Featured

Guest Post by Jason Miller, Discovering the Hope

At this point in my life I do not have a full-time ministry job. I work too many hours a week as a manager in a blue-collar business to pay the bills, but now that I am ordained and am working on my master’s thesis, I am hopeful that the Lord would allow me a return to full-time ministry. During a conversation recently with a customer at my job, we were talking about my background as a full-time pastor and my desire to return to that arrangement. Then he went and did it: he let loose with a “real world” bomb. “Well,” he said, “at least this job has given you some real world experience to help you when you talk to people as a priest.”

This conception that there is somehow a “real world” and, I guess, a “church world,” is so widespread that it is virtually taken for granted. We nod approvingly when pastors tell of their work in some other profession and how it relates to something they are trying to teach us. In fact, in the Anglican tradition, more and more of our priests are second-career individuals.

Yet this benumbed obeisance to a shibboleth of our culture may be cast differently when examined from another perspective: name one other career where we say that those in that field ought to learn another field in order to do well in their chosen field. Do we ask CPA’s or construction workers or business owners or CEO’s or lawyers or electricians to take employment in positions completely out of their field of expertise, in order to make them better at what they really want to do? (continue reading…)

Stephanie Simon of the LA Times wrote a piece the other day about Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s new homemaking concentration. I won’t go into all of the details of the article, because it’s pretty straightforward, with the expected liberal bias (since when is Jimmy Carter a “moderate”?). What is most interesting to me is the comment section. There are many, many misunderstandings and bullheaded refusals to see anything but male dominance and the devaluing of women, all aside from scattered comments likening this to the subjugation of women in Islam.

Many people simply reject the idea that there could be different roles for the sexes. Others say that gender roles are outdated, “50’s baptist culture.” Most seem offended by the idea that a woman should stay home. Below are some samples:

NEVER have I once thought that I am unequal to a man and should sacrifice my desire to have a career for marriage and children. There is no reason why a woman shouldn’t use the talents God gave her.

I could never marry any man who expected me to place my dreams and ambitions second to his. My parents raised me to be independent, to be able to take care of myself.

This seminary is teaching women that they are subservient to men’s desires and that’s not true. In this day and age women and girls learn and work alongside men and boys. It’s the norm and its accepted (as it should be). If a person enjoys being a homemaker, then I’m not disputing that they should pursue a life doing that, but women should NEVER limit themselves and their abilites based on how one group (a male dominated group) interprets scripture.

Submitted by: Brittany

(continue reading…)

That’s the motto at ACU, and if you ever go there you’ll see it a lot. It’s a fine sentiment, I think; perhaps a little broad - but it gets an A for ambition. But it always caused some problems for me theologically.

The way I see the world, evil has existed since the fall, and has never subsided. I see it in life and in Scripture. Many people see change - moral advancement. They believe progress has been made, and more will be made. They believe that we can change the world.

Even if you only looked at Israel from the Exodus through the Crucifixion, you see that evil was present in much the same form for the whole of their history. But if you continue to look at Paul’s letters, Roman and other Western history, and the world as a whole, it’s difficult to build a case for true advancement.

How can we believe that progress is being made on a global scale? There are times when the only words that can make sense of the world for me are these:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.
Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.
The venom of asps is under their lips.
Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Romans 3: 12-18 ESV

The last line is the one that catches me up. No one talks about “God-fearing” anymore (at least not around me). Even Christians avoid this terminology. I’m not sure why, but we’ve chosen to speak of God’s love exclusively, and done our best to ignore his other qualities. Now, there are obviously groups that focus too much on God’s wrath (Fred Phelps, anyone?), but most of us have moved in the opposite direction.

Anyway, that is beside the point. When people have no fear of God, they do what they choose to do without worrying about Him, His will, or His consequences. This results in rampant selfishness and individualism. This doesn’t always mean violence.

When people think of “evil” in the world they often think of major violent events and oppression: Imperialism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the slave trade, the decimation of the Indians. What we don’t tend to think about are the individual things. We don’t associate promiscuity with evil, it’s just a bad decision - but it’s making an idol out of sex. That’s evil. We don’t think of the endless pursuit of money to be evil, unless it leads to harming someone else - but that’s idolatry, too. We don’t consider the selfishness we encounter in our daily lives, even within ourselves, to be evil. But do you know what it is? Idolatry.

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

Romans 1:28-32

Does any part of this list catch you as something you encounter regularly? What about envy, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slander, hating God, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, disobedience to parents, foolishness, or faithlessness? How many of those have you seen face-to-face in the last week? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen all of them, and even been guilty of a few.

This is Paul’s 2000 year-old incomplete list of “unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, [and] malice.” If we’ve each seen all or most of these things in the last week or month or year, how can we think that progress is being made, or is even possible? (Keep reading, I promise I’m not this much of a downer)

I read two interesting posts about sin recently, one at Pomomusings and one at Rend the Heavens. Both are worth reading, the comments as well. One comment really stuck out to me. Robert Austell said:

How do we make a change at the community level? Change must begin with me. And so, even addressing the idolatry and sin of all Israel, Joshua will repent publicly and say “As for me and my house.” Jesus, addressing the sins of legalism and ethnic bigotry, will speak of one good Samaritan and call out individuals to change.

The two are as connected as evangelism and social justice… transformation and redemption of culture begins (as God’s work) in one life at a time, which involves personal repentance, redemption, and transformation. That means personally dealing with issues of holiness, righteousness, humility, and repentance. That means dealing with personal sin… that produces godly “leaven” for society.

I thought of this concept every time I heard someone say “Change the World” while I was at ACU and again today. Today at Garnett Wade preached about transforming and redeeming culture, which rolls right along with the portion I italicized above. I’m not sure if he was saying that we could use a morally neutral culture for good, thereby redeeming it, or that we could make culture good. I believe the former is true, but am not sure about the latter.

Much like the story of the boy who is frantically throwing starfish back in the water after the tide rolls out, we can’t change everyone or fix everything; but every person we reach, and is transformed by Christ, makes our work worthwhile. So go ahead, Change the World.

This time at the Convergent conference. Via bob.blog:

He uses the word “heresy” in and around the discussion, and while he doesn’t apply it directly to the forehead of either Brian, Doug or Rob, he doesn’t leave a whole lot of doubt as to what category he places these guys in mentally…

I agree with most of Bob’s analysis here. I used to enjoy his preaching, but eventually found him to be something of a one-trick-pony. I grew tired of his abrasive style six or eight months ago. About a year ago I was listening to both Driscoll and Bell (after my late discovery of Nooma), but my iTunes stopped updating them long ago because I wasn’t listening (I am still listening to Matt Chandler, though). I quit listening to Bell after six or seven weeks when I realized his preaching wasn’t breathing any Spirit-life into me. Driscoll’s was, but it was sucking it all back with sarcasm and condescension.

Adam has some other things to say about the lecture.

For those of you who don’t want to listen to the entire 80+ minute lecture, here are some ridiculous snippets from it:

• I don’t mind a conversation…but when God speaks, we are not to converse, we are to obey.
• Brian McLaren was asked this question: “What is your position on gay marriage?” His answer was this: “You know what? The thing that breaks my heart is that there is no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.” To which I would respond: “Now you have hurt God.”
• The Southern Baptist Convention of North Carolina is bringing him [Doug Pagitt] to teach in October. Shame on you.
• If Rabbis don’t love Jesus, they have a bad hermeneutic.
• The Bible is all about Jesus. Ultimately, it’s all…about…Jesus.
• Brian McLaren also has a new organization called “Deep Shift” and I think somebody inadvertently put an “F” in there.
• I believe Emergent is, like Judas, in the process of hanging itself.
• And all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations; I’ll tell you as one on the inside, they don’t have converts. The silly little myth, the naked emperor is this: they will tell you it’s all about being in culture to reach lost people, and they’re not.

I agree that points 1, 2, 6, and 7 are pretty “ridiculous“. But I’d like to point out a few things.

First, while I have no idea (since I’m lacking context and I can’t read Mark’s mind) where he was going with the “now you’ve hurt God” comment, McLaren’s response to the question was an act of cowardice. If you want to be a spokesperson for the Truth, you have to be willing to speak it, understanding that someone’s going to feel hurt. You don’t have to worry though, because if you’re really speaking the Truth, and that person is really hearing it, a soul will be saved. But it’s impossible to speak the truth if the thing that breaks your heart is that someone will be hurt by it. The thing that breaks my heart is that Christians are willing to compromise so much to be considered forward thinkers.

If you’ve read my review of Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, you know how I feel about Doug Pagitt. He is a skeptic in the purest sense of the word. He offers no constructive position theologically, but only casts doubts on others beliefs. His biggest critique of Driscoll seems to be that his theology hasn’t changed in ten whole years (I wish I could pull quotes but a friend borrowed my book and moved to Kansas). He criticizes Dan Kimball’s (or John Burke’s, I can’t remember) image of a ship in a storm anchored by Christ. It may move, but it stays rooted in the truth. Pagitt criticizes it by suggesting that the ship should be moving from port to port, not staying still. I don’t think they should invite him to teach, because it seems that he’ll simply teach them to doubt traditional doctrines and be willing to fold on the major issues of the faith.

Why is it ridiculous to say that a rabbi that doesn’t love Jesus has a bad hermeneutic? I guess it links to the declaration that the Bible is all about Jesus. Everything in the Old Testament that follows Abram’s call is about the fulfillment of the promise. How is that promise fulfilled? In Christ.

As for the last statement, I’ve been wondering about this lately. Missional Reformed churches seem to be reaching so many more people for Christ than “pomo” and Emergent movement churches that the trumpet call from Emergent Village and others like them is beginning to ring hollow. It seems that most, if not all, liberal/progressive/emergent theologians are the “disgruntled children of evangelicalism” (see here, here, and here). Are they reaching the lost? It would seem that for all their talk, their best bet in reaching lost souls would be in Seattle, where Driscoll is booming with over 6,000 members (claiming 40% as converts), and Karen Ward’s Church of the Apostles has around 80.

You’ll also find that a lot of Driscoll’s critics “are just as smug and sure as he is”, while they decry his rigid theology and arrogant manner. While Mark is clearly stretching the upper age limits of adolescence, he is seeing emergent theology quite clearly.

I’ve been reading a few books lately, The Case for a Creator, Theology of Word and Spirit (still), The Bourne Supremacy, Harry Potter, and Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Counterpoints). I’m a bit ADD, so it helps if I can switch books if I get antsy about the subject matter. I’ve been deep into physics and cosmology and philosophy with Case, so I decided to change up and take on the next quarter of Four Views.

The first chapter was John Hick’s position of pluralism: all “ethical” religions lead to God (air-quotes mine). He begins by recounting a spiritual journey much like Marcus Borg’s. The main difference is that he came to Christ during law school. He then went on to study philosophy where he began asking the Big Questions, and, as with many in the wide world of Liberal Christianity, assumed that since people weren’t answering those questions, they couldn’t be answered.

An example of these questions is about the sun standing still in Joshua. “In light of our modern knowledge of astronomy, we would have to say that the earth, which rotates at a speed of about a thousand miles an hour, suddenly ceased to rotate; but taken seriously, this is mind-boggling.” Is this idea more mind-boggling than a man being raised from the dead after a couple of days? More mind-boggling than God taking the form of a human to live among us? For me the answer is this simple: if God wanted to stop the earth from rotating, He could. And if He wanted to keep us (and everything else) from hurtling into space at indeterminable speeds, He could.

One of his other questions is the ever-present, “is it loving to send (insert descriptive phrase here…he chose “the majority of”) the human race to eternal torment in hell?” I find it interesting that it’s apparently ok to ask this question, but not ok to ask, “is it just to allow any human to enter heaven?”

Hick’s position of “pluralism” is problematic in its justification because it centers around a severely altered definition of salvation, and moral equivalence. For most Christians, salvation means being set free from sin and spared from Hell by the sacrifice of Jesus. For other people and in other situations, it generally refers to being rescued from some form of peril. But Hick decides to swing for the fences on this one.

He spends quite a bit of time establishing many things, some true (Paul’s first letter is dated about 50 A.D., Gospel of Mark about 70), and some quite speculative (the early followers didn’t believe Jesus was divine). He also talks about the son of God “metaphor”, saying that it was several centuries before Jesus was considered by the church to be the “literal God the Son.” Of course, he just said the Gospels were written within 7o years of Jesus death, and they all attest to his being of one being with the Father (”who can forgive sins but God alone”). How did 40 years become 400?

Anyway, his focus, leading up to his new definition of salvation is to establish the moral equality of the world religions. He wants to show that all of the major religions are doing an equally good job of causing people to think less about themselves and more about others. It’s not hard to do with narrow terms and a priori assumptions, like that human goodness “reflects a right relationship to God.”

He shows that all religions teach a variation of the Golden Rule, and follow it with about the same success rate. He argues that “if Christians have a more complete and direct access to God than anyone else and live in a closer relationship to him, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit”, there would be evidence that we have more of that “human goodness”.

Now that he has established this equality, he turns to salvation, which he considers to be a change from natural self-focus to others-focus. Now that he’s established a new definition for the term, relegating it to a personal change, he can make his move on the uniqueness of Christ.

He argues that because there is moral parity in the great world religions, all must have the same level of access to “the Real”. But his argument fails in that it requires you to accept his highly…”stylized” definition of salvation.

What he’s actually talking about is described in the Bible. It’s called sanctification. Most of us have heard the word before, but may not quite know what it means. Well, in a nutshell (a very small one) it coincides with Hick’s (misguided) definition of salvation.

He also presents the speculation that Jesus didn’t say the things attributed to him in the New Testament as fact. He cites a lot of people who agree with him, then establishes the point: “That Jesus himself did not claim to be God cuts the ground from under the feet of the old apologetic.” The only problem is that this is not established fact. It will never be, unless we find writings from an eyewitness who wrote as things were happening. The two problems with that are a) it’ll never happen, and b) even if it does, the question will still be clouded with doubt.

You can choose to believe he didn’t say those things, but that poses more problems. What did he say? How do you know he said that and not the other things? How can you trust any part of the Bible? How do you know which parts are trustworthy and which aren’t?

Hick never addresses these questions, except to say that the writings of the New Testament were still “documents of faith”. But according to his argument, they were essentially hallucinations of faith.

I think Hick uses the weakest theological and philosophical reason of the three authors I’ve read. Though his arguments have reached their peak of efficiency and fulfilled their potential, that potential is alarmingly low. Logic was not on his side.

« Previous Page — Next Page »