follow the threads

Ok, how about some threads.

Diane Butler-Bass, in her book "Christianity for the Rest of Us", takes an approving look at one St. Andrew Christian Church in Kansas. Here is an excerpt from that church's beliefs page on their website.

We welcome and affirm all children of God of any color, class, sexual orientation, age, gender, ability or thought.

While following the guidelines of the denomination, we have developed as a congregation that is particularly passionate about preserving the dignity of all, valuing diversity, seeking justice for the disadvantaged and preserving the delicate balance of Earth’s ecosystem.

In other words, a church that's so in the liberal's back pockets.

This church is a part of a group with the oxymoronic name The Center for Progressive Chrisitanity. The CPC's website's links page has come interesting things on it, like a link to the Westar Institutes, the people who have given us the travesty called the Jesus Seminar.

And there's the link to the progressive hymn writer, William Flanders. And from his site, one can find the lyrics to his hymns. Here's a couple of stanzas from one of them, with a possible spelling correction noted by me in one of them.

The God that we love is no God we hear.
While “Thus says the Lord” rings bold and sincere,
The words are the prophets’, theirs evermore.
Still unheard but, our God, listened for.

The God that we love may not even be;
To face this our mind must always be free.
Our heart says that God awaits us, instead,
Our (perhaps that should by 'out') of sight and, always, up ahead

So, in this man's head (and likely in that of these 'progressives' he writes hymns for), when the prophets said "Thus says the Lord" they were only speaking and writing their own words, and the God he claims to want to hear from may not even exist.

Don't be surprised at this, please, unless you really are new to this kind of progressive non-thinking. There are many out there who claim the name Christian who are really little more than athiests in their philosophies and beliefs--Spong, Borg, Crossan, Caputo, Vattimo, and others, and one can see the emergents going the ways of these people, though they are not there yet (while noting that Butler Bass is an emergent in her own right, and it was her book that lead to finding this songwriter).

Why these people want to call themselves Christian while denying everything true in Christianity is beyond me. Were they honest, they would drop the pretenses and own up to their athiesm. Since they don't, I don't think it too harsh to think that there are subterfuges and manipulations they can pull off on the 'inside' of the church that they can't do if they were 'outside' it as self-proclaimed nonbelievers.

certain of uncertainty?

It's truly amazing how far people will go to try to undermine biblical authority.

On pp. 77-80 of The Great Emergence, Tickle goes into Einstein and Heisenberg, about Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And what do these scientific theories have to do with the Bible...?

...Nor would the Heisenberg Principle stay safely tucked away in physics laws. Instead, "uncertainty" became the only fact that could be accepted as fact, not only in the popular mind, but also in large segments of the academic world as well

In particular, literary deconstruction planted its standard dead in the center of Heisenberg, claiming that there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the perceiver. And, as an obvious consequence, all writing--be it sacred or secular--has no innate meaning until it is read and, therefore, has no meaning outside of the circumstances and disposition of the reader. Enter the battle of the Book. Enter the warriors, both human and inanimate, who will hack the already wounded body of sola scripture into buriable pieces. Enter the twentieth century's great, garish opening in the cable's waterproof casing of story.
Tickle, The Great Emergence, pp 79-80

If you've heard some people make arguments against the current postmodern virus, you'll likely have heard them sum up the postmodern position in a statement something like this, "The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths". I mention that because Tickle may as well have said that when she writes ""uncertainty" became the only fact that could be accepted as a fact".

In other words, it is a statement that is it's own contradiction, it is self-refuting. One cannot believe it because if it is truth it is a false statement. To say that "The only certainty is uncertainty" is to make even that statement an uncertain statement.

So, right off, we can see that postmodernism is a realm of madness.

Even more subject to madness and the result of it is the statement "there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the perceiver". McLaren goes on in one of his books about how postmodernism is supposedly a reaction to Nazism and the certainties that led up to it. Even granting that those early pomos may have been at least partially right in the diagnosis of the problems leading up to Nazism, can we really say that extreme uncertainty really sufficiently answers what went wrong? If truth is merely relative to the perceiver, than upon what basis can one even answer someone who says that something like Nazism was a good thing? If there are no absolute truths, than how can one say that Auschwitz was evil? And if such a thing happens again (and things like it have happened since then, in places like the Soviet Union and Cambodia and China and Darfur), how are these disciples of uncertainty ready to say that those who do those things are wrong?

a great insignificant event

Out of the mathematics of general relativity would come ideas and postulates that are themselves also matters now of household conversation; time as another, and fourth, dimension; time as capable of being slowed; the ongoing expansion of the universe; the Big Bang. And in conjunction with the work of other brilliant, popularly known physicists like Edwin Hubble, general relativity would eventually make it possible, on July 20, 1969, for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to walk on the surface of Earth's moon. In doing so, they walked on what always before had been the footstool of God, and that made all the difference. Literalism based on inerrancy could not survive the blow (though it would die a slow and painful death); and without inerrancy-based literalism, the divine authority of Scripture was decentralized, subject to the caprices of human interpretation, turned into some kind of pick-and-choose bazaar for skillful hagglers. Where now is our authority?
Tickle, The Great Emergence, p. 82

Well, that's certainly a mouthful of a paragraph, and one not slacking in it's claims. Shall we take a look at them?

For example, where is it ever said in Scripture that the moon is God's footstool? I can think of a place where the Earth is call that, but never the moon.

Second, what is the connection between walking on the moon and biblical literalism, such that literalism must now die a slow and painful death because man has walked on the moon? I think I'm pretty familiar with the Bible, and can't say I've ever noticed anyplace in it where the subject of walking on the moon is dealt with pro or con. I don't recall it being a part of any prophecy, or a prophetic sign.

Third, why does man having walked on the moon suddenly mean that Scripture is now "subject to the caprices of human interpretation, turned into some kind of pick-and-choose bazaar for skillful hagglers"? In fact, what is particular new about that situation? Couldn't that be said about almost any time since the early church, that there were those who interpreted the Scriptures through their own desires and biases, and picked-and-chose among the things in the Bible they kept and those they ignored or tossed aside?

In other words, as grand an achievement as walking on the moon was, in a biblical sense it was in effect a non-issue and non-event. "Thou shalt not kill" was as meaningful the second before Armstrong's boot touch the moon's soil as it was the second after. Jesus' words that "no one comes to the Father's expect by Me" were as true on July 19, 1969 as they were on July 21 of that year, because one thing that was not found on the moon was another way to God. We don't know what the angel's thought when man set foot on that far-off satellite, but we know that they rejoice when one small human repents of his or her sins to God.

And, again, in other words, Tickle (and humanity as a whole it would seem) is simply grasping at straws, trying to find any way she can to undermine the authority of the Bible, to in essence say "Has God really said?".

Because, yes, God has really said, and yes, people like her don't particularly care for what God has really said.

one can be known by one's heroes

But in the name of historical accuracy as well as fairness, we need to remind ourselves, before we go any further, that "Scripture only and only Scripture" really was, if not badly wounded, then certainly badly bruised, well before Einstein and Heisenberg ever came along. Their work would only reinforce and broaden an investigation already in progress
Tickly, The Great Emergence, p. 80

What investigation is that (and what kind of word is that for a postmodern to use, anyway?)? The so-called Quest for the Historical Jesus.

Tickle points to two men in particular in this part of her book, Reimarus and Schweitzer. Here's a bit from Wikipedia's page on Reimarus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reimarus

Hermann Samuel Reimarus (December 22, 1694, Hamburg - March 1, 1768, Hamburg), was a German philosopher and writer of the Enlightenment who is remembered for his Deism, the doctrine that human reason can arrive at a knowledge of God and ethics from a study of nature and our own internal reality, thus eliminating the need for religions based on revelation. He denied the reality of miracles and is credited by some with initiating historians' investigation of the historical Jesus.

Modern estimates of Reimarus may be found in the works of B. Punjer, Otto Pfleiderer and Harald Høffding. Pünjer states the position of Reimarus as follows: "God is the Creator of the world, and His wisdom and goodness are conspicuous in it. Immortality is founded upon the essential nature of man and upon the purpose of God in creation. Religion is conducive to our happiness and alone brings satisfaction. Miracles are at variance with the divine purpose; without miracles there could be no revelation" (Pünjer, History of Christian Philosophy of Religion since Kant, Engl. trans., pp. 550-57, which contains an exposition of the Abhandlungen and Schutzschrift).

God cannot interrupt His own work by miracles; nor can He favour some men above others by revelations which are not granted to all, and with which it is not even possible for all to become acquainted. But of all doctrines that of eternal punishment is most contrary, Reimarus thinks, to true ideas of God; and it was this point which first caused him to stumble" (History of Modern Phil., Eng. trans. (1900), vol. ii. pp. 12, 13).

So, right off, we run into some pretty extra-biblical and un-biblical ideas in this man. Although the Bible is filled with accounts of miracles, he says that God cannot work miracle. He says that Hell is contrary to whatever he means by true ideas of God.

It's a dangerous and arrogant thing to say what God can and cannot do apart from what He Himself has told us in His Word.

And here is the page on Schweitzer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer

Schweitzer realizes that critical First Century theology has been ignored by the faithful. Almost all early followers are known to have been illiterate. Only those few literate individuals, in power, could be aware of critical unfulfilled First Century theology. To expose this issue, the early leaders would surely lose power, and their employment. Schweitzer observes that the early Church leaders continued their employment by introducing a modified theology, once the prompt return, was found to be not literal.

Schweitzer concludes that First Century theology originating in the lifetimes of those who first followed Jesus is far removed from those beliefs later made official in Nicaea, almost 300 years later, under Constantine. Schweitzer writes that the variations of Christianity that now exist, in modern times, contradict the urgency of what Jesus originally proclaimed as his First Century theology. Each new generation of followers anticipates that their generation will be the one to see the world destroyed, another world coming and the saints governing a new earth.

Schweitzer seems to be claiming that a kind of "De Vinci Code" type of cover-up was done in regards to Christ's statements about His return, even though much of the difficulties in those can be explained by good theology (something that does well in explaining many difficulties).

By the closing decades of the twentieth century, Jesus scholarship, with Reimarus, Schweitzer, and Heisenberg as tis intellectual forebears, had become the life work, in public space of superb and popularizing scholars like Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, and Karen King.
Tickle, p. 81

Wow, there's a line-up to inspire confidence, yes-sir-ree (not). Jesus Seminar hacks and new-Gnostic pop stars. What a bunch of maroons.

Though it's probably a point she's making, but maybe not one she's wanting ot make--once you play fast-and-loose with the Word, what else can you end up with but people who think they know better than God, picking and choosing what they want from it (Jesus Seminar) and adding to it even the most contrived and stupid of works (Gnosticism and particularly the much-refuted (false) Gospel of Thomas).

From Reimarus' denial of miracles and revelation to the Jesus Seminar and the new rise of Gnosticism, not to mention the emergent church. What a hefty lump a little leaven can leaven.

a cycle for arrogance

The Right Reverent Mark Dyer, an Anglican bishop known for his wit as well as his wisdom, famously observes from time to time that the only way to understand what is currently happening to us as twenty-first-century Christians in North America is first to understand that about every five hundred years the Church feels compelled to hold a giant rummage sale. And, he goes on to say, we are living in an through one of those five-hundred-year sales.
Tickle, The Great Emergence, p. 16

This isn't the first time I've come on this concept. I think it was McLaren who said much the same thing in one of his books.

I think there are some questions we can ask abou this, though.

For example, Christianity has only been around abot 2100 years, so how much can we infer from a seeming 500 year cycle when we've had so very few of them? In what stone is it written that about every 500 years something drastic is suppose to happen in Christianity?

Also, why 500 years? Let's grant that maybe Tickle and those historians who have taught her may have noticed something, still, what if they have picked other numbers of year? For example, 400 or 300.

A bit later in the book, Tickle tries to support her claim by refering to things that happened in those +-500 year cycles that have been given the moniker "great"--Gregory the Great, the Great Schism, the Great Reformation (though I'm not familiar with that moniker for the Reformation; she says it's used a lot, but I can only raise the eyebrows at that claim). Which I guess is meant to support her claim the we are now in the Great Emergence.

But I can't help but find that a bit of a convenience for her--if every 500 years something "great" happens, then since we are now 500 years from the last "great" we should be in the middle of a "great" happening now.

But is that so? Why should we assume that?

If, for example, we went back 400 years, or 250, or even a not-round number like 137, what would we see happening at those times? 400 years might take us to the conquering and settling of the new world, 250 would put us close to the American Revolution, 137 may be close to the industrial revolution and the "discovery" of evolution.

In terms of Christianity, what may be significant about those times? Well, the new world was seen, among other things, by some as a land of escape from religious persecution. Despite claims by such as Tickle, the American Revolution and founding of the United States were events highly influenced and grounded in the Christian religion and biblical thought, and the result was a nation where people were given the freedom to worship God as they saw fit without the government telling them how to do so or not do so (within the realms of moral laws, of course; meaning that child sacrifices were not allowed, for example).

Evolution, of course, has had a quite large effect on religion, and is in fact still a point of division.

My point is simply this--don't take Tickle 500 year cycle as being anything but an observation that may be worth something, but isn't necessarily as much of a thing as she wants it to mean, and certainly don't think that simply because emergents happen to be around at the point of some arbitrary 500 year cycle that they have any right to claim to themselves being epoch-making. It's an appeal to ego, a way of making emergents feel central and important, and that is all it is.

immorality should be legalized???

First, let's get this out of the way.

As will be discussed later, I believe the Bible says that same-gender eroticism is wrong.
Tony Campolo, Adventures in missing the point, p. 178

Campolo begins this chapter, where he discusses homosexuality, with a story apparently from his high school years. It's about another boy in his school, who was apparently known to be homosexual, and the things he suffered from the other students, which seem to have eventually led to his suicide.

I think it can be agreed that if things happened like Campolo claimed, than what happened to that boy was wrong and ugly. Such cruelties are not good and not to be condoned or encouraged.

But then Campolo makes this leap.

I believe that if Jesus were in our shoes, he would reach out in love to his homosexual brothers and sisters and demand that they be treated justly, that we end the discrimination that has too often made homosexuals into second-class citizens and denied them their constitutional rights. If Jesus were in our shoes, he would work to create an atmosphere in society wherein homosexuals could be open about who they are without fear of oppression and persecution. If Jesus were in our shoes, those with a homosexual orientation would be treated with dignity and respect.
p. 178

One division Campolo makes is between 'orientation' and 'behavior', which may help explain some part of the statement above. Some, but not all.

For example, what constitutional rights have been denied homosexuals? When I see that, I think "he means homosexual marriage". And when he writes that they should be "treated justly", isn't that also what is meant, though other things may be thrown in too?

So, is he in essence saying "I think that homosexual sexual acts are sinful, but that we must recognize the people who engage in them, let them marry and have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, let them adopt children, and treat such marriages as normal and even right"?

If so, I have to ask "Why?"

Campolo says that Jesus, if He were here today (and really isn't He, I might add), would demand that homosexuals be treated justly. Very well, but what does that mean? Does it mean "Their sexual activities must be approved on socially and in the church"? Does it mean "Churches should not call homosexual sex sin"? Does it mean "Society must recognize gay marriage"?

To which I have to think, no, Jesus would not be for those things. I think very strongly that He would not approve of the mistreatment of Campolo fellow student in his boyhood, but at the same time, I don't think He would tell that student that his sexual choices were acceptable.

One can point to the instance when a group brought the adultress to Jesus for judgment. He points out the group's sinfulness, but also doesn't let her completely off the hook by telling her that while she is not condemned by Him, she is not to do that again.

We do not see Him demanding that her adultrous relationship be recognized and accepted by the nation. We do not see Him saying that her sin wasn't really a sin.

I would well image Jesus in a similar spot as Campolo gives concerning his fellow student being tormented by other students. He would likely have those tormentors remember their own sins (what magazines do they have hidden under their mattresses, or what were the one boy and his girlfriend doing in his car a couple of evenings ago). Perhaps (and I stress perhaps) after that, he would turn to boy being persecuted, and say that He will not condemn him, but he is not to act that way any more.

What I can't see Jesus doing is demanding that even if homosexuality is sinful, it should be recognized and accepted by society and homosexuals should be allowed to marry and be considered normal. There is a certain twisted-ness about that thinking, for how can we on one hand say that something is wrong and immoral, and on the other say that it should be lawful and legal?

“Enough with the Bible already…”

The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already

If it is truly the Bible that is causing some to hold these discriminatory beliefs, then perhaps we need to set the Bible aside for awhile. Perhaps we need to not construct a belief system about LGBT folk built on the foundation of a couple verses in scripture. Perhaps that isn’t healthy, fair, just or Christian.

For some, I believe the Bible has become an idol. Some place the Bible above Jesus’ compassion and love, Jesus’ radical inclusivity, and hold steadfast onto what they believe to be the correct interpretation of a small amount of verses that speak about same-sex relations. To those who repeatedly start quoting Leviticus and Romans verses as soon as anyone brings up the topic of homosexuality, I’d suggest perhaps you stick your Bible back up on the shelf for awhile. Perhaps it should collect a little bit of dust. And maybe, just maybe, you need to go out and grab coffee with someone who’s gay. Maybe you need to hear their story, learn about what they’ve been through, how they’ve experienced Christians and the church.

If it is the Bible that is causing us to delay accepting and celebrating LGBT persons as being fully human and fully created in the image of God, just as they are, then perhaps we need to say, “Enough with the Bible already…”

These statement are almost beyond commenting on, or needing commenting on. Seriously, what can be added to what is said?

I mean, really, how arrogant does this man have to be, to say that if the Bible disagrees with him and people of his ilk, then the Bible is the thing that has to be discarded?

And this man is strongly in the emergent slum, a contibutor to the book "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope".

But there are his words, voicing his willingness to thumb his nose at God and say "I know better than You!!!"

Sickening. And indicative of emergents as a whole.

ht Apprising Minsitries

so much for sound doctrine

Far from any individual's theology being The Right One, in one sense all theologies are heresies. For theologies, like heresies, are major or minor distortions of the truth.

We know in part and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(I Corinthians 13:9-10)

In other words, what you believe may be correct, but is certainly not completely correct. The point? We must always be open to further insights that will give us fuller understanding of what God is all about.
Tony Campolo, Adventures in Mission the Point, p. 32

And, since this book is a tag team between Campolo and McLaren, of course McLaren likes Campolo's twist of phrase.

I love Tony's statement that "in one sense all theologies are heresies".
McLaren, p. 39

First, let's look at the passage Campolo points to as proof for his "in one sense all theologies are heresies" idea.

I Corinthians 13

8. Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

10. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done away.

So, can this be said to mean that "in one sense all theologies are heresies"? Where?

What else does Scripture say about doctrines?

Titus 1:9
He (an elder) must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine, and refute those who oppose it.

2:1
You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

I Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

I Timothy 1
8. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.

9. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

10. for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

11. that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Paul has something to say to the issue of heresies.

Galatians 1
6. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--

7. which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other thant heone we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

9. As we ahve already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

I Timothy 4:1
1. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:

2. Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.

3. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

4. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

It is not surprising that an emergent should 'love' the statement that "in one sense all theologies are heresies". Anything that would support their relativistic delusions is something for them to embrace. Anything they can grab on to to support lie they believe that sound doctrine is unnecessary and even dangerous is poison they will flock to.

Because if "in one sense all theologies are heresies", then it is only a short step to saying that there really aren't really any heresies at all.

arrogant misrepresentation

There is another story early in the book "Adventures in Missing the Point", a story which I have titled "An Exercise in Arrogant Misrepresentation".

It comes in a chapter written by McLaren, and he calls it the Parable of the Race (not that he's comparing his insights to Jesus or anything...). It's found on pages 26 and 27, and is too long to give in its entirety here, so here's a quick summation.

In a very dull land, a race is announced. When race time came, thousands were at the starting line, some to run and some to watch. When the race began, those who came to race ran a few steps, then started acting as if they had all won the race. After a time, those who were watched thought that, since the runners weren't running, maybe they should instead, and so they did.

The point of the story is to contend that salvation is not a one-time experience, and as well it seems to contend that all those who believe that salvation is something that happens in a moment are merely staying at the starting line, happy to be saved but not doing anything else. Thus, I call it "An Exercise in Arrogant Misrepresentation".

Because I can't think of a church I've ever spent any amount of time in which it has been said that the moment of salvation is all their is, that after that all else doesn't matter, that we aren't to worry about living holy and godly lives between salvation and Heaven. Perhaps the supposedly 'progressive' churches McLaren and Campolo have been around have been ones that have been contend to be 'only saved' (saved from what, though, may be wondered, as they seem to not believe in hell, or heaven, or for that matter even God or an afterlife), but out here in the real world, we think Christians need to live like Christians. We think that the moment of salvation is a good moment, a good start, and necessary place to begin, much as is represented in the book "Pilgrim's Progress", but just as in that book, salvation is only the beginning of the journey.

So, yes, I say this 'parable' of McLaren's is a misrepresentation, and I say that it's an arrogant one, too. To even pretend that up until he and his emergents came along the church was filled with people content simply to be happy to be saved and not concerned about living as Christians is distasteful and, yes, arrogant. I know better.

But I'm getting used to such arrogance from emergents.

are you being served?

The book "Adventures in Missing the Point" starts out (in a fashion which emergents no doubt approve of) with a story. Whether in the body or out of the body, I know not.

A man (maybe a real man, and maybe an account of a real event, again I don't know) is in a Home Depot, look for a thingamajig (that is the exact word used in the story). The fact that the man telling the story uses the words "consumer canyons" to describe the aisles at that HD tell me that two things are likely; one is "This man if probably a leftie", the other is "this man is probably not much of a handiman".

He has problem finding his thingamajig, so he starts trying to find "a little just-in-time customer service".

I want to scream: Take your eyes off those boxes! Get down off that stupid ladder! Quit visiting with your coworkers! Don't pick up that phone! Pay attention to me!

But I guess they don't, because he laments further...

But it's pointless, and I finally get it: I'm an interruption. An irritation. They'd prefer I wasn't in their building.

They've forgotten why they went into business. It wasn't to count boxes. Or visit each other. Or ignore the customer. They went into business to pay attention to the customer.



Employees like these have missed the point.
Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point, p. 11

Well, let us assume that such an event really happened, and the person isn't simply vindictive against Home Depot for whatever reason. Can we maybe take a somewhat fairer and more balanced look at what is going on?

For example, why is the one worker counting boxes? Could it be because that was what he was suppose to do? That was a part of his job? And it may actually be an important thing he's doing?

And why is the other one on a ladder? Could he be trying to help another customer, who wants something that is up so high?

And the ones talking, are they merely gossping with each other? Might one be trying to get some help for a customer by talking to the other? Or discussing something of equal importance?

And the one answering the phone, are you the customer so certain that it is not important? That the phone-answerer is not helping another customer, or doing something else of importance.

You say that the reason such a place is in business is "to pay attention to the customer". I don't know about that. I would say rather that the main business of a Home Depot is to provide a place where people can buy the types of things they provide--building materials, home fixtures, tools, yard equipment, and any others I haven't listed. Even if we grant that customer service is important, the fact that you have for whatever reason at that moment a bit of a lack in such service still doesn't mean you can thus and therefore make the judgment that the employees have "missed the point".

Maybe it's not all about you. Maybe you should go and trying to find someone who is free to help you, instead of judging those busy doing their jobs. Perhaps you may even want to wander a bit, read the signs in the aisles, and maybe just maybe you'll get a tad bit of satisfaction out of finding the thingajig all by yourself.

Maybe you should cut the employees some slack. A store like that is a complex thing, and most of them are doing their jobs, and likely doing it pretty well. Deal with your abandonment and clingy issues and either find help yourself or help yourself.

the subversive's reality

word games with the Word

...Also by the way, "the Word of God" is never used in the Bible to refer to the Bible. It couldn't since the Bible as a collection of 66 books hadn't been compiled yet.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 181

So, when scripture tells us "all Scripture is inspired by God", that doesn't refer to the contents of the Bible? Or is this just a game these people play, like saying "Jesus wasn't a Christian"?

Because this is a moot point, a point that is essentially pointless, a subtle means to undermine the rightful authority of the Bible. If the Bible is the collection of those writings that are the Word of God, then trying to say what McLaren says here simply clouds the issue.

discarding the essential

We live in a post-Nietzchean world of faith and spirituality. Nietzche's declaration that God is dead still holds true, since interest in all things spiritual doe snot necessarily translate to a belief in a metaphysical God or the tenets and dogmas of a particular fait.
Barry Taylor, in the Book "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope", p. 165

I swear, postmoderns have more faith in Nietzche then in God, I think. At least, they take him literally, while they go out of their way to try to take the Bible as non-literally as possible.

The return of God we are experiencing today is not a resurrection of the premodern God as much as it is a new iteration in concepts of the divine, based not on medieval scholasticism or metaphysics but rather on the daring and often precarious notions of postmodern culture.

So...what's new again?

People want spirituality without God? Nothing new there.

"...a new iteration of concepts of the divine"? Well, doesn't that sound like something straight out of Chopra or Wilbur. What might this look like, we may wonder?

Whether "Christianity" has any future at all as a vibrant expression of faith in the Man from Galilee is a matter of debate as far as I am concern. Perhaps the times call for something else, something other, not merely the repackaging of old metaphors (playing the "relevant" game), but a new incarnation of what it means to follow Jesus.

Ah, one of those cleverly worded postmodern phrases, where you are told one thing then told the opposite. In this case, we are told that ""Christianity...as a vibrant expression of faith in the Man from Galilee..." is a thing to be debated and, by extension, discard if need be. But right after that, we are told that we may need "...a new incarnation of what it means to follow Jesus".

So, what does this apparent contradiction mean?

Well, we have to think if there is a way to reconcile these apparent contradictions. After all, the contradictions are merely apparent, not real, if one looks at it in a sufficiently skewed way.

There are, for example, people calling themselves Christians who have no qualms about mythologizing or spiritualizing the Gospels to the point of saying that most or all of what the Gospels record that Jesus said and did is fiction and hyperbole (except for a very few select phrases which they approve of).

Is this where he is leading? Well, it's certain one way of tying the contradictions together--discard the real biblical Jesus for a jesus of their own creation.

The audacity and arrogance here is staggering, but common to man, which is one reason the supposedly positive spin the emergents try to put on man just doesn't measure up to reality. The Bible's apparently negative statements about man, how fallen and in sin and separated from God we are, are the truth.

ok, who DIDN'T see this coming?

How I Went from There to Here: Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue

With that in mind, I always responded, "I'm holding that issue in abeyance. I haven't made up my mind yet, and I'm in no hurry to. Homosexuality," I would say, "I one issue that I don't want to get wrong."

And yet, all the time I could feel myself drifting toward acceptance that gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am. ("Aha!" my critics will laugh derisively, "I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!")

In any case, I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

Ok, so, a few months ago, I showed some excerpts from Tony Jones' book "The New Christians", which show how some emergent churches mentioned in the book were already compromising on the homosexual issue (even as some claimed to not want to deal with it).

Given all that, this move on Jones' part is completely predictable. The only question was the timing.

("Aha!" my critics will laugh derisively, "I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!")

Umm...yes, Jones, you and your ild are continuing your leftward slide. Those of us you look seriously at your movement are not surprised, because that is what you have been doing--sliding more and more leftward.

anything-goes worship

In traditional worship forms, the congregation is often reduced to passivity or, at best, to orchestrated responses. Worship that results in suppression is a contradiction in terms.
Gibbs and Bolgar, Emerging Churches, p. 177

Is it?

The underlying assumption in the book, and among those it quotes from the emergent churches, is that chaos and creativity are in themselves good things. As is said later on the same page...

The creation of art directed toward God is in itself worship.

But is that so?

When we look at the Bible, we do not really see an "anything goes" type of idea; rather, God sets some pretty strict boundaries about how the people were to worship Him. And lest we think He was not serious, there were at least two times when men who were caught up in doing things improperly were killed--Aaron's two sons when they offered strange fires, and the man in King David's day who touched the Ark of the Covenant when it was being transported improperly.

One could point out, and rightly, that with Christ's death and the new covenant, things have changed in how we worship. We no longer sacrifice animals, we no longer have to rely on a human priest to go into the most holy place for us.

But can we honestly say that this freedom is license? That we have now entered a time when "anything goes"?

I must say "no", but I must do so with some caution. I have some experience with the other extreme, the one that does not want to change, and condemns things that do not need to be condemned. This is especially seen in controversies over music, where some seem to hold that there is a style of music that is acceptable for church worship, and styles that are not. Going into that controversy is beyond what I want to do here, but suffice it for now to say that I think such restrictions are wrong.

I have no doubt that artistic endeavors may have a place, but they are not the main thing, nor should they ever be. And chaos has no place at all in churches, not do I think it necessary for the creation of good art. I am a graphic designer myself, and I find that very often, ideas come from thought and reason and digging and technique and exploration and evaluation. It isn't an exercise in chaos. "Let all things be done decently and in order".

separated from God

Contrary to the assumptions of the Greek version of faith tht many of us have come to know, the good news of Christianity is that we are integrated with God, not separated from God.
Pagitt, A Christianity Worth Believing, p. 90

Is that the message of Christianity?

(1) "Being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their hearts" (Eph. 4:18 RV).

First Proposition: Men outside the redemption re "darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God" through the ignorance that is in them, hardeneding their hearts

(7) "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2)

Seventh Proposition: Outside of redemption in Christ, men are under the control of the prince of the power of the air.

(11) "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one" (1 John 5:19 RV)

Eleventh Proposition: "The world world," the whole mass of men who have not received Christ, "lieth in the evil one"--rest in his arms, in his power, in himself.
R. A. Torrey, "What the Bible Teaches", excerpts from pp. 354-357

As with many other things Pagitt writes in the book, this assertion of his is without much if any scriptural support. And as is shown, scripture says much the opposite about man's condition.

and yes it does matter

Even if we could answer the question of who is and who isn't a child of God, it wouldn't help us be better followers of Jesus;
Nanette Sawyer, in the book "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope", p. 47

Well, we're so glad it's not really all that big a deal in her mind. After spending a couple of rather long pages trying to convince us that all are God's children, it's a relief to hear that it's not really all that big a deal to her.

In case you may not have noticed. I'm being a bit sarcastic in the above, though with a point; after all, this sudden "it doesn't matter" type of thing just really doesn't hold with the concern she has shown before.

it would only help us divide people into categories.

And this is wrong...why???

I mean, seriously, are we to believe that there are no legitimate categories? Or that if there are legitimate categories, then we should not see that there people in them?

The thing is, the Bible does divide people into those categories, as we looked at before. Saved and lost, those that are God's and those that are the world's, redeemed and not, Christians and those who worship false gods. These are large categories, important categories, even categories of eternal importance and consequences.

It's rather amusing, though, when emergents and postmoderns try to play this "don't categorize" game. It's amusing, because it's the thing they do. They say "This way of thinking is Modern, or Pre-Modern, or (insert whatever here)", they say "Those beliefs were fine in (insert time period here) or in (insert nation or culture)". In other words, an importance facet of Postmodernism is, simply, labelling and categorizing. Another important facet of it is that they themselves try with might and main to avoid being labelled and categorized; thus, Postmodernism seems to be something that to them is beyond definition, or else the more successful they are at avoiding being defined, the more succeesful they think they will be.

But the important thing here is, this appeal to not categorize is a bit of nonsense, or even more than a bit of it.

First John answers a different question, I believe, and a more helpful question.

I John probably answers many questions.

Addressed to a community that has just gone through a painful schism, this sometimes rhetorically inflammatory letter seems primarily about how to follow Jesus, and it pivots on two point: the persistent practice of love and the paradox of human nature in relationship with divine nature.

I really hope she didn't think she was saying something profound (though the text is italicized in the book) when she wrote that I John is 'primarily about how to follow Jesus', because one could say that about any book in the New Testament, and it may even be a legitimate observation in regards to the Old Testament books. So I hardly see how such a statement is saying anything more than the blindingly obvious.

And whatever primary concerns John may have been writing about, doesn't mean that there were no other things addressed.

no we're not all God's children

With all this background, you may understand the reason my statement of faith, my personal credo, written in seminary and required for ordination in the Presbyterian Church, included the line; "I believe that all people are children of God, created and loved by God, and that God's compassionate grace is available to us at all times."

Imagine my surprise when a particular pastor challenged me on this point. He suggested that "children of God" is a biblical phrase, and that I was using it unbiblically. He believed that not all people are children of God, only Christians. If I'd been quicker on my feet, I would have done a Bible study with him right there; instead, I focused on not letting my jaw hit the floor and mumbled something aobut God creating all human beings. Back at my seminary desk, I searched for words and understanding about these concepts.
Nanette Sawyer, in the book "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope", p. 45

I can't help but give some credit where it may be due here, that at the least when she was challenged on her beliefs, she does say that she wished she had thought to take the person challenging her to the Bible. Granted, if the man who challenged her was up on his Bible, he would likely have shown her why she was wrong, but at least there is something good there.

But not in her ideas, which are wrong. Consider this...

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither is he that loveth not his brother (1 John 3:8-10)
taken from R.A. Torrey "What the Bible Teaches", p. 353

So what about the Bible on this question of the children of God? Is it unbiblical to call all people children of God? It is true that there are many places in the New Testament that talk about the children of God as the followers of Jesus. But it is not true that this must lead us to the kind of arrogance that asserts that non-Christians are not children of God. In fact, there are three biblical instances undermining such an exclusionary claim.
Sawyer, "EMH", p. 46

Note first the attempt to paint those who are against her in a bad light-- "...the kind of arrogance...", as if anyone who disagrees with her couldn't find ample biblical reasons to think her wrong, as if the Bible doesn't say much against her contentions.

But, at least she sets forth a case, so let's look at it.

Paul says in Romans that "we are children of God" (8:16 NRSV) and that we are waiting for adoption, while the who creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God (see vv. 22-23). He indicates that we are not yet fully children of God. This metaphor of adoption into the family of God is based on the idea of becoming "conformed to the image" of Jesus, becoming so like him that we become adopted siblings (v. 29). A similar incompleteness and uncertainty is maintained in the first letter of John, which says that we are God's children now, but what we will be has not yet been revealed (see 1 John 3:2). And finally, in the Acts of the Apostles 17: 28-29, Paul expands the "we" when he affirms to the Greeks, to whom he was is preaching, and who are not followers of Jesus, "We are God's offspring".
Sawyer, "EMH", p. 47

Ok, so, let's look at this.

Romans 8:12-17
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors--not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For is you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deed of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out "Abba, Father." The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

22-23
For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until no. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

First off, who is Paul writing too? He specifically addresses "brethren", by which we may understand fellow Christians like himself. And Romans was a letter addressed to a church or churches, thus to fellow Christians. It was not, then, addressed to those who were not Christians. Therefore, to say that Paul is making some kind of statement about the universal condition of all people being "children of God" is unwarranted from this passage.

I John 3 1-2
Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

And here again, we the writer is addressing those who are Christians. He even makes the contrast with Christians and those in the world. And it is later in that same passage that the passage above from Torrey's book is taken, the one about children of God and children of the devil.

The most problematic one was in Acts 17.

Acts 17:28-29
for in Him we live an dmove and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring'. Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.

This one was problematic for me, because I think I understood it, but was not certain how to defend my understanding for a while.

I found this in Torrey's book. It's a bit tricky to put here, though, because one part makes mention of two Greek words, and I'm not able to type those letters here. I'll do the best approximations I can with it.

The doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God is utterly unscriptural and untrue. It is true that all men are His offspring, stock, race, or nation (Acts 17:28, 'yevog' not 'tenva', see usage in Greek concordance), is the sense of being His creatures, having our being in Him, and being made in His likeness. (see context, verses 28-29). But we become His "sons" or "children" by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26 RV, John 1:12 RV).
Torrey, pp. 353-354

I am with Torrey in this, and against Sawyer. All people are God's creations, so are of value in that sense. But we are not all God's children. Although I respect that she tried to make a biblical case for her position (which puts her ahead of some others), her case is rather weak.

ALL ABOARD!!!

MYTH #1-JESUS IS OWNED BY CHRISTIANITY

THIRD—There is nothing wrong with being a Christian or even a Western Christian, if that’s your cultural background. But there is something far better and that is to be a follower of Jesus. The largest spiritual movements in the world are happening among Animists in Africa, Buddhists and Hindus in Asia, Muslims and Jews in the Middle East, atheists and agnostics in China and even Christians in the USA. This movement numbers in the millions who do not identify themselves with Christianity or Western Christianity, but sincerely and enthusiastically call themselves followers of Jesus. They love and worship Jesus!

How can this be? Because Jesus is more preeminent than we have let Him be. He is so much greater than any Christian can ever lift up and He must be lifted up. As He is lifted up Jesus will draw all men and women to Him, because He is the most attractive, the most irresistible and the most relevant ever. If the Creator-God were to ever take on flesh and become man, God would look like Jesus.

One problem with these paragraphs has to do with an unclearness in phrasing. The writer speaks of "The largest spiritual movements...", but then directly after saying things about "This movement...". Either a mistake was made there, or not. And if not, then he is saying behind all of those large spiritual movements there is in reality one movement encompassing all of them.

If that is so, then we have to contend with the assertion that he is saying that animists, Buddhists, Hindus, et al., are in to his mind "followers of Jesus" who "love and worship Jesus", despite the fact that few of them actually really worship Jesus, but something else.

Whic is, of course, the whole universalism and "all roads lead to God" things, which the Bible will have no truck with.

Of course, if may simply be some awkward phrasing and misspelling. I do plenty of that, so have no place to stand in saying overly much about that. It would be good if it were to be clarified, though, because such sentiments coming from that source are not so very surprising.

another's summations

And they are pretty good, too, considering whose they are.

The Emergent Church: Emergence or Emergency?

I think Giesler does a good job of showing the contradictions in the emergent's positions. It's an interesting read, and worth it.

shoehorning

Believers must give up old loyalties in order to create a space for the kingdom to come. Nationalism, individualism, and consumerism are a few of the idealogies that must be reappropriated or completely abandoned in light of the coming reign of God...

According to N.T. Wright, Jesus stated that all loyalties had to acquiesce to loyalty to the new kingdom. All forms of power had to be relinquished. Satan, not Rome, was their enemy now, thus ending all forms of nationalism and violence. If one wanted to pursue the kingdom of God, old, former loyalties had to give way to new kingdom-oriented ones...
Gibbs and Bolgar, Emerging Churches, p. 91, 92

Perhaps they could have told us where, exactly, the Bible tells us this.

For example, Paul was a Roman citizen who seemed to not think it wrong to be one, and even to make use of it at times. In Philippi, he uses it to demand an in-person apology from the officials who had who imprisoned him and Silus wrongly. Later, he uses it to keep from getting beaten in Jerusalem, and then to make his appeal to Caesar. In Romans, Paul still refers to Israel both as "my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh" and as "God's people".

One may rightly point out that we Christians have a higher loyalty to God, "we ought to obey God rather than men". That is very true, but that doesn't make all other loyalties of no effect. The fact that we are the Bride of Christ does not mean that married Christians have the right to abandon their spouses on a whim, and even in the New Testament marriage is treated as a high and serious thing. Similarly, simply because our citizenship is in Heaven doesn't mean we can blithely disregard and abandon our earthly citizenships and duties.

Nationalism, if by that is meant things like love of country and patriotism, is not something that must of necessity be relinquished. Yes, it must be kept in its proper place, as must all other loves and loyalties. I think Lewis put it something like this in 'The Four Loves', that only by loving God firstly can we love others rightly. But loving God rightly does not necessarily mean that we cease loving others.

we interrupt your regularly scheduled programming...

It's been a couple of days since election day. Trying to figure how to think about it has not been easy.

Falling into extreme pessimism has been most tempting, and not without reason. That such a person was chosen for our highest office is something that I still cannot comprehend. Although I say that the media is complicent in it because of how they tried to hide and spin all the things about him, in the end the people knew what he was. They knew what he said to Joe the plumber, and knew what it meant. They knew his stands on abortion and even infanticide. They knew the type of person he was, and they chose him anyway.

Very well. The people have spoken. Now we shall see what comes of it.

I am not completely pessimistic. For one thing, he is, after all, a politician, and one of the cheapest currencies in the world is a politician's promise.

Also, I am not forgetful of things in Scripture. Although not a king, perhaps there is something to be said for "The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord, and He turns it wherever He wills". I have consoled myself a time or two with that thought that "What has been intended for evil, God can turn to good".

But let us not be naive and dreamy, either. Even if he only accomplishes a bit of what he has said, it will be quite damaging enough. If he sets up the economy the way he wants, the damage will be serious. If he gets something like the Fairness Doctrine passed, free speech will be damaged, and I can't help but think that hate crimes laws will not be long in following and will be used to further restrict speech. If he passes the abortion legislation he wants, then any gains done in recent times will be set back. If he makes immorality normal and legal in marriage, then we will have lost all claims to being a moral people.

So, what now???

It is easy to use Scripture out-of-context here. I could pull out "If my people...will humble themselves, and pray...then I will forgive their sins, and heal their land". And there is much to be said for what is being said there. We do need to humble ourselves, pray and seek God's face, and turn from our sins. We need to repent.

I'm not going to say that passage is necessarily applicable to us. If we do those things, perhaps God will heal our land. If we repent, he will forgive our sins. But I think that promise was given to a certain people, a people called Israel, and we the church aren't them. But the passage still gives good advice.

Now, if the repentence were to be truly national, then maybe our land could be healed. But I'm not a pollyanna, and if anyone reads this, they are likely already Christ's, or at least think they are.

We need to repent. I couldn't care lesser about having big services in large churches or stadiums with lots of people gathered and weeping on each other's shoulders. I couldn't care less about the theatrics. We need real repentence, not a show. And by 'we' I mean myself as much as anyone reading this.

We, the church, need to repent. If others who are not Christians can be led to repentence, then all the better for them and for us.

We need to repent of abiding the presence of wolves among the sheep. No small list could be made of those wolves, and no doubt disagreements would arise in some cases of which is which, but let us start with some that are obvious--those who are ecumenical to the degree of saying that all religions are ways to God; those who would deny or abide the presence of those who deny basic biblical doctrines such as the Godhead and Christ's death and resurrection and ascension; those who make the Gospel about health and wealth and manipulating God into blessing them; those who would trade eternal life for some kind of supposed utopia on earth.

How often have we seen the dark and ugly side of things like the Word of Faith preachers? It is to our shame and those scam scum can not only still do their thing, but get wealthy doing it.

How often have we seen how shallow and wrong this new apostolic and prophetic movement is? I wish there were prophets, but if there are any, they aren't in Kansas City, or Pensacola, or Toronto, or any other such place. How many more trainwrecks like Bentley do we need to see that there is something deadly wrong with what their saying and doing? It is to our shame that we have abided such things, falling for their supposed manifestations, trading in sound doctrine for barking like dogs in church aisles.

There are no doubt other things that we need to repent of. Some may point out how divorce in the churhc is no better than in the world, and maybe they are right, but I am cautious about that. How many of those people turned to Christ after being divorced? How many are cases of Christians who fell but have repented and been restored? We must be wise in how we view such stats, while also considering that they may be showing us a problem.

We need to return to the Bible, and what it says, and preach that.

I cannot promise the same blessing that the passage above promises, except the part about God forgiving those who repent, because I do not think that will happen, at least at this time, and I've already given one reason why, that those promises are not really directed to us. Perhaps a day will come when our land will be healed, but it will not come until Christ returns. But I'm not speaking to a nation, but to the church.

I am not a Word of Faith sycophant, nor a dominionist of any stripe. What I see in the Bible is "If they hated Me, they will hate you as well" and "All those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". Some I have heard and read seem to say that if we get right with God, we can expect favor with the world and even a sort of christianization of the world. I think that much the opposite is what would happen.

I am not a bold man. I am not a preacher. I don't know how all of this will work out for any of you, or even myself. The threads that surround us are huge, I would even say worldwide. The fact that we may have a bad and even ungodly leader is not new in history, but the seeming global quality of it all is new. And we shouldn't ignore that.

Before our God, we must be humble and pray and turn from our sins. Before people, we must stand firm, and expect persecution and ridicule and rejection. Some will hear, and repent and believe. Many will not. Let's go ahead and accept now that it will be so.

The time is short. I can give no advice on what specifics any of us should do outside of what I've said above. God will be with us, though, if we are with Him.

enemies, enemies everywhere!!!!

The fact is, all religions of the world are under threat--from fundamentalist Islam, but more, from the McDonaldization and Wal-Martization of the world, from global consumerism, from forces that emanate not from Arabia and Afghanistan, but from New York and Hollywood--forces that make religion equally superfluous, trivial compared to the lust for a new car or a new pair of jeans.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 286

Yeah, because we all know that Ronald McDonald really, under that clown suit, wants to do away with all religions in the world and set up a Big Mac Mecca. Because we all know that sometime in the next few years, Wal-Mart is going to declare jihad and seek to run bomb-filled delivery trucks into Krogers, K-Mart, and Ikea stores. We all know that people can't drink Starbucks and claim any loyalty and affiliation to any religion but Starbucks.

Or maybe McLaren has been reading a little too much cyber-punk.

spinning things as worse then they were

In ancient Israel, the categories clean and unclean maintained identity and established boundaries, and contact with outcasts, sinners, or lepers made one unclean. In conjunction with the holiness laws and food laws, the priest declared who was in and who was out. The sinners, the outcasts, the oppressed, the poor, and the hungry were despised and were definitely out.
Gibbs and Bolgar, Emerging Churches, p. 118

Ok, let's see...

Where did they get any of that???

I mean, really, where in the Law does God tell the people that being oppressed, or poor, or hungry made a person or a people 'unclean' and "definitely out"?

While I don't have a list of the thing that the law declared unclean or said made a person unclean for a time, I have no recall of something like social status being one of those things.

In fact, one can find places in the law where room is left for the caring of those kinds of people. For the hungry, there were the rules about gleaning the fields, which can seen illustrated in the book of Ruth. It wasn't a welfare or handout system, they still needed to do the work of gathering from the fields, but it is there. And there are places in the law where they are warned to not show favoritism to either the rich or the poor, but to judge justly. There were laws about, for example, not keeping a person's coat overnight, so that they could be warm.

If they want to comment on how the law may have been twisted, they may have a point. But to me I do not think they make that distinction. At least in the above, they make it seem almost arbitrary, that the priests made the decisions based solely on their own opinions, and not on the Law God gave the people.

can you spare us a change (please)???

A comic that works on so many levels



In both the religious and political spheres, it would be good if people considered that 'change' is nothing in itself. Simply because something is 'different' doesn't mean it's 'good', or even 'better' than what is here and now.