WTS released some of the key documents dealing with the Enns suspension. Analyses from Myers and Garver.

if Dallas Theological Seminary released a statement approving the destruction of the mountains in West Virginia, that would tremendously help your case. [etc.]

Yes, that would help my case. It would also be ridiculous.

A factual claim, such as dispensationalism causing the destruction of the environment (...)

But this is not the factual claim I and many others have made. No one that I know of, even Lynn White, was claiming that dispensational eschatology prompts its believers to approve of ecological destruction, much less actively engage in that destruction. You are requiring that I prove that they are involved in a “sin” of commission; I am only arguing, and I think Wright was only claiming, that they are involved in a “sin” of omission. They do not think that global and complex, long-range problems fall under the Christian’s responsibility as stewards of creation, and I would challenge you to find me one who does prior to 2000. On the contrary, insofar as they accept that these might be real processes, they are interpreted as more signs indicating Christ’s imminent return; thus to expend prayer, thought, and resources in seeking solutions is equivalent to working against God’s purposes. And yes, I’ve heard and read people make exactly this argument although I can’t provide a citation for you immediately (wouldn’t be hard to find with a small investment of time. I can point you to plenty of secondary literature that makes the same claims and you could check their primary sources). Passive resistance to action makes a problem worse by creating systemic disregard and immobility. Historical examples abound. It is not itself an efficient cause, it exacerbates the efficient causes.

Lastly, I did not deny that there is an apocalyptic vision of the end times, nor even that it might be the dominant vision of the end times in Scripture. That is why I tried to carefully qualify ‘apocalyptic’ with ‘popular’, which amounts to misunderstanding the apocalyptic vision of Scripture. And nothing I wrote asks you to take a different view of death, its reality, its evil, nor the gain for the believer that comes from death. Fatalistic? No way. Moreover, your counterexample of the Biblical testimony about death makes my point. The dispensational view is that creation is under a death sentence and will be annihilated, to be replaced by substitution. Humans are the only created beings not annihilated. But I don’t think this dichotomy is biblical (Col 1:15-20, Rom 8:18-23, Rev 21). God does not undo the curse of death and sin by elimination or annihilation. He remakes, restores and resurrects.

For brevity’s sake, I am speaking in generalities, and I know that there are exceptions to this outlook, especially in the last 10 years and among the minority view of progressive dispensationalists.

Josh, in your earlier post about eschatological straw men and a similar post on one of your other 20 blogs, you ask if your experience with dispensationalists promoting creation stewardship is aberrant. I would say without question, yes. The examples you give of dirty water and dirty air are of concern to everyone because they are immediate harms. No one is ambivalent about such things for no more reason than plain self-interest. There’s nothing inconsistent about a person who believes in the imminent return of Christ to also support smog reduction, protections for safe drinking water, and hygiene controls in slaughterhouses.

I think your defense of dispensational eschatology with respect to creation stewardship is based on a conflation of immediate and local threats to health and life with larger ecological issues. Dispensational premillennialism, because it asserts belief in the imminent return of Christ, is marked by the idea that society cannot (and for many, should not) be reformed in any real sense before the return of Christ. I grew up immersed in a community of an earlier generation of dispensationalists, and I assure you, there was no value placed on social, cultural or ecological reforms that required long-range vision and sustained commitment (except “winning” the nuclear arms race). Since the 1990s, I think it is fair to say that dispensationalists are not a monolithic group, and their views about what Christians should do in and for society vary much more than they used to. But the popular apocalypticism by which dispensationalism is best known is still predominant, and its influence extends beyond those who explicitly adhere to it. More »« Less

This is what I look like in the metaverse.

I don’t post on inerrancy, authority, or canon issues. It’s just not worth it.

I’ll put it this way: If Jesus death is enough to cover the sins of those who claim His name, his death surely saves everyone else. I can’t imagine anyone more fallen and in need of a savior than the people I’ve encountered in church. I’m going to come out and say flat out that a universalist at this point.

Blogged with Flock

1-7:

Does it matter? Does the determination of the canon save anyone?
Does it matter? Does are we saved by the interpretation of scripture?
Does it matter? Does the demarcation of the boundaries of the body of Christ save anyone?
Does it matter? Did a church council ever provide salvation to anyone? (Which council was crucified?)
Does it matter? Will the determination save anyone?
Does it matter? Is anyone saved by taking Holy Orders?
Does it matter? Besides, if the RCC has reversed itself even once in its history iin labeling someone heretical, this all falls down.

8. If your answer to questions 1-7 is “the Holy Spirit”, then whose determination of what the Holy Spirit is saying is authoritative?

I don’t give a damn whether anything is authoritative. I want to know if it’s true. I’m surrounded by authorities that lie to me constantly.

9. Given your answers to the above questions, how does your position avoid individualism and the perpetual fragmentation that accompanies it?

You can’t get away with this one. You have to establish first that “perpetual fragmentation” always accompanies “individualism”, and you’ll have to show me how being in the RCC cures me from being an individual.

10. Does not even nature teach you that a visible body needs a visible head? Does grace therefore destroy nature, or does grace build upon nature?

Calvinism taught us that we are all worms. Ever see a worm? Worms don’t have a head. You pull a worm apart, you get more worms. That’s my model for how the church works.

Blogged with Flock

Jim: If you get a large enough group together, you’ll attract the insane. Any church with more than a thousand people attending that doesn’t have security guards could probably be found criminally negligent. Yes, it’s sad, but it’s no reflection on the pastor, in my opinion. It’s just a reflection on human depravity.

As are any bloggers of any theological stripe immediately using this tragic event as an excuse to attack those who don’t believe as they do. “He was an athiest,” “He was an Arminian,” “He was a young man,” etc. But for the grace of God, there was you or me. Now shut up and mourn with those who mourn!

It makes me sad to think I might have to take a year-long sabbatical from the BHT. Can we crank back on the political crap a bit? I don’t want to have to tell all of you what I think of Ron Paul supporters, ‘cause some of you still think of me as a friend. Thanks.

I would suggest that the U.S. Congress is populated entirely by the mentally retarded, but I’ve met enough mentally-retarded people to realize that’s unfair… to the mentally-retarded people.

The U.S. Congress is populated entirely by humorless sanctimonious charlatans who often actually believe their own lies despite knowing they are lies. They engage in vainglorious calumny, vicious villainy, and call themselves “public servants” in one of the most outrageously brazen bits of ridiculousness since “am I my brother’s keeper?”

I’m not a fan.

I still vote. I’m thinking of changing my voting strategy, though.  Instead of trying to elect good people, I may try to elect the worst people on the ballot. Why ruin good people? Send the already-broken ones there instead. Let them be ground up by the soul-crushing political machine. Send private lawyers; they’re already too far gone to be redeemed.

Mark: There’s a current tendency among large swaths of American Calvinism to revere the American Puritans, so it’s hard to distinguish over here. I’m in contact with reformed folks on other continents, and the difference is profound. Yet another reason to move to England, I think. :-)

As one of the few folks on here normally immune from the criticisms of TRs, I’ll make sure I annoy them all by saying that I have a somewhat intense disregard for the American Puritans. I’m not happy with their fruit, lo these hundreds of years later, and I think they lost the plot with regard to the Gospel pretty early on in attempting to build civil society as they did. The British Puritans fare better in my mind, and my disregard is not universal by any means, but neither is it surface-level. I’ve spent a bit of time reading many Puritan writers, and while I generally find much useful and good information in each volume, I also continually spot the seeds of what later set Christianity in America on the path that has resulted in the nonsense I see in the American church now.

For the record, I’m still immune to the criticisms or TRs, because I simply don’t care what they say. But at least I’ve made myself a target now, which ought to please some of them. :-)

I should also note that my own pastor and my family all disagree with me on this, and think I’m a playa-hata without good cause, despite my repeated attempts to convince them otherwise.

Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) sponsored a prayer meeting in Greenland. “Every religion realizes that this world is a gift from God and we have to reserve it.”

It appears that neither John Piper nor Roger Olson were there. It’s nice to see them agreeing on something (even if they’re both wrong).

General proposition: If your theological system has fewer gaps in it than the best understanding of the universe given by cosmology, you’re wrong.

Specific Proposition: If you find it easier to understand and explain the doctrine of God’s sovereignty than you do dark energy, you’re wrong.

Sorry!

I’m not sure what happened; brain-fart, I think. I saw a bunch of political posts over the weekend, but unless a few of them have been deleted, the more likely possibility is that they multiplied in my mind. And then it’s also possible that I conflated several posts from people whose names start with ‘J’ and thought they were all yours. In fact, you posted about the Vietnam analogy (and yes, quite a few people think the problem there was that we left too soon, or rather didn’t fight hard enough while we were there; I’d heard that many times from historian friends long before this second half of the Iraq war started up), and a hypothetical line of reasoning (clearly labeled as hypothetical). It’s probable I mixed up some posts in my RSS reader and thought I was still reading the BHT, but wasn’t.

Again, I’m sorry.

I don’t have time to make up a bunch of sarcastic posters designed to expose the faults and flaws of the fightin’ fundies, aka reformed baptists, but if I did, this picture would probably find its way in to one of them: More »« Less

Don’t. Just…don’t.

In an effort to bridge the gap between whatever we’re talking about now that we’re not talking about baptism and, well, talking, about baptism, I offer my discovery of two chipmunks which had drowned in my landlord’s pool. I discovered the bodies last night, but being (at heart) a credo-Baptist, I decided to leave them in the water until I could be sure they had been immersed. (One sank, the other was a floater.) Conspiracy theorists are invited to offer suggested explanations for this phenomenon, or you can entertain yourselves with my blogging of their removal on the wonderful 43 Things website. As to the whereabouts of the bodies, well, I’ll never tell.

Edit: To keep things on topic, I’ll suggest that NT Wright would say it isn’t really a question of whether the chipmunks that drowned in the pool I’m taking care of are in heaven or in hell now; the real question is whether they will participate in the bodily resurrection and enter the New Heaven and New Earth when Jesus comes back.

Michael: If you can’t hear the worst kind of wretched urgency in statements like

... Am I ever going to hear the message that will save my soul from Hell? Will you ever tell me the truth clearly enough so that I realize that my sin has made me an enemy of God: that I am currently on the path that leads to destruction, with the wrath of God dwelling upon me, and that unless I repent and put my faith in the Savior, I will perish? ...

then maybe you should retire. Or did I miss the irony of your obvious troll for dispensational fire?

MOD: I made no comment. The days are over around here when I’m going to say what I think when I post a link. But you are correct. Wretched Urgency for certain.

Kurt:

Now, scientists at Stanford University propose to put human brain cells in mouse brains in order to replace dying neurons. In reality, that would mean a human/mouse brain.

At first, I thought he was railing about some sort of genetic hangover cure. But now I realize that the mystery of my fascination with cheese has finally been solved!

The fusion of animal-human genomes runs counter to the sacredness of human life and man created in the image of God.

Bullsh*t¹. The obvious skipped-over question is whether manipulating and combining strains of DNA to grow a “human brain” inside the body of an animal has any real significance. Are Mohler et al prepared to defend the assertion that presence of a single organ based on human DNA would make the organism “human”, just because the particular organ grown happens to be a brain? If so, how do they propose to defend the humanity of babies born with severe brain damage? Is one more human if one’s brain weighs more? How much of an individual organism’s genetic material has to be human before they can be received into fellowship and take communion?

Besides, the artificial fusion of animal-human genomes proves special creation and affirms intelligent design. If hybrid men-mice require laboratory conditions with particular constraints that require all the advances of modern biological science to reproduce, there simply isn’t enough time in the universe for natural selection to hit the right combinations required for development.

¹ For any readers who are predominantly bovine genetically, no offense was intended. If you prefer, read this expletive as “Man-poop!”

Not that I really want to bring up a dead horse, but I found Sara Miles’ account of her conversion and first communion (which are for her the same event) a compelling read.

Hey, here’s a tip for the Tavern’s philosophy student residents: if you find your energy is flagging after a hard day of essay writing, why not try an energy bar to add a little zing? It could be just the thing to pick you up for those evening discussions in smoke-filled cafes full of women with too much facial hair wearing berets.

Kletos asked, “Where do all the Emergent kids go to college?”

They go to Reed.

Shea: If God expects us to worship Him, He much expect also that we are capable of discerning that He is worthy of our worship. Whether our worship is worthy of Him is beside the point.

Please understand that the confessions are just one species of map. I’m calling for a re-examination of all maps, including hermeneutics, traditions, and liturgy.

Richard: for some of us, it’s not that we are tearing the pages out, it’s that the pages are being ripped away from us, against our will. Congratulations on 22 years, and I wish you and Elizabeth many more.

John: in my experience, a person who is motivated to divorce to escape their past will end up perpetuating the very hurts they seek to eradicate. I recently made the observation to a judge that divorce does not end conflict or solve problems, it simply institutionalizes them. He agreed whole-heartedly.

“The map is not the territory.”

The problem isn’t that we have a choice between competing maps, one of which is the One True Map. The problem is that we have different maps made by different people, all describing something nobody has ever seen. We are arguing about the placement of objects in a topography that we can’t verify.

If you have a map of NYC that shows two tall towers in Lower Manhattan, and I have a map that shows a large hole in the ground in the same spot, we can settle our argument (assuming we’re at my house) by agreeing to take an hour’s train ride together. We can stand on edge of the hole, or at least at the chain-link fence that keeps people out of the site.

But if you have a map that says that Mary was assumed, or that the elements actually are physically transformed, or that what sounds like a bad fake Swahili dialect is really your cousin under the influence of the Spirit, and my map says you’re wrong, how do we settle it?

If your map says that the Rock Jesus talked about is Peter, and mine says that the Rock is his confession of Christ, what train do we take?

If we read the same map, but come to different conclusions, how do we settle it? Majority rules? First one past the bar? Tag-team wrestling? The Spanish Inquisition¹?

The conversation that start all of this – and it was an actual conversation, between Jack and myself – is all a part of what I call Post-Christianity. I’ve moved way past Post-evangelical. We need to have faith in the territory, not the map. And part of the mystery of faith is that we have to have it in a territory that we haven’t seen; and that we have to trust the occasional glimpses we get of that Territory, and not cling too tightly to the maps we have just because they seem to have aged well.

This isn’t post-modernism. It’s recognizing that our descriptions of reality don’t define reality. That’s different from saying that nothing is real.

¹ which no one expects, by definition.

John: Congratulations on a BHT First. I’ve been accused of being Maoist, French, and intellectual each at different points, but I don’t think anyone has ever mentioned all three in a single post. And to add to your accomplishment, you managed to do this without mentioning

• Baptism
• Communion
• Gun Control
• the War on Drugs
• the War on Terror
• The Civil War
• NT Wright

If you’re ever in New Jersey, stop by; I owe you a drink.

Michael Mets? METS? Who/what are the Mets? Go Bears!

Jack and I are having a conversation lately about my self-description as “Post-Christian.” It’s the seeds (and probably the bastard offspring) of a number of things, but one of them strikes me over and over as I read through the BHT this morning:

I believe we have made a mistake in thinking that things like contextualizing the Gospel are going to work like the used to in the old days. We’ve made a mistake because we somehow believe that the world still works according to the old modernist understanding of a paradigm shift.

The mistake is this: in the post-modern culture, we aren’t experiencing a shift from one defined cultural context to another. Instead, we have to recognize that context shift itself has become our permanent state. We don’t just change now; we live in cultural flux.

These ideas are still developing. Stay tuned; we’ll be back as soon as we refill the liquor cabinet.

Come to think of it, that wasn’t entirely off-topic. “He Has Left Us Alone but Shafts of Light Sometimes Grace the Corner of Our Rooms” pretty much sums up my theology of late.

This may be one of those insider musician jokes, but I bet there’s at least a few lurkers who’ll get it. I open up my email client tonight to discover that Amazon has detected that people with musical tastes as diverse as mine actually exist:

Dear Amazon.com Customer,

We’ve noticed that customers who have purchased or rated music by A Silver Mt. Zion (OYL¹) have also purchased Perfect Melody by Zion. (OYL¹) For this reason, you might like to know that Perfect Melody is now available.

Just to set the record straight: I own He Has Left Us Alone but Shafts of Light Sometimes Grace the Corner of Our Rooms… and Born into Trouble as the Sparks Fly Upward by the former group, but (as far as I can tell) have never owned anything by the later artist. Not that I wouldn’t. Also, I’m not an anarchist, but the idea has been growing on me lately.

¹Obligatory Youtube Link is a registered trademark of Boarshead Tavern Industrial Group. All Rights Reserved.

John, you forgot the audio book on how to set boundaries so you avoid splinters, and the radio program advocating a “tough love” a response when your adolescents looks like they might run their fingers over rough wood.

Then the sad drunk at the end of the bar roused from his slumber and spoke to them in parables, saying thus:

The kingdom of heaven is like a drunken man walking down the railroad tracks at night. His foot caught on a spike that had pulled up out of one of the ties, and he fell across the tracks. As he landed, he dragged his hand across the tie, and got a splinter in one of his fingers.

Then a train came along, and ran over him, cutting off his legs. The engineer saw him too late to stop, but he radioed for help. A Paramedic was nearby, heard the call on his scanner, and drove over to help.

When the Paramedic arrived, he rushed over to the drunken man to lash a tourniquet around the stumps of his legs. But before he could begin, the drunken man grabbed him by the arm, and said, “Thank God you’re here! Look at this splinter! I hope you’ve got tweezers; this thing is killing me.”

Those who have ears, let them hear.

Bill: A thought comes to mind, reading your posts. Forgive me if this idea has been floated already.

The last non-Presbyterian church I was a member of had two levels of membership: “active” members and “associate” members. Anyone joining was normally made an active member. Associate members included the following:

• Formerly active members who were serving as foreign missionaries with a term of more than 12 months.
• Members of the church who had moved out-of-state and not asked for a formal transfer of membership.
• Members living temporarily away from home, due to military service, college, etc.
• Any member who did not attend at least one service or one congregational meeting for one year, and who could not or would not be contacted by the pastoral staff or elders.
• The minor children and spouses of ordained pastoral staff members.

The main distinction between active and associate, on a practical level, had to do with the rules governing congregational meetings and votes. The “quorum” number for a meeting to be official was expressed as a percentage of the active membership, and associate members didn’t get a vote (although they were allowed to speak at congregational meetings) and could not hold church office. Any associate member could become active again by simply requesting it.

Is this the sort of thing you’re looking to do?

How about this:

The BHT authors at any given time include representatives of various different Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, independent, and other Protestant denominations. We have Catholic members. We recognize that there are real, serious, and meaningful doctrinal differences (ie., the meaning and practice of the Lord’s Supper, various modes and purposes of baptism, etc.) between us, and that some people are uncomfortable with a definition of “Christian” that encompasses these differences. In fact, even the very willingness on the part of some of us to participate in this forum puts us at odds with our own denominations and/or church leadership at times. If this bothers you, please don’t read the BHT. We don’t wish to offend you, and would prefer to avoid the sort of animosity that usually springs up around these issues. We have agreed to disagree, and to allow iron to sharpen iron; if this places us too close to the edge for your comfort, please feel free to step away.

Several readers have written to me in response to my recent post about spanking children. While my position remains unchanged, I want to express my thanks to all who took the time to write.

I am quite familiar with the arguments in favor of corporal punishment, and in fact espoused that position for most of my adult life. I painted with too broad a brush when I made statements that equated spanking with abuse. I have never witnessed any member of the BHT practicing corporal punishment with a child, and thus cannot make observations about their experiences. In my own experience, however, both as a child and as a parent, I have not had positive experience with spanking. I’m aware that some people claim to have been disciplined by a parent who was not angry; that’s outside my experience. Some parents claim to have spanked their children without anger; that’s outside my experience as well. For me, it’s a matter of conscience; I am convicted by my experience; I can’t do this and feel “clean” afterward, no matter how much self-control I exert. I should not have judged others according to my own conscience; for that, I apologize.

In other words, the beatings can continue until He comes and sorts us all out on this one.

I have four children. I’ve had “strong willed” children to deal with. We practiced spanking for all of them. I am now convinced that it was absolutely the wrong thing to do. I observe a “no spankings” rule in my home. The potential for abuse in corporal punishment is huge, and actual behavioral pay-off is too small to justify the risk. You cannot dissuade a child from violence by being violence. You cannot teach a child not to hit by hitting them. Every time you raise a hand to punish your child, you are sending them a clear message that they can control others if they can exert enough force and cause enough pain. That, as far as I am concerned, is unconscionable. There are more effective ways to discipline, and I’ve reached the point where I believe spanking is child abuse.

Matthew: The parable of the prodigal doesn’t begin with the “the kingdom is like” formula. It starts off with “A man had two sons.”

For those parables that follow the formula, our understanding depends on what Jesus means by “like.” When a modern English-speaker hears “X is like Y,” they tend to interpret the meaning to be “X is in most significant aspects similar/analagous to or Y.” I’m not convinced that’s what Jesus means when He uses the formula, nor that his listeners understood it that way. I think the formula might better be understood thus: “In an important way, one aspect of the kingdom of Heaven is similar to …” Jesus isn’t laying down a structured, systematic approach to doctrine. He’s an itinerant teacher, walking around the country, illustrating his lessons from observable events, places and people so that his followers will get the point he wants to make and remember it, and so that his detractors will miss the point.

Michael, your harping on the prodigal story is really starting to get annoying. Parables aren’t allegories, and the prodigal’s parable isn’t some sort of “model” for heaven. If anyone else tried that kind of exegesis of a parable here, you’d (correctly) be all over them. In the story, the prodigal himself is just the set-up; the real story isn’t about the prodigal at all, but about the refusal of the older brother to participate in the return celebration. If you must find a way to shoe-horn purgatory into the prodigal story, it might be the road the prodigal takes back to the father – or, it could even be the pigpen.

Tom: Who wrote Hebrews?

A guy named “Eddy.”

The good news is, Eddy was completely sanctified. The bad news is, he wasn’t inspired, and so the book is flawed. He left out the introduction, he begins in the middle of the argument, and he fills it with lots of obscure OT references (often out-of-context). Occasionally, he gets sidetracked worrying that his readers will lose their salvation.

In other words, “Eddy”, the author of Hebrews, is pretty much the prototypical BHT contributor.

Michael: I would point out the following:

1) Jesus says that words spoken against the Son of Man will be forgiven.
2) Jesus says that, in contrast, words spoken against the Spirit will not be forgive.
2a) the words spoken against the Spirit will not be forgiven “in this age.”
2b) the words spoken against the Spirit will not be forgiven “in the age to come”

The clear implication is that words spoken against the Son of Man will be forgiven both “in this age” and “in the age to come.”

Now there are a lot of ways to take “age,” of course, and I would probably rather support “the age to come” as having an eschatological sense, but if one accepts that the “age to come” is understood in the sense of “when this life is over, and we are in the afterlife,” or even “when we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and living in the final fulfillment of the Kingdom,” then at least some sins will be forgiven in the afterlife. It makes sense, therefore, that they would have to be forgiven either they are not forgiven in this life, which would only occur because they were not repented of in this life.

There’s considerable maneuvering room there too, because the understanding of what constitutes “repentance” comes into the discussion.

I probably don’t absolutely agree with any of the Catholic understandings of any of the terms in question, and I’ll admit that I’m completely stumped as to what constitutes the difference between “a word against the Son of Man” and “a word against the Holy Spirit.” But I’ve come to the conclusion that since the only reason anyone will be separated from God in the afterlife is their own will to be so separated, it is entirely within the character of God to believe that His offer to restore the relationship and remove that separation is something that He extends eternally.

Of course, it’s Wednesday, so I’m a Universalist. I expect effigies of me will be burned shortly.

Matthew: Look here.

Look, I’m as Catholic-friendly as the next guy (and the next guy is sleeping with a Catholic, so that’s pretty friendly¹) but this whole discussion is driving me crazy. And believe me, if you don’t like me when I’m drunk, you really won’t like me when I’m crazy.

I find the insinuation that sex and human reproduction are somehow intrinsically impure and unholy – which is what’s behind the whole line of reasoning that says that Mary was somehow too worthy to conceive and deliver a child by a human father after having Jesus – to be highly offensive and insulting. These ideas are far more offensive, at their root, than words like “f—-” or “s—-” or “a———-,” and it astounds me entirely that that anyone would threaten to quit the tavern over the later and completely ignore the former. What the hell have we become here? Where the hell are the cat pictures when we need them?

I’ve been reduced to extreme measures before. I’m prepared to use the “nuclear option.” I still have Church Dogmatics handy, and I also now have all of have Dooyweerd’s New Critique and Woody Allen’s Without Feathers just itching to be posted, so change the subject, please, or I’ll change it for us. More »« Less

Paul said, there can be nothing more important than talking about God

When people talk about God, by and large it’s hubris.¹

Given the choice, it’s better to listen to what God has to say about man than to listen to what men have to say about God.

¹ By “hubris” is an ancient Greek theatrical term that means “horses**t.”

Michael said, I can’t think of an example (at least not quickly) where a man is exerting spiritual leadership where his wife opposes some segment of that leadership.

The reason you can’t think of an example is simple: women who disagree with their husbands on substantive issues simply don’t remain married to them, in my experience. There’s a word for marriages where that happens. The word is “over.”

I’d like to answer the question, “what does male spiritual leadership mean”, but I’ve never had any experience with it. The church is so tolerant of the spirit of Jezebel these days that we might as well pray in that name instead of Jesus.

I am, at this point, opposed in principle to marriage on any grounds. I believe it is wrong to marry, and anyone who does risks God’s wrath.

On an unrelated topic, for those of you keeping track of such things, the newly elected Holy Father has four children, and no surgical augmentation. And we’re just friends.

I like the Toilet Tank analogy, but I think we need to press it further:

A person’s life fills up with s**t. At some point, the lever is pushed, the bottom drops out, and everything ends up in the sewer. Then God steps in, and fills the tank with water again.

And to answer Kent’s question: The hand on the lever is God’s, not mine.

Bill said, I’ve long thought that one can’t really decide to believe something.

I have had personal experience with someone who has decided to misunderstand another person. I’m not say that they simply misunderstood the other person; this was a case where there was a conscious decision to not understand. I think that we have a great deal of volition over our beliefs. The problem is, what we believe gets wrapped up in how we feel about the objects of our beliefs, and things get messy. But if we can’t actually decide to believe something, it would be pointless for the gospels to record the father’s plea, “I believe, Lord. Help my unbelief.”

Um, I almost hesitate to ask this, but is there some reason why people aren’t updating their own bios on the bios page? That’s what I do when my life story changes. Like today.

(EDIT: In light of Joel’s comment, I should make this a little more clear than my post implies. David, this is not aimed at you specifically. Though I am coming at the from a non-RCC perspective, I’m throwing out a general observation on Church authority that we all seem to be poking at without addressing squarely.)

Appeals to our individual Magesteriums, Councils, Conferences, Confessions, etc. as authority are all well and good, but I have yet to be convinced from the scriptures that any of these man made councils have any legitimate claim to global authority. If we take a trip in our time machine and look at the earliest churches, then sure, they were all lead by the authority of the apostles, and it is from them that the churches received their doctrine. And where do we get the authority of the apostles today? Is it from bishops, priests, pastors, denominational hierarchies, etc.? No. It is from the scriptures themselves.

The New Testament canon is the record of the teaching of the apostles to which believers devote themselves. (Acts 2:42) While the apostles were alive, we could appeal to them. At some point, I’ll grant that we do need leaders ,who are real live people today, to read, understand, and interpret these texts, then teach us also to read, interpret, and obey them. This in itself, however, does not authorize any of the above mentioned authority structures to assume an unaccountable position of leadership. All of us are a priesthood of believers, all of us who belong to the Kingdom of God have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and all of us at one time or another may be called upon to raise the BS flag if someone else teaches a false doctrine. Does it work that way in practice today? Of course not, but I blame that on laziness.

Any one of us can appeal to the authority of our individual denominations, and we often do. But from the scriptures, and this will probably point at David’s church more than anyone else’s, but I aim this at us all, it makes more sense to see the ultimate guidance of the Church residing with God, given to us today by the third person of the Trinity. Below that, whether you look at independent churches, confessionally organized denominations, or hierarchies of bishops, priests, and deacons, I can go as far as councils of leaders praying and studying through issues together. If you like, I could even see one or a few top leaders being regarded as first(s) among equals. But what I do not see, and have never been convinced of, is the idea that one man (save Jesus Christ himself) has any claim to authority over the global Church.

There are parts of Art Sippo’s argument that hold so little weight that they are now floating in orbit. I’ll pick the low hanging fruit, and leave the rest for wiser men in the bar.

“In summary, the 16th Century Protestants apostatized and left the Catholic Church and have invented thousands of separate cults which not only contradict the Catholic Church but each other on serious points of doctrine. The Catholic Church has not changed any of her teachings since before there were Protestants. Consequently it is the Protestants who must now admit that we who have remained in the Catholic Church are true Christians and that we are entitled to our own interpretation of Scripture.”

Bold assertion, yet lacking in necessary fact to back it up. The same assertion could be made from the other side.

Ahem … At the time of the reformation, true believers, ordained as ministers of the gospel, were kicked out of the church by corrupt and apostate leaders who would not be corrected by men or by scripture. Having been removed from the organization masquerading as the true church, they acted in the only way they could. The conducted worship, shared the gospel, administered the sacraments, etc. as a new entity. Better to let the Church function from within a new organization, or let go of the notion of the organization altogether, than to be enslaved by a corrupt system that follows its own superstitions above the teaching of the Apostles as revealed in scripture.

Just as bold, and could be picked apart just as easy. Thanks for playing, though, Mr. Sippo.

As a first item on the agenda for our meeting, Jack and I looked into the question of whether women have souls. While we decided that the scripture is essentially silent on the topic, it’s apparent that women have certain other parts that, while they may not have the same function as a soul, are extremely useful and highly attractive.

We plan to meet again tomorrow night to elect a new Pope. One of us will post to let you know what color smoke is visible. In the meantime, our instructions to the rest of you is as follows: you should all be baptized again. Especially Bill.

Oh, and by the way, I love Arizona. Carnally.

Sharon, so you’re saying that women do have souls?

I’ve a question. If Papal infallibility only became doctrine in the RCC wit Vatican I, where did Catholics place the magisterium before that? Also, Did the Pope become infallible at a particular moment? or was it a case of retroactive infallibility (kind of like the “retroactive inspiration” approach we Protestants take to scripture)?

1) Bingo.
2) Unmarried homosexual priests giving advice to married lay people.
3) Mafia money behind the building fund.
4) Baby boys put in white dresses for baptism.
5) Dashboard Jesus
6) Never being sure who you’re supposed to pray to
7) Mel Gibson
8) Snide, demeaning comments from Protestant former friends.
9) Guilt.
0) Pointy hats and incense, unless you were episcopalian.

leif: I didn’t comment on the trailer because I thought it was for a documentary on the BHT: people with shocked or scared looks, cowering in fright; priests running away, shaking their heads; guns, knives and blood-curling screams. That pretty much sums up this place. The only thing is, I didn’t know we had an elevator.

Michael: Frankly, I think a lot of the fur flying over Driscoll’s comments is just plain jealousy; a lot of people are mad because he apparently is getting action every day, and they aren’t.

There is a large segment within the contemporary evangelical church that has bought just enough of the Oprah agenda of pop psychology and feminism to find the ammo they need to resist gaining an honest, human, biblical perspective on their husbands’ sexuality, desires and needs. “Mutual submission” is just new-speak for “She doesn’t have to put out.” Anyone who talks about headship or submission in the context of marital intimacy – treacherous ground on which to tread anyway, to be sure – is lambasted as a misogynist (or worse, as a closet bondage freak.) The rest of us tolerate this nonsense, and then march out for the hand-wringing ceremony over dirty pictures on the Internet. John had words for where that will take the church – cf. Revelation 2:18f.

I’m well past 20, and while I’m currently celibate, sex once a day strikes me as by no means excessive; Were the appropriate partner available, I’d do it for the obvious physiological benefits (sex is excellent exercise; it also relieves tension, evens out the testosterone cycle, and it promotes a healthy prostate), If that’s offensive to Christians, perhaps we take Paul’s better-to-marry-than-burn argument to its logical conclusion, and admit that for some men, the best situation would be to allow for Islamic-style committed polygamous marriages (which require financial arrangements and conjugal rights at parity for each wife), rather than giving our de-facto endorsement to the serial polygamy that no-fault divorce legislation has given us.

(I can’t wait to read the mail I get from this one…)

It’s not covered in “The Parables of the Kingdom”, and I don’t have his other parables books yet, so could someone post or email me a brief summary of Capon’s take on the parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16)?

Pirate’s addendum reminds me of one last observation before I shut up, hopefully forever, on this topic.

The “high/low,” “fine/folk,” “classical/pop,” and “traditional/contemporary” categories are all misguided for definitional purposes. And irrespective of which end one takes of the distinctions as the “better” one, one inevitably invites some form of snobbery. For different reasons, the “text/tune” distinction is also unhelpful. I can think of two examples that work in a different direction than the one I’m used to complaining about.

More »« Less

You can argue about the old hymns until you’re blue in the face, and in the end all you will be is a stuffy cultural crypto-conservative with a blue face. Music’s role in contemporary culture is entirely different than it was in the 1500s; the churches’ place (its actual place rather than its intended, to be sure) in that culture is also entirely different.

Whether aesthetics exist is irrelevant, because the vast majority of people arguing either side of the question, when you boil it down, are saying, “I like X, but I don’t like Y.” It’s kind of like wine: if the $5 bottle tastes better to you than the $200 bottle, and you still buy the $200 bottle, you’re not enjoying wine the way its makers intended; you’re a pretentious snob who’s out $195, and that makes you an asshole.

There are a lot of really awful things you can hear in contemporary worship service. And there are a lot of really awful traditional hymns. Some people just prefer their heretical incantations with a beat.

Count me happy about the decision of the Supreme Court today. Sanity is hanging on by a thread!

Call me narrow-minded if you like, but reading Obama’s response to the decision has convinced me that he does not look at the world or right and wrong as I do, and I would not consider voting for him. This issue is a default issue for me. For instance, if I was wife-shopping, and was told to pick one from a large group, right off the top I would eliminate the ones who obviously had poor personal hygiene. There wouldn’t be any need for me to get to know them to see if we had a lot of things in common or had a great connection. Poor hygiene would eliminate them by default. The same goes for Obama, Hillary, and Edwards – each bowing to the sacred idol of “a women’s right to choose”. Bye bye. Oh well, looks like I’ll be voting Republican again.

Please join me in congratulating Joseph Okello for the successful defense of his dissertation. Congratulations!

Let me set forth in beer points below why cultural warriors are full of it:

• This bestowal of a Ph.D. in philosophy occurred at a “secular,” state university.


• The successfully defended dissertation was written by a theologically conservative Christian


• Moreover, this individual is an ordained Methodist pastor


• The philosophy department at said “secular” institution knew all about these biographical facts


• Two-thirds of the philosophical faculty on his committee did not share his theistic presuppositions


• His dissertation topic was a criticism of methodological naturalism, the default non-theistic position for philosophical thought about science, history, and ethics


• So, to sum up: a professing Christian wrote a dissertation attacking the normal nontheistic presupposition, submitted it to a predominantly atheistic faculty, defended it, and now he is properly known as Dr. Okello.

Side point: Joseph is a kind and gentle man. He is not combative (though he defends his views vigorously). Christian thinkers: get in the arena and stop making excuses that the mean old secularists have an agenda to thwart your vocation. Tell the culture warriors to stop projecting their own hostility onto the world and mischaracterizing the “agenda” of the “secularists.” The email message at the top is not a fake. It really happened today.

MOD: Amen. Great post.

I’m sitting in the living room with the tin foil hat on. It fits well.

Here’s the thing about “Battlebots” or whatever they fancy themselves. There are at least two errors one could make in the attempt to interpret the significance (or lack thereof) of this movement:

1. The Cynicism error. Our friend at areopagitica closes his post with this: “It looks to me as though the 45-year-old Luce (...) has found a way to crank up the money machine and make a living as a professional, paranoia-stoking, emotionally arrested youth pastor.” Now, our friend may be correct about Luce’s motivations. And it surely is The American Way. However, charismatic leaders breed True Believer generals and Eager-to-Prove-Themselves lieutenants. Luce’s internal life is one thing, but this kind of populist, anti-intellectual hatred has bigger causes than the leader’s psyche, as history shows. People are known for acting on what is obviously the logical conclusion of “we ought to be awakened to the alarming influence of today’s culture terrorists. They are wealthy, they are smart, and they are real.” It hardly needs to be said: Yeah, and what do you do to “terrorists,” soldier?

2. The Isolated Example error. It would be tempting to interpret this phenomenon as an irrepresentative sample that commentators like Sharlet, Hedges, et al, seize upon for their own agenda to be “anti-religion” (which I don’t think Sharlet is at all). This interpretation says that Battlebots is an unusual manifestation of conservative evangelicalism and shouldn’t be considered typical. To which I say: wrong. It is not an isolated example. It is an extreme version of a very common refrain one hears within conservative evangelicalism. There are many events, practices and products that socially reinforce the same kind of militant and violent attitudes on display in Luce’s program, even if submerged a bit further beneath the surface. You should see some of the literature I get on “worldview” events. o_O

Battlebots is not an isolated example; it is one dark blotch in a constellation of socio-political engagements defined by resentment, barely suppressed vengeance, and bunker-tude.

Maybe Wright and the Pope are pen pals?

Another successful experiment. Hahahaha.

Pirate first.

Caesaropapism was tied to an apolitical Christianity? I can safely say I have no clue what he is talking about.

That’s because you’ve ignored his claim #1 and misinterpreted his claim #s 4 and 8. If you don’t care what he’s talking about, it would be simpler to just say so or ignore it with an eye roll. If you think his claims are about as serious as a Monty Python sketch, then how about justifying your belief that they are absurd instead of just waving your hand. More »« Less

If there’s one thing we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is that there are no absolute standards for art and music. Philosophy may not be good for very much, but at least great philosophers are agreed about this: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. David Hume expressed this absolute truth very well in his Essays, Moral and Political: “Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them.” There is no single musical style that is inherently superior than any other. All aesthetic judgments are subjective. If I say something is beautiful, I’m not describing a real quality of the object, I’m saying something about how the object affects me in a pleasing or displeasing way, that it makes me feel good or bad. Benjamin Franklin agrees: “Beauty, like supreme dominion, is but supported by opinion.”

More »« Less

Father Matthew takes on “Left Behind Theology” in his latest video.

He makes a number of assertions that reveal his own biases, politically and theologically, so I don’t give it an unqualified recommendation, but I’m glad to see people openly calling out the kind of end-times thinking that is infecting evangelicalism. I really loved it when he refers to the beliefs being “nominally Christian.” I hope he knows that he opens himself up to the accusation of nominal Christianity by virtue of the denomination in which he is ordained, though from what I see in the videos I don’t doubt his faith in Christ.

Theological differences aside, I dig Father Matthew’s videos, so I’m glad to link another one.

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