a bit of kibitzing

I haven't done anything like this for a while, and I'm actually anticipating it a little. So, onward and upward!

“Weeping Jeremiahs” is a blog that's been brought to my attention, for good or ill, mostly ill. I don't know anything about whomever write it, or even if “Jeremiahs” is telling us there's more than one person contributing bad poetry to the site. Anyway, this one example is certainly interesting.

The Values of the Lamb

Ah, the language of values. Not morals, not ethics, but values. But, let's be glad that this person knows so much about what Jesus values, right?

“I do not share your values, America:

Well, all right-y, then. Let's give Weepy Jerry credit for coming on strong, bringing the heat.

Now, first, let's note a few things. First, tie this in with the title of this poem, The Values of the Lamb, and note that this person puts these words in quotes, and writes in the first person, I. In other words, Weepy Jerry is claiming that Jesus is the one saying these words.

Wow, that's quite the claim. Take a look at this passage. “Deuteronomy 18: 18– 20: 18 “I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 “It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 “But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.””

First, HT to Michael Beasley and his book, The Fallible Prophets of New Calvinism, an excellent resource for the biblical view of prophecy, such as the verses above, which were in his book.

So, claiming to be speaking for God is not a trite thing. Saying “Thus sayeth the Lord”, even if one doesn't use that phrase, was a matter of life or death in the Old Testament. True, we may be glad that in this New Covenant we wouldn't kill a false prophet, but we shouldn't pretend that false prophecy is not a serious issue. And in claiming that the words of this poem are the words of Jesus, Weepy Jerry is putting him/her/themselves in the place of a prophet.

So, noting that, let's go on.

I value love more

than I value independence

Well, that's interesting. Are love and independence mutually exclusive? Are they bitter enemies, such that we cannot have one if we have the other? Personally, I don't see the conflict, and more than that, I think there are many ways in which love and independence go hand in hand. Even if we look at things on a national level, which country sounds more loving—the independence people have in the US, or the micro-control people suffer in North Korea? I think I'll take the independence we have in the US, thanks.

I value charity more

than I value profit.

So, when did charity and profit become mutually exclusive? You know, you work day in and day out, and when payday comes you get the wages you've worked for, and what is wrong with that? How that is anti-charity? In fact, how are any of us suppose to do much of anything charitable without earning anything?

Is work wrong? Is it wrong to want to earn the money you need to pay your bills, get groceries, and maybe afford a few extras? I guess we can assume that Weepy Jerry has at least one computer, or all the Weepy Jerries have their own computers, so it seems like they have some means. How were they able to afford to get computers? And wireless access? And a home?

Charitable giving is fine and dandy, if it is done wisely. I'm quite fine with charity, but I don't see how charity is suppose to be opposed to making a profit.

I value the native people

you uprooted and oppressed.

Ah, now it's cheap guilt trip time. Yeah, America, you ain't been perfect.

True, God does love native people, whatever that might mean, wherever that might be. He also loves the people that replaced them, and the people who replaced those people. After all, how many square inches of this world can really be said to be in the ownership of whatever people first claimed them?

I assume that at least one of the Weepy Jerries is white, because this person obviously relishes wallowing in his/her white guilt. As a white man myself, I think I'll pass. I know very well that the US has a lot of really ugly things in our past, something true of any nation, something true even of those native people.

How do I know that? Simple. Those native people were like us—fallen, sinful, corrupt, and even their attempts at works of righteousness were no better than filthy rags. They were just like me, because I was and am like that. I am a sinner, I am still fallen, even as I am forgiven and made clean in Christ. I think it is the Lutherans, and maybe the Reformed, who have a saying that we Christians are simultaneously just and sinner.

So, yes, God loves native people, God loves those who took their place, God loves all peoples. And He showed that love in this, that while we were sinners, Christ died for us.

I value your enemies

as much as I value you

No problem there, but what is this person really saying? I think this next verse may show this person's hand.

I value peacemaking

and nonviolence

Yep, typical leftie cowardice and self-righteousness, right there on full display.

Notice the lack of a contrast here—no “I value X over Y”, but “I value X and Y”. As you might expect, I think this is a bit of an either-or, more so than this person's other attempts at contrasts.

For example, why does peacemaking equal nonviolence? I've had some exposure to leftie rhetoric about these things, and, frankly, it's full of contradictions.

Maybe one would think about Jesus' words in what we call The Sermon on the Mount, where He said, “Blessed are the peacemakers”. All well and good, but does that mean pacifists? Does that mean nonviolence? I think that could be debated. First, by much of the Old Testament, where God often tells His people to go to war, and even seems to indicate that King David got into moral trouble with Bathsheba because he was not at war at a time when kings went to war. Warrior images are also often used for God. And there is no contrast between God the Father and Jesus. One isn't the thunder-god who just wants to do a lot of smiting while the other is the meek and quiet one who's pulled off an Occupy Heaven type of takeover. No, there is no conflict between the Father and the Son. Jesus completely approved of everything in the Old Testament, and the Father completely approved of everything Jesus said and did.

To put it another way, the same God who told Yeshua to lead the people of Israel into a conquest of The Promised Land is the same Yeshua who said that peacemakers are blessed, and He will be the same Yeshua who will return as a king and a conqueror, as Revelation tells us as do other prophet passages.

Proverbs, an Old Testament book, often speaks against violent people. Of course, these violent people were not like King David, or Joshua, or Moses, or Gideon, or any of David's mighty men. Rather, these violent men were murderers, bandits, robbers, ambushers, people who shed the blood of the innocent.

In a human sense, the policeman who stops a murderer or a robber is a peacemaker, even if he uses his weapon and even does so lethally. A soldier fight his country's enemies is a peacemaker. Of course, there are complications—it could be seriously questioned how much of a peacemaker a soldier in Nazi Germany was, and an ISIS terrorist is obviously not a peacemaker at all. Hamas terrorists lobbying thousands of mortars and rockets into Israel are not peacemakers, no matter how much they try to disguise themselves in false concern for the Palestinian people. And there are corrupt police officers, sadly. But by and large, police officers and soldiers do far more peacemaking than leftist radical activists.

I value freedom from sin more

than I value political freedom

Oh, my, how hyper-spiritual. I guess that might work as a cover for leftist attempts to curtail political freedom.

I value your salvation more

than I value your nation.

Ok, so, who is this person now talking to? I thought this person was address the US as a whole, but now it's changed somewhat.

And, again, it's hyper-spiritual. It's a common ploy among those on the left, and sadly even those on the right.

Do not confuse your values with Mine!”

Oh, and now we have “Mine” capitalized, another sign that Weepy Jerry is claiming that these words are form Jesus. So, are we suppose to put this little poem into the Bible? Maybe make it part of the Psalms, or at least a New Testament version of the Psalms?

Sorry, I can't do that.

One wonders if Weepy Jerry is actually taking his or her or their own advise? After all, they are claiming that their own values are the values of Jesus, but are they not then confusing their values for His? I think this little poem shows that they are, and pretty badly, too.

BIBLE TROLLS UNITE!!!

To get the bit picture of this, go here, and read.

Tony Jones’ fascinating exchange with Chris Rosebrough

And put on your focus on this comment of Jones'

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Chris, I have deleted all of the Bible verses that you've cut and pasted from elsewhere. You are free to come and troll here on my blog, but you cannot copy-and-paste from elsewhere. We can all read the Bible for ourselves. Also, prepare to be ignored. Those of us to spend time on this blog daily have changed a lot since your last visit. We don't really argue with trolls anymore.]

So, in other words, you go around quote Scripture to Tony Jones, then you're a troll.

The article linked to above has the Scripture passages that Jones deleted.

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:1–5)


“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9:22)

“Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:23–28)

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

Yep, posting those four passages above made Rosebrough a troll. Doing something similar would likely make any of us one, too, in the eyes of Jones and those like him.

Fine with me. Just call me Detritus.

he may as well admit that he denies it

Do I Deny the Resurrection?

There is a certain aspect of postmodernism that is especially annoying; namely, their lack of ability to actually give answer a question. Instead, what we get is a lot of words that basically don't answer the question at all.

For example, this guy claims that people sometimes ask him this kind of question. One would think that it would be a simple enough question to answer. But, oh, no, not for a super-clever postmodern like him, no indeed-y.

Instead, he quotes something from Peter Rollins. That's never a good sign, unless you're doing it to show how ridiculous Rollins is. For some reason, this guy thinks Rollins isn't ridiculous. The PR quote basically doesn't answer the question. But if you point that out, well, here's this article writer's reply...

As you might expect, this does not calm the questioners down. They accuse me of not understanding the question. I understand the question perfectly well. I think they are the ones who do not know what they are asking.

Translation: "Ah, yes, you silly idiotic people, how dare you expect me to actually answer your question!"

He goes on to try to make his position even more clear, and it basically comes down to this...politics. Apparently, Jesus' death was less about Him dying for our sins, but rather about Him spitting in the eyes of those in power in Rome, even though Jesus lived and was crucified several hundreds of miles away from the city of Rome, never visited Rome, and never tried to cause a rebellion against Rome.

If I act hateful, or in fact, less than loving to my neighbor, I have denied the resurrection just as surely as my selling state secrets to China denies my allegiance to the USA...And I can believe whatever you want about what happened that Sunday morning, but if I am not using what power I have to help God bring the Kingdom into fruition, to help make it on Earth as it is in Heaven, I don’t expect you to call me a Christian.

So, that's his position...it doesn't matter. Do you believe Jesus really rose from the dead, or not? It's not important, just do whatever this guy things you should do to "...help God bring the Kingdom into fruition...".

In other words, salvation by works. Grace alone, faith only, through Christ alone? Hogwash!! No, you've got to work for it!

See, his wishy-washiness isn't grace, it's law. It puts you back under the burden of keeping the law, or at least his version of it. Fight the powers, be a good little socialistic activist, try to bring God's kingdom to earth. It doesn't matter what you belief, but it sure matters what you do.

And so he denies the resurrection, and so he is not a Christian.

pots and kettles

Christianity, conceived of as a system, begins with a religious or political mode of thinking and then seeks to impose it upon the world. Here a strong Platonic influence is at work whereby we mold the particular (the individual) into the Universal (the idea), and if the individual can’t—or won’t—be molded, then he or she is rejected. For instance, if a certain lifestyle is perceived to be wrong within the system’s framework, the individual in question will be asked to change or leave. The disavowed obverse of “all humans are part of my family” is then, “if you will not be part of my family you are not human.”

Various systems or worldviews fight for power and authority. Yet Christianity, as a religion without religion, offers a radically different approach. Christ opens up the idea of a system that seeks always to find those who are excluded from the system that is in power. The Christian “worldview” is thus manifested as always seeking out those who have been rejected from the worldviews that have authority. The way this works itself out in practice is that whatever political or religious idea is dominating the society at any given time, Christianity seeks out those who are excluded by it, the one sheep who is not in the pen, the one coin not in the purse, those who have not been invited to the party, the nobodies, the nothings. The Christian “system” can thus never take power for, by definition, it is always that which stands against power, seeking to identify with the powerless and the voiceless. It is a system in the sense that it systematically seeks out those who do not fit into the system offered up by the currently prevailing political and religious authorities.

What we see being worked out within Christianity can thus be said to be a prejudice toward those who are excluded and marginalized, those who are oppressed by our religious and political systems. This means that every time a “Christian” system is created, the Christian is the one who seeks out those who are excluded from it. Christianity, as a religion without religion, affirms a system that undermines every system of power by seeking those who are oppressed. The Christian critique is not then directed at the people in power so much as at the place of power itself. When a system of thought, however great, is given authority over all, it becomes oppressive and undermines its own liberative elements. The point then is not to find the “right” way of thinking and then give it a place of power and influence, but rather to question the place of power and influence itself. Is this not what we learn from the following biblical insight?

Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1929-1948). Paraclete Press. Kindle Edition.

First, a bit of a personal gripe. Rollins here goes on about "those who are excluded". Very well, but then, the past few times I've tried to leave comments at his little blog, they have not been posted. The comments of some other people have been, usually comments containing sycophantic praise. Now, my proposed comments have not contained praise, sycophantic or otherwise. Is that why Rollins or whomever the gatekeepers at his blog are do not allow such questioning and critical comments be allowed to stand?

But perhaps that exposes what he means above in a nutshell--the "excluded" whom his version of Christianity is suppose to seek out are only those "excluded" ones who do not voice much disagreement with him and those like him. To give an extreme example, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't bother him much the neo-Nazis are excluded from power and don't have that much of a voice, and in fact I would bet that if such people were to be put in power it would likely disturb him very much. In that, I hope he and I may find a rare bit of something to agree upon.

But given this extreme example, what about other, less extreme examples? That is one of the things that is most disturbing about the Left when they talk or write like this--they mean it only for themselves and those they agree with, but woe betide those who oppose them. One can see it, for example, in the lying accusation hurled at the conservative Tea Party that it is racist, violent, hateful, and should not be listened to or taken seriously. There is rather scant proof of any of that, if any proof at all, but it has become an established meme that is believed without question by those who oppose it.

As well, we should ask what is meant by these excluded whom the church should seek out. What about, for example, murderers in prisons? Again, an extreme example, but come along anyway. Certainly they are among the voiceless and powerless in regards to politics and religion. What does it mean that the church should seek them out? Should the Christian critique be directed at those who think that murderers should be put in prison, away from society, so that they should not be able to practice murder any more? Should the Christian system stand against those who have put the murderers into these prisons, such as the detectives and policemen who have arrested them, the lawyers who in trial put forth the evidence for their crimes, and the judge who sentenced them to prison?

Now, the idea that murder is a crime is a religious idea--"Thou shalt not murder". Should the church stand against this teaching that you should not murder, because it is the idea that is in power?

As I said, this is an extreme example, but I think it is one that's pointed. I doubt that Rollins would want murderers to be set free from prison. But this shows just how shallow what Rollins is saying really is, because the church's job is not to validate something simply because it's not in political or religious power. It's not the church's job to validate people like neo-Nazis and murderers, no matter how isolated they are, no matter much people don't pay attention to them, no matter how much they may feel oppressed because no one takes their looney beliefs seriously or because they are put into small concrete cells and kept away from innocent people so they can't murder any more of them.

But let us give Rollins a partial point, a good bit less than half a point, maybe about a quarter if we are to be generous. There are people on the outside, and the church does have a commission from Christ to take the Gospel to the world, that Christ came to seek and save the lost. Those lost may not be in power, but then maybe they are. Both the king and the peasant are equal in one thing, in being sinners whose every attempt at a good work is like the vilest of rags to God.

Rollins wants to make this about politics, which is blasphemy. It's about much more than that. It's about the condition we all find ourselves in, that we are separated from God, that we are enemies of God, that we are under God's wrath and rightfully so, that all we deserve is physical and spiritual death. It is about Christ being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, doing the thing recorded of Him in the Gospels, being crucified as a sacrifice for out sins, and rising from the dead.

The church doesn't go to the lost to proclaim what we can do for anyone. We proclaim what God has done for us. It isn't about being against power and authority, for then we would be going against God, but rather that we point to the one who has ultimate power, to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Don't doubt that Rollins' rhetoric is simply a cheat, a bait and switch. His main concern, and those like him on the Left, is simply that they should be the only voices, the only 'advocates' for whatever they espouse. Why else would they try to silence dissenters and opposing information? There're reasons why his book is called "The Fidelity of Betrayal", why he tries to make the traitor Judas into a hero.

peter rollins the postmodern pharisee

In short, such an approach reveals that Christianity exhibits the structure of a religion without religion. Belief thus has an important place; however, it is ultimately subordinate to the event that it points toward. The result is the idea that living within the event that is testified to in Christianity is more important than the affirmation that one is a Christian, or in other words, the event contained in the affirmation of God is more important than the belief in God.
Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1555-1558)

Look at what he's saying here--"living within the event that is testified to in Christianity is more important than the affirmation that one is a Christian...the event contained in the affirmation is more important than the belief in God". What is he saying?

Unlike the former reading, which sees Christianity as a worldview that can somehow be compared and contrasted with other worldviews, this latter approach questions the idea that Christianity can be approached as a religious worldview at all; rather, in this approach Christianity operates within all worldviews, at least in those places where people’s lives reflect love, hope, and passionate commitment to one’s neighbor. While the first interpretation sees Jesus as the founder of the one true religion, the latter interpretation sees in Jesus one who would set an axe to all religion.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1487-1491).

Because a miracle takes place at a radically subjective level that cannot be objectified or analyzed, it is not, strictly speaking, something that is believed in. Rather it is lived. Indeed it can easily be lived and not believed in.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1746-1748).

Instead of rendering God present to the understanding, this way of reading the text interprets the phrase ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh as a means of describing the nature of God’s presence among us. Here God is presented neither as reducible to the status of other objects, nor as outside the world and eternally distant from it, but rather as one who is received by us without ever being directly conceived by us. Here the mystery of God is revealed as an incarnated mystery, that is, the mystery of God is revealed in the midst of God’s presence. God is here being presented as saying something akin to, “Do not try to name me. my name is above all names; I am present to you beyond all names.” Here we find a different way of approaching God: here we come across the idea that God is made manifest as a happening, an event, a blessing. God is here revealed as one who is made present through the acts of love and liberation rather than through the categories of human understanding. This does not mean that we will come to an understanding of God through closely observing the actions of God. Here the text goes further: God is made known only in action, only as blessing.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1276-1275).

When Jesus spoke of being “born again” he was not referring to some proposition that could be considered through logic, religious sermons, Bible reading, or through some kind reflection on religious experience; rather he was speaking of an event that opens up a whole new world of experience. Religious experience, in its fundamental form, is not then an experience at all but rather a counter-experience, one that transforms our mode of being in the world rather than being reduced to some strange feeling. With the incoming of this truth nothing necessarily changes in the physical world, no new object enters our horizon. But in its aftermath the person is never the same again, for everything has changed. This luminous life can never be captured, contained, or pulled apart; it is lived. This event in which nothing changes is an event so radical that nothing remains the same.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1346-1352).

Look at how he denigrates belief. This is a common theme throughout the book. He is constantly playing games with belief, claiming that belief in the truth claims of the Bible or even in God are not important, and even the questions of whether or not the Bible is true or if there is a God are not important. Something else is, something he calls the "miracle", and is something that, as he says in one of the quotes above, can "easily be lived and not believed in".

Looking at Rollins' words about this "miracle" and conversion, one is struck by a complete lack of the things the Bible places as central to this conversion--repentence from sins, belief and faith in Christ who was crucified as a sacrifice for our sins. Instead, he goes on about change and experience, using nonsense phrases about nothing being changed but everything being changed.

In his own convoluted way, he's simply repeating what the Pharisees in Jesus' day believed. His definition of righteousness is some combination of works and experience, that for example in regards to worldviews those worldviews are acceptable "...where people’s lives reflect love, hope, and passionate commitment to one’s neighbor".

But what does that mean? God cannot be understood, so he says. Thus, beliefs are essentially meaningless. What the Bible says about God is essentially meaningless; indeed, God cannot even interpret His own Word, because that would somehow be an untrue interpretation. There are no answer, only questions. Believe in Christ, or not; believe in God, or not; put your faith in the gods of Greek mythology, for all that it matters.

All we have are works that somehow God is pleased in, though we don't know how we know that or why. Why, after all, should a god about whom we cannot know anything by reason or logic be a god who wants us to be kind to people. Mankind has had many gods who wanted their priests to take other people and sacrifice them in bloody rituals. Why should not that be how this unknowable god is? Or why should people not worship this god in that way, as other do so through kindness? How can we know that this god prefers one or the other, because if the priest who sacrifices captives from another tribe thinks he being kind to his neighbor in doing so, then what argument can be made against it?

As soon as we start looking at Rollins' claims, that we can learn little or nothing about God through His Word, that God did not really speak to the prophets, that it's really not important whether or not Christ really died and rose again, then we are simply brought up against Rollins' own opinions and beliefs about what this god approves of. And let us be clear, they are simply the biases and presuppositions of Rollins and those like him. Why the bloody Aztec gods should be shunted aside is simply a matter of preference, not of any standard that says human sacrifices are wrong.

Rollins is playing as a Pharisee, but at least the Pharisees had the Law of Moses, even if they abused it and misused it. At least they would have claimed that belief in Jehovah was important, even if it was more a belief in their own supposed righteousness. All Rollins has is his own law, his own beliefs that no beliefs are important, yet somehow love and hope and caring for others is important, simply because the Christ he doesn't believe in said so, even if He may not really have said those words at all. And why this god spoke through Christ more than through the bloody Aztec prophets is not a question that can be answered.

another good reason to celebrate Independence Day in the USA

As if celebrating the fact that the US is still a relatively free country, where people have freedoms to speak their minds, attend the churches they want, and to gather for the causes they think are worth it, here's another good reason to have a good time on July 4th and the days leading up to it.

It'll honk off a Sojrone!!

I think I'll get some sparklers and light them up, in honor of this Sojrone's miserable better-than-the-common-rabble attitude.

UPDATE: Oh, this is even richer...Emergent Village have picked up the article, too!!

peter rollins and the brave little traitor

By and large, most of the stories Rollins writes in his clever little book have an element of the disturbing in them, like creepy little kids in horror movies. I don't know if "The Mission of Judas" is necessarily the most disturbing, but, really, given that name and the contents, it's definitely up there. This story and commentary can be found on pp. 100-103.

So, as the title says, this story is about Judas. He's having a bit of a nap, and having a dream. He's dreaming that he's going to betray Jesus, Jesus is going to die, and he himself is going to commit suicide over what he has done. But he also sees Christ's resurrection and ascension, how Jesus' message would somehow bring down Rome and change the lives of many people. Judas awakens, recalls Jesus' words about His death, as recorded in John 12:23-25, and realizes what he is suppose to do, what he is destined to do. He's suppose to betray Jesus, and insure that the things in his vision happen.

As Rollins himself explains his commentary...

Here we are led to conceive of Judas as one of the most courageous figures in the Bible, as one who betrayed Christ, not because of a love for money or because he had been overpowered by some demonic influence, but rather because he knew what would result from that betrayal.

By understanding the complexity of the betrayal, we are led to consider whether certain acts that might appear to be fundamentally against God could actually be gestures of fidelity to God.

So, let's take this way of thinking to other areas, shall we? Join me, please, if you have the stomach for it. Because you may need to breathe into a bag before this is over.

Let's image it's the 1940s, Europe. Imagine there's a man who really loves the Jewish people. He loves them so much, that he works tirelessly to hand individuals and families of Jewish people over to Nazi Gestapo goons. He helps to herd them into overcrowded train cars, watches as they are hered naked into gas chambers, then listens as the gas is put into the chambers and the people die horribly. He feels bad, of course, but he knows that only in doing this can a greater good be accomplished.

Now, let's imagine some parents, who have several children. They love their children, so in order to make sure the children have a bright future and are good people, they withhold food from their children to the point of starvation, keep them chained to radiators, routinely abuse them physically and mentally, sell their children so others can do very bad things to them, and pretty much do all the things good parents don't do to their children. But they know that, if they do these horrible things to their children, one will become a doctor who cures cancer, one will become an astronaut who leads the first manned expedition to Mars, one will become a Senator. Of course, one deals with psychological problems from the abuse well into adulthood, and another becomes a homeless guy who drowns himself in alcohol and drugs and dies namelessly in an alley, but that's just the price that must be paid for so much good.

I hope you've enjoyed those two scenarios as little as I have. And don't feel ashamed if you did have to breath into a bag.

But I hope, as well, that these scenarios have shown the completely evil premise behind Rollins' evil little story.

Judas was no hero. He was not courageous. He was a traitor. He got greedy, and there was a dark spiritual influence on him too, and he betrayed our Lord into the hands of those who killed Him. It is irresponsible, nay even evil, for Rollins to try to make Judas into a hero.

But is it not telling the Rollins tries to make a traitor into a hero? Is it not revealing that Rollins tries to say that Judas' betrayal was some kind of an act of fidelity to God? Such a thing seems to say more about Rollins than about anyone else--the desire to make the traitor into the hero, the desire to make an act of betrayal an act of faith, the want and even need to make a greedy and demonic act into one of staggering bravery.

Perhaps Rollins is less interested in justifying Judas than in justifying himself.

a self-serving tale

So, finally getting back to Rollins...

Not that I've read every clever story in his little book, but I skipped a bit, and read the last clever little story, which he calls "The Heretic", pp 179-184.

The story is about a man who is being tried for teaching heresy. After being sentence to death, the man asks the judge to allow that he himself should pick the person from the crowd of onlookers who will set the fire that will kill him. The judge agrees, and on the day of his execution, the man puts his choice in this way:

"I stand before you now, helpless as a child, condemned to death for heresy. I am guilty as charged, for I have held a distorted, muddied, and inaccurate view of the divine. I have only one request: that I be set alight by one among you who is innocent of this charge."

And the moral (if 'moral' is the right word for it) of this tale is...

Here the issue concerns the idea of distorting the image of God. This young man has been found guilty of propogating a false vew of the divine, and yet the young man knows this and freely admits it. However, he refuses to repent, for to do this would imply that there is a view of God that is not distorted, namely the view of the religious authorities at the time.

In this story we are led to ask whether knowing and admitting that one speaks inaccurately about God would actually be preferable to the claim that we can speak accurately about the source of faith. People may respond that this is all very well, but that some ways of describing God are healthy and some are unhealthy. Here I would wholeheartedly agree. The question here, however, is not how we judge between orthodoxy and heresy, but rather how we judge between good heresy and bad heresy. Another way of putting this is that we must question the difference between the heresy of orthodoxy, in which we dogmatically claim to have the truth, and the orthodox heresy, in which we humbly admit that we are in the dark but still endeavor to live in the way of Christ as best we can.

And so endeth the book.



So, basically, his claim is that there is no such thing as orthodoxy and heresy. There is no way of knowing if what we say about God is true or not. We can't say that anything we say about God is not distorted, we can have no true knowledge of God, we can never know if anthing we claim to think about God is really true or false. The only thing we can really do is stumble along blindly, never knowing if what we believe is true, all beliefs about God being equally valid or invalid, and we should not claim that anything we say or believe about God is really true.

So, anyone else ready to slit their wrists? Well, me, neither, but if I really believed this hopeless drivel of Rollins', I might just find it tempting.

Because, really, if anything I believe or say about God is just as valid anything else I may say or believe, than there is no point. If I believe that God is a space alien from the far-off galaxy of XRginTEanoapfOHPQps, then how is that any less valid than believing that God is beyond the material world, the maker of the Universe? If I believe that God wants us to burn all kittens in a big bonfire, how is that less valid than say that God cares about the created world?

And that last part brings up the cheat Rollins tries to sneak in. He talks abot how we blindly "endeavor to live in the way of Christ as best we can", but if there are no valid beliefs about God or about Christ, if all we say or believe about them is heresy, than how can we know what this "way of Christ" is? How can we know the best way to live it? Or, for that matter, how do we know that is the best way for us to live?

We cannot say that. By his own definition, Rollins forbids us to dogmatically say that we know the truth, and that excludes even the claim that we know the way of Christ, that we know the best way to live that way, and that it is the best way for us to live. It is simply a choice, and if others choose other ways--the ways of Mohammed, the ways of Kali, the ways of Rasputin, the ways of Hitler--than we are forbidden to say that they are wrong.

Oh, sure, Rollins tries to sneak in the idea that there are healthy and unhealthy ways of describing God. But then, we have to say that we know what the standards for health are, that they can be universally agreed upon. But if one group believe that it is healthy to have a god of new-agey love and acceptance, and another believes it is healthy to believe in a god who glories in blood and death and destruction, how are we to say that one is acceptable and the other isn't, or if either is acceptable? If one group thinks God likes diversity, but another thinks God would like it best if all people looked the same, then, pray tell, how are we to decided which is really God's preference?

Finally, notice what is completely missing from Rollin's little spin. There is no notion that we have an acceptable, reliable source of information concerning God. There is no mention the God has revealed Himself to us, has told us things about Himself, has in times past directly spoken to prophets, and those prophets put His words on whatever they had available to write upon, that those words have been divinely preserved, have been translated into our tongue so that we can know God, so that we can have true and reliable knowledge about Him, so that we can indeed distinguish true things to believe about Him and false, heretical things.

We have the Bible, God Holy Word. We have reliable knowledge about God. We can know for sure the some thing said about God are rank nonsense, because we have what God has revealed about Himself.

So, I find Rollins' clever little story and commentary to be incredibly self-contradictory, and in the end self-serving to his own ends of not being held accountable for the heresies he teaches. But he chops off his own feet, for if all words about God are equally valid, then Rollins has no right to say that his views are better or worse than anyone else's.

twisting

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

and sojo is still silent

So, this day is 13 May 2011, and I'm looking at the front page of Sojo's God's Politics Blog. And for people who are supposed to be oh-so-concerned about things like racism and violence, I still see that they are remarkably silent about a recent event.

This event was when the current US President decided to have some kind of peotry night, and one person invited to participate in it was a rapper named Common, whose lyrics have been about guns and violence and killing the police.

Now, would I be wrong in assuming the Sojo and the Sojrones should be having conniptions over this? That they should be publicly decrying the honoring of someone who stands for violence like that?

And yet, so far...silence.

the rollins waffle

Ah, yes, right when I think there is no real fun left in the emergents, I have only to stroll over to Peter Rollins' spot on the net, and my faith in humanity is indeed damaged again.

Do you “really” believe, or really believe? (with some thoughts on Rob Bell)

Let us take each of these in turn. Firstly our modern reflexive self-awareness hides the fact that such an “enlightened” mode of suspicion was not so much missing from the past, but unnecessary for it. It is only with the development of a technological discourse that we needed to introduce brackets into our cultural, political and religious claims. One of the side effects of this development was a fundamental change in how we understood the beliefs of the ancients. Because the techological discourse is ubiquitous to us we end up viewing our ancestors as operating with a type of proto-technological language that would have actually been totally foreign to them (this kind of reading is rife in the work of people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris as well as Christian apologists).

He starts by making use of a Norse myth of creation. His point here seems to be that people long ago didn't care about the truth of their beliefs, it wasn't important to them. So, for example, if the ancients believed that the world was created through some hanky-panky among the gods, or the demiurges of the gnostics, or that God created the world in six days and on the seventh rested, the important thing isn't whether any of those things happened or not, because those people long ago didn't really believe them to have happened.

Secondly, our contemporary need to distance ourselves from what we believe (so as to avoid the reduction of our beliefs to the level of some technological discourse) can lead to a distancing from the power and truth of the story. We end up trying to untangle a knot that is a necessary part of such beliefs, a knot that cannot be undone without the loss of the truth itself. When the knot is untied one is left with nothing but a metaphor or an archaic proto-scientific proposition rather than with the transformative truth of the story.

Ah, here we go! That important thing isn't the story itself, but the story inside or above or beyond the story! To put another way, the important thing isn't what the ancients said or what they believed or didn't believe, but what we today can make of their stories. It's simply uncouth to say that the Norse creation story is a myth, something made up, and that we should teach them the truth of how the world was created. We should, instead, let them keep on believing their fables, seeing as they mean so much to them.

Finally, when one takes a story that is deeply true to people and place brackets around it the effect can be so unpleasant to the supposedly naive believers that they end up going in the opposite direction and claiming a direct literalism (actually becoming naive believers). Here their very attempt to protect the power of the belief in question results in them losing it.

Yeah, because believing in something too strongly means you're not really believing in it at all.

(Why am I reminded of the Spice Girls' song, "Too much of something is not enough..."? And, yes, I'm as disturbed by that as you are.)

In this reading we can see that the predominant form of fundamentalism today arises as a direct result of this contemporary act of bracketing. For with the introduction of brackets and caveats to theology the unintended result is the rise of a group who attempt to protect the belief through the assertion of literalism. No matter who wins the main casualty is, of course, the power and truth of the belief in question.

And the casual slap at those who believe the Bible to be God's literal word. Oh, yes, Mr. Rollins is so superior, that he can condescend to let those little literalists keep their little beliefs, aren't they so cute.

There is not space here to discuss the way out of this impasse, however we might want to see Rob Bell as someone who is courageously offering a way forward with his new book Love Wins. Rob understands the knot that exists in belief and attempts to remain true to it in both the style of his communication and the content. He is however under constant pressure at the moment to ‘clarify’ his position (meaning to rob it of its truth). Hopefully his talent and insight will enable him to avoid what people on both sides (liberal and conservative) seek.

So, actually stating what you believe meaning robbing the belief of its truth?

Welcome to the mumbo-jumbo world of postmodernism, where clarity is the greatest of sins.

emergents bravely running away

Admittedly, however we think our biggest test of modeling the community practice of reading Scripture and interpreting together requires that we step headlong into the controversial... Texts that engage challenging and controversial issues potentially pose the greatest threat to a community hermeneutic, for if anything, it is here that a definitive and authoritative voice seems necessary.

Yet, we wholeheartedly believe that Christian communities are in dire need of having controvesial conversations...

...So, with some honest trepidation, we decided to address the intersection of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community with the church.
Conder and Rhodes, Free For All, p 132,133

Oh, those brave brave Emergents, tackling such a controversial topic! Such a pity no one else doth ever comment on such a thing! Oh, what people of great great courage!

So, over the next few pages, they give an account of their discussions of Romans 1. I'll not go over much into it, because it's quite long. Let it be enough that the waffling starts early, and it continues through the whole thing, including the putting forth of the position that Paul in Romans 1:18-20 is simply being the typical grumpy old man going on about how bad the world of his time was, p 146-147.

All of it, though, for this conclusion.

As you have noticed, perhaps to palpable frustration, we did not produce either a definitive reading of Romans 1 or a community dictum on the issue of homosexuality.
p 149

And they gallantly chickened out.

the church is too safe?

Convinced that the world is a threat to our lives and existence, Christians have become overwhelmed by our own culture of fear. Who could forget the tragic events that took place at New Life Church in Colorado Springs on December 9, 2007, when a young gunman opened fire on church members after Sunday morning worship? We both (the authors) remember watchin the news coverage after the event and feeling compassion for the families that lost loves ones as well as the traumatized church community. It was a truly terrifying and horrible event.

But what also struck us as odd and problematic was the tremendous amount of praise showered upon the security officer who supposedly fired upon and killed the young gunman. (It was later discovered that this young man had actually killed himself, a possibility not even mentioned in the fanfare.) We must admit that it left us with a bitterly confused taste in our mouths, wondering what message it sent for Christians to employ security guards at our churches and for us to so publicly laud the killing of a threat to our people. We were left wondering whether we have not let on infatuation with security take control of us, having turned us into a people of fear. Protect our schools, protect our families, protect our churches , protect our investments and our national interests. But in this search for security where has our mission gone? With all this emphasis on protection what exactly are we giving? Is it any wonder that the world finds our message to be so selfish, so hateful, so ugly?
Condor and Rhodes, Free For All, p 215

Hello. My name is Phyll Douglas Anthony McBrian, and as a self-appointed spokesperson for the emergent church, or whatever we are calling ourselves nowadays (as if it mattered), I have decided that I simply must address this heinous thing in the church that my fellow emergents Condor and Rhodes have touched upon.

The church is too safe.

I remember, years ago, I was attending a particular church. I wanderd by the nursery area, and do you know what I found there? I found toys that were considered appropriate for children of that age, rubber duckies and blocks, not a single choking hazard at all. To my dismay, I learned that there would be "adult supervision", intended to keep the children safe. And to my horror, I learned that they were going to give them a snack. It's not that a few cookies were so bad, but that they were going to make the kids wash their hands before eating. With soap!!

And this church was filled with other horrible examples of their mad addiction to security. They had stairs, and those stairs had handrails, so people could more safely go up and down them. I even saw an elevator for those with wheelchairs or other handicaps that would make make it unsafe for them to use the stairs. And on the outside there was a wheelchair ramp! With rails!!

And I saw horrible impliments of safety, like fire alarms and fire extinguishers, and emergency exits. There was even a first-aid kit or two about.

And, finally, I bet that if I had accessed their computers, I would have found security software on it--anti-virus, anti-malware, all kinds of anti-hacker things.

I bet they even had insurance. The pastor and others probably had health assurance. Their cars probably had car insurance.

Could you believe it? What a bunch of selfish, hateful, and ugly people!! How dare they try to protect themselves, the old people visiting, the children in their nursery! What kind of message is that sending? How dare they fear that their children might choke on a toy not appropriate for their age! How dare they fear fire so badly that they have alarms and extinguishers! How dare they fear hackers to such an extend that they put protective software on their computers!

I never returned to the church of those safety-idolators.

the REAL christians

Peter Rollins, in his continual quest to view the world as if in a photo negative, has told us some things in a recent post at his blog.

First, he thinks that God suffers from a crisis of self-confidence.

However, in the talk I was arguing that a properly understood Christology draws us into a third position in which doubt, suffering and the sense of divine abandonment are not something that we experience as part of our relation to God but rather are things that God experiences. The moment of existential atheism is not one in which we are broken free of Christ, nor is it a moment in which we fall short of Christ, rather it is the moment when we partake in the very identity of Christ on the cross. All religions have a place where we can doubt God. In Christianity God doubts God (this brings us into what we can call, after Bonhoeffer, ‘religionless Christianity).

And what does that mean? Why, it means this...

Hence we can begin to approach Bloch’s claim that only an atheist can be a good Christian

Yep, you who believe, you who have faith, who have put your faith in Christ, who have come to know God and love Him, you take a back seat to those who are actively against Him.

When I talk of the ‘atheist God’ I do not mean the weak, anemic atheism of philosophy but the existential atheism of people like Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus. For these people the loss of God was felt, it was something that made its mark in their existence, it was a defining experience. It was, I argue, a singularly Christian, or Christ, experience.

So, instead of embracing Christ, embrace the superman. Instead of living in hope, live in existential angst and hopelessness, wallowing in self-pity and meaninglessness. Heck, if you write some bad poetry or make some cheap art that means nothing, you may become one of Rollin's Christians.

oozing down the slippery slope

I don't know if they've done it before, but if not, the emergent mag site The Ooze has put out an article in favor of the postmodern redefinition of marriage, with the usual parade of whining nonsense contained in it.

Marriage for the Masses

It’s important that we begin to realize that not every marriage is be a cookie cutter and that we, as Christians (whether we believe that we hold all absolute truth or not) do not have the right to condemn a person based on their lifestyle choices.

But apparently we can condemn others for thinking differently, right? Especially if they believe in things like right and wrong, and base those beliefs on what the Bible teaches?

Let’s stop fighting for oppression.

Like I said, whining nonsense. Apparently, one if 'oppressive' if one doesn't give in to the sob stories liberals (and now emergents, assuming emergents are any different now) put out.

How is that, in any way, showing the love of the one who came to this earth to love all people, eat with the worst of us and buy us with tremendous sacrifice?

Yeah, Jesus wasn't really against the woman found in adultery doing what she was doing. He didn't tell her to stop doing that sin. He just wanted to have a cup of jo with her, and talk about how accepting he was of her lifestyle of cheating on her husband.

It is time to be about the ministry of reconciliation. We cannot demand that homosexuals live up to some “undisputed standard” when we fail to live up such standards.

We all know that we do not "live up to some "undisputed standard"" (whatever that is). We all know that we have sinned. We ask nothing of anyone that we have not done ourselves--repent and put your faith in Christ, and live no longer in sin.

Wait a bit longer, and soon the oozers will take the next steps. What will that be? Supporting groups like NAMBLA and their disgusting evil? Sojo has already had an article the clearly supported pre-marital sex.

Perhaps the final outcome of their attempts to do away with the secular/sacred divide is that there is nothing sacred in their eyes.

the continuing

I really didn't read this until a few minutes ago, though I'm not unfamiliar with Tickle and her attempts to say the sola scriptura is ending. I think this does lend a perspective to what I pointed out in the last post about McLaren's words about scripture. Emphases mine.

What Happens After Sola Scriptura?

So, admitting the immanent end of Sola Scriptura is not a categorical rejection of Scripture as much; rather, it is a coming to terms with our own limitations and finitude as human beings and adopting a certain humility about our readings. I seriously doubt whether the Bible is infallible since it was written by pre-modern men (yes, they were men). But that doesn’t mean I don’t think the Bible is authoritative or instructional. It merely means that I believe our ability as humans to fully understand the Bible is severely limited. The history of hermeneutics is indicative of this. We can very quickly identify points today where we believe our theological ancestors were absolutely wrong in their interpretation of Scripture (slavery, subjugation of women, etc.). I’m sure 50-100 years from now our grandchildren will say the same about us. We know things today that we didn’t know in the past and we don’t know things now that we will in the future. That deeply affects out readings. We are fallible, broken people. We need to hold our hemeneutical lenses loosely.

But how do we avoid simply throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Here is what I propose: let’s use a new word, a word that still retains a deep sense of respect and affection for the Scriptures and the history of God’s salvific action in history with God’s people. A word that doesn’t allow the spirit of the Reformation (and the Enlightenment) to crust over into static dogma. I like the word prima. Prima Scriptura. Scripture is without a doubt our primary authority and primary source for theological reflection, but is not and cannot be our sole source. We are more complex than that. Scripture is our prime witness to God’s interaction with God’s people, beckoning them/us to join in God’s divine endeavor of restoration and renewal. It seems to me that opting for a phrase such as this preserves our identity as Christians whose story and history is told in the Bible, but at the same admits our limitations, approaching divine revelation with deep humility, and understanding that we get it wrong all the time so we mustn’t hold our readings so tightly because they are fallible. What better way to remain open and attentive to the movement and dynamism of the Spirit? A Spirit that no matter how limited and broken we have become, meets us exactly where we are pushes us — and our readings of Scripture — toward continual transformation and revision.

Let us celebrate the end of Sola Scriptura. But let’s not stop there. Let’s provide a healthy alternative, something that still places its trust in the Holy Writ as the primary source for revelation and yet is still open to continual revision and divine redaction. Let us embrace Prima Scriptura.

Why is this person trying to downplay the role Scripture to mere a role (though a primary one), instead of the source for us? Why is he unwilling to say that Scripture is infallible? A bit of diggin on his own site, which he links to on the EV blog above, probably shows why.

“Thoughts on Homosexuality.”

I am confident that 50, maybe 75 years from now we will have resolved the “gay issue”
as some call it. We will have reached a consensus and moved on. It will be a non-issue,
instead we as a church will likely be splintering over another hot button issue. In fact, I
imagine my grandchildren and great-children will look back on my generation with the
same sort of wide-eyed amazement and disbelief that I feel when I look back on my
ancestors who participated in slavery, denied women the right to vote, and promoted
white supremacy. They will wonder why in the world it took us so long to shake free
from our oppressive self-imposed myopia of denying the reality that God uses all persons
even those of different sexual orientations. They will wonder, like many have since
Constantine officiated the wedding of the church and the nation-state, why the church,
who should always be the first to decry injustice and oppression, once again remained
silently and paralytically complacent with the diseased status quo.

One of my favorite passages in the New Testament is Galatians 3:28 where Paul conveys
this message most explicitly, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or
free, there is no longer male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Because I
believe that Christianity is inherently contextual–indeed, that is the very essence of the
incarnation–and because I believe it is the task of the church and of the Christian to
interpret and re-interpret the scriptures within their contemporary worlds, I can’t help but
wonder how Paul might write that verse were he here today. Perhaps it might be
something like this, “There is no longer graced or ungraced, there is no longer gay or
straight, there is no long heterosexual or homosexual; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

I could go on and talk about Jesus’ life and his welcoming the unwelcomed, accepting the
unaccepted, and loving the unloved, enabling the disenfranchised, but I won’t. We know
the story. At least I think we do. Perhaps we know the story, we just don’t believe it.
Perhaps we need to be converted to the true essence of the gospel, to our high and noble
calling to re-imagine the world, acknowledging that all persons, regardless of sexual
orientation, are invited to respond to grace and to participate in God’s work in/with/to the
world nurturing this alternative reality called the kingdom of God.

Amazing, isn't it, how for these emergents, it all comes back to sex.

There is an agenda behind their attempts to diminish Scripture--Scripture simply doesn't support their positions, so they must find ways to work around it while saying they're not abandoning it.

where's the respect, man?

Despite thousands of years of individual, tribal, and international bloodshed, the last century managed to produce the most horrific wars ever seen. For instance, World War I was hailed as the war to end all wars. But within less than two decades, the "defeated" enemy had rallied and was on the offensive again, bigger and bitterer than ever, and humankind had to suffer World War I part II. And who at this early stage can tell how deep the impact and far-reaching consequences of the War on Terrorism will be for all humanity.
Chalke and Mann, the lost message of Jesus, p. 127

I sometimes wonder how such people as this must feel when they run into military veterans, especially since Chalke (and perhaps Mann) is himself British. Does he see the veteran as a hero to his nation, someone who helped keep his nation from falling to the Nazis? Or does he feel unclean when around them, and in his heart would rather have been raised speaking German and raising his right arm to whomever would now be his fuhrer over having to acknowledge one who violated his dearly held principle of pacifism?

This isn't some kind of silly question, but a real one. He enjoys great freedoms because he lives in a society where those freedoms were preserved by military people, people who fought and defended, people who killed in battle and were killed. Does he honor the people who gave those freedoms for him, or does he use those freedoms to spread sentiments against those who gave those freedoms to him?

Of course, this doesn't address the ways he tries to address the issue biblically, such as his attempts were. I think I will refer the reader to the C.S. Lewis essay "Why I am not a Pacifist" for a well-thought rebuttal to Chalke's and Mann's position.

All we know is that whenever aggression is met with aggression, the beast of violence is fed and grows stronger.

Do we know that? What proofs do we have of that?

Can we really say that if we let the aggressors have their own ways, the world would be a better place? Should the people of Britain and Russia have simply laid down their arms, and let Nazi Germany take them over? Should China and all of Southeast Asia have simply resigned themselves to Japanese rule? Should South Korea have not fought against Communism from the north? Should Israel have let the Muslims run them into the sea the day after their nation was formed?

As a not-a-pacifists, my answer to those questions would be a strong "No!!". For Chalke and Mann, I fear it would be the opposite.