Shameless plug, and advice to Michael: John Adams  is a must see, an excellent argument for getting HBO.

My favorite Joel Garver post ever: a review of the Apologetics Study Bible.

Ben Myers reviews a cheerful and unintimidating introduction to Karl Barth.

Yes, by all means if you must vote Republican, please vote for the only true Republican, one who actually believes in the idea of a civil society. Ron Paul is the conscience of his party. Although I think his reasons for being anti-war are flawed, he has staked out the right position on the issue and is the best hope for his party to decide it will no longer be the stooge of the military-industrial complex.

That’s a nice list from Leithart. Very helpful organization. He said it was personal, but I’d add the following to mine:

I. Theology
A. Political theology: Karl Barth, Jacques Ellul (gotta put him somewhere, either here or K.), John Howard Yoder, Miroslav Volf, Slavoj Zizek.
B. Aesthetics: Calvin Seerveld, Lambert Zuidervaart, Hans-Georg Gadamer
E. Theological ethics: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jeffrey Stout, William Placher, Richard B. Hays, John Howard Yoder (again)
F. Science and theology: Wentzel van Huyssteen, Hans Radder
K. Philosophical theology: Gabriel Marcel, Paul Ricoeur
L. Feminist theology: Sally McFague
Um, it would be fine to cross out M. and N. :-)

II. Biblical Theology
A. Historical Jesus: Richard Bauckham
D. Hermeneutics: Mark Wallace, Paul Ricoeur (again)
E. Literary Studies of the Bible: Craig Bartholomew, Calvin Seerveld (again)

I’m glad Kyle remembered this. Yesterday was the tenth anniversary of the death of Rich Mullins.

A few quotes from this saint of God: More »« Less

ECNMag has an interview with Steve Wozniak (the real design brain behind the beginning of Apple) about his new interest in energy efficient housing. I don’t generally get into the whole green vs. consumer debate, but I like his approach. Instead of getting all over people’s case about using too many resources, he is, like a good engineer should be, all about efficiency of design. By using the right materials, and the right techniques, and good design principles on the front end, things (houses in this case) can be made that don’t use as many resources as what we currently have.

As geeks and engineers go, I look at Woz in relation to computer design the way I look at NT Wright about theology. In other words – he is da MAN.

Joel, you might like this.

The only effective way to lose weight is to reduce the intake of calories.

You cannot possibly exercise enough to have a substantial impact on the calories you consume each day, unless you get rigorous exercise for 12-16 hours every day.

Exercise is useful when you are trying to lose weight for several reasons, none of which are directly related to the actual calories lost to exercise:

1) Regular exercise improves your mood, which can be important since dieting can be extremely stressful.
2) Exercise improves your body’s ability to function, by increasing blood flow and oxygenation, and improving muscle tone.
3) Regular exercise tends to reduce appetite, at least temporarily.

Bottom line: if you want to lose weight, you either have to eat less or crap and pee more.

John If it was Wright that drowned them, then I’m pissed at him. Not because of the cruelty to animals, or because of his theology, but because he’s broken the unwritten BHT rule that says that famous Anglican bishops are not allowed to sneak into my backyard at night without knocking on the door and offering to pop over to the local brewery for a pint or seven.

If that’s not enough of a topic change for those of you tired of the Baptism Wars, let’s talk politics. Whatever else you can say about Argentina, you have to admit that their version of the Hilary Clinton candidacy is easier on the eyes. I’m not exactly certain, but I believe the caption of this picture should be, “Candidate Fernandez de Kirchner explains to the press corps what she believes Argentinean voters are looking for in a female presidential candidate.” Other caption suggestions are welcome.

I received a couple good emails about my observations and questions to Pirate. Thanks Adam M. for shedding some light on the various “flavors” of Lutherans (ELCA, LCMS, etc.). John H also listed the differences as he sees them, having been in both Anglican and Lutheran worship. (I’ll include that in the extended section for those who want to read it all.)

To clarify my initial response to Josh, my main point wasn’t so much to get into the merits of Lutheran liturgy compared to Anglican, RCC, EO, etc. as much as to point out that I think there is some common ground among them with respect to liturgy acting as a balance to evangelical worship’s potential for emotionalism, celebrity pastors, entertainment, lecture over word and sacrament, etc.

Anyway, here’s John’s response:

More »« Less

Chris Tilling posts about popular evangelical liturgy. Given our technophilia and infatuation with the Latest Thing,^TM the software motif he deploys is very fitting. Some hilarious comments. The ubiquitous just is joined by the almost as frequent right now. While we Reformed types don’t usually go into tachylordia, I think we do own the copyright on the Litany of Attributes^© and, paradoxically, we like the Reminder Package.

Josh: C’mon, we know that the Athenians did not merely acknowledge the possibility of an unknown god, they BUILT AN ALTAR WITH AN INSCRIPTION ON IT, for Pete’s sake. Paul observed this altar among their ”objects of worship”. If building an altar among your objects of worship does not constitute at least a glance, I’ve got a lot to unlearn about the word “glance”.  

Bob: Yes, I am a tormented Vineyard pastor who wants to be Anglican. And we do practice normal Vineyard contemporary worship. However, I am happy to say that our current leader understands the goal of using songs that focus on God rather than on “me”, which is a problem with much of today’s contemporary worship. There are so many things I am in the process of unlearning regarding Evangelical practice. One of the pillars of proof of the value of contemporary worship has long been Wesley and Luther’s use of bar songs. In my view, this information knocks one of the legs out from under the stool.

I am a johnny-come-lately on this issue, dogged by my persistent craving to ask “why” and “what if”. Joel is undoubtedly the one to talk to if you want to hear the case for the value of one type of music over another in worship. However, I do get Joel’s subtle point in his post: either all music is equally useful for worship, or some is better than others. If some is better than others, then we have some questions to ask. Two big ones would be: What is the criteria? Who decides?

Hey guys, I haven’t been posting because me schedule has been pretty consuming, but I check in regularly.

Michael: Looking at today’s schedule, I hope the 8:00 appointment is for you to receive some counseling! : )

Pirate: I doubt there is any way we can know if the Athenian worship of unknown gods represented genuine longing, but at the least we can expect that it represented some kind of glance toward God. He set eternity in our hearts. When that awareness of “something out there” changes into actual longing, then into active seeking, is something about which we can only speculate. That’s God’s deal.

Matthew: I found that post about Wesley’s choice of hymn tunes to be extremely interesting. If anyone disagrees with this post, then please step forward and speak your mind. Wesley and Luther’s purported use of bar songs for their hymns has been a significant point supporting contemporary worship based on culutural relevance. If the exact opposite is true of Wesley and Luther’s feelings about music used for worship, that’s pretty dang significant.

Ten Propositions on Freedom by Kim.

A good number of the “emerging” blogs have picked up on “People Formerly Known as the Congregation.“

To highlight a couple, Jamie (Emergent Voyageurs) adds “The Community Coming to be Known as Missional.”

John Frye answers with “The People Formerly Known as ‘The Pastor’.” He tossed a few one-liners that got to me:

Be Thou My Vision got altered to “What is your vision statement?”

We became commanders rather than servants.

[We] ran up school bills, too, going to college and seminary. It’s costly learning Hebrew and Greek these days. ... We officiated at very high-priced weddings and worried how we would get our own kids married.”

Our kids had to be angels while yours were smoking pot and having sex.

Can you feel the frustration yet? It seems Bill has struck more than one chord with people.

I nominate the following for the banner quote:

“Don’t sweat the small stuff, and compared to the Cross of
Christ, it’s all small stuff.” – Phillip Winn

Sharon, are you hanging out with a neighborhood group full of fortune tellers or something?

And now for something completely different: Virtual Apple. Every old game I used to play in Junior High is on there. The Apple ][ (plain, +, e, and c) series of computers was my first exposure to all things digital. It’s all been downhill from there. 8-)

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?

Well, y’all need to pop over to Prosthesis and read this timely short post of Macht’s and his followup comment in the thread.

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).

For those who need to hear it, these are the words of Derek Webb’s “Wedding Dress”

Josh: You noticed I didn’t include you in the post to Phillip, right? You don’t really come across quite the same way. (JN) But that’s OK. I still love ya like a br… um… distant cousin. (JN)

But seriously, couldn’t your statement about Schmemann be made about the leading thinkers in every movement? Aren’t the best thinkers always looking most critically at their own group? Isn’t this how God brings about change? (Take your man Luther, for example) Isn’t that why God has always given us prophets?

So I don’t think your observation about Schmemann is really a problem pertaining to EO at all.

Sorry, Jesse and Greg, but I’ve read enough about the EO from non-EO-approved sources to never be impressed with them, and all of the EO-approved stuff I’ve read has rung hollow as a result. I’m not a fan.

Phillip: You come across to me as a very kind and pastoral man, so it surprises me to see you pretty much completely dismiss the second largest communion of Christians in the world. C’mon – do you think you would have such a response if you had an Eastern Orthodox priest who was a friend? I’m not saying they’ve got it all figured out or that they are the “true church”, but it is hard for me to believe that anybody could look at the Eastern Orthodox Church objectively and dismiss them as “hollow” or unimpressive.

Have you read Frederica Mathewes-Green, Alexander Schmemann, or Patrick Henry Reardon? Please take two doses of each and call me in the morning. If you don’t feel better, I’ll be surprised.

Audio and video are up at Roanoke College for NT Wright’s March 16th lecture on the resurrection.

Adam, I think Josh already gave a great response to your question about liturgy. I would only add that, in addition to his practical points about pastor’s preparation for Sunday service, the entire approach to living according to the church calendar and sacramentally (as opposed to the semi-gnostic approach of most evangelicals) lends itself to a healthy balance of working and resting, fasting and celebrating.    

Phillip: I’m glad you decided to comment. I think your practical analysis is right on the mark, and agree with you that the smaller church is a good solution. As a matter of fact, there are some Vineyard churches that are exemplary in this regard. In Atlanta and Houston, there are a couple of Vineyards who have hovered between 500 and 1000 in attendance while planting in the area of 10 or 12 churches within their metro area over the past 10 years or so. The Vineyard regards these churches as models of church-planting at its best, and I agree. The “mother church” first plants a small group in a community. The people initially continue to attend the mother church while starting the small church. When they are ready (1 to 2 years?), they “launch” the group as church, with the mother church supplying the human and financial resources, prayer, and blessing - celebrating the coming forth of more fruit. It takes a lot of faith to practice this continually – constantly giving away your best and brightest. 

Having said all that, I personally have concluded – from a Big Picture perspectice – that evangelicalism as we know has a faulty foundation regarding praxis. I’ll never forget reading an article written by a secular reporter several years. The writer was attempting to describe evangelicals and her description was “they emphasize a personal relationship with Christ and their churches are usually built around the personality of the pastor”. I knew she was right, and that she unknowingly was uncovering the darkest spot on evangelicalism.

I know this is a radical thing to say, but I believe the roots of this go all the way back to Luther and the other reformers (though they obviously were reacting against tremendous error). Regrettably, I don’t know that this problem is fixable.

More »« Less

fixed it 

Travis said:

1. Is the Old Testament Dispensational Premillenial? No, Dispensational Premillenialism did not exist until the 19th century.
2. Were the Jews in Jesus’ day Dispensational Premillenial? No, Dispensational Premillenialism did not exist until the 19th century.
3. Was Jesus Dispensational Premillenial? No, Dispensational Premillenialism did not exist until the 19th century.
4. Were the Apostles Dispensational Premillenial? No, Dispensational Premillenialism did not exist until the 19th century.

That’s beautiful, man. Couldn’t have said it better.

MOD: Wasn’t that Travis?

The Presbyteer reflects on Jesus’ use of the Scriptures and why we don’t get it (h/t Alastair):

Every man tends to read the Bible in a way that will not disturb what’s truly important to him.

Bingo. I wonder if that’s why many churches have little to no Scripture readings in worship. It removes the authority from the individual to determine and pronounce “Thus saith the Lord.” If the Bible gets out of our domesticating hands, there’s no telling what it might say.

According to the Wikipedia article on postmillennialism: 

“Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” John Calvin’s exposition of that part of the Lord’s Prayer all but adopts the minority postmillennial position, but Calvin, and later Charles Haddon Spurgeon, were remarkably inconsistent on eschatological matters. Spurgeon delivered a sermon explicitly defending the form of absolute postmillennialism held by the minority camp today, but on other occasions he defended premillennialism.

While those words make Protestant advocates of any particular eschatological point of view squirm at their keyboard, they bring me great comfort and assurance. I find myself in good company. The thing that theological gnat-strainers will never understand is that inconsistency on matters of theological points of view is not necessarily due to ignorance or a lack of backbone. On the contrary, a lack of submission to a “system of theological thought” (which I believe was true of Christ, btw) demonstrates a dogged determination to humble oneself before the Word of God and let it speak. That’s why great preachers like Spurgeon are hard to nail down on the particulars – they understand their primary relationship to the living Word is submission, then proclamation. They stand in awe before the Word, refusing to demand that it fit into someone’s little theological box. On this thought I agree with the Eastern Orthodox: systematic theology is not of God.

This interview in CT with the athiest who put his soul up for sale on ebay is interesting. The guy, Hemant Mehta, has visited some 30 Christian churches, and shares his observations. Here is my favorite excerpt:

Clearly, most churches have aligned themselves against non-religious people. By adopting this stance, Christians have turned off the people I would think they want to connect with. The combative stance I’ve observed is an approach that causes people to become apathetic—and even antagonistic—toward religion as a whole. Many evangelical pastors seem to perceive just about everything to be a threat against Christianity. Evolution is a threat. Gay marriage is a threat. A swear word uttered accidentally on television is a threat. Democrats are a threat. I don’t see how any of these things pose a threat against Christianity. If someone disagrees with you about politics or social issues or the matter of origins, isn’t that just democracy and free speech in action? Why do Christians feel so threatened?

You need to spread the message of Christianity—the message being what Christianity stands for—loving each other, helping the people around you. Those are things everyone can get on board with.

Sounds like this guy might qualify as a BHT fellow.

Jack: I have to go with Sharon on this one. Recently one of my sons half-jokingly said that a girl in their school was “the school hoe”. I almost came across the supper table. I don’t think he’ll be using that adjective to describe a girl again (not with a clear conscience, anyway). Whether its “faggot” or “hoe” or “retard”, we can do better – especially those who stand before others as if they have something to say.

Maybe a little cranky. Another thing I’ve learned in Comp Studies is that I have an affection for abnormal discourse, and that is a good thing. : ) (You should relate, Michael, for thou art the king of abnormal discourse).

Having said all that about celibacy vows, let me assure you that the likelihood of me starting a purity club is on par with the plausibility of Joel playing drums in the church band. Ain’t happenin. I’m just trying to consider the possibility that the poor sucker who is starting one might actually be operating under a divine mandate.

Kent makes a good point about Acts 15 being about table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles, except I don’t see where “avoiding sexual immorality” is primarily an issue of table fellowship. I just think we can be over the top on “requiring nothing beyond baptism”. Heck, I have a feeling that if Paul was posting at the BHT under the pseudonym “AP” and stated that he wanted all women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, that he would get blasted for being a legalist.

Kent: Actually, I’m pretty sure that many of my posts would annoy most Vineyardites as well – so I’m not sure you can blame it on my circumspect status as a Vineyardite. : ) Perhpas it has more to do with my penchant for the role of devil’s advocate. I’m drawn to poke and prod what I perceive to be the vulnerability of a point of view (including my own). If I was posting on a forum filled with a bunch of legalists, I’d probably be perceived as the second coming of Gene Scott!

Michael: In light of your comments below, what do you think of the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28-29? Do you see these requirements as mistaken additions to baptism, or as a legitimate effort to address specific issues with the new Gentile believers as they sought to live out their baptism?

Kent: I talk funny?!

I must say that my first encounter with a real live in the flesh BHT’er was as good as I’d hoped. I felt like I was immediately in the presence of an old friend. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to go out and have a cold one (a BHT tradition?). Maybe next time, Kent.

My 15 year old son went through the Abstinence by Choice seminar a couple of years ago. I don’t know how that compares to these purity groups you guys are talking about, but I know he took an abstinence pledge, which included a pledge to not do drugs. I’m glad he did it. We’ve talked honestly about sexual desires since we had the big talk when he was about 10 years old (just had the talk a few weeks ago with my youngest son), but its nice to have others providing him with insight/information that essentially coincides with my viewpoint – that he needs to keep his snake in the cage!

Kent: Looks like you made it back home. How’s things with your mom?

Michael: For the life of me, I can’t see why you and Denise feel trapped. As others have said, you guys have tons to offer and I feel certain your options are endless. Just get a dart, say a prayer, chunk it at a U.S. (World?) map, pack up, and go. : )

I’ve been reading your conversation with Frank Turk. You really are a glutton for punishment. Is he an Arkansan? I no longer run in Baptist circles, but I can easily imagine a SBC pastor going to a RCC Ash Wed service being viewed as controversial and a cause for concern. Of course this depends on the individual church.

It seems to me that a major factor is the size of the town/church. The greatest cooperation between denominations seems to take place in smaller towns – where people are more likely to view their community as one big family. Plus, rural pastors are less likely to be egomaniacs – as the nature of their work indicates. My hunch is that the traditional southern city (big town to medium size city) where the SBC dominates like Little Rock, Huntsville, or even Memphis would be the most likely to have quite a few fiercely territorial SBC churches who would strongly resist their pastor attending a RCC Ash Wed service.

Michael: By the way, I noticed that Stetzer mentioned Reggie McNeal in his presentation. I really like McNeal’s book The Present Future (of which I have written a review, if you are interested). McNeal does a great job of taking the commonly held convictions within the broader emerging movement and applying them in the local church context in very practical ways. The book is very readable and easy to follow even for lay people.

Stetzer referred to McNeal as the “recent” director of leadership development for the South Carolina Baptist Convention. Do you know what he is doing now? After reading the book, I was a little surprised he still worked within the SBC. He’s definitely pushing the envelope.

Apparently this is old, but darned if it isn’t one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a long time. (HT: Confessing Evangelical)

I thought this article in Christianity Today about the sign of the cross was interesting. It made me wonder what Protestant leader I should thank for abolishing the sign of the cross from Protestant practice? Surely that development was not another contribution of that fuddy dud Zwingli?!?

Charlotte Allen has an interesting article on the new film Amazing Grace online at the Wall Street Journal. I got the link from Steve Beard’s Thunderstruck (one of the best), where you’ll find plenty of links today to a wide variety of articles on the movie. Here’s a quote from the Allen article:

Nowadays it is all too common—and not only in Hollywood—to assume that conservative Christian belief and a commitment to social justice are incompatible. Wilberforce’s embrace of both suggests that this divide is a creation of our own time and, so to speak, sinfully wrong-headed. Unfortunately director Apted, as he recently told Christianity Today magazine, decided to play down Wilberforce’s religious convictions—that would be too “preachy,” he said—and instead turned his story into a yarn of political triumph. The film’s original screenwriter, Colin Welland, who wrote the screenplay for the acclaimed and unabashedly Christian “Chariots of Fire,” was replaced.

Michael, I think it would be interesting to consider Apted’s decision within the framework of your “Missional” discussions at IM. Was Apted wise to avoid being “too preachy”? Or did Apted miss an opportunity to “contend for the faith” by illustrating the essential link between Wiberforce’s spiritual exuberance that came from his love of Christ and his social/political achievments that demonstrated his effort to love others? I haven’t seen the film yet, so I have to reserve judgement. But if Ms. Allen’s contention is accurate, then I have a feeling I’ll also agree with her conclusion that the movie missed a golden opportunity.

I rejoice over the news that the Anglicans have chosen to retain biblical Christianity. I’m curious how my favorite brand of Anglicans – the Anglican Mission in America - fits into the new American “church-within-a-church” plan handed down. I agree with Hylden – this decision and plan is monumental and could be viewed one day as a major turning point in Anglican Church history. I’m wondering if the AMiA will come under the authority of the “Primatial Vicar”. According to Hylden’s article in First Things, “the primates have encouraged but not required those who have already left the Episcopal Church to return under the new pastoral scheme, and they have left the door open for their inclusion in more-or-less their present form.” I’m assuming this would include the AMiA, but I don’t know what their response is. Any AMiA folks out there who know, please shoot me and email and fill me in. Thanks!

Jason: I hope you read this before you go, because I am going to be doing something very similiar to what you are going to be doing this weekend (except that it is sunny and 70 degrees here right now). Amazing. So I’ll certainly remember you and your friends in prayer this weekend. Please do the same for me. Hopefully we can compare notes when we get back.

I pray that we will “get real”. As C.S. Lewis said “it is religion itself – prayer and sacrament and repentance and adoration – which is here in the long run, our sole avenue to the real.”

By the way, a woman is filling my pulpit this Sunday. Hopefully that’ll piss somebody off.

I appreciated the post on C.S. Lewis and Evangelism. As Devine states, no doubt Lewis had a “highly developed sense of propriety” that one wishes could be diffused wholesale across the Evangelical landscape. However, I think there is so much more about Lewis for us to understand when considering why he was the way he was. I agree that Lewis was probably not timid about sharing his faith in certain settings, but I also don’t think he was using restraint. I think he was simply himself. When he was teaching Literature, he didn’t have a compulsion to talk about theology or his “personal relationship with Jesus”. When lecturing at Oxford or Cambridge, he was completely given to the joy of the intricacies of studying and teaching great Literature. Nothing more, nothing less.

More than a superior style or methodology, Lewis’ effectiveness was the fruit of his life in Christ, which was thoroughly incarnational… in an Athanasius kind of way.

For anyone tired of reading about or talking politics, Barna recently released a fascinating poll indicating that (shock!) born again Christians love celebrities just as much as regular folks. Barna polled all Americans and then the subset of born again Christians on whether they knew of certain celebrities and then whether their opinion of them was favorable or unfavorable. Here are the things that most struck me: – Among born again Christians, Oprah Winfrey (85%) and Denzel Washington (84%) have higher favorable ratings than Billy Graham (80%). No, I am not joking. Does that not say tons about the state of Evangelical Christianity?!? Oprah’s favorability rating is even higher among born again Christians than among the general population (83%). Rounding out the top tier of celebrities that BA Christians favor are Bill Gates (78%), Faith Hill (77%), Mel Gipson (76%), and Tim McGraw (73%). – With the exception of Billy Graham, Evangelical religious leaders are just a pimple on the butt of the American landscape. Our man Joel Osteen is known by a mere 22% of the general population, and only 33% of BA Christians. Rick Warren is recognizable to 17% of pop, 26% BA Christians. Colson – 15% pop, 24% BA Christians. Hybels – 4%, 5% (Wow). – The only celebrities universally denounced by both groups are bad girls Brittany and Paris. We love to hate em. (Well, George W. did come in a close third).

     I searched for any person of which born again Christians held a significantly different opinion than the rest of the population and came up empty. The Evangelical church walks in lock step with the culture in every way imaginable. Perhaps our most thoughtful analysis should be aimed at Oprah and Bill Gates rather than Osteen, Warren, and Hybels, because they apparently are having a much great impact on the thinking and perceptions of the average Evangelical Christian. This really is Oprah’s world, and apparently its her church as well.

     I also noticed that our nation is universally religious. With the exception of politics to a certain degree (even though one could easily argue for a numbing sameness in politics), we all agree on what we don’t like (bad girls, for instance). Our nation (with the church in tow) has communicated one thing clearly to the world – its OK to be bad, just don’t flaunt it. Be subtle, mix in some good stuff, and we’ll wink and give you the thumbs up. Our nation, in step with the church, has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof.

Cynthia Nielsen begins blogging through one of my favorites: God Without Being by Jean-Luc Marion. Every Protestant (and Lutheran) should read and reflect upon the first chapter, “The Idol and the Icon.”

Kim Fabricius hangs ten more. This time they’re evil. Excellent art—love the Blake and Picasso. First commenter retorts with the always popular and invincible 11th proposition, a personal favorite of mine: K-Fab is doing philosophy and ignoring the Bible.

And Ben commends Hart’s book on the same subject to us. I wonder how Hart’s book compares to Wright’s?

Oh goodie. An opinion poll.

1) Sell. A mere blip on the screen.

2) Buy. A mere blip on the screen (no pun intended).

3) Sell? Never watched it, but it looks pretty cool in the ads.

4) Buy. Why limit the criteria so much?

5) SELL! Never say never. This is the easiest sell of all. Never underestimate the creative potential of a mind caught up in the wonder of God. I’m rooting for M. Night to fall head over heels in love with Jesus and then create something Christ-focused that takes our collective breath away.

On that note, has anybody seen or planned on seeing Bridge to Terabithia. I don’t know much about it, but it looks pretty sweet.

Michael: WOW! That Calvary Chapel article is explosive. I’m surprised at the lack of response. I have mixed feelings about it. Initially, I was thinking it was a hit job. I still am unsure how I feel about the appropriateness of the article. It seems apparent that the article has an agenda, and only presents one side of the story. Having said that, there are obviously some legitimate concerns.

The most interesting aspect of the article from the BHT point of view is the commentary that it makes on the overall culture of nondemoninational Evangelicalism in America (around the world?). I thought Chuck Smith Jr’s comments were insightful:

Chuck Smith Jr., who was recently expelled from the association for theological reasons, says he is not aware of many of the details spelled out in this article. Still, he believes that Calvary Chapel holds a lesson for evangelicals. Entrepreneurial men with little training start Bible studies, grow churches, or head to the mission field. Their ministries become multimillion-dollar organizations. Most of the time, these churches and ministries are successful. But failures loom large.

I’m not sure these churches are really successful “most of the time” – especially if we evaluated them on a long term basis. It is quite telling that the guys who lead the most “successful” (size=success) Evangelical churches are not necessarily the most Christ-like men, but rather the ones with the most business savvy. How did we end up here?

John Piper is taking on prosperity preaching.

I prefer to spend my time teaching the Bible, making disciples, and encouraging people to look to Jesus, but sometimes you just have to call out bad teaching. The whole prosperity thing riles me up. It tends to make upper-middle-class suburbanites comfy in their setting with no challenge to help others, and it takes advantage of people to too easily buy into get-rich-quick schemes. I tend to think of prosperity teaching like a zit on the backside of Christianity. (not that I have a strong opinion on it or anything…)

>I believe that the term neo-orthodoxy is misleading and virtually useless in comprehending the theology of Karl Barth.

What is the problem with this Devine guy? Does he seriously expect us to embrace the idea that it is unhelpful to slap simplistic labels on other Christians, summarizing what they stand for in a word or two. Yeah right. So what’s the church supposed to do now?

Jim: Here’s a nice quote about C.S. Lewis that puts your last post in good company (from Seeking the Secret Place): 

If one is to understand how Scripture transformed Lewis’s mind, it is essential to know that he openly acknowledged that there is mystery in the Bible and that not everything is easy to understand…Lewis objected to the efforts of some systematizers and literalists who want to answer questions – for instance, what is life like after death? He also frowned upon attempts of some systematic theologians who attempt to explain mysteries that God simply has not revealed in Holy Writ. “One of my main efforts as a teacher,” he wrote to a man in Japan, “has been to train people to say those (apparently difficult) words ‘we don’t know.’” 

JS: You like Obama? Honestly, I’ve not paid much attention to presidential politics yet. If you could convince me, this might be the first year I’ve voted for a Democratic president since I voted for Reagan in ‘80. So, c’mon, convince me. You might start by convincing me that Obama is not simply catering to Christians with his God-talk. For some reason I’m suspicious of all politicians. By the way, all bets are off if Mike Huckabee stuns the world and gets nominated by the Republicans. We’re practically best friends.

I’d like to nominate David Wilcox for the BHT bar singer. He’s a guy who would fit in perfectly sitting over in the corner, strumming and philosophizing in song late into the night. Need to hear more? Check out his music on David Wilcox Radio.

Here’s a sample of one of his new songs that I think could be the BHT theme song (certainly Michael’s theme song in his ongoing struggle with the TR’s):

Good Man:
(David Wilcox)

Let me apologize in advance
For the way my friend behaves
He’ll pick a fight and take a holy stance
He’s so proud that he’s so saved

I hope you don’t judge Jesus
By the things my friend will say
He holds a bible like a dagger
And he twists it just that way

He just loves conversation  -  like a cat loves a bird
I guess he’s always been a good man -  in the worst sense of the word

His song How Did You Find Me Here? is one of the most spiritual songs I’ve ever heard. Admittedly his melancholy comes through loud and clear in the song (which is part of why I connect so strongly with it), but for anyone who has ever encountered grace in the midst of spiritual desperation, he nails it.

Michael: I prayed for your blood pressure to drop, but I hope its OK that I went ahead and prayed for a total Holy Ghost healing from the blood pressure problem. Sorry, I’ve been reading the book of Acts again.

Ochuck: I was actually glad Michael dead-horsed the subject – though I do thoroughly enjoy your rigorous defense of the ideas behind inerrancy.

Michael, feel free to delete the rest of my post More »« Less

Another practical application that just occurred to me. Just last Sunday a woman in my church asked me if I believed that everything in the Bible was literally true. You know, did God really speak to Balaam through a donkey? Did a snake really speak to Eve? Did the sun really stop moving? Well, I told her that I have always taken all these stories in the Bible to be real stories that actually happened, but I have also come to understand that some folks who take the Bible very seriously do not think every story is literally true. So all in all, I’m not that hung up on the issue. She said she leans toward not taking every story literally.

Here’s the thing – I’m not a scholar. I’ve had very little formal theological training. I’ve not read Barth, and just a little Augustine (I was proud of myself when I read Athanasius on the Incarnation). I’ve read a few Orthodox guys like John Chrysostom, but most of my reading has been limited to contemporary Protestant theologians (NTW, Grudem, Fee) and teachers (Lewis, Peterson, Willard). I can’t hang with the theological heavyweights here at the bar. When people ask me difficult questions about theology to which I don’t have a good answer, I normally tell them I will look into it and get back with them.

However, many times as a pastor I am aware that they are asking the wrong question anyway. This is where many of the Orthodox writers have helped me. It might be interesting to ask whether or not a literal snake spoke to Eve, but the most important question is what is God saying to the Church – and therefore to me – in the story? The spiritual meaning supercedes the literal meaning. Whether or not a snake really talked, the spiritual message is the same. Are we being tempted to ignore God’s rule and do our own thing? If the answer is yes – if I am ignoring God’s rule and doing my own thing – then any chance I have of rightly understanding or interpreting or applying the Scripture is gone out the window anyway. So often – in my experience – those who are most concerned with the technical questions are most in need of actually applying the spiritual message of the scriptures to their own heart (myself included).

I agree with Michael that the doctrine of inerrancy – and all the baggage that comes along with it – is very unhelpful. That whole technical approach to “correctness” (or should I say “exactness”?) inexorably brings to mind Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees that they were unyieldingly loyal to the Scriptures because they thought that by them they possessed eternal life, but they “refused to come to me to find life”. The application of that rebuke from Jesus seems too obvious and easy to be fair.

In the early days of his ministry, John Wimber would make statements such as “God is bigger than the Bible”, and he got blasted so relentlessly by the fundamentalists that he stopped saying it. Wimber had an excellent illustration to describe how this mentality plays out in the lives of average Evangelical believers. He asked us to imagine somebody saying they loved Scuba Diving. Upon asking them to tell of their favorite Scuba Diving experience, they reply by pulling out their Scuba Diving magazine. They show you the well worn pages, the highlighted paragraphs, and the lines with stars or exclamation points by them. They show you their favorite Scuba Diving locations, having those pages tagged with a special marker. Excitedly they proclaim “see, I love Scuba Diving!”. “But”, you ask, “have you ever actually been Scuba Diving?” “Oh no”, they reply, “I haven’t actually done it. That seems too dangerous. But I really love it”.

In my mind, that illustration is more pregnant with truth about the average Evangelical/TR relationship with the Bible than anything I could possibly say about it.

I’ve been checking in on Father Matthew’s video blog from time to time, and I came across one on scripture and tradition today.

Now, our excessively reformed brethren will balk at it, since this guy is an Episcopalian, but if you can ignore the theological differences for half a nanosecond and be entertained by the simplicity of it all, I think you’ll enjoy it.

I recommend his whole set of videos. I so want to rip off his idea and do something like this at our church.

Since I kicked off the Haggard comments, I feel obligated to clear up a possible misrepresentation. After all, Ted Haggard is a sinner in need of mercy, like us all, right? I don’t think Haggard has actually made a declaration of being cured. First of all, the information in the Denver Post article came from one of the men overseeing Haggard’s ongoing treatment – not Haggard. Here is an exact quote that gets at the main point:

Among other things, the overseers urged Haggard to enter a 12-step program for sexual addiction, Ware said.

Ralph said three weeks of counseling at an undisclosed Arizona treatment center helped Haggard immensely and left Haggard sure of one thing.

“He is completely heterosexual,” Ralph said. “That is something he discovered. It was the acting- out situations where things took place. It wasn’t a constant thing.”

Why Haggard chose to act out in that manner is something Haggard and his advisers are trying to discern, Ralph said.

So I think a fair representation would be to say that Haggard came to a conclusion - perhaps not far from what Jason and Michael have shared – that he’s not a “homosexual”. He simply acted out in this sinful way and he intends, with the help of those overseeing his “recovery”, to engage in a process through which he will deal with it.

This article, written in 2003 and currently posted on the NAE website, is chilling. Obviously, it was written in a moment of conviction and clarity for Haggard. It seems to me that Haggard read Hayford’s call to true integrity, lifted his head from the Evangelical & personal emptiness that had come to characterize his life, and cried “hey, wait a minute, maybe we’re getting it all wrong…maybe we’ve gotten off track…maybe we’re the whitewashed tombs and snakes of our day.” Most of us would be proud to have written that article (minus the brief backslide into self-aggrandizement).

In other news, Haggard has emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling and proclaimed himself to be 100% heterosexual. The men overseeing Haggard’s restoration have given him this advice – get a job. Upon considering alternatives to Christian ministry, Haggard is leaning toward becoming a therapist. Not surprising, considering that most therapists I know are in the field because they are trying to work out thier own issues – either consciously or subconsciously.

Michael: “John H called it right: The fellowship of the baptized.”

Indeed. The whole piece from ++Williams is worth a read. Some may see it as an Anglican fight, but it’s much more. There is something sad and beautiful about it, and you will find quotes aplenty.

A few that I resonated with, in no particular order, are:

The deepest spiritual problem is not resolved by separating ourselves from the sinner, whatever has to be done in the short term (and Paul of course exercises discipline robustly); God’s word to us remains the challenge of Romans 2.

[W]e all stand together in sin and need

And so, alongside the wearisome and saddening divisions of the Church, common ground stubbornly persists.

Who knows what might be possible for us with patience and – simply – love?

Peace be with you – all of you.

Wow, I step out of the Tavern for a few days and this is what I miss: – Joel Osteen is declared to be the anti-Christ. – Blue Raja resigns?!? Say it ain’t so! Blue, could you at least give us a farewell speech, please?

- JACK CONSIDERS ATTENDING A VINEYARD! Jack, Jack, Jack. I’m not sure what to say, except that I find it amusing that you would describe the Vineyard worship service with obvious disgust, even disdain, and yet still consider attending the church. I don’t care how nice the people are – if you can’t stand the worship service, do everybody a favor and don’t attend the church. Here’s an idea: attend the small group, but go to worship at the Episcopal Church. That type of behaivor is becoming more and more common. Not that I necessarily think that is the best scenario, but it might be at least a temporary solution. If the V guy doesn’t seem interested in you attending small group only, then you’ll know something about him.

Jack, one more thing. You’re married, right? If so, then where your wife wants to attend would move to the front of the line as far as considerations go, IMO.

I love the BHT. I love Michael’s passion and how effectively he delivers his passion with words. Unlike most folks at the Tavern, the BHT is pretty much my only online hangout. My life is too full for scampering about the blogsphere. So the BHT is the one online place I have chosen to be stretched and hopefully grow as we wrestle around with our perceptions and ideas related to the church and the Kingdom. Thanks to each of you who have been willing to tangle with me. I’ve benefited greatly from it. Our common bond, I think, is our dismay over evangelical shallowness, and a desire for the substance and awe of the Kingdom. What that looks like and how we get there are the questions that generate such lively conversations – conversations that I hope continue onward and upward into the future!

Michael, one thing that you posted a week or so ago that has stuck with me is the idea that Lazarus authored the Gospel of John.

More »« Less

Did anyone else read Melton Duncan’s impression of a Joel O. event at Reformation21? His best line was,

“If the Christian religion is medicine for souls that are poor and needy than Osteen is a bottle of vitamins in an operating room.”

(EDIT: Grr. Performancing munged the link and some formatting.)