Carl Trueman writes about the church's obsession with culture. "I do believe that fascination with culture is now way out of hand in Christian circles and has come to eclipse more important, more central things. Indeed, even as I say that it is important to understand context to communicate the gospel effectively, I am conscious that this seemingly obvious statement needs to be tempered by the fact that some of the greatest preaching ever known was designed precisely not to communicate to the contemporary culture." He has several main points. "First, I am struck, by and large, with the coincidence of the concerns of the cultural Christian types and those of the middle class chatterati. Plenty of talk about Christian approaches to art, music, literature, sex, even international politics." But what about, say, garbage workers? Where are the garbage worker conferences? "Second, I am also struck by how Christian talk of cultural engagement has coincided with a watering-down of Christian standards of behavior and, ironically, thought." For example, Christians think they can listen to any music or watch any movie - just do it with a critical eye. "Christians shouldn't watch child porn, they'll say; but the problem, of course, is that definitions of what is and is not pornography" "But the change in Christian thinking does not just relate to issues like pornography. It also relates to the very questions that are deemed relevant or useful. I always thought it was the Bible that was meant to interrogate the culture; but the order seems to be being somewhat reversed in recent times." Christians just out of hand dismiss problems with things others have felt have been wrong since the inception of the church. "Third, I am convinced that much culture talk is driven by the need to hyper-spiritualise everything." He points out that in rejecting pietism they have actual become incredibly pious, needing to spiritualize everything. "Fourth, I am increasingly convinced that talking about culture, for all of its loud claims to relevance, significance, and importance, can actually be a first-class way of doing precisely the opposite, of not really talking about things that matter at all." He means that people talk about incidental particulars rather than the nature and essence of things, which is quite postmodern. He connects this to the European left: "As the Left lost itself in a morass of micronarratives and identity politics, it lost its ability to speak with any authority about things that matter; indeed, it lost its ability even to see the things that matter." "As this postmodern ethos has bled into Christian theology, a similar theological disempowerment has become evident. What began as a healthy concern to contextualize theology led in many cases to theologies where the particulars of context (whether geographical, social, political, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation etc. etc.) effectively trumped the universal horizon of scripture. " "You yourself can test this appetite for trivia easily. Today, more people in church are less familiar with the basics of the Bible and Christian theology than ever before; so you should ask your pastor to arrange some parallel seminars on a Saturday with one on, say, the elements of the Apostles' Creed, and one on a Christian approach to movies or sex. I guarantee you that the second will be far better attended than the first. Peripheral trivia trumps central truth every time, even within the ranks of the orthodox consumers in our churches." "Alternatively, I could try to move out of my own little world, start thinking less in cultural and more in biblical terms. I could become less obsessed with particularities and more concerned with universals. I could engage less with the accidents of culture and more with the substance of nature." [Just read it]. http://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/why-are-there-never-enough-parking-spaces-at-the-prostate-clinic.php
Dever points to Stott who warns against village churches with a village God, and exhorts people to pastoral prayers, at a variety of levels, from the guy down the street to the oppressed poor to the whole world. A Village Church with a Village God by mdever
Gilbert comments briefly on a statement by the late Richard John Neuhaus, a prominent Roman Catholic priest and writer, who wrote that "I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good." Neuhaus was one of the most prominent advocates of ecumenical church healing between protestants and romanists, and apparently, "The desire for reunification apparently sprang from a belief that the Gospel of justification by faith alone that Luther learned from Scripture was, now, taught and even welcome in the Roman church." Gilbert holds this isn't true. The Gospel is not welcome in the Roman church. So this confession of Neuhaus is ambiguous, perplexing and comforting, at the same time. I Will Plead No Merits Other Than the Merits of Christ by Greg Gilbert
Mckinley interviews Steve Timmis of Total Church. He first asks where preaching of the Gospel is in the model. Timmis replies that preaching is of course there, and Biblical exposition is central, but he's taking a shot at monological - lengthy monologue - preaching (although he caveats this by saying that it depends on the context) in favour of dialogical preaching (i.e. a leader invites questions and comments). He distinguishes this greatly from 'pooled ignorance' because someone still has to prep, someone competent, a good teacher, who can bring things back to Scripture, and "Sometimes, you just have to tell people they are wrong, plain wrong." He argues that this prep probably takes more time and effort than normal sermon prep because you need to be able to interact, to bring everything back to the Scriptures [incidentally, his description of dialogical preaching is almost the same as the Bible Study we do]. Mckinley goes on to ask how the Total Church model reckons with the fact that throughout history the monologue has been advocated and it seems to be the model in Scripture when God's people are gathered. Timmis replies with three principles: "(1) Teach the Word of God in a manner that facilities the intellectual, volitional and affectional engagement of God's people with his Word (2) Teach the Word of God in a manner that is most helpful situationally (3) Teach the Word of God so that it is massaged deep into the hearts of his people in the daily routines of life." He goes after the "people need to be quiet because they need to listen to God's word" as a false dichotomy. "Dialogical preaching isn't about people speaking so that God cannot be heard; it's about people actively and humbly engaging with the Bible so that it is precisely God's voice that they do hear." "However, I am not arguing that preaching as extended monologue has no place in the church, history or the Bible. As I said earlier, I do it every Sunday morning. " He is trying to remove it as the only way and as a badge of being evangelical. Interview With Steve Timmis, Part 1 -- Preaching by Michael Mckinley
Leeman goes on to add another principle to the ones Timmis gave: "(4) Teach the Word of God in a manner that the Word of God does. (Mike already presented a number of examples below: Deut., Ezra, the prophets, etc.)." ". The questions I would want Steve or others to answer is, "Is the Bible not filled with examples of monological preaching, and, if it is, is this not both instructive and even normative for us?" It seems that most Christians/churches throughout history have assumed the answer to this was "yes" and "yes." " It would seem that Paul meant monologue (based on lexical analysis) when he told Timothy to 'preach the word.' Steve Timmis by Jonathan Leeman
Manata makes the interesting point with regard to skeptical theism: He speaks of how the LFW defence is a greater good defence, but nevertheless there are many evils that don't seem to affect free will, and therefore can't be explained: "there just isn't a God-justifying reason for these (whatever they are, there's different examples) evils. The argument seems to be that if we can't see a God-justifying reason, there probably isn't one. One response to this has been the response of so-called Skeptical Theism. ST argues that this is a bad inference to make because one feature of the Christian worldview is that God and many of his reasons are beyond our ken." He points out that most atheists are determinists. But they admit that the factors for causal choice are so inscrutable that they aren't apparent. So they should accept LFW on the basis of the same reasoning they put forward in the ST. This isn't an argument for LFW, obviously. "It's simply to point out that some atheists may be inconsistent in (a) not holding to libertarian free will and (b) holding that there are no God justifying reasons because you can't see the reasons." Dennett & Flanagan, Determinism, Libertarian Free Will, The Evidential POE, and the 'Noseeum' to
Hays comments on the movie Prayers for Bobby. He points out that it's obviously biased, and indicates that Liberals can't win by argumentation, so they resort to intimidation (and emotional manipulation). The movie ignores the tragic nature of the homosexual lifestyle in itself. The story is indicative of a dysfucntional family that goes way beyond the mother's pietism, as part of maturation is outgrowing the need for parental approval - and yet this man killed himself. He then takes a shot at certain fundamentalist and Pentacostal thinking that aims to find a silver bullet to slay sin: "Christians really do need to guard against this simplistic and mechanistic view of sanctification. It can backfire. Do more harm than good." He then gives some advice for how Christians should deal with these situations. i) Don't go to extremes of total acceptance or rejection. And say 'no' to your kids for once. ii) Talk about some other illicit behaviour than homosexuality and think about how you would react to it. iii) you probably wouldn't disown a family member over other sins. iv) it can be a lifelong struggle. No magic deadlines. iv) commitment is also relationship variable. Prayers for Bobby
Challies summarizes some of Lewis's thoughts on morality in Mere Christianity, including his distinction between ideals and rules, and how Lewis prophetically saw postmodernism ("It is dangerous to describe a man who tries very hard to keep the moral law as a 'man of high ideals,' because this might lead you to think that moral perfection was a private taste of his own and that the rest of us were not called on to share it.") Challies discusses various other observations, and then says: "Lewis turns to marriage, presenting it as a good gift from God. "The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union." I was really struck by his words about the way love inclines lovers to bind themselves to one another with promises." Reading Classics - Mere Christianity (IV)
Jihadists plan to use Facebook. (but isn't Facebook the product of western american imperialism? Isn't that a bit hypocritical... anyway.) http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/12/online-jihadist.html
Evolutionists are, of course, men of faith, and they make faith-based attacks on religious schools. "In fact, although these attacks are ostensibly against bringing ‘religion’ into public schools, evolutionary philosopher Michael Ruse agrees that evolution is a religion, so shouldn’t we be excluding this from government schools too? It’s notable that Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman (1912–2006), despite being agnostic himself, stated in What’s Wrong with Our Schools?:‘Public schools teach religion too, not a formal, theistic religion, but a set of values and beliefs that constitute a religion in all but name. The present arrangements abridge the religious freedom of parents who do not accept the religion taught by the public schools yet are forced to pay to have their children indoctrinated with it, and to pay still more to have their children escape indoctrination.’" http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6001/
Turretinfan responds to some comments by Pope Benedict to the effect of the centrality of Mary in the birth of Christ! "1) To say that the birthday of Christ is "suffused with light of Mary" is to miss the significance of the Incarnation. The significance of the Incarnation is about Christ, not about Mary. 2) To say "our gaze cannot but turn with recognitions toward his Mother" provides some important insight. It is possible to turn one's eyes from Jesus to other things. When Mary is the one to whom we turn our eyes from Jesus, this should be to our shame. 3) To say "who with her 'yes' made the gift of Redemption possible," is to perpetuate a legend. Scripture does not tell us Mary said "yes" to anything... She was certainly a willing servant, but she was not offered a choice. 4) "This is why Christmastide has profoundly Marian connotations." In one sense, this is backwards. One of the reasons for the popularity of Christmas in Catholicism is its appeal to those devoted to Mary, since it is one of the few feast days involving her in some way. Surely there is a baby in the manger, and Joseph is hanging about someplace, but Mary is often the improper focus of attention. 5) "The birth of Jesus, the man-God, and Mary's divine maternity are indissoluble realities." Mary's maternity is of Christ, the God-man. But Mary is not the mother of Christ's divine nature - she is only the mother of his human nature. 6) There is no parity between Jesus and Mary. Jesus is Mary's Saviour, just as Jesus is the Shepherds' Saviour. Mary is the handmaid, but Jesus is the King." He then goes on to deal with Benedict's statements to the effect of the necessary mediatorship of Mary between believers and Christ. Jesus himself stated: "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Mary did the will of God, yes. And Mary is a part of the story of the nativity of Christ, certainly. But Mary is not to be religiously venerated for her role. She is a handmaiden of the Lord, not the Queen of Heaven. Response to Benedict XVI on Christmas
Sodom may have been located. Sodom and Archaeology
Hays makes an interesting point about politics and politicians. "Or take the economic crisis. From what I’ve read, this goes back to the Clinton administration, which threatened to prosecute lending institutions which were guilty of “red-lining.” That policy was continued and aggravated by leading Congressional Democrats like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. So how does the electorate react? Let’s empower the Democrats. Let’s elect even more Democrats to Congress. Let’s watch Obama fill his administration with retreads from the Clinton administration. And while we’re at it, let’s borrow from our enemies (e.g. China) to subsidize trillion-dollar deficit spending as far as the eye can see. The level of sheer, monumental, unteachable stupidity is something to behold." "Although it’s understandably galling to see how often corrupt men are rewarded for their corrupt behavior while good men are marginalized or penalized for good behavior, corruption has a silver lining. For lesser evils can restrain greater evils... My point, however, is that while their corruption is a source of harm, it also limits their harm. If they weren’t so venal, they’d do far more harm. Petty corruption is a check on absolute corruption. You can always count on sin. Sin is so predictable. Sin is the great leveler." You can always count on sin
White posts this video: The 33,000 Protestant Denominations Lie
Bayly posts a note about an (I've linked to it before) atheist African expatriate writes that Africa needs God. As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
AiG: This article connects racism to Darwinism (e.g. "Before Darwin, the term “race” was largely a political and geographical term. People that were closely related biologically (such as the English and Irish) were considered to be separate races. Darwin’s theory has permeated the entire globe and the teaching of evolution has really redefined the term “race.” Now, when most people think of “race,” they’re thinking of lower races, higher races, black races, red races, etc. Even the best of us at times have struggled when we use that term. It just doesn’t mean what it used to mean."), goes on to point out that there is more genetic separation within the same people group than between them, an exhorts people to drop the category of race altogether, and act upon the BIble's Christ-centred skin-colour transcending teaching [I would add that racism is the natural result of defining a human by capability or relation rather than ontology]. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/dp/one-blood
Jay Adams gives a short argument for traducianism. "Traducianism is the teaching that not only the body but also the soul is passed down by natural generation. That is to say, in contrast to the rival doctrine called Creationism there is no time from conception on when there was not a soul present in the child." Traducianism
Spurgeon has a meditation upon "cast your cares upon the Lord, for He cares for you." “Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.”
Rob Bell could have the next edition of Exegetical Fallacies include him. He claims, "It’s in what’s called the aorist tense, which is a technical way of saying that Jesus’ anger is a temporary feeling. It comes on him, and then it leaves him." "Even if Bell had correctly parsed the word he was highlighting, his point is still guilty of the aorist tense fallacy. The aorist tense is not “subtle” or “technical.” It’s the default tense that communicates the very least about a particular action." The author goes on to say that Bell reduces his credibility frequently when discussing customs, language, history, etc. http://andynaselli.com/theology/nooma-blooper
No comments:
Post a Comment