wallis attacks fox with bad theology

Continuing the tirades against Rick Perry's statements about the War of Christmas, head Sojrone himself Jim Wallis weighs in with a hit piece.

The Real War on Christmas ... by Fox News

Fox News’ “war” is designed to criticize the “secularization” of our culture wrought by atheists, agnostics, liberals, leftists, progressives, and separation of church and state zealots— i.e. Democrats. This irreligious coalition force is allegedly waging a strategic offensive on Christmas, trying to banish the sacred symbols of the season, denying our religious heritage, and even undermining the spiritual rubrics upon which our great nation is built.

Well, at least Wallis has the list of usual suspects correct. But, in typical liberal fashion, it's the perpetrators who are the actualy victims, while the people crying foul about it are the ungodly oppressors.

But, on to the bad theology.

What is Christmas? It is the celebration of the Incarnation, God’s becoming flesh — human — and entering into history in the form of a vulnerable baby born to a poor, teenage mother in a dirty animal stall. Simply amazing. That Mary was homeless at the time,a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country whose local political leader, Herod, was so threatened by the baby’s birth that he killed countless children in a vain attempt to destroy the Christ child, all adds compelling historical and political context to the Advent season.

Now, as you man know, the most convincing lies contain a bit of truth in them. Some parts of the first part of that paragraph are fine, as far as they go. Christmas is the celebration of God becoming flesh, of the birth of Christ. After that, well...

I'm trying to remember where in the biblical accounts of the birth of Christ it is said the Mary was a teenage girl. I know the popular depictions--young, pretty, and all that. And maybe they're right. But I can't remember it being said, that way or this. At the risk of sounding like McLaren, what if Mary was actually in her twenties or thirties, and rather on the homely side? Would that add or take away anything from the account?

Now, concerning the economic status of Joseph and Mary. From the account Matthew 1, where we are told that after the dream Joseph took Mary as his wife, are to we assume that they were a homeless couple? It seems to hint rather that he had a place for his wife and family. They may not have been very wealthy, as some have hinted at concerning the sacrifice in Luke 2, but they were not homeless, as Wallis wants us to think.

When Wallis starts going about Jesus being "...a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country...", we can see his own politics coming in. It's a true enough statement, Israel was under Roman rule and occupation, and that seems to be almost a non-issue in much of what Jesus said and did in the Gospels. It does seem that the people were expecting the Messiah to come and liberate them from people like the Romans, but Jesus had a much more serious thing to liberate them from--their sins.

This is important. Jesus was not leading some kind of Occupy Jerusalem nonsense. He was not interested in trying to throw down Herod. When asked about paying taxes, He said that they should pay to Casear was is due to him. Some at Sojo try to read a dismissive or sarcastic tone into Jesus' statement here, but that is not hinted at in the text.

And, finally, Herod did indeed kill many children in trying to kill Jesus. Later, the Israelites were the ones wanting to kill the adult Christ. Roman and Jerusalem, Jews and Gentiles, all stand condemned for the unspeakable crime of rejecting the Messiah.

It is theologically and spiritually significant that the Incarnation came to our poorest streets. That Jesus was born poor, later announces his mission at Nazareth as “bringing good news to the poor,” and finally tells us that how we treat “the least of these” is his measure of how we treat him and how he will judge us as the Son of God, radically defines the social context and meaning of the Incarnation of God in Christ. And it clearly reveals the real meaning of Christmas.

Wallis is not the first person I've heard make a big thing about Jesus not being born in a palace, or being born in a rural area, or whatever. I remember a few years ago watching a church's Christmas play, where a character depicting the innkeeper mad a speech about the gift he was giving the Christ child was indifference. I don't know it that innkeeper was indifferent, busy, or what have you what not. Angels appeared to the shepherds, though I would guess none came to the innkeeper to tell him who was to be born that night near to him.

Later in life, Jesus did claim the prophecy in Isaiah to Himself, saying it was fulfille that day in their midst. The sick were to be healed, and the poor were to have the Gospel preached to them. We would be wrong, though, to say that this was some statement of class warfare on His part. Many people of means and power, like Nicodemus and Zacchaeus and Lazarus and the rich young ruler and the Roman centurion, seem to have heard His message and found it at least interesting, even if at least one went away saddened by His demands for him. It seemed the materially well-off had the Gospel preached to them, too, along with the poor. Because, ultimately, all of us are paupers in spirit, dead in sins, helpless to help ourselves, and in need of forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice.

And, finally, Wallis tries to throw in the social gospel--that "the least of these" are somehow all the poor or prisoners or whomever is suppose to be, in the eyes of ones like Wallis, that least. It's always funny how context is never brought in here, for example that Jesus' statement was "the least of these my brothers". If any are brothers of Christ, it is those who believe in Him. Many Christians are in hard situations, persecuted for their faith in Christ while living in cultures that are actively against those beliefs, in prisons, denied jobs and forced into poverty, sick for various reasons. In one of the epistles, we are told to do good to everyone, but especially to those of the household of faith. The Church is to look after it's own first, while not neglecting the needs of those outside.

The theological claim that sets Christianity apart from any other faith tradition is the Incarnation. God has come into the world to save us. God became like us to bring us back to God and show us what it means to be truly human.

There may be a good bit of truth in Wallis first couple of sentences there, except that I wonder about what he means by some of the words he's using. But Christ came to "show us what it means to be truly human"? What does that mean? Rather, as Paul said, "Christ Jesus came to save sinners".

Last year, Americans spent $450 billion on Christmas. Clean water for the whole world, including every poor person on the planet, would cost about $20 billion. Let’s just call that what it is: A material blasphemy of the Christmas season.

Well, let's go here, shall we? What, for example, is Sojourners' budget? How much do they spend on, for example, their magazine? How much during the year do people donate to them? How much to they pay their staff? How about the head Sojrone himself? He doesn't look like he's struggling, and he's had a few books that have sold big. How much have people like Soros donated to Sojo? Maybe Sojo can release their books, and Wallis his own, so that we can stand and be amazed by their amazing generosity as they condemn Americans of spending to give gifts during Christmas?

Whether Americans, or anyone else for the matter, are as generous as they could or should be, is an interest question, and perhaps one impossible to answer. But it does seem that, whenever a disaster happens in the world, Americans by and large are generous in trying to help--donating to send aid to those places, sending the aid themselves, even going their themselves to work. No doubt people from other nations do the same things, I've no wish to hint otherwise, but Wallis' claim that Americans are somehow unspeakably greedy among all the peoples of the world seems to fall flat.

I am not judged by Wallis' standards and shoddy interpretations. Before God, I am condemned as a sinner, but in Christ I have forgiveness of sins.

stop making it about us

There's something in us as human beings that needs to know that the impossible is possible. Have you ever thought about that? You need to know that you're not restricted to the boundaries of time and space and possibility. And that's really what's going on in this reading today. John is asking of Jesus, 'Are you the one? Are you the Messiah?'. And Jesus doesn't give him a kind of a theological expose on his Messianic qualities, he just says 'Do you know what, John? The impossible is happening. And that, we imagine that when the news gets back to John, that's what we imagine fills his heart with hope. Yes, the one we've been expecting is here. He's on his way. What's the impossible in your own life that you need God to do? What's the impossible that you're still waiting for?
24-7 Spaces 2011 Advent videos, day 6

First, the passage.

Matthew 11:2-6
Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

The lady speaking the video is using the rather questionable The Message version of this passage, with some problematic wording in places. But that may be something for later. It is her own statements that are here in question.

For example, she says that we humans need to know that the impossible is possible. Not sure where that is ever stated, or where it may be at in the Bible. Very likely, what is considered "impossible" is not really impossible; for example, me getting an ace while playing disc golf. It's not impossible, but considering that I'm a rather bad player who rarely even gets birdies, an ace is very unlikely.

Now, God healing a person, very possible. God made us, God is all-powerful, Him healing the sick or raising the dead is very possible for Him. He made the worlds simply be speaking, healing an ear drum or skin disease would be no problem.

What, then, is the issue? God is a person, He has a will, He decides what He will do. If God wants to heal a person, He can do so, and whether they believe in Him or not, or have faith that He can do so or not, is not an issue. God does not need your permission to heal you or anyone else.

To sound like your annoying grade-school English teacher, it's not a question of "Can God heal?", because He certainly can, but "Will God heal?".

But, what is this reading, this passage, about? It's for sure not about God being able to do the impossible for us.

First, it's not about us. It's not that we can't learn something it, but the people mentioned in the passage are John, Jesus, and some of John's disciples. I don't see myself in it, nor do I see the lady in the video, nor any of the rest of us.

Now, let's see Jesus' answer. He lists some things that He was doing--healing people, raising the dead, and preaching the good news to the poor. The lady in the video seems to think there is not much theological in it.

By contrast, let me take a bit from a commentary on Matthew.

Jesus shows a tactful kindness in dealing with the questioners: No sharp rebuke for their tardiness in acknowledging Him, no dogmatic reply to cause resentment. He appeals to their and their master’s knowledge of the Old Testament prophecy concerning the characteristic work of the Messiah. They could believe the evidence of their eyes and ears: The blind were receiving sight, the lame were cheerfully walking about, the deaf were enabled to hear, the dead were being awakened, the poor were being gospeled, were receiving the glad message of their salvation through the preaching of Jesus, Is. 35:4-6; 61:1-2; Ezek. 36 and 37.
Dr. Paul Kretzmann (0101-01-01 00:00:00+00:00). The Popular Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Kindle Locations 2768-2772). Pirate Christian Media. Kindle Edition.

Let's look at some of the passages he references here.

Isaiah 35:4-6
Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

Isaiah 61:1-2
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

The commentator points out that Jesus' list is of the things that are "the characteristic work of the Messiah", a far cry from what the lady in the video said about it not being "a kind of a theological expose on his Messianic qualities". It seems that Jesus, then, is not just giving a random list of his deeds, but rather pointing out to the disciples of John and to John himself that He was doing the things that the prophets had said the Messiah would do. It was, to that effect, a very theological expose.

To make this passage about what supposedly impossible thing we need God to do for us is to absolutely cheapen the message in it, that Jesus is confirming to John and these disciples that He was indeed the one they had been waiting for, the Messiah, the Christ.

Indeed, John, who it could was in need of some impossible things happening, was not going to have those impossible things happen. He was in prison, and Jesus was not going to do the impossible things for him by somehow breaking him out of prison. John was going to be beheaded, and Jesus was not going to find his body and bring him back to life. Jesus was not telling John to expect anything impossible like that.

Rather, Jesus was going to do the thing closest to the impossible that any person could imagine. A God who could create the universe with just His words, who could cause the sun to stop in the sky and even go backwards at one point, who did the wonders in Egypt, what could be so difficult for Him? But the redemption of mankind, the forgiveness of our sins, the saving of our souls, that took the breaking of the body of the Son of God. Let mankind find a cure for any disease imaginable, let man use science to make the human body as perfect as possible, yet this one thing, the forgivenss of sins, would be far beyond anything man could do to accomplish. That is the thing Christ did for us, by sacrficing Himself for us.

sojo descends to open blasphemy

I though Sojo showing a video a men dressed as nuns singing Handel was bad enough for one week, but leave it to Sojo to prove that I'm not yet cynical enough.

This is a continuation of Sojo's attacks on Rick Perry, and the most distasteful of the bunch. As far as I know, no Sojrone was involved in the making of this blasphemous video, but boy, do they ever approve its message. And though there are few comments, they are all for it, too.

"Jesus Christ of Nazareth would like to take this opportunity to refute Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's most recent TV ad."

FunnyOrDie.com for the win!

And the message of the video is pathetic.

Not that it's new or news, but let it be known that Sojo is indeed shameless, and since Wallis condones this type of thing by allowing it on his blog and not removing it in a reasonable time, he is party to it.

can we stop misusing I Kings 19?

We always expect God to speak dramatically because He's God--booming voices, earthqukes. And this passage reminds us that we have a God who whispers, a God who speaks between the lines, a God whose voice is easy to miss. Where might I hear the whisper of God today?...Who do you know that is in the wrong place? Pray for them now, that they hear God whisper this Christmas, somehow, somewhere, saying "What are you doing here?"...God, we pray that you would whisper this Christmas, to prodigal, to people who are far from you. Would you bring them home? Would you whisper into their consciences, into their families, and into their dreams?
Peter Grieg, in Day 11 of the 2011 Advent videos from 24-7 Prayer

These statement are based on I Kings 19:9-13.

And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah? And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

Ok, let's look at this.

I'm trying to think of what things were like when God spoke to other people in the Bible. There was the time He addressed Moses from the burning bush. There was the time He (likely Christ) came with a couple of angels to Abraham and they talked concerning Sodom and Gomorrah. There was the time He came in a cloud to Sinai when He gave the law to Moses. There were times, such as with Gideon and Daniel, when He sent angels to give His Words. There were other times with the prophets when He gave them visions. And there were other ways in which God spoke to the prophets but that weren't really expounded upon.

So, given the various and sundry ways that God spoke to people, why is it that this one time with Elijah is taken out from all those others, and treated as if it were and is normative?

Plus, look at the passage itself. Grieg can make a big deal about God whispering, or at least speaking in a still small voice as other translations put it. But the thing is, when God spoke to Elijah, Elijah heard a real voice, not some kind of voice speaking between the lines or whatever, or to his conscience. It was a voice he heard with his ears, not a vaguely-there feeling.

In a sense, I'm in an awkward position. On the one hand, I'm not a cessationist. On the other hand, charismatics have made an absolute embarrassment of the spiritual gifts. And this emphasis on things like hearing God's whispers, based on the misapplication of this I Kings passage, is an example.

Getting into whether or not God talks to people to tell them to go into ministry, or to move somewhere else, or whatever, is not something I want to go into here, probably because my own mind is still not settled on it. But I no longer buy the idea that the voice of God is some kind of inner voice or whisper to the conscience. That sounds very new-agey.

Rather, it seems it would be wisest to point out that God has already spoken, and we have that in God's Word, the Bible. The truth is, in most things, we already know what to do. We don't have to stand in the toothpaste aisle at the grocery store, trying to hear some strange inner voice to tell you to get Colgate or Ultrabrite or the generic store brand or maybe not to brush your teath at all.

So, can we please stop with the misinterpretations and misapplications of Elijah hearing God speak to him. Please.

verbal gaffe bias

Well, the bias is in how, when one person makes such a gaffe, it's big news and used against him, while when another person makes the kinds of gaffes, it's pretty much ignored.

For example...

Perry's gaffes continue to add up

Ok, Perry has made some gaffes. Acknowledged. And so what? Given that he has proven himself a capable governor, not perfect but capable, I'm willing to overlook a few slips like that.

If the press wants to make a big deal out of Perry's gaffes, all well and good. But, then, there is another person in power out there (probably more than one, but let's focus on only one for right now) who has proven himself equally inept, if not more so. Particularly when away from his trusted teleprompter.

Barack Obama: Gaffe machine

Even President Obama makes verbal gaffes

So, if you find any media person out there at a place like MSNBC saying that this person's gaffe show he is not qualified for his current position of power, please let me know. But if his, usually more serious gaffes aren't disqualifiers, then neither are Perry's.

perry doesn't back down!

That's honking off the Sojrones.

God's Politics BlogPerry Defends his "War on Religion" Attack Ad

PERRY: Well if you sit down with the bishops and archbishops of the Catholic Church, they can give you a very clear understanding of how this administration has gone after their charitable operations, on whether it’s trafficking in individuals or whether it’s those hospitals and those clinics that choose not to do abortions because they have a conscious reason not to and it’s their belief and their faith not to give those abortions – so there’s a clear attack on the Catholics in particular from that perspective.

But when you think about the left in general, which the president is obviously a great part of – not allowing our kids to pray in school, not allowing to celebrate Christmas. I mean, the idea that the left continues to send the message of listen – we, our First Amendment right is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And that’s what the left has tried to do, is force all of us who are people of faith to basically say you can’t be involved in the public arena. And that is just wrong.

And dippy sojo comments.

When Governor Perry--I'm sorry to say he's my governor--and other "culture warriors" perpetuate the falsehood about children not being allowed to pray in school, they are either ignorant, or they are intentionally lying. I don't think Governor Perry is ignorant

Governor Perry (I wish he were my governor, but sadly my state seems to like lib-inspired misery) is spot-on. There is no myth about kids not being allowed to pray in schools, because it isn't a myth. Oh, sure, if you want to do it quietly and on-the-sly, so be it. Or, as I remember during a college graduation ceremony, you give a rather lame PC type of prayer to some unnamed power out there somewhere.

And when it is allowed, it certainly isn't because the people on Sojo's side of the issues aren't trying to ban it. This article also has a bit more on the issue.

We included the following quote from the U.S. Department of Education Secretarys Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, which specifically addresses student prayer during non-instructional time:

Prayer During Noninstructional Time

Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

So, yes, kids are still technically allowed to pray, but this is a far cry from the prayer and religious instruction schools could give.

Before 1949, public schools were actually allowed to have religious education teachers, who would instruct the students in the Christian faith and moral values. In that year, the Court stated that public schools could no longer do this because it “breached the historical separation of church and state.” However, the Court did allow a “released time” program, which permitted students to leave school early in order to attend religious instruction given at their churches [2]. By having the students leave school grounds to receive religious instruction, the Court believed that it had reached an acceptable compromise by preventing the violation of the establishment of religion in public schools but still allowing everyone’s religious freedom.

So, kudos to Perry.

so, no war on Christmas?

Kinda a follow-up to yesterday's post.


Media Finally Outraged Over Christmas Censorship – When It Involves the Word ‘Gay’

While the overall premise of the piece is interesting, this is what I want to focus on.

What you may not have heard covered in the MSM was an essay penned by one Colin Curran, a 16-year-old high school junior from New Jersey. Taking to the Huffington Post during this same time period, Colin told a story about a high school assignment which involved creating a music playlist for a young children’s holiday breakfast. There was one catch – none of the songs could contain a certain set of offending words, such as Christmas, Hanukah, Jesus, God, or Santa Clause. The reason, Colin explains, is that the “principal does not want to offend anyone with belief-specific music”.

So, this kid couldn't choose songs that had anything to do with the One whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Heck, even Santa was verbotin, because I guess what with the word "santa" meaning "saint", that just wouldn't be PC.

Wow.

So, let's see...there goes "Silver Bells", because it mentions Santa. No "Rudolph", though I guess "Frosty" may survive the cut so long as it isn't too closely linked to the cartoon. "The Twelve Days of Christmas" gets axed. Ah, but wait, this kid could still put "Jingle Bells" on the list. Can't offend anyone with that one.

Oh, wait, maybe the PETA kids. After all, it's about riding in a one-horse open sleigh, which means that the poor little horsey is pulling the sleigh, running around and probably cold. Can't have that, gotta nix that one.

Wow, I'm struggling to find any songs at all that this kid could have put in this program. But we must press on, because woe betide if we offend anyone at all in our seasonal music, except those religious people who wonder what happened to anything about the Christ child whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Don't worry about them.

rick perry must NOT apologize

Rick Perry Must Apologize

Oh, dear, and what did Perry say that Wallis thinks is oh-so horrible???

In case you didn't quite catch it all, here's the text:

"I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian. But you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again."

Sounds to me like Perry's pretty much spot-on. No wonder Wallis objects vehemently.

Wallis' response is full of LOL fail.

Governor Perry and President Obama, like millions of other Americans, are Christians. Both of them.

See. Told you. LOL!!!

I'm not on board with everything Perry seems to believe or all he has associated with, he seems a bit too cozy with some of the KC false prophets and apostles, but compared to Obama he's pretty solid. At the least, he hasn't had a pastor going around spewing "God d--- America!!".

Not all Americans believe the same things or worship in the same way, but that doesn’t mean there is a “war on religion”

In America, we respect and support religious liberty.

Oh, maybe we used to. But thanks to people like you, Mr. Wallis, Perry is right that kids can't openly pray in school or, at least in some places, can't celebrate Christmas. Heck, just this past year, one school was even offended by the idea of Easter eggs. What did they call them instead, Spring Spheres?

What denigrates our religious heritage is to accuse someone of sincere faith who disagrees with you by perpetuating the myth of the “war on religion” and accusing him of being a foot soldier in the battle.

No, it doesn't. People like you, Mr. Wallis, who claim to be Christian but mock everything the Bible teaches, are the ones who dengrate Christian heritage.

Diversity of opinion and beliefs is also what makes this country strong.

Coming from someone who's constantly claiming that everyone must agree with him, and who claims that he speaks for God in regards to politics (what else does the title "God's Politics" mean?), you're the one who seems to not welcome diversity of opinions and beliefs. Of, sure, you'll claim to be ecumenical, Mr. Wallis, but isn't it odd that your ecumenism is based on agreement in political aims and means?

Governor Perry should take the ad down, apologize both to President Obama and the American people, ask God for forgiveness and make amends for perpetuating polarization and disharmony in the body of Christ.

Candidate Perry should NOT apoligize. He is simply speaking truth, and offending people like Wallis is part and parcel with speaking truth. Wallis is the one who should be asking God for forgiveness, for misrepresenting Him and His Word into somehow supporting the leftist socialist agenda, supporting sloth while punishing work, promoting class warfare, and openly claiming Christ was a socialist. He is the one who is "perpetuating polariszation and disharmony in the body of Christ".

And if Perry were to repent of listening to and supporting false apostles and prophets, all the better for him.

making a mockery of the Hallelujah Chorus

Let it be known that the decadence of Sojourners and those they support no know bounds.

Hit the Hallelujah Button: Sing it, Mr. Sister!

Each day leading until Christmas we will post a different video rendition of the "Hallelujah Chorus" for your holiday enjoyment and edification.

Today's installment comes from an unlikely gaggle of nuns — in full habits. They are members of the Turtle Creek Chorale, an all-men's chorus from Dallas, Texas. The Chorale has traveled to Europe, performing sold out concerts in Barcelona, Berlin and Prague; as well as two appearances a Carnegie Hall.

So, men dressed as nuns singing the Hallelujah Chorus is a rendition worthy of Sojo approving and displaying.

Now, who is this Turtle Creek Chorale? From their website's mission statement.

Celebrating a positive image of the gay community and partnering with artists and organizations that share our values and mission.

Although the website itself has little information about them, it does mention a smaller group that is a part of them, the Strangerettes. Basically, a group of men who dress up like show cowgirls and perform in, perhaps among other things, gay pride events. Look them up, if you're curious.

So, basically, TCC is a bunch of people living in open sexual sin, encouraging others to accept them in their open sexual sinfulness, and thus mocking the message of the music like the Hallelujah Chorus by dressing in religious drag while singing it.

No wonder Sojo approves.

This is why I always wonder why some people insist on playing nice with people like the head Sojrone, Jim Wallis. For example, in a recent debate between him and Albert Mohler, a man for whom I have great respect, while I thought Dr. Mohler made great points against many of the things Wallis tries to teach, in the end there was still a sense that they were playing nice. It was mentioned a few times that before the debate they prayed together.

Why? What makes anyone think that Wallis prays to the God of the Bible? His entire "God's Politics" thing engages in open mockery of the Bible, Sojourners' Sojrones can't dig deep or far enough to find things that are contrary to biblical teachings and morality, and hold those things up as things to accept and celebrate. A while ago, they held up for approval a calendar of Unitarian churchmen who posed in the nude. They approved the bloody movie "Red State", while of course coming out against such movies as "Courageous". They have lent unquestioning support to the rabble and lawbreakers of Occupy Wherever, encouraging them in their disruptions.

The impression I get from the early church is that they were not so nice when it came to those who taught things contrary to the Scriptures. When, for example, a man in Corinth engaged in sexual immorality, Paul told them to cast him out (later, that man repented, and Paul said they were to accept him back). Paul's words were unsparing when he addressed the Galatians about those who were trying to say that they needed works as well as faith in order to have salvation.

This Sojrone's promotion of this Chorale's mockery of Handel's work is an attempt on this Sojrone's part to support this Chorale's agenda. If Wallis is truly a Bible-believing Christian as he claimed in his debate with Dr. Mohler, let him start policing his blog more vigorously, so that sin and immorality are not encouraged.

(yeah, like that's gonna happen)

so, don't attend the game

Well, it's that time of year again. The time when we really have to raise the question "What on earth are the college football people thinking?"

Now, granting, I think that having LSU-Alabama in the Championship game makes a lot of sense. But, still, I can see how OSU is rather unhappy with it. And there are a few other schools that could be considered reasonable contenders, too.

But, like the last few years, we're going to have lots of bowls, from the smallest ones with 6-6 teams to the so-called Bowl Championship Series games, which while most will have good games and be meaningful to the ones playing, in the end they will be essentially meaningless, except the Championship game.

(Btw why is it called the Bowl Championship Series? After all, there is only one championship bowl game, and there is no series of games that decide which teams play in it.)

Now, concerning the other bowl games, I completely understand why fans of schools in some lesser bowl will attend the game and go nuts there. If, for example, your team has made it to the Music City Bowl, which is kinda a lower-level bowl, well, the game is gravy. Likely, your team is not a serious Championship contender, so making any bowl game at all is an accomplishment. Go, and enjoy.

But if you're the fan of a team that is in a BCS bowl, especially a regular in such bowls, maybe it's time to rethink it.

Look, college football needs a tournament system. Period. This "championship by polls" thing just isn't working. Too many teams that should get a shot at the crown are denied it, and consigned to playing in games that mean nothing.

But the current system does one thing--it makes money. That's not a bad thing, but it's working against any hope of having a playoff system set up anytime soon. We can cry about it, but why would anyone change something that, while not perfect, is working well enough?

But what to do?

You, the fan, have one vote. It's not an official vote, but it's important, nonetheless. That vote is something like this, to not attend the meaningless games that the BCS has put your team in.

(Granted, it would I think be even more powerful if the teams themselves didn't play, but there may be things like contracts and agreements involved, and I'd rather not go there).

The point is this--such events are spectacles. They rely on having huge stadiums filled to overflowing with loud, enthusiastic fans. And, of course, fans want to attend. Very understandable.

But if these big, nationally-televised games were played before chirping crickets, well, the BCS folks may actually think that they need to finally listen to what the fans really want. And soon, too.

It's an idea. I do think that not attending, having the games played before mostly empty seats, people not watching the games on TV and not spending money in the cities where the games are played, will certainly draw attention to some fan unhappiness with the current system. Especially if you're an OSU or Stanford type of school, and you have been a serious contender the whole year but kept out for having one sour game (and because you lost later in the year than 'Bama did), you should really not support the thinking that puts your team in a meaningless exhibition.

Well, that's my idea, for what it's worth.

peter rollins' broken bible

Ah, yes, more Rollins philosophical drivel. This time, somehow seeing the Bible as literal and inerrant is somehow impossible. Yawn.

Philosophically speaking the claim that the Bible in its entirety is literal and inerrant (i.e. self-evident, internally coherent, and a reflection of the mind of God) operates as a ‘master signifier’. This means that it is a claim without any specific content that is worn as a badge to let you know what team you play for. It doesn’t matter too much how you actually fill in this empty container as long as you make the claim. It functions then as a shibboleth that identifies you as being in a certain tribe.

Wow. Yawn.

So, saying the Bible is true in all it records and inerrant is somehow an empyt claim, "whith any specific content"? Really? I'd say Rollins was speaking in ignorancy, except I don't believe it of one so miseducated; rather, I think he knows that what he's saying is false, but wants to believe it anyway.

Just to show you how empty it isn't, take a look at this.

THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To Stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.

There is much more to it than the couple of paragraphs above.

So, no, the only empty thing here is Rollins' claim that biblical literal truth and inerrancy are empty. His claims are empty of any truth.

I've found it a truism, that when people like Rollins' accuse their opposition of something, you will find that they are themselves doing the things they accuse others of doing. Rollins' non-literal bible, where for example God is not allowed to explain Himself and where fictions like Lilith are somehow useful for explaining away the Bible's claims, is the real attempt to cut up the Bible and make it an object of human creation, something he and others like him may praise to the heights as they cast it down to the depths, may claim to love even as they slice and dice and abuse it.

I will take the literally true and inerrant Word of God over the illogical musings of Rollins any day.

celebrate or not, as you wish

Thanks to the time I've spent on the internet, I've learned a few things. One of them, which seems to pop up this time of year, is that there are Christians out there who are simply not comfortable with Christmas. My ideas concerning this are as such.

1. There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us to observe Christmas as the birth of Christ; therefore, to observe or not is up to each person, family, or church. Those who think it would be wrong for them to observe it are free to do so, so far as I'm concerned, as those who are ok with it, like myself, are free to continue doing so.

2. Just as I offer no condemnation to those who do not observe Christmas, so I expect them to not condemn me and people and like me who do.

Various argument are given concerning why or why not. Certainly, some aspects of how the holiday is popularly celebrated are worthy of questioning and even discarding. One could make the case that the shops start far too early in pushing for Christmas, though I'm tempered a bit in my criticism of that by the idea that stores are simply acting like stores. Still, it was a bit unsettling to see so much Christmas stuff up a few days even before Thanksgiving.

Some will go on about "commercialism" and "consumerism". I'm starting the doubt the existence of those thing, and to consider that it may be better to call them what they really are should they actually exist, things like greed and covetousness. Those things really do exist, but the point is, they exist in all of us, all year round. If anything, considering how much Christmas shopping can be about giving, one could say that at the least those things are tempered to a degree, though being fallen humans they are not completely absent.

And I could almost support a moratorium on any movie or show with the title "X Saves Christmas", X meaning any character or group or whatever. Yes, even something like VeggieTales' "The Toy that Saved Christmas". Enough, already.

And R&B and rap artists should refrain from ruining any more Christmas songs.

Anyway, to my mind and for what it's worth, Christmas is optional, and you may or may not celebrate it if you wish.

because it means you're too independent?

Sojo seems to have it in for Black Friday this year.

Politics BlogBlack Friday: The Anti-Thanksgiving

Yet, even if Black Friday were not so terrible for working families, and even if it did not threaten to steamroll Thanksgiving under the weight of Christmas-season merchandising, I would still be opposed to it. Black Friday is the Anti-Thanksgiving. The Thanksgiving holiday is traditionally a time to gather with family and friends and practice gratitude for our blessings. It is a time to cultivate awareness of all the ways in which God provides for us, and to pay special attention to providing hospitality to others who are hurting. Black Friday, on the other hand, is a celebration of greed, unbridled consumerism and disregard for others.

Now, I have to admit, I haven't been one of those who gets up early in the morning the day after Thanksgiving to be among the first in any store's doors. Just not a great interest of mine. On the other hand, I have done some similar types of things, like stay in line all day to get into the first practice for the nearby college basketball team.

So, I'm don't have anything against people who do the early-morning Black Friday thing. I think of it as being kind of like those who, for example, insist on camping out in order to get in early when the Star Wars movies were released--it's rather silly, it's not necessary, but, hey, there is a certain amount of camaraderie and fun to it, and so long as they behave themselves, then no big deal.

Thanksgiving is, at its best, a fleeting incarnation of the peaceable kingdom, where we can all come together in peace and mutual respect. Black Friday, on the other hand, is an intensification of the hyper-capitalist, corporate order that already dominates most of our lives. Rather than gratitude, it promotes greed; instead of cooperation, competition. While Thanksgiving fosters brotherhood and peace, Black Friday is a celebration of self-centeredness and bickering.

Wow, one would think that the people at Black Friday were as bad as those of Generation Brats who make up OWS.

If you need evidence of this, examine the fruits of the Black Friday rush for the latest consumer items. There was gunfire in a shopping mall. And at a Los Angeles Wal-Mart, the "competitive shopping strategy" of one woman involved the pepper-spraying fellow customers. Amazingly - though perhaps not surprising - the Wal-Mart remained open through the entire incident, and the woman was allowed to buy her merchandise and leave the store. Nothing, not even outright violence, was allowed to stop the flow of consumption.

Considering how many millions of people were out and about that time all over the country, I have to admit if there were only these few incidents, people were rather well-behaved. At the least, compared to those of Occupy Wherever, they were rather civilized.

To begin with - and, I confess, it is a modest beginning - I commit myself to resisting Black Friday. I will not participate in this anti-holiday.

And when the businesses you don't support go out of business, they should send you a thank-you card. But...wait on it...

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Yes, that's right, Sojo has a donate button. So, while you're evil for shopping on Black Friday, just make sure you give (that's right, give) money to Sojo, so they can continue to cause your businesses to fail.

not-so-great expectations

When my friend Floyd finished preaching and called for repentance, I was the first to my feet. During the message I had seen myself clearly, and I was ashamed. I publicly confessed my sin that day and asked the others at the conference for prayer.

What was my sin? Embezzlement? Adultery? No, the Holy Spirit was convicting me of the sin of unbelief. In that stark moment of honesty I realized that I really had low expectations of what God would do in my city.
John Dawson. Taking Our Cities For God - Rev (Kindle Locations 367-369). Kindle Edition.

Well, glad he had his moment. I suppose we could be glad as well that it wasn't anything, you know, really big, like the things he first mentioned. How very spiritual of him.

So, I'm trying to think--what exactly would " low expectations of what God would do in my city" mean? For example, when Jesus prophecied that Jerusalem would be left desolate, was He guilty of having such low expectation? What about the OT prophets, to whom God often gave words of judgment for them to speak?

What do you expect God to do in your city? Or to put it another way, who is your God? Is He the God of the Bible? Your God is only as big as what you expect of Him in space and time. What do you expect Him to do here on earth in this generation? Don't tell me about the God of your theology. It's easy to say that He's all-powerful, but do you expect Him to do powerful things here and now?
John Dawson. Taking Our Cities For God - Rev (Kindle Locations 369-371)

"Your God is only as big as what you expect of Him in space and time"? Really? God is limited by how I think? What a weak and pathetic God He would be, almost as bad as the gods of Emergents like Rollins and McLaren.

What do I expect Him to do here on earth in this generation? What does the Bible say He will do? What prophecies in the Bible specifically address this generation? Perhaps God has given rather negative prophecies concerning this generation. Would I be suffering from this sin of low expectations by believing God's prophecies of sin and judgment?

Now, I'm trying to think where in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, anything is given to us concerning what we should expect God to do in any particular generation. Where does Jesus tell the disciples that if they don't have such great expectations, then they were guilty of unbelief? I can't think of anywhere. Where does Paul or any other epistle writer tell the churches to have great expectations of what God can do in their city or their generation? If anything, they were told rather the opposite. They were told to expect hard times, suffering and persecution and rejection. Concerning future generations, they were told such things as that in the last days there would be dangerous times, people would fall away from the faith, lawlessness would abound. On top of that, there is Revelation, which speaks of people suffering great judgments from God, but not repenting.

In other words, it is only when Christ Himself returns that things will be set right.

So, no, Mr. Dawson, I do not have such great expectations of what's going to happen in the cities of the world and the people of this generation. I expect people to continue to largely reject the Gospel, embrace their favorite fakes that will make them feel good, try to water down the real Gospel to mean a feel-good self-help type of fluff you'd see and hear on an afternoon TV talk show. I believe a sinful and rebellious mankind will continue to be sinful and rebellious, yet in His grace God will save some, some will be brought to repentence. Evil people will grow worse and worse, but those who endure to the end will be saved.

it's been a while

Probably 'cause hanging around Sojo much makes me itch. But here is another case of "dippy Sojo comment", this time from the one about Thanksgiving and Target. In fact, it's a twofer.

In the book of Exodus, which character told the the people to "get your lazy butt to work and stop your crazy" and which character established the Sabbath?

Well, that's interesting. Seems to me, when God established the Sabbath, He gave the people a day of rest. Now, since the Target workers had Thanksgiving off, how does having them come in to open at midnight mean any kind of sabbath-breaking?

Plus, the Sabbath was on what we call Saturday, not Friday, so this argument is basically empty.

I think the whole notion of Black Friday is sacreligious, and applaud all who avoid it. I would much prefer to give to some charitable organization such as Heifer or Dr.s w/o borders in lieu of gifts of junk. In one of his lines T. S. Eliot said the heritage of our civilization would be asphalt roads and a thousand lost golf balls. Not much of a heritage.

Well, let's see...

Asphalt roads. That would be a heritage to be proud of. Certainly a step up from rutted dirt roads, and much better for traveling than cobblestone or rock.

And a thousand lost golf balls. I suppose this comment could be considered anti-Scotch, but enough about alcohol or tape. The only thing wrong with a thousand lost golf balls is that most of them were mine. And, anyway, you can get those same golf balls in stores now, and should Sojo be celebrating the spirit of recycling that this shows?

don't let inconsistency stop a bad argument

Remember a few days ago when I linked to an article at Sojo about how evil Thanksgiving is, and how we shouldn't celebrate it?

But, apparently, that doesn't mean people Thanksgiving can't be used to stop people from doing productive things, like, you know, working.

In Solidarity with Target Workers on Thanksgiving

Some people who work for Target, a major national retailer that plans to open its doors for Black Friday starting at midnight following Thanksgiving, have circulated a petition in protest. They are right to say enough. I stand in solidarity with them.

However, the idea that this society is willing to allow our materialism to go unchecked to the point that we want to force people to lose a significant portion of a day dedicated to giving thanks because some business does not want to lose a “competitive edge,” is shameful. It is a sad commentary on our values. People have been trampled to death in a rush to get into this or that store for the sake of the bargains. This is tragic. It is time to say enough. Let Thanksgiving Day remain sacred, set apart. We can stop the madness if we do not shop before sunrise on Friday morning. Stand in solidarity with the Target workers.

I remember a time I had to be at work at 12:00 AM the day after Thanksgiving. Of course, I had to be there a bit before midnight, in order to actually start on time. How evil of the I worked for. In fact, this year, I was actually at work for a few minutes Thanksgiving morning. What wickedness on the part of the people who pay me to work for them!!! I should return the money I earned from them!!

Well...no, I won't. Because as bothersome as it was, there is nothing morally wrong with it.

I'm not the biggest fan of Target, but if the people who are so honked off about this don't want to start work at midnight, well, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would be quite happy to take their places.

misadventure in badly missing the point

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.
Rollins, Peter, Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1934-1941)

If one were to actually read the Gospels, how would one find any of that?

It could be pointed out that those who would likely have been considered on the outside, sick people and lepers and blind and Romans and Gentiles, did find Jesus usually welcoming. But then, it wasn't an exclusive thing. Jesus was welcoming to an 'insider' in the person of the Pharisee Nicodemus. He cared deeply for the young man who was rich and a ruler. He was very complimentary of the faith of the Roman centurion who wanted Him to heal his servant. Some of his closest friends seem to have been Lazarus and his sisters, people who had their own home and likely had some means and influence.

As well, we do not find any hint that Jesus was some kind of rebel. Jesus did not try to overthrow the Pharisees or other religious leaders, He did not try to overthrow the Romans. In fact, He tells the people to respect those in the seat of Moses, to do what they said, but to not live as they lived, for they were hypocrites. Jesus' problem, we can see, is not with religious authorities, but rather with those who have such authority and do not use it wisely and justly.

In the epistles, this respect for human authority continues. Peter tells us to obey the rulers. Another epistle explains that the rulers are ministers of God. The only time that the Apostles stood against the rulers was when they were told to not preach and teach in the name of Jesus, that in such a case they had the explicit command to Christ to take the Gospel to everyone, so they obeyed God rather than men.

Does Christianity stand against power? Where is that in the Bible?

Behind the convoluted nature of Rollins' words, his thinking is far too simplistic. Christianity is not an eternal game of being against whomever is in power, like some kind of perpetural counter-culture no matter what the culture is; rather, it's about right and wrong, righteousness and sin.

Rollins points to certain parables of Jesus', ones that are about someone seeking something of value. He wants to make this about outsiders, as if it's only about being counter-cultural or whatever. But what did Jesus Himself say? "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save those that are lost".

Because here is the truth--when it comes to God, we are all outsiders, we are all poor and miserable, we are all sinners. We can preach the Gospel in the poorest ghetto and the richest mansion, because the most abject addict and most successful billionaire are alike in their poverty before God. Peter can heal a lame beggar at the Temple one day, then later preach in the house of a Roman Centurion, because the Gospel he preached both times was applicable to the people present on both occasions.

Rollins wants to make this about human politics, which is asinine. It's not about such shallow and worldly things, but rather about Christ having been born of the virgin Mary, living a sinless perfect life, laying down His own life as a sacrifice for our sins and to appease the wrath of the Father, rising from the dead and ascending to Glory. It's about us through repentence of our sins and belief in Christ being made right with God.

It's not about works at all. We can do no work that will make we who are sinners in any way right with God; rather, God says that all of our works of righteousness are as putrid rags. He is not impressed with our works at all.

never have a sojrone over for the holiday

Unless it may be something like the day the Bolshies took over Russia, or Castro's conquest of Cuba, or some such leftist day of celebration. May want to pass on the day the Berlin Wall fell, though.

Rewriting History: Thanksgiving or Genocide?

Well, we have the word 'genocide'. Guess we know where this is going.

Thanksgiving — in its original intent — was to mark a good harvest in the plight of the early Pilgrims. While there are disputes about specific dates, most point to the first gathering to the Fall of 1621 where the Pilgrims and [some] local Indians gathered (fewer than 100) to celebrate a feast. Most are in agreement that the Indians were invited simply because the Pilgrims knew that they would have died had it not been for the help of the local Indians.

While it is true that we’re not entirely sure all the specific details, those that we would now categorize as “illegal aliens” not only came without invitation but they came to take over. In fact, beyond the first joint “Thanksgiving,” there were no further meals of mutual peace, dependence, and friendship.

Wow. So, the Pilgrims were "illegal aliens". Should that mean the Sojrones should condone anything they do? But they were white illegal aliens, so they should have stayed in Europe, one may suppose.

But I'm thinking that, really, this Sojrone is afraid of the real story of Thanksgiving, one that puts paid to the things Sojo holds dear.

The True Story of Thanksgiving

The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense,'" without being paid for it, "'that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself?" That's what he was saying. " The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

"Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you're laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.' But this story stops when the Indians taught the newly arrived suffering-in-socialism Pilgrims how to plant corn and fish for cod. That's where the original Thanksgiving story stops, and the story basically doesn't even begin there. The real story of Thanksgiving is William Bradford giving thanks to God for the guidance and the inspiration to set up a thriving colony. The bounty was shared with the Indians." They did sit down" and they did have free-range turkey and organic vegetables, "but it was not the Indians who saved the day. It was capitalism and Scripture which saved the day," as acknowledged by George Washington in his first Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789.

So, the story of Thanksgiving is a cautionary tale of the failure of Socialism, which is what Sojo thinks is what is so good and great. No, that story of Thanksgiving must be silenced and not celebrated.

The Sojo article is aptly titled, if one keeps in mind that it is the Sojrone himself who is rewriting history.

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.

peter rollins ridiculous

In this parable we are reminded that a religious approach to the text is not one in which we attempt to find out its definitive meaning, but rather where we wrestle with it and are transformed by it. The parable tells us not that a God’s eye view is impossible, but rather that even if it were possible it would not be wanted. Why? Because a God’s-eye view of the truth would not be the truth. We can thus say that any interpretation of a verse that is given to us by God is not a true interpretation of the verse and must be rejected as such. For the problem resides not in having an interpretation but rather in the place that we give to our interpretation. No matter how wonderful our interpretation is, if it occupies an authoritative place then it undermines its own status.
Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1778-1784). Paraclete Press. Kindle Edition.

Really? A parable? Maybe one Jesus told? Well, let's see...

Is this not the wisdom that is contained in the Jewish parable that speaks of a heated debate taking place in a park between two old and learned rabbis? The conversation in question revolves around a particularly complex and obscure verse in the Torah. It is not the first time that these two intellectual giants have crossed swords over this verse; in fact they have debated it for years, sometimes changing their opinions but never finding a consensus. God is, of course, known to have the patience of a saint, but even God begins to tire of the endless discussion. So finally God decides to visit the two men and tell them once and for all what the parable means. God reaches down, pulls the clouds apart, and begins to speak: “You have been debating this verse endlessly for years; I will now tell you what it means. . . . ” But before God can continue, the two rabbis look up and say, in a rare moment of unity, “Who are you to tell us what the verse means? You have given us the words, now leave us in peace to wrestle with it.”
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1771-1778).

Umm...no. Nope, not one of Jesus'. In fact, we aren't told where it comes from, just that he calls it a "Jewish parable", which raises the eyebrows, as by and large the ancient Hebrews were noted for their great respect for the Scriptures, except when they were following all the rest of humanity in worshiping idols. One could well imagine that, for example, some ancient false prophet getting honked off at Jeremiah, and making some kind of argument like that.

But, well, moving on...

In my lack of researches, because only modernists care for verifying whether a historical statement is true or not, I've discovered in my imaginative reinterpretation of a biblical account of a time Jesus told a parable and then interpreted it for his disciples the nuclear shadow of an event (or is that an Event) that happened but for whatever reason (probably the fault of those nasty Nicenes) it didn't make into the Bible. But, thanks to me and my ability to deconstruct and find messages hiding in the gaps in the wounds of the text, here is a summary of it.

In Matthew 13, we have the account of Jesus telling several different parables. Verse 36 says that he left the multitude, and went into the house, and his disciples came unto him, say, "Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field"

Jesus is just getting ready to explain it when there was a sudden commotion, a strange throbbing noise and weird lights, and suddenly a strange, pale man appeared in their midst, wearing strange clothes, and he was speaking very loudly.

"Stop!!" The man said, and yes did so with two exclamation marks. "You can't do that!" This caused some consternation among the disciples, as he was speaking in the English language, which had not yet made it's way into the world. Jesus appeared unfazed.

"My name is Peter Rollins." Said the strange man. "And I've come from the future, because you cannot explain that parable, Jesus.

"No, you can't explain it to them, because if you do, your disciples and all the rest of us will not wrestle with it and be transformed by it. Don't you know that a God's eye view of your parable is impossible, even though you as God told the parable to the people. Even though they have asked you to explain it to them, they don't really want that, because even if it were possible, it is not really wanted. Because any explanation or interpretation you can give would not be the truth, even if you as God give them the God's eye view of the truth. Any interpretaion you as God give to your disciples is not the true interpretation, and so they would have to reject it. Because any interpretation you as God would give would be authoritative, and thus because it is authoritative it would undermine its own status as an authoritative interpretation.

"So, no, Jesus, you cannot explain your parable to them. I command you to be quiet, you traitor! Why, I know about your conspiracy, I know who the really hero of Bible is! It's Judas, I tell you, not you! Oh, no, I know about your conspiracy! You and Lilith and Pee Wee Herman and her little dog, too, and..."

Suddenly, something went "boink" in the time machine this strange man who called himself Peter Rollins was using, and he was shot back to the future very suddenly and more-or-less intact, though there are rumors that parts of his mind have been found floating around in the Mariachi Trench.

So, after a rather startled moment, the disciples looked among themselves and then finally turned to Jesus. Jesus began to speak, answering their original question, and said, "He that sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world. The good seed are the sons of the kingdom, the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed the weeds is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the world. The reapers are the angels. As the tares are gathered and thrown into the fire, so will it be at the end of the world. The Son of Man will send forth his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all thing that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity, and cast them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And the righteous will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

So, yes, I did detect the nuclear shadow of a time-traveling Peter Rollins in that account. Hey, it's just as likely as the myths of Lilith and his conspiracy theory about Judas.

To be plain (I was serious, even in mocking), can one imagine the hubris and arrogance of Rollins' statements? Can you imagine him saying such a thing about any other person? If, let's say, he were a lawyer arguing a case in a courtroom, and he were to claim that the testimony of an expert witness should be ignored and discarded because it is the testimony of an expert? That a professor should be ignored for the simple reason that he's educated and experienced in his field? That, let's say, Gary Kasparov's analysis of a chess game should be discarded because it is given by a former world chess champion and one of the greatest players of all time?

To say that an interpretation that God would give would not be the truth is absolute nonsense, and let's be honest, it's blasphemy.

generation brats gets special treatment

Occupier Outrages Omitted

MRC analysts reviewed the Big Three network evening (ABC’s World News, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News) and morning shows (Good Morning America, The Early Show, Today) for the month of October and found accounts of anti-Semitism and sexual assault arrests have been completely omitted from the Big Three broadcasts. And when confrontations erupted between the police and the protestors, the networks were much more likely to pin the blame on police for instigating the violence.

In fact, in the few stories of violence at the protests, like the one in Oakland, the Big Three networks took the side of the protestors against the police more often than not with 15 stories (54%) putting more blame on law enforcement officers. Only seven stories (25%) mostly faulted the protestors for acts of aggression. Six stories (6%) didn’t blame any particular side for the violence. Viewers of these stories were also far more likely to hear statements made by reporters or talking heads blaming law enforcement officials for the violence with 36 (71%) blaming officers to just 15 (29%) blaming the protestors.

Despite several charges of sexual assault and rape and instances of anti-Semitism the Big Three reporters have completely ignored these incidents. Not only did NBC’s Today show omit the ugly instances, but on their October 21 show, they actually preached that parents should use the OWS protest as a teachable moment for kids.

Not a single anchor or reporter brought up the anti-Semitic rants found at some of the rallies, like this one caught by MRC-TV cameras on October 21: “The Jews commit more white collar crime than any other ethnic group on the earth, and they go unprosecuted because they can buy their way out of it.... Whenever there’s a billion dollar fraud, there’s a Jew involved.”

So, while the Tea Party is given all kinds of bad labels without any evidential support, Generation Brats of Occupy (whatever) get their racism and violence covered over.

And who says the media isn't biased?

not in the Bible

The prayer of a human being can alter history by releasing legions of angels into the earth. If we really grasped this truth, we would pray with intensity, and we would pray constantly.
John Dawson. Taking Our Cities For God - Rev (Kindle Locations 1022-1023). Kindle Edition.

As someone who used to be in YWAM, reading this book, or maybe re-reading it after several years, was rather eye-opening, and not in a way that I fear YWAM would consider good.

For example, take that statement. Keep in mind, Dawson is one of the biggest of YWAM's bigwigs, a wig with big hair, if you would. He is a former president of the entire organization.

But this book of his, Taking Our Cities For God, is chock-full of statements that are, simply, bad. Like the one quoted here.

I simply can't think of any place in the Bible where we are taught that when we pray we are "releasing legions of angels into the earth". If I were to play word games, I would find his use of the word "legion" here more than a little suspect, because of it having been the name the spirit in the demoniac gave to Jesus right before he cast them into the herd of swine.

And Dawson gives no scriptural support for his assertions here.

In the years since leaving YWAM, there have been times I've wondered if I were right to have left. Most of those times of doubts had to do with difficult times I've had since then, when things haven't worked as I would have liked. But there are things I've heard or read concerning the organization that help to convince me that I should have left. Things like reading Dawson's book are among those things. There is no truth in his statement that we should grasp. To pray for the reason of supposedly releasing angels into the earth is not something Scripture tells us to do.

In what we call the Lord's Prayer, for example, there is a distinct lack of mention of angels being released. When Jesus was praying for his disciples just before He was crucified, He makes no mention of wanting angels to be released. The closest He comes to such an idea is when He on trial, and tells them that He could command thousands of angels to come and free Him. And the epistles are silent concerning this supposed reason to pray, too.

Again, there is no truth in Dawson's statement that we must "really grasp"; rather, it is at best a made-up idea that we must cast aside and reject.

generation brats plays dirty

And I'm not referring to them not wanting their places of (often illegal) occupation cleaned.

Occupiers Attack Police with High-Tech Intimidation

Meanwhile, in Occupying events around the United States, police are mocked, screamed at, spat upon, confronted, pushed, knocked off motorcycles and loads more. New York confrontations resulted in hundreds of protesters arrested. While Occupiers attacked Oakland police with everything from “eggs” and “paint” to “feces” and “M-80” firecrackers, the bigger threat is a new tactic called “doxing.” It’s part of the culture that comes from hacker group Anonymous, which is one of the major organizers of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Doxing is a hacker tactic designed to dig up the public, and often not-so-public, information on an individual. “The time has come to retaliate against Oakland police via all non-violent means, beginning with doxing (releasing of documents and data) of individual officers and particularly higher-ups involved in the department's conduct of late,” reported CNET on an Occupy Wall Street statement.

So, attacking police officers by releasing information about officers and their families is "non-violent"? Putting their private information out there, I would guess things like credit card numbers, bank account numbers, social security numbers, their home address and phone numbers, is a "non-violent means"?

Apparently, women are entitled to the kind of privacy rights the allows them to kill their unborn children, but police officers who dare to keep the public peace against the obvious shenanigans of Generation Brats don't have any such rights.

Pathetic.

But, wait, it's not just the Occupiers who are getting into this act.


Larry O'Donnell Calls for Occupy D.C. to Bring 'Firestorm' to Nat'l Restaurant Association's HQ

Did MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell ignore President Obama's previous calls for civility? The late-night host, in a five-minute Thursday night tirade, called for violence by specifically telling Occupy D.C. protesters to bring a "firestorm" to the National Restaurant Association (NRA) headquarters nearby, as well as to the NRA's corporate sponsors which include Starbucks and 7-11.

O'Donnell insisted that the organization release presidential candidate Herman Cain's accuser from her confidentiality agreement and let her bring the allegations against Cain to the public. If by Friday they still refused to do so, "then a firestorm should be visited upon the 1200 17th Street Northwest and the members of the National Restaurant Association," ranted O'Donnell.

This is fear and intimidation, the use of threats, and it is violence. Every day brings more and more to light the lies these "non-violent" types hide behind.

sojo does not approve!

Which is another good reason to support Samaritan's Purse.

Operation Christmas Child: Doing Good Isn’t Always Doing Best

Oh, why is giving a child a Christmas toy so horrible???

Exporting cheap consumerism, for instance. One of the reasons that Operation Christmas Child is so popular surely must be that we Americans (and Westerners, in general) love to shop. We associate Christmas with giving presents — lots of presents — to our children, so we fill those shoe boxes with lots of stuff, most of it purchased at big box, discount stores. That means it’s cheap stuff — cheaply made, but costly in countless hidden ways. Plastics won’t disintegrate for millenia; trinkets and kitch we wouldn’t give our own children that are, perhaps, even made by children working in unsafe conditions in the developing world.

Oh, dear, you mean we actually buy things that people have already made? Horrors!!! How dare you buy toys at "big box, discount stores"? Don't you know Satan shops at Wal-Mart?

Samaritan’s Purse CEO Franklin Graham draws a full-time salary from the organization while also receiving a full-time salary from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Two full-time jobs? Leading two organizations with hundreds of employees and multi-million dollar budgets? (Graham’s reported SP salary in 2010 was upwards of $530,000 — a handsome “purse” indeed — and the organization has more than 1,700 paid employees.

Yes, but did his organizations receive support for those evil Koch brothers? If Soros had supported him, would Sojo be so up-in-arms?

Or, is this just convienent class-warfare rhetoric?

Questions also have been raised about the proselytizing impulse of Samaritan’s Purse. It is an “evangelism organization,” after all, but it’s also a tax-exempt non-profit under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

But here’s the theological question: Should the shoe boxes be a means for making Christian converts (as Graham pretty much says they are) or ought they be gifts-in-themselves, unattached to any other agenda?

Ahhh...I'm betting we're getting to one of the things that really offends the Sojrones (though not to deny the offense caused by economy-assisting buying)--Samaritan's Purse and OCC are about actually helping kids and families experience Christian charity in the hope that they will be open to learning about Christ and come to repentence and faith in Him.

How awful!!! How not-PC!!! How not-extreme-ecumenical!!! How dare you Christians try to tell a Muslim child that Islam is evil, that salvation is found only through Jesus Christ!!! How dare you care about the eternal soul of that little child while also giving him or her a toy that they can play with in the here and now, too, or clothes he or she needs, !!!

Makes me want to go out to Wal-Mart, buy some things kids would like or need, and pack them in a shoebox for them. Sounds a lot more charitable than engaging the Occupy Wherever shenanigans.

there's a road rage devil?

One brother told the story of his recent confrontation with a motorist. He had almost come to blows with the other driver when he remembered who he was-a pastor representing Christ. "I almost allowed myself to be overcome by the spirit of violence and lawlessness," he said during his prayer of repentance. Many present identified with his confession. As other pastors led the way to the throne of grace, a great cleansing took place that day in the life of the church. Then the pastors abandoned themselves to praise and intercession, which climaxed in a declaration of God's authority over Reno.
John Dawson. Taking Our Cities For God - Rev (Kindle Locations 563-567). Kindle Edition.

In context, this comes from some kind of get-together Dawson had with some pastors of churches in Reno, Nevada, in 1988, so this was a while ago.

Now, this "brother", I assume a pastor, seemed to have had a case of road rage, though I don't know if it was called that back then.

I'm going to assume something, maybe not the wisest of things to do, but in this case I think fairly safe. I'm going to assume that, on the same day that this pastor had his bout with road rage, in all the cities in all the world millions of other people had cases of road rage, too, to greater or lesser degrees, expressed in ways from honking and gestures up to actually physical blows or even worse.

Next, I'm going to go a bit out on a limb, though I think a fairly safe one. I don't think this brother, this pastor, was almost "overcome by the spirit of violence and lawlessness". I think he may have been almost overcome by his own temper, maybe in combination with other frustrations and bad things happening to him or others he knew, and if one wants to posit that he was being tempted by an evil spirit, ok, fine.

As well, I don't think the fact that he was in Reno had much of anything to do with it. If he had been in, say, Helena, or Bangkok, and had suffered a similar situation, likely he would have had to fight his temper then, too. Being frustrated with other drivers is a pretty universal experience among drivers in cities all over the world.

I simply can't buy that this man's temper was the fault of anyone other than himself, let alone supposed evil spirits that somehow have some kind of special control of Reno.