t think there’s a such a think as “asking for it,” and I think people should be publicly shamed for their rotten behavior. But yes, it is interesting to me that it’s such a big deal right now, as she’s by no means the first person, or even first woman, to be so threatened on the net. Still, for whatever reasons, people are talking about it, and it is something that seems quite important. I don’t want to be associated with people who think that way about other people, and I hope that public discussion of the issue can push virulent misogyny into the same dark corners in which overt racism (usually) hides.
Jesse: I’m impressed. Despite the emails I received claiming I was pushing them toward Rome (ha!), I think you might have done better than I did.
This whole exercise is starting to remind me of an issue that came up with my kids’ curriculum. In high school they’re scheduled to go through Rushdoony and North material. While I’m generally in favor of exposing people—even my children—to nearly everything, and just giving the opposing counsel, I realized last Friday night that I do have a line that I don’t want to cross.
Exposing my (future) teens to Rushdoony and North crosses that line.
The problem with them—as this series of lying posts demonstrates—is that writers can present compelling-sounding arguments for utter tripe. (The fact that you may find a particular post unconvincing or that you don’t think arguments for the pope or congregationalism or the ordination of women to be tripe are essentially irrelevant to this argument.) Too often I think people are swayed by how convincingly an argument is argued rather than the substance of the argument itself—not that any of us think so, at least at the time.
So I checked in with someone who uses the same curriculum to see how she handles it, and she said she just announced that she was skipping those two authors because she considered them to be college-level material, and none of the parents objected.
This may seem obvious to everybody but me, but I’m still quite of the “let my kids watch many PG-13 movies as long as I’m with them and have pre-screened them” mindset, and my kids are 6, 7, and 9. So the idea of withholding something from them is foreign to me, but I can see no way around it. Rushdoony and North are poisonous (in my opinion) precisely because they’re so compelling to someone who hasn’t studied the subject well.
Jesus said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you.” Christ here states a foundational principle of Christian governance: that Christians have no place for hierarchy, prelacy, or other forms of dominion in their midst, but rather were meant to be governed in mutual love and submission through the local church.
The principle of democratic, local church autonomy was the principle which guided the New Testament Church, though it was lost tragically early in church history and only recovered following the Biblical restoration of the Church in modern times. However, Scripture clearly shows that this was the pattern established by Christ. Jesus said in Matt. 18:17 that discipline was to be referred to “the church”, which all commentators agree refers to the local church, and indeed the passage can hardly be understood otherwise. Paul describes this sort of discipline in action in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2. He does not, however, suggest that any person in the church is more responsible than any other. This is further supported by the practice of the Church in Acts. The whole church commissions the Seven in Acts 6:3, and is involved again in commissioning Paul and Barnabas in ch. 13. This shows that the church may set people aside for particular kinds of ministry, but that such men are delegates of the autonomous congregation, and not appointed by an external power. The episkopos (overseer), presbyteros (elder), and diakonos (servant) are different names given in the NT to men appointed by their congregations in this manner, but they do not name ranks in a hierarchical organization.
The events of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 are sometimes used to defend episcopal or synodical authority, but a simple examination of the facts reveals that this isn’t the case. First, note that the whole church assembles to make the declaration, and second that the letter which they sent to the Antiochian church was a letter of exhortation, not an exercise of authority. The Antiochians themselves requested the advice of the Jerusalem church, and while the Jerusalem letter was gladly received, there is no evidence that it was understood as a command from a mother church to a daughter church, but rather as a brotherly admonition.
This congregational polity is the only form of Church organization that adequately realizes the priesthood of all believers and the radical equality between men that Christ preached. The episcopal form of church government is simply a corruption. Its origins lie in the growing apostasy of the second and third centuries, and it reached its full form after Constantine co-opted Christianity to create the Roman Catholic Church. The ancient and original form of church polity, and the form used to this day in all free churches, is the congregational polity.
[Okay, next I’m going to steal Michael’s idea and tag Joel to defend contemporary P&W. Bwahahahaha!]
Here’s a three-part Question of the Day for Weblog Safety Awareness Week:
Have any members of the Tavern ever been asked to stop blogging, remove a post, or avoid posts mentioning or on topics related to their real-life employment?
Have any members of the Tavern ever had anything they blog come back at them in court, been threatened with legal action related to a post, or been advised to stop blogging, avoid certain topics, or avoid mention of certain people/places/things by legal counsel?
Have any members of the Tavern ever received threatening email or communication in response to a blog post (either here at the Tavern or on another blog)? If so, how did you respond?
Please answer for yourself, not for someone you know or have heard of.
My answers:
Yes, although not directly. My current employer’s policy that forbids discussion or publication of matters relating to our operation. I could tell you why, but then they’d have to kill us all.
Yes, and since the litigation is pending, I can’t discuss it further.
Yes, on several occasions, with responses ranging from ignoring it to filing a complaint with the sender’s ISP, and getting legal advice regarding filing a complaint with the police.
Sharon: Kathy Sierra’s story is alarming; I’ve been following it since she wrote about it. Certainly the people involved deserve to be publicly shamed.
The flip side is that few people run into anything like what Kathy Sierra is facing. There are some swirls of poison scattered around the web, and Kathy walked into one of them to try to do some good. While I would never have predicted death threats, I would have said several years ago that mixing it up with the adolescent bullies in that crowd was pointless. I also suspect that the threats were empty, though obviously Kathy Sierra can’t afford to take that chance.
For the most part, the web just isn’t that dangerous. Sadly, most social systems aren’t set up to handle raging children very well. When someone won’t acknowledge the social contract, what do you do? The democracy of the web make it hard to do much. Its greatest power may also be its greatest weakness.
Me, I’m all over the place. I’ve little doubt that someone could track down any information in the world about me very quickly. And I’m not worried. My wife, on the other hand, doesn’t like it when I post comments on her blog, because they include my last name, which is her last name, and she doesn’t like that at all. Then again, she has people over for afternoon tea that she knows only via the web, so it’s not like she’s really uptight about safety on the ‘net!
Michael, I am moving in the same direction. Especially as the possibility of me moving into a more high profile work situation I know that there will be some who want to scrutinize my thoughts—as expressed in the BHT’s ‘edgy’ format. (Frankly, I think we sometimes look like a little old man’s Sunday School class. But, hey, that’s me.) Anyhoo, especially with the tech blog asplosion last week I think I’d be wise to leave less personal info on the curb.
And, that’s not even taking into account my husband’s concerns that some crazie will want to track me down and…well, be mean. Actually, until I read Kathy’s stuff I never thought it was a serious possibility.
We can be as nekkid as we want to be on this thing. Telling who we are, where we serve churches, even what denomination are all stages of undress. I personally still think we need the freedom. But, you might of noticed that yesterday I took my last name off the front page. My husband would have liked more anonymity. Maybe later.
This week I have been really bothered by the story of Kathy Sierra. Creeps are creeps are creeps. I feel fortunate to be able to go boldly into this establishment knowing that we’ve got the biggest, meanest, hairiest, bouncer types around and we can all feel safe (jn) But that’s not the case everywhere.
Cyberspace, cell phones, myspace, and all the varieties of bloggerspace have are real world communities with real-world women, girls, boys and men. Fleshly bloodly stuff. There’s a breed of cyber harrasser, beyond the genus of troll that is treacherous.
Here’s me saying let’s continue to be nice. Let’s make sure our kids know how to be nice. Let’s speak up when it’s time so we can keep the playground clean.
As some of you probably discerned, I bumped into my first “blogging about work” situation yesterday morning. Apparently one of my co-workers informed the administration that they needed to look at two posts, one describing some student antics during an evening service, and the other lamenting the anonymous loss of a favorite student who chose to withdraw. As a result of an administrative admonition, I removed several OBI related posts, eliminated the “OBI” category and will edit the “about me” section to have no specific reference to where I work. It will look like I’m a professional writer :-)
I’m ridiculously optimistic about the internet, I suppose. In seven years of IM writing, I’ve never had one note from anyone associated with the school unhappy with what they read. I’ve had many compliments from people associated with the school. I have a surprising number of parents and volunteers who tell me they have read and enjoyed the site. Unless you are Joel Osteen or a rabid TR, I think you’d find little to be offended by at IM.
I enjoy being associated with institutions most of the time, but my need to speak the truth from a position of reality and vulnerability is a problem. I don’t do “shiny/happy” very well.
Not taking issue with you Pirate, but let me clarify something that I didn’t say very well. I meant to say that one reason that I think that evangelical culture is so closely aligned to the RP now is for some very specific and clear historical reasons stretching back about 50-60 years ago, and which are probably largely forgotten (this is why I referred to Chambers and Stormer). I’m not saying that’s the exclusive reason or even the main reason, nor do I mean to imply that there aren’t any good reasons to consider Republican candidates today. No, I’m thinking back to the days I heard the anti-Communist stuff all the time in church (including from the pulpit), on Christian radio (pre-CCM days), and in books. It really was a very dominant motif, more so than the social issues were, and certainly more than economic issues (I never heard any associations between tax policy and faith until the Reagan years when it was pretty common to hear the claim that capitalism was the only true economic system that actualized Christian principles). Social problems in the 50s and 60s and even into the 70s were usually seen as effects of Communist-coddling. I suppose “secular humanism” stands in for the Communists now. Not a very helpful term, imo.
I think it’s a more general perception of Republicans being more supportive of traditional America, which is a whole cloth, not just one issue such as defense. It’s national defense, freedom from oppressive taxation, blind justice, nuclear families, patriotism, the value of hard work, the superiority of liberty over tyranny, objective morality, (until recently) limited government, and so on. Regardless of how effectively or sincerely the Republican party actually supports these things, it is rather easy for them to portray themselves as the champions of these things when the Democrats are so vociferously against most of them as to not require caricature. If, starting in the 60s, the Democrats hadn’t chosen to be the party of abortion, homosexuality, divorce, father-free childhood, entitlements, moral relativism, racial quotas, heavy taxation, ridiculing patriotism, rapid expansion of federal fingers in everyone’s asses, smiting conservative Christians out of the arena of public policy discussion, and so on, you’d see more evangelicals supporting Democrats. A lot more.
There was a time when it was conceivable that a Democrat could be as much a man of public Christian morals as his Republican opponent, differing chiefly in matters of economics and foreign policy. It wasn’t even taken for granted that a Democrat would ignore the defense of our country in the face of crisis. Such simply is not possible today. In the last 50 years, the Democrats went out of their way to become the party of militant secularism. You can’t get on the DNC ticket if you’re not part of the secularist vision, or at least non-opposed (“Oh, I personally think you should choose life. I just think the government shouldn’t tell you that you can’t murder your baby”). I can’t blame evangelicals for not voting for them.
I was looking back over recent stuff of the iMonk’s (before it gets erased), and had the pleasure of rediscovering his two posts defining what he means by “post-evangelical.” One of those has a list of 17 points that describe some of the most common features of evangelical life and belief. It reminded me of another one.
I think one reason evangelical culture (usually) uncritically identifies with the Republican party is a function of the association of the Republican party with the eagle rather than the dove, what we used to call “being strong on defense.” The reason Republican politicians typically supported funding every weapons system that came off the drawing board was because we had to keep from getting taken over by the Communist Russian and Red China. Even more, we had to check their expansionist plans elsewhere in the world. And the reason Christians bought what Whitaker Chambers and John Stormer were selling was because everyone knew that Communists desire to abolish religion. Karl Marx said that religion was the opium of the masses, right?
So, if you have (or had) a spontaneous negative reaction to the name of Marx (or Freud, or Nietzsche, or … ), do you know what Marx was talking about?
When you run out of cash, you go to Subway. Italian BMT on wheat, lettuce, tomato, green pepper, red onion, mayo, mustard. Very good. Actually somewhat redeems my low opinion of Subway.
Mike,
Got a question, since you are speaking and preaching in Somerset’s Grace Baptist Church, does that mean you are a believer in John Calvin’s teachings. Would it be correct to state you are a 5-point Calvinist? And if so why? According to historical facts, John Calvin was a Catholic, never ordained, was thrown out of his country and was also instrumental in having many people burned at the stake, one being Servetus. With all this as historical fact, how can you, if you do, be a believer in his teachings and promote Christ’s love.
Just curious, if you care to expound on your beliefs.
Lenoard
crickets
This Servetus stuff upsets me almost as much as the death of Anna Nicole.
And, someone help me figure out how to link better. I can’t figure out how to do it with titles and underlines so I resort to the old fashioned way…..
MOD: Here is the “Pirate Memorial Lecture on Linking”
1. Copy link to clipboard
2. Highlight text in post
3. Click “link” button
4. Paste in link (Must have http://)
5. Hit OK
6. Save
Michael: This quote from your essay is masthead worthy! It’s going on the back of my sermon outline for Easter Sunday. Read the whole essay at internetmonk.
Michael Spencer: Jesus is not on the radar of human history for any reason other than the resurrection. If he is raised from the dead, then the Gospel picture of Jesus is credible, and the Jesus that comes in the Gospel is the Jesus of the orthodox Christian creeds. He’s not the Jesus of everything Christians have ever done, or of the majority of what Christians consider important. He’s not the Jesus of all the human psychological sickness, arrogant rhetoric or cruel actions that have come along in his name. But he is the Jesus of John 1:1-18, and of I Corinthians 15:1-11, and of a lot of what Christians have done that’s inexplicable without him, from art to social justice to simple community.You cannot reduce Jesus to anything less than the Christ of the creeds and still have Jesus. You’ll have something else.
Too true, Adam. However, the philosopher, being a lover of wisdom, seeks no compensation from what this world offers. If she did, she would be a sophist, not a philosopher. If the masses who benefit from our great wisdom do not deposit buckets of cash at our doorstep (averting their eyes as they approach and withdraw, of course), then the philosopher must live bi-vocationally. Socrates is our model here, too, as he was a stone cutter. Augustine and Berkeley were bishops. Spinoza ground lenses. Nietzsche taught classics. Derrida was a rock star. I’m aiming for the Kierkegaardian vocation: professional ranter and pamphleteer. I figure he was the first blogger. If we had any scruples around here, we’d use “SK” for sarcasm instead of “JN” (no offense to our own lovable Serrated Edge).
I did a two sermon series in chapel on “The Christian and the Mind.” It was one of those series where I do some Bible study in the message and things aren’t real finished and polished. Some of the places we stopped along the way:
Passages like II Timothy 2:7 and Philippians 3:15 are simple reminders that God uses thinking as a way to reveal his thoughts to us. Reason and revelation aren’t enemies.
Job 42:1-6 reminds us that our thoughts about God have a ceiling. We can hit it very hard, or we can recognize it’s present from the outset, as in Isaiah 55:9.
Jesus submitted his own mind to scripture, which is particularly obvious in the temptation accounts, such as Luke 4. Jesus could have answered Satan, but as an example for us, he used God’s Word as the basis for thinking and acting.
Our thinking is broken. Romans 1:21-22, 28. We are like a broken compass. The compass works, but the direction is permanently wrong. If we understand this, we can see the value of the mind, but also its limits. (Jesus sounds very strange in the Gospels because he doesn’t have this problem. He thinks clearly.)
For example, in Mark 8:33, a good translation is “You are thinking like man thinks, not like God thinks.”
Books like Proverbs appeal directly to us to be Biblical, critical thinkers. Proverbs 1:1-7 promises to instruct the “simple.” That’s a Bible term for someone who doesn’t use God’s wisdom to form their own thoughts. The fear of the Lord is the foundation of good thinking, good choices, truthful views about life, etc.
Proverbs 1:20 and elsewhere tell us that with a Biblical mindset, Wisdom calls out to us from “the streets,” i.e. everywhere. A mind formed with Biblical truth can let us interpret the world around us and to learn what it has to teach us.
NOTE: I always hesitate to blog about this, but I am always saddened to see how Christians are in the forefront of gullible and shallow thinking. It sometimes seems that every religious television program is now featuring health hucksters. Why? Because Christians are such marks for con artists and snake oil salesmen, and the money will soon be on the way. Any Christian bookstore, radio station or television network is a zoo of absurdity and downright stupidity. The recent spate of “illustrations” like bananas and peanut butter as the “atheist’s nightmares” show how incredibly unaware we are of the level of thinking outside the backwaters of Christian faith. And- sorry to say this- but in some ways Christian schools (and I assume homeschools) are among the worse centers of this gullible acceptance of nonsense. If our “sources” endorse it, we think it’s brilliant. No wonder the current spate of aggressive atheists paint such a negative picture of us. We largely deserve it. A lot has changed since the time that Christian minds were the world’s best.
I kicked it off with an article on women’s ordination. Next came Phillip with the papacy. JS Bangs is writing on congregationalism. The list of people up for next round:
Jason Blair
Blue Raja
Mark Whittinghill
Sharon Waters
Ochuck
Maybe Sonia?
Joel
The meaner you are when you pick your topic, the more fun this will be. Like make Joel defend John MacArthur’s doctrine of…anything. :-D
WOW! I’ve been gone camping with the fam for a few days. I come back to check out things at my favorite bar and the place miraculously transformed from your basic pub to a top-notch drinking establishment. I FEEL UNDER-DRESSED! I quickly glanced over the list of patrons, fearing that I had been deleted in the process of ugrading. Thankfully, I find that I’m still allowed. However, I’m thinkin I better watch my P’s and Q’s. At a place like this, one has too much to drink, starts talkin too loud, and the next thing he knows he’s gettin the boot!
The Amazon plug-in is off. Sonia has done enough. If any of you bartenders could get it working again, I’d really appreciate it. (Also, no matter if I out in an hspace=5, I still get text snug with the pic. Can that be fixed? Kurt? Help?
Until then, let me plug two Bible Answer Man programs I’ve heard this week. Both are pushing HH’s new book, “The Apocalypse Code,” which is apparently his broadside at dispensationalism and Left Behind views of Revelation.
What’s been very unique about these programs is that Hank is coming out hard against some things evangelicals never talk about. And I do mean hard.
Israel’s racial policies and politics.
Evangelicals paying to send thousands of Jews to Israel when their eschatology teaches those Jews will be incinerated in an atomic Holocaust in the near future. (!!!)
The denial of precious New Covenant truths by dispensationalists, particularly highlighting the idea that the cross was some kind of “interim” event.
The bizarre literalism of things like the Red Heifer.
I’m a pretty regular Hank listener and I have forgiven him some of his boneheaded books and administrative gaffs. The current book is about hermeneutics and interpretation of prophecy, and it is dealing with things I’ve believed, taught and been ridiculed about for many years.
I’ve pre-ordered the book, but the last two Bible Answer Man programs feature interviews on the topics of the book. Check them out at oneplace.com or itunes.
Michael said, The BHT doesn’t have an amen corner.
Amen!
Seriously. I’ve spent a little time going back and browsing my posts since my brief time here in the bar. I think I’ve always been treated with respect and, for the most part, I’ve been heard. There’s a lot going on in this place to imagine that you’re going to be heard every time. Actually, I know that I haven’t said very much—certainly not much about theology. I’ve groused some and I’ve used the bar to practice a little imagery making. Sometimes I’m plainly and simply ignored. But, usually it’s because I’m not doing anything that calls for much attention. That’s not to say that I haven’t had fun waving a red flag every now and then. For that matter I’ve had some fun snorting back at y’alls red flags. We’re all like a bunch of two year olds the way we can be distracted and I mean that with a big smile, or a jn or whatever you need to know that I think the two year old thing can be a fun thing :)
Tom. Honey.Here’s the deal. This is a theology bar. When you do theology stuff in here people are going to take notice and call yer hand, especially if you’re using theology to get noticed. Frankly, I don’t feel up to the task most times, because, well, I don’t have that much invested in being right-in theological jargon. I just think it would be a difficult and costly (ego wise) fight. I’d rather be right in everything else jn+++:-)
I never said the AC was worthless. I don’t even think that. Just because I think the Catholic Church goes overboard in venerating Mary, I don’t think Mary is worthless. In fact, she’s a great woman. She wasn’t perfect, I’m sure. Just like the AC is not perfect, nor is it canonical, and shouldn’t be treat as such.
From here on I’m taking Phillip’s advice, which I meant to do a lot sooner except I kept getting dragged back into it until I got angry. Can I say we’ll agree to disagree and leave it at that? Please?
It is impossible to inflate the ego of the person who wrote the banner quote. That which is infinite cannot be increased.
As far as I know, banner quotes aren’t papal pronouncements that every member of the BHT is supposed to agree with. I’ve seen plenty of quotes that I disagreed with. I think I’ve even openly criticized them. They seem to me to mostly be quotes that our mod thinks are worth thinking about.
That said, what do you think about it, Tom? Do you understand what I meant by that, and do you think I’m right or wrong…and if so, why? To be fair, I was inspired by my favorite saint, who said:
This much is certain; those who know the Ten Commandments perfectly know the entire Scriptures and in all affairs and circumstances are able to counsel help, comfort, judge, and make decisions in both spiritual and temporal matters. Moreover, what is the whole Psalter but meditation and exercises based on the First Commandment? Now, I know beyond a doubt that such lazy bellies and presumptuous spirits understand not even a single psalm, let alone the whole Scriputres, but they pretend they know and despise [the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Our Father], which [are] a brief digest and summary of the entire Holy Scriptures.
Tom: Being wrong is fine. We all do it from time to time, and this is generally a safe place to be wrong and be told so. However, you’re now being graceless about being wrong, so I’ll offer only one last piece of advice: We all understand your view, and you’re wrong. ‘Twould be wise to drop it now, so you can stick around to offer some other opinions another day.
Fine, Tom. I’ll remove it. It never occurred to me you would find statements made by BHT members in a discussion of Christianity’s most well known creed to be “a kick in the gonads.” I guess I could say I just received one as well.
The BHT doesn’t have an amen corner. You take a minority position and then act as if it’s persecution that most people disagree with you. You’re way too wrapped up personally in your position. Saying the AC is worthless is pretty out there man. Even in Tulsa.
Far be it from me to defend Pirate, but he didn’t jump on you at all. Pretty harsh.
Michael: It is only a “great quote” because it’s being used not just as an argument now but, by promoting it to the banner, has the dual effect of 1. Kicking the person you disagree with in the gonads and 2. Inflating the ego of the person who wrote it, and God knows, he doesn’t need his ego inflated any more than it is. I mean, sure, the AC pretty much sets forth the parameters of every Systematic Theology that has come down the pike since then. How freaking brilliant. No, the purpose is to win an argument just by yelling louder than the other guy. Putting it in the banner quote, at the suggestion of one of a person in the amen corner, is yelling louder. So you win, and I give up.
Lurker: Here’s the answer to your question, “Which Christ?” It’s the dude that Simon Peter was addressing when he said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” I asssume that to be Jesus of Nazareth unless I’m just totally mistaken. It ain’t rocket science, folks.
Here’s the problem with “No Creed but Christ”: no one really believes it. No one could really believe it. It’s essentially empty; a starting point. Everyone might start from that, but it really doesn’t give us anything meaningful.
Until we start to spin out who Christ is…
Every Christian is a theologian (there are theologians who aren’t Christians too), and so every Christian has a creed—more or less—with more content than “No Creed but Christ.” And so “No Creed but Christ” strikes me as a bit disingenuous. We’ve more or less decided—for the moment—who we think Christ is; so we should be honest about this rather than try to hide it with an ellided “No Creed but Christ.”
Sadly, this allows for people to be wrong. Some might say “No Creed but Christ, and Christ is a sacred mushroom” (John Marco Allegro’s view); some might say “No Creed but Christ, and Christ was a radical Zealot” (Barbara Thiering’s view); and some might say “No Creed but Christ, and Christ is a Republican”.
“No Creed but Christ” is far too weak to do the job we want of a creed. The Apostle’s Creed (better: the Nicene Creed) is far better. These don’t do all the work; but they do a much better job than “No Creed but Christ.”
Publick House resembles dozens of other beer temples around the country. (...) And the ordinary hullabaloo of the packed dining room has given rise to a new adjoining room, the Monk’s Cell, devoted to the quiet contemplation of myriad Belgian brews.
Great Scott! The millenarians were right. The Kingdom of Heaven has arrived!
N.T. Wright book on Evil, agree some, disagree some, take the good, critique, compliment, toss the bad. Generally be an adult. Something the bright side of the blogsphere finds very hard to do where the Bish is concerned.
A Reds team with no names I recognized other than Bubba Crosby lost to the Toronto Bluejays today. I love this weekend before Opening Day. The team disappears and then reappears Monday. BTW- if you can get to a TV with the Cinci-Cubs game Monday, there is going to be a moment in that game when a kid named Josh Hamilton comes to the plate. You want to see this if you can. 17 at bats in single A. No major leagues at bats. Drafted #1 three years ago, blew his career on drugs and booze. Jesus found him. He’s clean for a year. Back with his family. The Reds got him in a rule 5 deal, and he’s been AMAZING this spring. When that kid comes to the plate Monday, I am going to be in tears. He’s a success already. Go Reds!
My personal therapist will enjoy this.
The Amazon plug-in is off. Sonia has done enough. If any of you bartenders could get it working again, I’d really appreciate it. (Also, no matter if I out in an hspace=5, I still get text snug with the pic. Can that be fixed? Kurt? Help?