 |
| Matthew 3:9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. -John the Baptizer |
Unfortunately you can’t camp under a snapshot very long until the rain comes eventually.
I think, when it’s all said and done, I’ll just have to stand alone as the token “no creed but Christ” guy in the bar. That is, unless there’s someone else out there? Anybody? Helloooooo?????
I’m a big tent guy, too. And the AC is a pretty good snapshot of the tent.
Perhaps one idea we’re missing in all this talk of creeds, or at least talking around, is what exactly we are affirming and proclaiming.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Tom, but what you seem to be saying is that the various creeds miss out on all the acts of Jesus that we are to emulate. I would argue that while that is a central part of our discipleship, and something we should strive after over a lifetime, it is not central to what/who we affirm when we proclaim our faith.
The Apostles’ or Nicene creeds are there for us to profess our faith in God, and they help us define who that God is. To say who He is in such a short profession of faith will necessarily leave out a lot of detail. That’s why we don’t stop there, and continue on in ither areas of being His disciples.
My reasoning goes like this. I believe (insert creed here). So far so good. How does that work itself out daily? The creed points to the God revealed in Christ as we see in holy scripture. The creed is a pointer. So I look in scripture and see further that I must be a disciple of Jesus. I study there and emulate what I learn. So the scripture is also a pointer and a teacher. This is where I would add the things you have talked about regarding Jesus’ life and ministry.
These things don’t stand on their own. God, disciple, scripture, creeds, prayers, sacraments (ordinances if you don’t care for that word) – all together – are wrapped up in this Christian life. OK, so God stands on His own. He doesn’t need us, but we certainly need Him, so I included Him in the list.
I have no conclusion to this thought. It is simply rattling around in the brain as I think on the interaction y’all have had over the past couple days.
The new design prompts to me realize I’ve never submitted a recipe for the menu, so here goes. I recently posted this over at Blogcritics, but it seems especially appropriate here.
Extra Stout Chocolate MousseIngredients:
1 cup dark chocolate chips (I use Hershey’s Special Dark)
1 egg
1 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup sugar
3/4 cup heavy cream
1/4 cup dark beer (I use Guinness Extra Stout)Preparation:
Put the chocolate chips, egg, salt and sugar in a blender.In small saucepan, bring the milk and stout to just-before-boiling, then remove from heat.
Quickly pour the liquid into the blender and blend one minute or so, until the chocolate chips are completely melted.
Pour into four ramekins or small bowls and chill for several hours, until firm.
Teetotalers can safely eat this mousse, as it’s only a small amount of beer heated to almost-boiling. :)
Tom: The problem, in that case, isn’t the Creed itself, but how the Creed is used. You may have a blind spot when it comes to the word “creed,” so let’s try something parallel.
I love the Bible. The Bible tells me about Jesus, my Savior and Lord, and so it’s very important. God-breathed, even! While the Bible itself isn’t salvific, in that people can read it without becoming Christians, it is probably the strongest record we have of the Word of God (Jesus) that is in a form people can understand (that is, not a personal metaphysical experience). The Bible is as close as we can get to Jesus Himself in our lifetimes, barring miraculous happenings.
However, some people like to use the Bible as a weapon. They pick verses here and there with which to criticize others. They declare themselves to be authorities on use of the Bible and lose sight of the Object of the Bible, the God-Man, Jesus. They judge people by standards found in the Bible, though usually inconsistently. They pick and choose their favorite parts of the Bible and attack others on that basis while overlooking their own failures. It’s really awful behavior.
So what do I do in response? Dismiss the Bible based on widespread abuse of the words therein? “No word but the Living Word!” No. Abuse of the Bible does not diminish the importance or value of scripture any more than people taking the Lord’s name in vain diminishes or devalues Jesus. In fact, by invoking the name of Jesus or the Bible, I believe people are making themselves responsible for their use of the name or the book, and should be more careful than they generally are. It is the people using scripture to judge and dismiss and belittle others that should be repudiated, not scripture itself.
Does that make sense?
Brian, the Apostles’ Creed is in some way more fundamental than the Nicene Creed, as it reflects the various baptismal creeds that served as the basis for the Nicen Creed—even though the specific form we have seems to be a little later.
But to me, by saying less, you’re really saying more.
The whole problem with “No creed but Christ” is when you realize that the people you disagree with actually disagree with you on who Christ is and what he commanded. Some of us say to have Christ as your creed means nothing less than to have his vicar as your pontiff. If you make it about just thinking Jesus was probably pretty important in history and a pretty cool dude to boot, well, that’s not the Jesus of the Gospels. It’s a figment of your imagination.
The Mormons and JWs are not really part of my world, to be honest. Although once I really liked this girl who turned out to be a JW, so that really would have been an issue at that point.
I’m talking about controversies like a few months ago when people were ripping N.T. Wright for saying that Marcus Borg was a Christian. I thought that was a little ridiculous. In that sense, I’m not that interested in saying someone like Borg is “in” or “out” either one. I’m not part of his universe, anyway. Although I admit I have learned some stuff from the guy (selectively, of course.)
I’m keeping the list updated. Here it is so far:
http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2007/03/27/2149787.html
I’m not that interested in using some kind of formula to say “You’re in, you’re out.”
So… what do you do with a Mormon or a JW? They believe that everything in their faith is in accordance with Scripture, and you have no “formula” that you can refer to that might describe your differences between them. Nonetheless, if a Mormon came into your church and started preaching distinctive Mormon doctrines, you’d probably take him nicely aside and explain that that isn’t what you believe here, and that he won’t be allowed to preach that way. Everything he says is “from Scripture” as he understands it, but that doesn’t matter: it turns out that you have a Creed after all, and it doesn’t agree with the Mormon creed.
Everybody has a Creed, some people just won’t admit it.
In our modern individualistic society, in which every man’s way is right in his own eyes, it is more important than ever to remember that Christ calls us to live in community with each other, in radical dependence on His church. In fact, this has ever been true, and yet some people point to our modern age as an excuse for changing how we relate to Christ. In fact, He does not change. He is not swayed modern technological advances or new heresies that sweep through society. He is the Christ, Head of His Body, the Church, world without end.
From the beginning of human history, God has called a people unto Himself. Not “people,” but “a people.” Not segmented individuals with little in common, but families, communities, and tribes. It is for His people—all of His people, his Israel—that God sent Moses to Egypt for deliverance. And it is for His people—all of His people, His Church—that Christ was born, lived, died, and lived again. At His Ascension, Christ commanded His disciples to wait for the inauguration of His Church, and on Pentecost, Christ’s Church was born, 3000 people strong with Peter at its head.
This was no less than the fulfillment of Christ’s promise in Matt 16:17-19, where He said, “And I tell you that you are Peter [rock], and on this rock [Peter] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” The “keys of the kingdom” were given to Peter on Pentecost, and rest today in the authority of Christ’s church.
Today some suggest that Peter was given too much authority, but God has chosen to work with imperfect humans, giving them the Grace and wisdom they need to fulfill His purposes and direct His church. The alternative, it seems, is for every man to look to himself for authority, or to elevate the Bible as a “paper pope,” reading out of it whatever he desires. But this is not God’s way. Salvation and truth are found within the Church Christ established, not in the whims of men who refuse to be under the Church’s authority as Christ was under authority.
When we have questions, where do we turn? Are we like sheep without a shepherd, looking for truth on each passing wind? Do we follow whichever self-appointeded “prophet” has purchased television time this week? Do we trust in the godless society around us to dictate practice and theology? Do we trust in ourselves alone?
No. We are not called out of darkness into the twilight of self-direction, but into the marvelous light of God’s Church. We do not look to popularity or passing fancy for understanding, but to the Church of Christ, established as the guardian of faith. Men are fallible, but Christ guards His Church to ensure that truth is preserved, and so salvation is found in the Church, and safeguarded by the pontiff whom God anoints.
[ I pick Jesse to advocate Congregationalism. ]
Michael—Being SBC, do Baptists generally even recite a creed? Because when I’d visit the Southern Baptist Church with my friend when I was a kid I don’t remember them ever reciting a creed. So, unless I have the Baptists all wrong, it seems a little strange to me for a Baptist to be going to the mat for reciting a creed.
Look,at the risk of raising the ire of Kurt and others, I really am a “No Creed but Christ” kind of guy. Being Disciples of Christ I do resonate with the early leaders of that movement who did not believe in using the creed as a test for fellowship. I’m a “big tent” kind of guy; I’m not that interested in using some kind of formula to say “You’re in, you’re out.” Think that’s lame? Whatever. I stand by the fact that Jesus fully accepted Peter’s confession “Thou are the Christ, the son of the Living God.” Yeah, Phillip, I know that doesn’t fulfill my “criteria.” But to me, by saying less, you’re really saying more. And if it’s good enough for Jesus, why shouldn’t it be good enough for me…or you, for that matter?
Tom: I like the Phil 2:6-11 creed, and posted about it here somewhat recently. But in fact, I have some complaints about it. Most scholarship places the date of Paul’s epistle to the Philippians at around 55 AD (or CE), which is roughly 25 years after Jesus died. Why should we rely on the words of people who never even spent time with Jesus while He was alive on earth? Besides, Paul—writing from prison, so clearly he had a skewed view of what was important—emphasized some strange things. There’s not a single word about Jesus healing anybody, or feeding anybody, or being human at all. We go directly from ”...being born…” to ”...obedient to the point of death…” with nothing about His actual life at all. Paul—in this passage at least—also seems to spend an inordinate amount of time on things that happened after Jesus died, spending almost half the creed on things not even mentioned in the Gospels. Well more than half, if you count the stuff that happened before Jesus was born. The Matt 16:16 creed is even worse, saying nothing about Jesus but that which most cultists and unbelievers would say about themselves!
In other words, Tom, you’re now offering up as alternatives creeds that are worse than the Apostle’s Creed on every point of criticism you’ve raised except one! That tells me—and should suggest to you—that your antipathy for the Creed is not based on anything you’ve elucidated thus far, but on other issues entirely.
The one issue I’m granting is that the Creed is extra-biblical. Then again, every line in it is drawn from scripture, and a focus entirely on the Gospels—as you suggested before suddenly stepping out of the gospels to introduce Paul’s creed—would miss a lot as well.
The Apostle’s Creed isn’t holy, or salvific, or unquestionable. But it’s solid and Biblical and points to Jesus, clearly enough that it is difficult to see where one could explicitly deny the creed without denying scripture or Christ Himself. If “descended into hell” is your hangup, recite it in Greek, where the word isn’t “hell,” or use the formulation “descended to the dead.” If that doesn’t work, there are two or three passages in the Bible that might cause problems, too.
It is a comforting thought that many things will change but I can still have you guys follow me to Georgia once again.
Aaron, let me know when you’ll be moving in and I’ll bring you a pot of soup and a ring of cornbread. We’ll be neighbors, you know:-)
I think I get the game. Now, can I play? Give me a real challenge.
I picked up “fresh new wind” and “new understanding of sexuality from the liberals that the author of Midwest Conservative Journal frequently quotes.
Why the Apostle’s Creed and not the Nicene? It is a bit more concise I guess. I usually point to the Nicene as the sort of bare minimum, the outer boundary that Michael mentioned. Not wanting to pick a fight or anything. I have problem with the AC, just curious.
Sonia...great work on the site.
How about “No Creed but Christ.” That’s a pretty good creed.
I’ve got my merit badge in saying the ECFs or anyone else can be wrong. That being said, your attitude towards this unifying statement for the body of Christ well-represents the underlying problem with radical restoration movements. The apostle’s creed predates the New Testament canon. Acting as if its composers were idiots (“descended into hell!?!?”) compared to the insights we have today is a teenagers argument. At the very least, shouldn’t we disagree with the creed respectfully? When we say it at soli, I always call it the “ancient and universal faith for which the martyrs died.” Yes, it’s only a fallible summary of that faith, but I believe it ought to be treated as a treasure, not a joke to be discarded while we wave our Bibles and rhetoric around as if we have something to say more important than the creed. I always put the creed after the sermon, so that if I have nothing to say worth hearing, the creed will still preach.
In what sense is there less agreement in the historical church about the creed than about the canon? It’s not considered inspired, but I consider it the standard for a unified church confession, and considering its age and origin, it’s pretty important. If I meet someone who rejects the Apostle’s Creed, just about everything comes into question for me. It’s an “outer boundary” of the faith that shouldn’t be torn down.
And could you list for us all Paul’s passages on the life of Jesus? I agree with you that the ministry of Jesus is critical, but to say it is the same as the cross, etc. is not true. Jesus said so.
I believe we should write creeds and confessions that include the proclamation and actions of the Kingdom, but the first and most valued creed must always be the AC.
Phillip—Well, I was pretty much finished with the whole Creed thing and was away from the computer for awhile (had to watch American Idol, you know) but let me try to explain my position another way. There are things that I think are important about Jesus. Why should someone back in triple-digit AD tell me what’s important? What is wrong with me thinking that, say, “Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom of God” (at least throwing a bone toward his earthly ministry) is about 100 time more important than “He descended into hell”? Why is mentioning the Ascension so crucial in the Creed when only Luke (in the book of Acts) think it’s important enough to even rate a mention?
I’m not saying I disbelieve anything in the Apostle’s Creed. I’m just saying it’s not in the canon. Want some creeds that are in the canon? How about Matt. 16:16: Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Or even better,Phil. 2:6-11: who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Pirate, well done for the first round. You give yourself away, though, by explicitly saying “In the 20th century, humankind came to a new, fuller understanding of sexuality.” Usually that argument is implicit, and I’ve never seen it made explicitly except by people trying to debunk feminist interpretations. The same with “A fresh new wind was blowing in the 70’s”. I think I could’ve spotted this as a fake, even if I hadn’t known :).
Michael, credobaptism per se isn’t the real problem. Rebaptism is what gets my hackles up. (Read the linked article. It’s very good, and expresses my feelings perfectly.)
OK, if that’s the template for how this is supposed to work, I can definitely do your worst. Bring it.
Pirate: You’re an evil, evil man, but at least you’ve picked something I’m pretty sure I won’t ever truly believe. I’m going to need to sleep on this one. :-)
Wow and wow again. Change is challenging. Even on the internet. The new look is great but it is different and I know it will take me a couple of days to adjust. I am moving this week and there is a lot of change going on in my life. I am buying a house for the first time and that scares me to death. My wife has a new job and that makes me and her both pretty anxious. Next week I will also begin the new adventure of helping to start a church. In the last seven years of my life I have lived five of them in New Orleans and it is the only place we have lived since we have been married. Oddly enough as unsafe as we have been feeling in New Orleans it has come to feel like home and is very comfortable. So I have a lot going on this week and as I have been thinking about the differences happening in my life I think to myself wherever I go I will still have the Boars Head Tavern. It is a comforting thought that many things will change but I can still have you guys follow me to Georgia once again.
A couple of weeks ago I saw a new slogan on a Methodist Church sign in Gulfport.
“Lent is spring training for Christians”
Sonia, sounds to me like you’re in if you want to be…someone should make you defend the non-use of instruments in church. We’re not looking for PhD work here. :-)
OK, so I had no doubts that I would be asked to defend either open communion or WO. I’m glad it’s the latter. Here goes:
For more than 19 centuries, only men were clergy in the church, although one occasionally found powerful abbesses and other highly respected women of spiritual influences, both in church and in sect. In the 20th century, however, humankind came to a new, fuller understanding of sexuality and gender virtually unprecedented in human history. We discovered, namely, that there can be no difference without the imposition of a power structure and the subjugation of another. In the case of male-only ordination, this was the subjection of woman and the silencing of her voice in the Church. We also learned that traits we generally describe as “masculine” and “feminine”-including which sex is the object of your sexual desire-is hardly defined by sex and is in many respects socially conditioned. Hence the assertion of gender difference and the enforcing of gender roles is a powerplay by patriarchalists to subjugate and silence women, and reducing them to status of sex slave without will or right, thus male ordination is inherently tied to a view of women as intellectually and spiritually inferior and unequipped for leadership. The inherent gender difference between men and women being abolished, the assertion that the pastoral role is of an actual spiritual fatherhood or something melts away as well (single mothers, for example, have to play paternal as well as maternal roles).
But women’s ordination—we should call it “human ordination,” really—is not founded on sociological reasons alone, but also theological. First, we need to look at biblical anthropology. The first (and probably oldest) Genesis myth describes “man” as created “male and female.” There is no masculine humanity with a subordinate female humanity emanating from it—man exists equally as male and female with no difference, therefore roles in the kingdom of God, in which the New Creation is established, must exist as male and female. The second myth is clearly trying to “fix” the first one by introducing language of subjugation like “helpmeet” and the patriarchalist rib legend; it lacks the timeless beauty of the six-day myth, which continues to receive relevant theological interpretation today. Anything of divine origin and normative for religious life would continue to be relevant, but the second myth is completely irrelevant to modern man, with its fantastical tales of talking snakes and man being an animated dirt statue. Thus it ought to receive less consideration in theological anthropology, since it reflects the superstitions of the age more than it reflects the intent of God.
Second, Paul does say “In Christ there is neither…male nor female.” Passionate commitment to follow in the footsteps of Christ qualifies one for ministry, not your sex. All true believers, not just men—or even consecrated people!—are called to minister in the Church. We must oppose this medieval, sacramental view of ordination that has its roots in the age of Constantine and the politicization of the Church rather than in the New Testament. Ordaining women is not conferring a new right or privilege on them; it is simply acknowledging what they are already doing and what God is already doing through them! It is nothing more than the outworking of the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).
Third, Jesus did not come to form an institutional church. Mark, the oldest and most authentic Gospel, has no command to continue the Lord’s Supper (14:22-25), and the command to baptize in 16:16 is rejected by even the most conservative scholars as being a later addition to the text. Seeing the church in terms of a sacramental administration is what requires a mystically consecrated clergy—and rarely if ever were men and women in the same ancient sacerdotal orders. The “catholicizing” of Christianity began in the Matthean community, which turns the Last Supper into a consecration, adds a later liturgical formula to the Great Commission, and thus makes the calling of the apostles about consecrating clergy rather than protypes of the universal call to all to follow him in the way of love, truth, and justice. Jesus was about calling people to a radical new lifestyle of overturning social conventions to establish a reign of divine love and compassion on the earth, not about forming an institution to exclude people from a heaven by concentrating power in the hands of specially consecrated men by making them gatekeepers of sacraments, terrorizing them with threats of hell into obeying the will of the institutional church.
And finally, did not Christ say the Spirit would lead his followers into all truth? A fresh new wind was blowing in the 70’s. Rome’s sacerdotalism disqualifies it from being “church”—who else can be “church” except for the mainline Protestants? The Spirit inspired almost the whole of the followers of Christ to affirm the pastoral ministry of women through the testimony of brilliant theologians and the thoughtful reflection of sincere Christians. We have sociology, the Bible, and the living testimony of the Holy Spirit on our side. Ordaining women is the only way we will finally tear down the medieval castle of the institutional church and bring back the living Gospel.
I pick Phillip Winn to defend the necessity of submitting to the Roman Pontiff in all things for salvation. If you need reference, the doctrine is exposited here. I know I had JS before, but that seemed, I dunno, not black-and-white enough.
A good collection of D.A. Carson mp3s on many subjects. His sessions on how the NT writers quoted the OT are very good.
oh, for mercy’s sake, you may as well try to get Bill to write on the rapturous delights of grits and Jack to write on the superiority of the radical redistributivist principles of justice.
Pirate: I would play but one could accuse me of ultracrepidarianism when it comes to matters of theology and politics much above a basic level of understanding.
Michael, I meant that you pick the first person to write, and when that person’s done, he picks the next one, and so on. That way no one person can dominate the topics. I’ll go first if you want.
MOD: Sure. (It is a good list :-)
Jesse on credobaptism.
Jason on closed communion.
Josh on women pastors.
Phillip on teetotalism.
Raja on the dispensational view of Israel.
Joel on Contemporary Praise and Worship music.
Time doesn’t allow for good research, but I’ll play. Make me defend the prosperity message if you really want to see me squirm.
JOEL: I read Piper’s article, appreciated it for it’s positive contribution about our need to be more in awe at the privilege of hearing God speak in His Word, but also could not sympathize with Piper being grieved by the CT article. Piper ends his essay saying this article “grieved” him, but he did not doubt that the situation happened. I don’t doubt the situation happened and therefore, I can’t grieve the article. So, I’m confused….
The block is pretty dead…very few responses so far. So far, we’ve explicitly got:
Can someone explain to me why I agree with the gist of Piper’s point in the essay Michael linked to last week, but really don’t like the way he made his point? It isn’t just that he appeared to dissemble in order to criticize the writer in CT. There are a couple of layers to my negative reaction and I was wondering if my experience was unique in the bar and if anyone cares to discuss it.
Well, it’s been a day, and I’ve heard no objections to my suggestion. That being said, how about Michael starts us off by picking a person and a topic? If he doesn’t want to play, someone else should. I don’t want to start it off because I don’t want it to seem like I just wanted to pick on anyone by making him defend a pet topic of mine. :-) So here are the rules:
Pirate: I’d be in for writing a thesis defending a position with which I disagree. Heck, I think that’s how I’ve become more liberal since 9/11—sticking up for the one Democrat surrounded by Republicans at my church!
Shiny Happy New Beginnings for the BHT?
Tom: I really hoped you were kidding, but a few hours have passed, so I’m guessing not. The delay means I’ll probably avoid a pile-on, but I’m afraid I can’t really respond without some negativity. Sorry.
Your analogy is really poor on every level I can imagine. The Apostle’s Creed is radically different from your example of “Lincoln’s Creed” in nearly every way. The Creed covers the most important points of Jesus’ life, while your example covers—maybe—one of Lincoln’s. A more suitable comparison—if such a comparison were required for some strange reason—would be:
I believe in Abraham Lincoln, savior* of the United States. He was elected President, waged a war, preserved the union, and ended slavery in the country. He was assassinated by a slavery-loving moron.
Per your complaint about the Apostle’s Creed, I left out the popular stories about his many failed attempts to run for office, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and most of his policies unrelated to the “civil war.” And yet still it encompasses most of what people know about Lincoln, which is all one can really do in a few sentences.
The Apostle’s Creed is quite a bit more complex, since it covers the uniqueness of Jesus’ birth, as well as His post-resurrection glory and future return—which obviously Lincoln didn’t have. It also covers other things important in Christianity that aren’t specifically about the human life of Jesus—like the other two members of the Trinity and our hopes of current/past forgiveness and future resurrection.
Look, I completely understand why someone would be cautious about ascribing too much “authority” or importance to a non-Biblical source. There are certainly people who—and perhaps a tendency in all of us to—grab ahold of something “easier” than the real Jesus, who seems to offend everybody somehow. However, I think you’re picking the wrong fight with the wrong crowd over the wrong example, and doing a poor job of it to boot.
Jesus is the reason we’re all brothers and sisters here, and He’s the reason we are all so passionate about this topic. He’s the reason for it all, and any theological statements that are too loosely connected to “theo” are awful. But the Apostle’s Creed is about Theo; it is intended to be a simple statement of the importance of Christ, His unique birth, His atoning death, His resurrection, His glory, His future return, and the benefits thereof (forgiveness, our resurrection). Is it complete? We’ve got a 66-volume history of the world that still isn’t really complete, so obviously a few-sentence Creed is going to be even less complete.
Rejecting a creed because it isn’t complete is a little silly, though. Reject it because it emphasizes unimportant things, or because it contains untruth, or for some other reason. Otherwise you end up facing questions about why you don’t reject the New Testament because we’re missing two letters to the Corinthians, for example. It’s still the best record we have, and since it’s about Jesus, that’s what makes it important.
I hope that makes sense. I think you ought to pick on people who focus on doctrine to the exclusion of Christ, not those of us who emphasize doctrine that focuses on Christ.
P.S. I like the African creed, too. I’ve bookmarked it.
I’ve been posting on education a bit at IM, and this post showed up in my trackbacks. I like it, and I like the idea of a dialog.
During soli deo tonight, I had a bit of a revelation. A future speaker had emailed me today to ask if it would be OK to show an extended film clip/music video from “The Passion of the Christ.” It occurred to me as I was preparing the communion meditation that most of the people who are deeply involved with this movie in a “sacramental” way probably rarely ever hear the words “This is my body….This is my blood” uttered in the context of the Lord’s Supper in worship anywhere. The tangibility and presence of the Lord’s Supper brings us to the broken body and shed blood in a way a movie cannot. The genius of the Lord’s Supper is that it takes us, in simplicity and authenticity, to the place of “it is accomplished” over and over.
“The Passion” as an evangelical replacement for frequent communion. Interesting idea. What do you think?
Someone called the new place “Clive Barker’s Boar’s Head Tavern.”
I’m looking forward to two days away at Campbellsville’s University’s Worship and Arts Conference, where Michael Card is going to be teaching on Lament. I hope to be home by early afternoon Friday, so that Denise and I (and hopefully some soli deo friends) can go to an interdenominational service at St. William’s RCC for Stations, preceded by fried fish.
My students are laughing at Jesus Christ Superstar. That medium of rock opera always strikes them oddly, but they get used to it.
We are having a talent show, and lots of Asians are entering. I have to review all their lyrics, and it’s…...interesting. The themes of the Asian songs are very much about emotional suffering, personal oppression, frustration and social cruelty. Not at all like the American songs that are all about….sex, generally. Fascinating window.
Bill and I have been marvelling at how Fide-o has now become one of our frequent stops. Jason has put together an excellent introduction to four views of the book of Revelation. Very good material if you aren’t familiar with this and good to pass on to those you teach.
Jason lines up on the “Who is reformed?” bit by saying Reformed = five solas, TULIP and Covenant Theology. I miss by one letter.
I’ve had one request for a permanent Farah poster on the blog. In deference to the wives, I’ve said no thanks. Now….who has the old one? Poster I mean. Not wife.
Some of you have older versions of Firefox and your java, Flash and shockwave are way out of date. This will keep you from using/seeing extended comments. So update the browser to 2.0 and get current with your plug-ins. A good test is whether all the toys at MLB.com work for you.
Remember where I asked you to put SOMETHING in a URL by your name? I was serious. Please. All those vacant spots look bad.
And if you are a current BHTer without a BIO, please read a few, write one and send it to me so we can make an attempt at updating that page.
The former sidebar resources (lectionaries, etc.) are now under the “Resources” tab.
You’re right, Tom. The Creed would make a terrible dissertation. I can’t imagine anyone getting a doctorate by submitting the Creed.
Abraham Lincoln was born to Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks. He was shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth, lay in a coma for nine hours, and died.
And that, my friend, would get you a D- at best, and probably an F.
but it mentions nothing that happens between “born of the Virgin Mary” and “suffered under Pontius Pilate.”
Face it. The Apostle’s Creed totally ignored Jesus’ earthly ministry
>The Apostle’s Creed… is inadequate at best.
Finally….the BHT post Phil keeps talking about.
Josh-Well, sure, Jesus’ earthly ministry is “between” born of the Virgin Mary and was crucified, but it mentions nothing that happens between “born of the Virgin Mary” and “suffered under Pontius Pilate.” No healings, no teachings, no wandering around with 12 disciples, nothing. Sure, it happened “between” but if nothing’s mentioned, how can you say it “contains” it. Now, the descent into hell, oh yeah, that’s big stuff there. Kenneth Copeland likes that part.
Face it. The Apostle’s Creed totally ignored Jesus’ earthly ministry and therefore is inadequate at best. It practically (not totally) ignores Jesus’ humanity while overplaying Jesus’ divinity. And yes, both are important—equally.
Alex? Alex who? Well [whoever you are], I don’t see how Harris is offering much more than bare assertion peppered with anecdotes. Counter-evidence to his claim that moderates shield “maniacs” from criticism is easily found. One could start with Greg at The Parish that Tom linked to (he has updated his initial post with a further explanation). Harris’ imagery of concentric rings enables him to convey a picture of moderates forming an outer protective shell for what lies deeper within the fortress. Of course, it could be that this imagery was chosen because it agrees with the conclusions Harris already believes. But that’s just atheist presuppositional apologetics :-) I don’t think his assertions hold much weight at all. More »
“Very cool. Not that my opinion counts for much, but I like it.When I was in high school I went to a technical school in the middle of one of the oldest sections in town where the original industries were located. The bar on the corner was a working class joint for guys getting off their shift to get a cold one. It was open in the morning when I went to school, it was open when I left in the afternoon, it was open when I came and went from school basketball games. It was also the place to stand while waiting for the bus if the bartender hadn’t had trouble with the cops for letting us underaged, non-shaving types inside the door. More »
A while ago, Scott Adams posted the results from a particularly strange study on his blog:
For example, researchers asked people to write essays in support of a random point of view they did not hold. Months later, when surveyed, the majority held the opinion they wrote about, regardless of the topic. Once a person commits an opinion to writing – even an opinion he does not hold – it soon becomes his actual opinion. Not every time, but MOST of the time.
I am not the redhead. I’m the other one. But, she’ll come and host the karaoke for the bar unless you already have someone in mind for that.
Tom, sorry, when Lutherans say the “Creed,” we mean the Apostles’ Creed. To recall the 2nd article to memory:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose from again the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From thence he will come to judge the living and the dead.
Sheesh. I step out for a while and when I get back, the place looks like an emergent church.
I always knew those heretics would get to iMonk…Beer in church? Perish the thought. (JNx3)
I can’t find the Farrah poster.
As far as “To Write Love on Her Arms” is concerned, anything with Thrice’s Dustin Kensrue on the board of directors is fine by my book.
Anyone read Sam Harris’s God’s dupes?
Looks like a place where these guys would be welcome—If only there was a place out back to water the hawgs. 
The New Look BHT—Love it, love it, love it!
Josh—I guess I should ask you, which Creed (capital C) are you talking about, since there are several? I must be missing the one that has “the entirety of Christ’s life in Article 2” unless, of course, you are talking about the African Creed, which I doubt that you are.
Sonia: The place looks fantastic! Lurker Kinnon, the banner is great, too! Thanks to you both. In your honor, I’ll be sure to raise a glass of:
If you have any kind of web page, URL, bio page, or favorite site, please list it so it appears as a link under your name.
If you haven’t written a bio for the bar’s bio page, please do so, and send it to me or Sonia. At some point we’ll update/edit that page.
Well, Sonia, good job on pulling all of this together. It sure is different… wow. That old BHT design has been here since I first joined the place four years ago. This’ll take a little getting used to. But it looks nice and makes the place feel classy. Well done.
I will now be able to sleep at night without dreaming about code. :)
Hope you folks like it – I enjoyed putting it together. There are a couple of new things added in here either to make things more interesting to look at or to make life a little easier:
Just be aware that my focus is now shifting to a job hunt. Without going into too much detail here, I have until the end of June to find a new job (if you want some of the nuts and bolts of the story, it’s on my blog). Since it can take up to 2 months around here to get an interview, I’ve got to get cracking on this. I’ll be around to take care of little things here and there but I most likely will not be able to do any significant revamps until I know where my new paycheck will be coming from. I would appreciate your prayers.
Ahh, the cemetery and the fortunate pastor who cuts her administrative teeth on the rural church cemetery committee. I would praise God if my next church depended upon the local city caretakers for the disposal of our saintly bones. But, I’m happy for the careful grooming that I received from the small church historian, the matriarch in charge of the bank vault which housed the deeds and the CDs, and the other trustees of those lovely garden plots for the dead. I know more about those churches, their families, the motivating industry of the communities, and the direction that the communities are taking small business wise, all based on the trends of who’s dying and getting buried where. Subtle politics. I also learned about high church finance. The ministry budget (including pastor salary) might only $34K but they might be sitting on 75 or a 175K cash or CDs. Yep. Some of that money might actually be in a bank and not a mayonnaise jar in back of the chiffrobe.
What I will not miss is the grounds as centerpiece for ministry. This story from my friend who went back for a revival at a church she had served a few years ago: “Reverend Lisa, we’re just so proud of our little cemetery! See, how it’s grown!”
Hummm.
The NAE endorsed the Evangelicals for Human Rights statement. FWIW. [set jn to 11] I will state my views about this as dispassionately as I can. First, (...), not to mention (...). But then one must consider (...). So, (...). That’s what I think. [reset jn to stun]
Maybe it’s my monitor, but the low contrast between the dark gray background and the text is kind of hard on the eyes.
Phillip, if “To Write Love on Her Arms” is emergent nonsense, then we’re all doomed. What a great example of ministering to the Lord.
Tech and Design crew: Well done.
Design by Sonia.
Banner by Bill Kinnon. (Kickin’)
It’s your new place, with lots of cool new tweaks.
But the Farrah poster is still there :-)
Tom: I apologize for being part of what now seems like a pile-on earlier. That was not my intention. I think you raise interesting points and provide a needed perspective. Even though I disagree (slightly) with your reaction to some of the problems in the American church (and with Falwell), I share your disguntlement with what I see.
One a related note, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone in here write about To Write Love On Her Arms, and it seems relevant to us. Emergent nonsense to some, a manifestation of the love of Christ to others, it certainly appealed to me. While some part of my brain has questions about financial accountability and reproducability, I focus instead on the more immediate story, and I see Jesus.
Uh, warning: one F-word in the text. Apropos, as you’ll see.
Michael: That’s helpful to me, especially the part about shepherding first vs. being an evangelist first, or enlisting people in projects. I wasn’t so much critiquing Peterson, but wondering what I was missing and seeking some help. You provided it, thanks!
Him=Creed?
Matthew 25 isn’t about being nice to poor people. If you need your social Gospel stuff, Luke’s a much better source. Matthew is talking about how you treat those whom he has sent in his name to bring the good news. But I read Matthew in a very dead, orthodox sort of way, as I lack the illumination of the Holy Ghost.
Dean Abbott talks about one thing you won’t see at today’s church growth oriented churches. You sure see them in Ky.
Can These Eight Essentials Save the SBC? A message by Daniel Akin, President of Southeastern Seminary.
Bob: Critique for what someone didn’t say is a bit different than criticizing what they did say. Just as valid, but different. My reading of Peterson is extensive, and I’d give him high marks on the Gospel, but he deeply believes a pastor’s first call is to be the shepherd of the flock, not be be an evangelist. I agree. Without rejecting evangelism, I know from working with hundreds of Christians that God’s flock largely starves in most churches as their “shepherds” feed everyone but them and pursue every project except their own soul’s welfare. In fact, among today’s younger pastors, there is a genuine contempt for pastoral care, and an assumption that church growth is the great calling of the church. I think we have plenty of Rick Warrens being heard today. I vote we hear all the Peterson we can as a counterbalance.
I do understand, Tom. It’s using Mrs. Edwards’ cancer as a political tool. Reprehensible and cynical.
Just to lay down some fire in advance, if we start approaching semi-serious 9-11 conspiracy levels- which the “ridiculous…confessions” comment resembles- I’m going to intrude. The position that the terrorist threat is not real has no place on this blog, and I won’t be paying for it to be discussed.
Michael—See, ya just gotta frequent dem ol’ libbrul blogs—then ya’d unnderstand! (jn)
Joel—Interesting how at the end of the message, the guy (Falwell?) says we need to refocus on what’s important, like Christ and him crucified, and the Great Commission. This after spending 98% of the message focusing on attempting to debunk global warming. I guess he is determined to know nothing among us but Christ, him crucified, and global warming is a crock. It seems some are uncomfortable going outside the parameters of campaigning against abortion and gay marriage.
And I think it’s reprehensible for the U.S. government to engage in torture. Ever since KSM came out with his ridiculous list of confessions, I was skeptical. I mean, I’m surprised he didn’t take responsibility for the Kennedy assassination. Torture has been proven to be ineffective, and even if it was, it is morally wrong and puts any government that utilizes it wallowing in the same mud pit as its enemies. But we’ve relinquished the moral high ground, much to our detriment.
I like Peterson alright, and sometimes he is brilliant. But it’s a fine line behind not giving pat answers, and saying we don’t give people answers, which sounds to me like a pat answer. I don’t have the answer within myself, but I am called to proclaim and herald the Gospel. I did not hear this. Maybe I need to listen again. Is proclamation there?
A second thing that I think goes hand in hand with pastors leading spiritual formation is community outreach. A congregation that is experiencing spirtual formation will realize that the lost people of that community care more about parking than praying, and that to get them across the threshold the parking has to be decent. And no, church is not a business, but we can’t avoid practicing some of the same things businesses practice, so why not learn these practices from them? I just don’t see this as spiritual compromise. We’re marketing whether we’re conscious of it or not. And if spiritual formation is taking place we’ll have greater desires to mar