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.)

Adam Walker Cleaveland and Karen Sloan have created a website they’re calling presbymergent.org. At the Mainline Emergent event at Columbia Theological Seminary in Atlanta, GA.,they led a “Practice & Presbyterianism: Emergence as Re-formation” seminar. They gathered with over 80 participants to “imagine the paradox of Presbyterians engaged in Emergent”. Other mainliners engaged in this conversation with all things emergent are Methodists, Lutherans, and Episcopals.

Just got back from a ski trip with the fam and friends in Winter Park. We had perfect weather. Its true – 10 degrees with no humidity and no wind feels downright balmy. Its not fair – our heat feels hotter and our cold feels colder. Thats just wrong. My wife tore her ACL. Bummer. She’s got to be one of the few to tear up her knee on a bunny hill! My 15 year old surpassed me for the first time. He began tackling Black Diamonds on the third day and we parted ways. I was happy cruising the intermediates and advanced intermediates with my 10 and 11 year olds. It was a blast.

Those who fully agree with NT Wright’s political statements can ignore this if they wish. For us wacky right-of-center types, his political statements, while challenging in a good way, seem to be – how should I say – not quite there.

Noah over at N.T. Writes has a theory that since the bishop has so gotten into the minds of First Century Jews and Christians (as he understands them) that he tends to look at our world through that lens, perhaps ignoring the political and social realities of our times.

I don’t know that I completely buy it, but it’s an interesting thought.

Emergent Voyageurs has a post about cheesy art that relates nicely to Michael’s request for Christianized knock-offs of popular culture. I wonder how many of us have, or have had, something that could be considered kitsch? A guilty pleasure perhaps?

I’ll start with a confession. In our house, we have several Jim Shore figures, and we like them. So there. (I’ll even offer a defense by saying that these things actually look nice, as opposed to lower forms of “decoration” like velvet paintings and such.)

I realize this horse, if not dead already, is about to collapse, but this is worth mentioning. Dan Phillips (yes, I’m going to link them) made a really good point on the whole Chan thing.

The video makes it possible for Joe Anybody to think about the gospel, and know that it’s easy to share it with anyone without having to pull the in-your-face used car salesman gimmick. Those who were unnecessarily critical of the whole thing, on the other hand, scare off the would-be evangelist by making them second guess any attempt they might make at telling people that Jesus is their salvation.

Let the critics whine, then ignore them. Trust Jesus, follow Him, and tell people about Him. Now then, on to other topics, like eating rodent meat…

Michael, here’s an idea for you. RLP started up a lectionary discussion group centered around a good round of catch.

Baseball plus Lectionary equals ???

MOD: That really sounds good.

That anybody would conceive of God’s love as being set in the context of His wrath is incomprehensible to me. The conversation along those lines is so odd to me that it is boring. Always I have and forever I will believe that God is LOVE. Love is His essence – everything about Him emimates from His all-consuming love. He abounds in it. Now, our understanding of what love is and how it works requires our lifelong pursuit and is worthy of much fascinating conversation.

I was greatly helped when I discovered C.S. Lewis’s views on the wrath of God. God’s wrath, Lewis believed, is an allegory. However, Lewis advised us to be careful to not dismiss this allegory because, he said, it is an allegory that cannot be improved upon. Works for me.

Michael: I am interested in reading the story about protestants converting to EO, but the link isn’t working for me.

Kent: I share your categorical dismay. If you are submitting to the uncategorical categorization, then I will follow you into the categoriless abyss.

BUT I’M GOING DOWN IN A BLAZE OF GLORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the past several months, I’ve been using the BCP lectionary cycle as my devotional reading plan. I still read longer passages as the interest strikes me, but the cycle is good at keeping me in scripture where I might not ordinarily spend much time. It also helps when it comes to planning devotional material for our Saturday evening worship.

But, I just read a great post about Bible reading at Cerulean Sanctum. I believe Dan has posted about this before. Having taken the occasion in the past to read entire books in one setting, I resonate with what he says about getting a better understanding than breaking things up into the artificial chapter/verse system. I also like that he makes the point that this is all pointless if it isn’t applied.

Michael: Like Joel said, it seems like your problem is with Frederica’s prescription, but I think her description pretty much lines up with us post-evangelicals.

However, I must say that I – unlike you – do not so easily completely dismiss the assertions of most EO’s that our best tact is simply to join them. They truly believe that they are the communion most decidely connected to Christ and the Apostles. If they believe that, then why shouldn’t they insist that joining them is our best move? At least they are being honest. Having said that, I see Frederica as very magnanimous and ecumenical, unlike some EO’s.

I don’t even think that her concern with a “pick and choose” consumerist approach to worship should necessarily be taken as an indictment against every evangelical church that wants to incorporate ancient elements in their worship (though I could be wrong about this). She might be simply expressing a concern that both of us would share with her – that many in the emerging church (and perhaps in other evangelical churches) are simply pursuing the latest “model”, changing the window dressing, trying to keep up with the trends, in order to gather a bigger audience – rather than out of a sincere pursuit of/ response to God and His will.

Hey folks, I’ve been stopping by and reading, but haven’t posted in a while. Sorry for the inactivity. Life.

I was intrigued by a statement made by Frederica Mathewes-Green in response to a question issued by Relevant Magazine regarding worship styles:

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I’m glad to see communities digging into the treasures of the ancient church, particularly in terms of seeking beauty. The less we try to make worship like an evening in the family room, the more we make it something directed beyond our familiar experience, bringing us to the God of beauty, awe, and mystery, the better—and my personal hunch is that this is more attractive to seekers, too.
 
The negative, I think, is a consumerist attitude, in which worship leaders shop for the elements they find most appealing, rather than joining the ancient community and seeking to understand something beyond their limited experience. Consumerism feels like “being true to myself” or “choosing what rings true to me,” but it’s actually isolated, lonely, myopic, and culture-bound.

This statement stirs up my ongoing torment between two worlds. I am a child of the Jesus Movement. I left the cold, disconnected Catholic church as a college freshmen and discovered the warmth of guitars singing love songs to Jesus. About 20 years in, I started picking up on what Frederica calls the “isolated, lonely, myopic, and culture-bound” tendencies of my third wave evangelical world. So I now appreciate the call to a Beauty outside ourselves – outside of “what rings true to me”. However, a part of me still values the warmth of my culture - still likes it when worship feels like “an evening in the family room”.

Thoughts?

This isn’t new, but Slashdot is reminding people about MIT’s Open Courseware Program.

I believe they eventually intend to have info for all their courses, but there is already an impressive amount.

Here’s what they have now.

Learning for learning’s sake is good, so if you need to exercise your brain on something other than theology for a while, this is a good place to start.

Leif, in my thinking advocacy should be a ‘spin-off’ component of the love the artist feels and expresses for his/her subject. In the purest sense advocacy is speaking for someone/thing.  When I photograph a mushroom, bug or flower my images reflect the item’s essence as well as it’s essential created nature, thus reflecting the Creator Himself.

One could say that art is a very pure form of apologetics.

I agree with you that “art trumps all”. It seems that focusing on the intrinsic beauty of light, language and sound draws us closer to the creative heart of God than focusing on agenda, ambition and acceptance.

From where did the word ‘winsome’ burst forth?  I don’t think I’d heard it more than .07 times per year for my first 45, now it’s everywhere.  It seems weird.

These are probably a little basic for most of us (at least they’d better be), but worth passing on. Real Live Preacher is doing a series of short videos on how to read the Bible. So far, they’re not too bad. They might be good to refer to someone asking about the Bible, or you might like to use them as a starting point to make your own teaching material. So far, he has an intro and four parts:

Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4