reviewing a reviewer 2; belief is important

A bit more on my take of the review from the previous post. True, the first was quite long, but I hope you will be patient.

Is it just a coincidence that the dominant story line we find in the Church today is one where God is furious with the created realm, places higher value on right thinking and belief over right action and living (we are saved, so the story goes, by getting our thinking right about God, irrespective of whether or not our physical lives change), where sharing the gospel is reduced to ideas and mental consent,

There are several things that make for sure signs of a cults, things that all pseudo-christian cults have in common. One of those is this--Christianity makes salvation far too easy, so they feel the need to add to it. For them, it is not hard enough to say that the defining attribute of a Believer is that they believe. They must also act. But it is not enough that they simply act, they must also act in ways that the cult leaders approve of, they must hold opinions that the cult leaders claim are right, and not question them lest they be cast into the outer darkness of those unenlightened.

So, for this particular blogger, for someone to say that they believe the Gospel is not enough--they have to act as if they do. It is, in essence, adding law to the Gospel. I do not say "the Law", but it is a law, one that he and other Emergents have made for themselves, and insist on others follow.

Of course, it is a complex situation. We know that simply saying the one believes God exists is not enough, "the devils also believe, and fear". The demons know very well that God exists, and rather than that knowledge leading to their salvation, it only adds to the certainty of their own damnation.

Yet the truth is, when it comes to salvations, belief is essential. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved", "Repent, and believe the Gospel". The mental consent this blogger derides and ridicules is one of the essential first steps.

reviewing a reviewer

It is perhaps a testimony to my cheapness that I am here commenting on someone's review of a book, rather than reviewing the book myself. The truth is that nothing, not even a morbid sense of curiosity, has yet made a good argument for me to pass over what has to be almost $30 for McLaren's new book. I figure I must have much better ways of wasting my money than to purchase a book that I know is full of egomanical rot.

And, anyway, the review, by one who made not a few rather colorful comments here a few months back, has not a few bits of interest in itself. So saying, tally ho...!

The first thing that I think is important is to remind ourselves that McLaren is not saying anything new or radical here. He’s reminding us of something we need to be reminded of and urging us to conform our lives around right belief, but the meat of his argument is recognized and accepted by most everyone (well, almost). What’s the argument? Bottom line: Plato, a Greek philosopher from the 4th century BCE, looms larger than life in the minds of us Westerners. What did Plato teach nearly 300 years before the advent of Christ? Essentially that the physical, material world is an illusion and that ultimate reality, the things that really matter, are those that are spiritual and non-material. This body we find ourselves in is a prison, more or less, and the goal of human life, the greatest good, is to transcend the ugly, sick, doomed, perishing world of matter. One of the ways we can do that is through philosophy – by studying. The mind is a beautiful thing that operates on ideas and ideals – the best stuff of life.

These sorts of discussions (along with critiques by Aristotle, a student of Plato), was the life-blood of the Greeks and then the Romans. As philosophers abounded and debated the only things that really mattered (recall Paul’s visit to Athens in Acts 17) the Greek/Roman mind became accustomed to dualism. The mind would always see the world divided in two – the doomed, profane physical world our bodies are trapped in and the sacred, spiritual world of ideals, ideas and eternality (which, by the way, is unchanging. Change, they would argue, is weakness and something only material matter undergoes (e.g. flowers bloom, wither and die)).

From this dualism it is easy to see how a form of elitism would (and did) emerge. The Greeks/Romans saw themselves as superior to every other culture and saw it as their duty to bring the “peace of Rome” to other lands, graciously giving them a culture and knowledge that would help these “barbarians” transcend their dismal existences (One cannot help but overhear mission statements of the church when it comes to world evangelism. “Let’s save the heathens!” was a call to action disguised in racial and intellectual and cultural bigotry). The good life, the Greeks/Romans believed and taught, was one where the physical world was mastered and the spiritual world was preferred and accessed through the mind. Though you may never have heard of Plato there is no mistaking his grip on our minds even today.

I think it is Pagitt who gets into the whole "platonic dualism" thing. My concern here isn't to deny that Plato may have been a dualist, in a sense it's something that doesn't even matter; rather, one must ask why we should assume that Plato is the father and author of all things dualism. Whatever else good or bad we may have gotten from the Greek philosophers, is it accurate to say that all instances of dualism in the Bible are to be blamed on the Greeks?

Now, if you're going to dismiss all dualism as brought in from the outside, you have to do some very interesting things with the Bible. You have to explain why God accepted Abel's sacrifice while rejecting Cain's, especially since we aren't really told why. You have to explain why God put all of the world under judgment, but "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord". You have to explain why God chose just one man, and not even all of his family, in order to found one people to be His chosen. You have to explain why God loved Jacob, a rather interesting character in his own right, and hated Esau. You have to explain why, out of all of the people in slavery in the world at that time, God sent only one of the them a Moses for them, and Himself worked miracles, many of a destructive sort, in order to deliver them.

And instances of dualisms in the Bible could go on for a long while, with the most important ones being the New Testament--sheep who are welcomed and goats who are cast out, wise virgins who are ready for the bridegroom and foolish ones who are left out, wheat that is kept and weeds that will be burned, the Pharisee whose prayer is self-praise and the publican whose prayer is for mercy. And most important of all, those who have been made Children of God and those who are children of wrath, those who belong to God and those who are still of the world, those who are believers in Christ and those who reject Him.

It is entirely too simple to look at every instance of dualism one can find, and expect that claimings "platonism" is an adequate answer.

Finally, I want to deal with his ridicule of missions at the end of that excerpt. As one who was in missions for a few years, and know people from many different countries and cultures who have been in missions in order to take the Gospel to people, I can only find this writer's words distasteful and disgusting. But having read the words of Emergents no small amount over the past few years, I can think of nothing more incongruous, nothing Emergents would find more distasteful themselves, than the notion of Christian missionaries trying to convert people from their false beliefs to believing in the true and living God. As one writer I recently read noted, there is nothing in Emergent theology worth giving one's life for, worth dying for, worth suffering persecution and martydom for. I would almost say that the whole point of Emergent thought is to avoid the painful necessities that make for persecutions and martyrdoms.

It would, I think, but most accurate to say that, if Jesus had been Emergent, He would not have died like He did. More likely, he would have been some kind of cultic quack who had a few followers, maybe caused a tad bit of trouble, but on the whole could be ignored.

And concerning missions, what message could an Emergent missionary give? "I'm ok, you're ok, let me go pray to Allah with you, and don't buy that car because you'll only be increasing global warming"? "I'm not concerned with you becoming a believer in Christ, I just want you to join my simply-living commune and eat nuts and berries the rest of your life"? "Yes, you live under an oppressive Communistic government that tries to keep Christianity from you, but you have to understand, we're leftists, too, and your place is actually much better than those freedom-loving, car-driving, oil-burning, meat-eating, Capitalistic countries in the West."?

Is it just a coincidence that the dominant story line we find in the Church today is one where God is furious with the created realm, places higher value on right thinking and belief over right action and living (we are saved, so the story goes, by getting our thinking right about God, irrespective of whether or not our physical lives change), where sharing the gospel is reduced to ideas and mental consent, where sharing the gospel in that way is more important than sharing a glass of water or a meal or a home, and where this world, in the end, will be vacated by a rapture and destroyed by fire while those of us with enlightened minds watch from the spiritual, pure, changeless heavens above.

Is this how Jesus would have read the Bible or how Plato would have read it?

Well, let's see...

We know a bit about how Jesus read the Scriptures of His day, because we have recorded instances of Him using them. He referenced the account of Noah in a way that suggests that He considered it to have really happened. He used Deuteronomy to answer Satan's temptations. He talked about Abraham as if he not only lived, but was still alive and even aware when Jesus came to Earth and was happy when He did. He even answers the Sadducees, who denied life after death, but pointing out that God was still the God of the Fathers because they still lived.

But he likely doesn't want to think that Jesus took the story of Noah seriously. How unscientific of Jesus!!

The question of how Jesus would read the Scriptures, then, depends on if they teach the things the writer lists. Is God furious with the created realm? Not sure where he got that, but there are reasons in the Bible to think that God is angry with the unrepentent-- "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" Romans 1:18; "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" John 3:36 "Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the might and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" Revelation 6:15-17

Are right beliefs and thinking more important than right actions and living? Well, let me put it this way--how can you know what are the right actions and the right way to live if you do not have right beliefs and are not thinking right? The fact is, right beliefs and thinking are the things the help us determine right actions and right ways to live. As Christians, we are saved by grace through faith, not by works. We are saved by repenting and believing in Christ, a belief that must mean some measure of right beliefs about Him. But we are saved to do good works, and our works show our faith. But the right beliefs come before the good works.

And the idea that Christians who truly believe do not share with others is simply abject nonsense on this writer's part, a baseless accusation that is refuted a million times over by believers who share what they have with those around them, and give even when it strung a little. It is the sign of a bad argument when it has to tastelessly accuse Christians (I won't say "fellow Christians" because one making such an accusation needs to show something to even be considered worthy of that noble title) of what they do not do.

Finally, the rapture and the end of the world. I'm not sure how one cannot say that the world will one day end, given that the Bible is clear that "By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungoldy men", II Peter 3:7, and "...The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the everything in it will be laid bare", II Peter 3:10.

Whether Heaven will be "changeless" or not, or whatever that may mean, is something that cannot be known except by being there.

The God of Israel, Elohim, looks very different from the god we Greeks/Romans have made. Elohim delights in his creation, is perfectly happy with change (even instigating it!), is forgiving and full of mercy to a fault and his punishments are not to destroy or inflict eternal misery but to correct, discipline, encourage and redeem. This is a God who looks a lot more like Abba (Daddy!) than the Greco/Roman god we descendants of Plato created.

Some of this may be biblically obvious, but others are puzzling. The God of Israel doesn't punish to destroy? Perhaps Achan and his family could say otherwise, or the ones who stood up against Moses and God opened the ground to swallow them. Or how about those who occupied Canaan before God sent Israel to claim it for themselves. Even Israel could testify against that, for they no doubt remember the times God sent the armies of Babylon and then Rome to destroy the city of Jerusalem and the Temple.

we have stolen Elohim from the Jews and turned him into Theos (the greek name for “God”)

This is one of those things that simply doesn't make sense. We stole Elohim from the Jews? Really? When and were? Does the fact that the Jews of Jesus' day and in the time of the Apostles largely rejected Christ not come into the picture?

But even more puzzling are these last statements.

I once heard Dr. J. Kameron Carter, professor at Duke Divinity, say that we Gentiles are getting the story right only insofar as the Jews who are listening can nod in assent. To put it another way, to the extent the Jews disbelieve our Jesus as the Messiah of the world is the same extent to which we have butchered the story. Given that most Jews doubt our Jesus as Messiah gives me reason to think we need to rethink the narrative we have been telling and living.

This is such an absurd criterion that I doubt he's even thought how it could be implemented. Are we suppose to take a random survey of Jewish people and see what they think of a what the Gospels tell us about Jesus, and the ideas with the most votes are ok? Shall we gather a focus group of Jewish people together and let them discuss Jesus' life? What if they don't agree on things? What if we get several focus groups, and they all have disagreements? What kinds of Jewish persons are acceptable--actively practicing religious Jews, largely secular Jews who don't practice any religion, Messianic Jews who believe in Christ? Are half-Jews ok, or quarter-Jews acceptable?

And the topper, that last sentence. If that were really a sound criterion, we would be left with the conclusion that since most of the Jews of Jesus' own day doubted that He was the Messiah, than He should have rethought the narrative He was telling and living.

But then, what can you expect from a Blue Devil but nonsense.

mclaren--a new kind of oliver stone

Interview with Brian McLaren About ‘A New Kind of Christianity’

Keeping up the Sojo tradition of supporting every book of questionable theology out there so long as it supports their leftist agenda, here we have Sojo interviewing Brina McLaren about his new book. Here are some excerpts, with comments.

But I think you can make this very fragile generalization: before the Enlightenment, authority resided not in books, but in divinely ordained people.

First, if a 'generalization' is 'fragile', is it really worth making? And is it really worth anything?

Second, one of the aspects of the Bible is that it was based on what was recorded and written, not on the divinely ordained people (which I guess he means a pope, perhaps among others). Moses gave the people the law, but he did not create the law. When Jesus confronted Satan's temptations, He asnwered with statements beginning "It is written...".

McLaren's 'generalization' is so much 'fragile' as it is a lie.

Protestants, at least, dispensed with the divine right of popes and cardinals, and we shifted our authority to constitutions — doctrinal statements and systematic theologies — which we claimed were derived from and legitimized by the Bible.

Again, wrong. Doctrinal statements and theologies were around long before the Catholic Church and popes and other such things. One can find them in the New Testament and in the writings of the Ante Nicene church writers.

My proposal is that we’re moving from courtroom to quest as a primary metaphor.

Sure, because when you're losing in the courtroom, nothing seems better than to go on the lam. And when the Bible is so against all the things you want to be true, than you have to keep going until you find a way to make the Bible agree with you.

says it all

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

of course, sojo WOULD support this book

What if the Church were Christian?

And since the book isn't yet in general circulation, here's what's available at the publishers for reading...

browseinside

Reading through his interview at Sojo and what I've read of the book, it reminds me a lot of another book I've written a bit about here, "Saving Jesus from the Church" by Robin B Meyers; for example, look at the title of the first chapter--"If the Church Were Christian...Jesus Would Be a Model for Living Rather Than an Object of Worship". In the few pages we have of the chapter at the browser, we learn that it is silly to believe that Jesus had really been virgin-born, and it seems to be working up to saying that believing in miracles is equally foolish. Not unlike Meyers, who wanted us to stop worship Jesus.

And this is the type of book Sojo recommends on their blog for us to read. If they get Jesus wrong, how much are they getting the other things wrong, too?

Perhaps a better title for the Sojo blog would be "What if this author were Christian".

getting those funny looks

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

if i wanted a circular god, i'd find a fat buddha

Theology after Google

Theology after Google does not divide up the world between the “sacred” and the “secular,” as past theologies so often did. All thought and experience bears on it, and all of one’s life manifests it. Thus the distinction between one’s “ministry” and one’s “ordinary life” is bogus. All of one’s life as a Christian is missional.. The great 15th-century theologian and mystic Nicholas of Cusa imagined God as a circle whose radius is infinite and whose center is everywhere. It only takes a second to realize that Cusa’s picture wreaks havoc on all geometries of “inside” and “outside.”

This is hardly a new idea. I was hearing this from people in the missions organization I was in several years ago. I think it's something that could be debated. For example, when God spoke to Moses in the wilderness, He called where they talked "holy ground". Wherever that perameters of that "holy ground" was, it was different than the normal ground Moses had been walking on before, and so he was told to remove his sandals. A similar thing happened later, when Moses and the people of Israel were at the mountain and God came down to them. The mountian was not to be treated by them as another mountain--the people were not to approach it, and any animal that touched it was to be killed. The Tabernacle and later the Temple were not common buildings, and even in them there was a place that was entered only once a year by the High Priest, the Holy of Holies. The Ark of the Covenant was not to be touched at all, and God killed a man who touched it, even for the theoretically good reason of keeping it from falling. The tribe of Levi was different than the others, they were not given land, but were the priests and keepers of the Tabernacle and Temple.

It's an interesting idea, perhaps not without merit, depending on what is meant by it. I think the last sentence of the paragraph quoted above gives an idea of what he means--that in trying to do away with the concepts of "inside" and outside", he's essentially sneaking in, though not so subtly, universalism. Perhaps not surprising, since TheOoze is Spencer Burke's site, and Burke has claims to be some form of universalist.

And that is where this writer's version of "no sacred or secular" falls apart. I doubt the New Testament could be more plain that there is a very real difference between those who believe and those who don't, between those who are children of God and child or wrath, the sheep who are welcomed and the goats who are condemned, the wheat and the tares, the wise virgins and the foolish ones, those in Abraham's bosom and those in Hades, those whose names are written in the Book of Life and those whose names aren't.

One can point to divisions people have made that have been silly or even stupid. But pointing those out does not mean that all divisions are wrong. And when the Bible plainly says there are those who are pleasing to God, and others who are subject to God's wrath, then it is not wise to try to dismiss those divisions simply because one doesn't like them, and simply because they do not most kind "picture".

Finally, a bit on the difference between the symbol of the circle and the more obvious Christian symbol of the cross, from Chesterton's "Orthodoxy", toward the end of chapter 2.

As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.

tell you what, shane claiborne...

...when you let the government regulate your freedom of speech, making it so that you have to get a license to exercise it, I'll let you do the same to my right to keep and bear arms.

One More Gun Death Too Many–and Three Things You Can Do About It

Some things to keep in mind about this article...

Criminals were killing victims long before the gun was invented.

I wonder when he'll start blaming car dealerships for drunk driving deaths.

A person with a gun may kill a person physically, but a person with a bad theology will kill them spiritually. The first is a tragedy, the second is eternally worse.

picking who to listen to

The new Christian leader is a host, not an authority who dispenses true teaching, wise words, and the sole path to salvation. I first really got the host idea in a conversation with Spencer, and it has turned my understanding of Christian leadership upside down. Today, the leaders who influence our faith and action are those who convene (or moderate or enable) the conversations that change our life — or the activities that transform our understanding of ourselves, our world, and our God. It could be an older Christian who convenes discussions at a church, a house, or a pub. It could be Shane Claiborne leading an activity at The Simple Way on Potter Street in Philadelphia, say a time of gardening in the communal garden that gives you a sense of community that you’ve rarely had but always longed for. It could be a website or a blogger that you frequently go to, where you read others’ responses and add your own thoughts. Christian leadership is about enabling significant community around the name of Jesus, wherever two or more are gathered in His name.

Be very careful when people start talking about the end of authority, because very likely all their really saying is that they don't like the current authority figures, and merely want to set up their own (themselves, if possible, but if not that, then their own approved ones).

I would dare say there is no one who is really anti-authority or anti-establisment. They may be anti-the-current-authority-or-establishment, but they are not against ALL authority or establisment. So when this man says that "The new Christian leader is...not an authority...", I think we can say that he is wrong. It may not be intentional, but it is so.

In fact, a previous point rather goes counter to some aspects of this one. About a list of emergents, he says that they "say things that ring true to us", which seems to me to be saying that he thinks they are "dispensing true teaching" and "wise words". And why else would he have listed them favorably, or recommend them to others favorably? It could be doubted he would do so if he thought they were dispensing false teaching and stupid words.

So it's not so much a case of his "new Christian leader" not being an authority, but of him or her being an authority whose teachings and words are to him true and wise. With the assumption that most of those teachings would be different from what was considered true and wise by people before.

Which seems to bring us to one of the real cruxes of the matter, the issue of "the sole path of salvation". One may, I think safely, think that this writer's approved "new Christian leader" will be one who does not say Jesus is " the sole path of salvation", but is either one of many paths or that there are many paths to Jesus. Considering that that is the teaching of Burke, and seems to be the teaching of McLaren (maybe Jones, though I'm less certain of that), then it is no wonder that a man who thinks that they "say things that ring true to us" would say that the "new Christian leader" would agree with them, too.

The comment "Christian leadership is about enabling significant community around the name of Jesus" has a nice ring to it, and maybe have a point or two, but one still should be leary of it. I've been around far too many Charismatics who use phrases like "in JESUS' name" as a kind of mantra or magic cure-all for whatever the issue is. I know of cults that have incorporated a construct named Jesus into their beliefs, though their Jesus may be very different for the Jesus of the Bible. I know a man who claims to have been healed (and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity that he was healed) through a belief in the Christian Science Jesus, a Jesus who taught that this world is merely an illusion and that if you have enough faith you will never be ill. A Jesus, btw, very different from anything emergents and progressives believe, so far as I can tell, so how much fellowship they could have with CS followers is rather unclear.

So I doubt that merely inserting the name Jesus into something really means what was on Jesus' own mind when He said "where two or three are gathered together in my name". Not having lived under a monarchy, I can mostly only imagine this, but if I were the servant of a king, and were sent to do something in the king's name, then I think in doing that I am doing something that the king sanctions and approves of, and wants me to do. If I were to do something that the king didn't want me to do, it would not really be done in the king's name even if I were to say it was.

A while ago, I read one of David Weber's Honor Harrington books, a series of sci-fi futuristic military books in case you're not familiar with them--think Star Trek meets Tom Clancy. Two star-nations had been at war, but have reached a tentative peace and are trying to negotiate a real truce. The leader of one of those nations sends missives to the other about those meetings, but one of the people involved in sending those missives makes changes in the wording of a few of them, unknown to his leader, designed to offend and anger the other leader. A resumption of the conflict was the result.

The point is this, that while that person was appointed to office to act in the name of that nation and it's leader, his actions were not approved by that nation or leader, and were in fact detrimental to both.

And the point of that point is this, that we should be wary of those who claim to be acting in Jesus' name. And while emergents may claim to do so, much of what they say and do and support is rather plainly contrary to what Jesus said and taught in the Bible.

if i could give you one bit of advice...

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

tipping the hat

For all that I (rightly) get on Sojo's case at times here, though far less I suppose than they deserve, I will give them a bit of respect for this article.

Tim Tebow’s Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad Brouhaha

The whole article makes for an interesting read, and I will respond to the last question by saying that Colts will gallop away with the trophy, though corny analogy aside, it will be a pretty good game.

Critics point to the pro-life message as being inappropriate. Really? You may disagree with it, but how is it inappropriate? The commercial is running during a game in which very strong, grown men tackle each other, sometimes to the point of injury, while boisterous fans, some in various stages of inebriated behavior, scream encouraging words using colorful language while grown women wear clothing small enough for small girls shake their pom poms in order to create team spirit. Yes, let’s talk about what is inappropriate and question where our values are.

And apparently there is a flurry of investigative reporting happening as well because questions are being raised about whether or not Pam Tebow’s story is true. (She got pregnant in 1987 while on a Christian mission in the Philippines and got sick. Doctors told her that the pregnancy was risky, but she chose to go through with the pregnancy.) Some headlines are declaring Tebow’s story a “falsehood”. Have those writers and critics taken a look at some of the boobs (male and female) out there? There is plenty of falsehood to go around. Buying expensive but really cool shoes won’t make you cool, but that falsehood is what sells those shoes. My goodness, advertising wants you to buy into a falsehood – if you buy this product you will be happier, more attractive, more successful, more this and that.

The first paragraph is a good point. I think the second is a bit iffy, since if the story didn't happen as Tebow and him Mom say, it takes away from the point being made. Sorry, but this isn't "I, Rigoberta Menchu".

So, a bit of a kudo to Sojo, for what it's worth. Don't read more into it than that, though.

the cuteness was overwhelming

see more dog and puppy pictures

I couldn't help it. Far...too...cute...!!

the internet doesn't have pews

Theology after Google

Theology after Google is not centralized and localized. Likewise, the church cannot be localized in a single building. We find church wherever we find Jesus-followers that we link up with who are doing cool things. This point is huge. Denominational officials and many pastors have not even begun to conceive and wrestle with what it means to work for a church without a clear geographical location.

There is a place online where I have been a member for years. I don't think I would be wrong if I said I am now the longest-running member there, or at least among them. I joined in 2002, very early in that year. It was actually under another name at that time, and has gone through a few incarnations, though I have kept the same user name and other information throughout.

It somehow actually has several names. I think the official name is Crosswalk, though I usually go to it as the Christianity.com forums. And I've found it under other names, too.

It's been an interesting time, being there. I've been in some really good discussions--the really eye-opening and intense exchange with a follower of Christian Science, the many and varied debates with Partial and Full Preterists, a couple of private conversations with followers of another world religion that led to discussions of Christ, a few humorous discussions, a lot of political jaws. Oh, and the occasional heated debate about Benny Hinn, and lately the ones over emergents.

I've learned a lot, and given my own few cents worth more than a few times. There are people I've gained a bit of an acquaintence with for whom I have respect, and once or twice something like friendship.

But it's not a church.

I'll be among the first to say that there are many good things about the Internet. But the Internet is not a church.

Just as TV and radio preachers are not really good substitutes for local pastors. And even if we acknowledge that some people have problems, like health or injury or lack of transportation or work hours, which keep them from attending a church in person, the things they substitute in for that are still more like using crutches to more around rather than walking on one's own. In the same way, listening to podcasts of sermons--one own pastor's or someone a thousand miles away--may be helpful, but it isn't church.

I do not think it is an accident that Paul tell us to not forsake the assembling of Christians together, and especially warns against it as the end draws near.

a humorous fix

A secretary to be feared!

lords of the rings?

Theology after Google

No institutions, and very few persons, function as authorities for theology after Google. Ever since Jesus’ (often misunderstood) statement about Peter that “on this rock I will build my church” (Mt. 16), the church has had issues with authority. The point is too obvious to need examples. The pastor standing up in the pulpit in the early 1960s was still a major authority. Of course, pastors still stand up in pulpits today, and some still view themselves as indispensable purveyors of truth.

But the world is changing around us. Those of us who speak in pulpits are having to rethink our relationship with the audiences we address. Most people today shrug their shoulders at those who claim to be authorities in religious matters. (For many of us, scripture continues to be an authority, but the way in which it’s an authority has changed massively over the last 30 years. More on that topic the next time I write.) Theology today means what some number of us find plausible about our faith or are convinced of. Our leaders are people like Brian McLaren or Tony Jones or Spencer Burke — people who say things that ring true to us, so that we say, “Yeah, I think that guy’s got some important insights. I’m going to read his blog or find a way to talk with him, and I’m going to recommend to my friends that they do the same.”

One thing I anticipate, though with a sense of "here we go again", is this writer's promised take on his views of scriptural authority. I think I know what it will be like, but I can hope not.

Anyway, what about the above?

Well, first, what is being said? He says that pastors and churches and denominations are not how the authorities they once were. He even hints at a questioning of biblical authority, or at least how his version of it is different than what people thought in the past.

He gives a small list of 'usual suspects', but why are they "our leaders"? What does it mean that they "say things that ring true to us"?

A crooked salesman can say things that a person may say "rings true". Anyone who has followed a cult leader will say how that leader says things that "rang true". Someone who thinks that Al Gore is anything other than an agenda-driven charlatan may say that his claims about global warming "ring true".

"Rings true" is a poor way of determining if something is true or not. If anything, it says more about the listener than the speaker--perhaps it simply rings true to a person because it is what he or she wants to hear, it doesn't so much "ring true" as it "agrees with me". Which is why the fact that we now know that much of the data behind global warming was bad data, that the scientist behind it were playing fast and loose with the facts, does not effect those who truly believe in it and want to continue implementing changes based on it, no matter how much damage those changes will do to society. It is why people who are in a cult or a false religion will sooner kill others who tell them the truth than themselves listen to the truth and believe what is true.

Which is why this statement of his seems cultic to me.

is this the best they can do???

I can't remember how I first came on The Other Journal by Mars Hill Graduate School (which, while in Seattle, is thankfully unconnected with Driscoll's church), but it happened, and every now and again, I go there just to see how many wacked-out ideas they are floating around.

And again, I'm not disappointed.

Reconciling Sufjan Stevens: Religious Hipsters and The Inevitable Queerness Of Christian Music

Perhaps the one thing that makes this article readable is that the writers spends the first half of it going on about music. Not necessarily in a way that I agree with, but matters of taste are what they are. I have some memory of the attempts by Christian bands and singers to "cross over", with greater to lesser success. I'm not a much into CCM now, but I do remember the first couple of Jars of Clay releases, and I liked them a lot. I don't know if I've ever heard any Eddie Vedder, but if Jars sounds like Vedder, so what?

Anyway, then the writer focuses on one modern musician, whom he seems to like. Then we get to what this article is all about.

So for everyone else Sufjan’s music begs the question “Is Sufjan gay?” but I find that pursuit a bit tiring. It does, though lead to a bigger, more entertaining question, that being “Is Christianity gay?”

Everyone who is in a gay relationship or knows someone who is, knows that sex has little or nothing to do with the relationships success or failure. What makes any relationship work is commitment. Whether a man is gay or not depends on who he chooses to commit to, a man or a woman.

So, at the very least, there is something a little gay about men who love Jesus. We commit our lives to him. We submit to him. His love for us surpasses the deepest of passion between the greatest of lovers. Priests take vows of celibacy so that they can be completely devoted to him and so that women will not be in competition for their affection. Sufjan does sing love songs to a man, that is for sure, and whether they are to his friends, a lover, or to Jesus himself, that is a little gay.

This writer plays so fast-and-loose with the word "love", that I can only assume that the editor for this journal either didn't read this article before publishing it, or published it solely for the sake of controversy and pushing an agenda.

By this person's abject misinterpretation, two men who are friends are "gay", a knigh of years ago who swore allegiance to a king was "gay", when Jesus told the disciples to love Him he was telling them to be "gay".

See how bad this reasoning is?

There is nothing "homosexual" about a man loving Jesus. There is nothing "gay" about men being true friends with each other. A few weeks ago, I was in a coffee shop, and overheard a couple of people talking about the supposed homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. It honked me off a bit, and wisely or not, I asked how they found that in the Bible. Perhaps they weren't expecting to be challenged like that, but they had no answer to it.

Last year, about May or June, I read a Sojo article where the writer at least asked the question of "what if" the relationship between Naomi and Ruth was a sexual one (he also pretty much said that Boaz and Ruth had sex when she talked with him on the threshing floor).

You can see how the argument goes, which this TOJ writer contributes to--instances of deep frienship and commitment between men or between women are spun as "homosexual". And now men loving and commiting to Jesus are being spun as being "gay". Which, of course, only serves the purpose of the progressives' attempts to normalize homosexual activity.

jokes without humor

Theology After Google

Here’s my answer in five theses. Whether you love them or hate them, I hope you’ll interact with them:

So, far be it from me to decline such an invite, sooo...

Theology is not something you consume, but something you produce. In the Age of Gutenberg, you read theology in a book; you heard it preached in sermons; and you were taught it by Bible teachers. In the Age of Google, theology is what you do when you’re responding to blogs, contributing to a wiki doc or google doc, marking up a Word doc on your computer, participating in worship, inventing new forms of “ministry,” or talking about God with your friends in a pub.

In reading that, it seems like he's saying that never before have people thought about and discussed theological matters. This presumption on his part reminds me of something Chesterton wrote about himself in the Introduction to Orthodoxy

For if this book is a joke it is a joke against me. I am the man who with the utmost daring discovered what had been discovered before. If there is an element of farce in what follows, the farce is at my own expense; for this book explains how I fancied I was the first to set foot in Brighton and then found I was the last. It recounts my elephantine adventures in pursuit of the obvious. No one can think my case more ludicrous than I think it myself; no reader can accuse me here of trying to make a fool of him: I am the fool of this story, and no rebel shall hurl me from my throne. I freely confess all the idiotic ambitions of the end
of the nineteenth century. I did, like all other solemn little boys, try to be in advance of the age. Like them I tried to be some ten minutes in advance of the truth. And I found that I was eighteen hundred years behind it. I did strain my voice with a painfully juvenile exaggeration in uttering my truths. And I was punished in the fittest and funniest way, for I have kept my truths: but I have discovered, not that they were not truths, but simply that they were not mine. When I fancied that I stood alone I was really in the ridiculous position of being backed up by all Christendom. It may be, Heaven forgive me, that I did try to be original;
but I only succeeded in inventing all by myself an inferior copy of the existing traditions of civilized religion. The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy.

When someone talks as if Christians over the past few hundred or even couple of thousands of years merely took in and never produced, I can only assume that this someone is either practicing more hyperbol-ventiliation, or is simply showing a monumental amount of ignorance. Because whatever else mankind has done, and no matter how bad the quality of it may often have been, man has most certainly produced theological thought. And simply because people up to a few years ago didn't have Googles or Wikis or Word in which to do it, just shows that the supposed "Theology after Google" isn't really all they want us to think it is. It's like saying people didn't do carpentry before the advent of the laser level.

It's rather humorous how what Chesterton says he was like is how so many of the progressives and emergents say they are trying to be, in so many words. I especially like "I did, like all other solemn little boys, try to be in advance of the age. Like them I tried to be some ten minutes in advance of the truth. And I found that I was eighteen hundred years behind it".

Sadly, this writer, TheOoze in general, and most emergents and progressives as a whole, have not yet gotten the joke, that it's not a nice joke, and that they are they butt of it. They are trying to found a heresy of their own, and are not yet prepared to listen to those who are telling them that it is a heresy. Were they to actually do the hard work of putting in the last touches, like Chesterton did, they might actually learn that what they claim to be looking for they would find in biblical orthodoxy.

But for now, they would rather think their own high-blown thoughts, and try to shoehorn them into the Bible, even if it means doing unspeakable violence to the Bible, rather than let the Bible correct their thinking and beliefs. Which would be interesting, where it not that what they are saying and teaching has consequences, both for themselves and for those who believe what they are saying. Which is why the joke is not a nice humorous one.

sheathing Jesus' sword in mystery Babylon

More from a TheOoze video, this one titles something like "Transcendence beyond our belief system. Inclusion. Mystery. Humility.", with Burke and someone named Tim King.

Burke: Well, and a lot of times, I notice, that myself. others, you know we focus out on future, or heaven, or what's next, and we really can miss the kingdom here and now.

Kind: Which is the only moment we have. The present moment is the only thing that's real. If you talk about the past, it's no longer here; the future is no longer something we need to be obsessed with to the demise of the present moment, because the present moment sets that trajectory for the future. And so, if you're consumed in the present with the future that 's not a reality, what are you doing with the reality that is? You're just wasting it away.

What we have to do is reframe who the true self is. If we really get down to it, then we can say 'Wait a minute, our stories, our belief systems, at best are pointers, they're not our identity. And so all of these identity conflicts I think could go away, if we could take on more of a persona of saying 'Look, since our belief systems are merely pointers to that which is beyond and unnamable and unknowable, let's meet beyond our belief systems, in this area of mystery and humility. And I think if the world started coming together, and the world religions started coming together, to celebrate the dignities of each sacred narrative, all meeting beyond our belief systems, at the feet of mystery, then I think you've got phenomenal potential to real begin to create this tipping point toward celebration instead of doomsday.

When I was doing this transcription, I noticed King's phrase "to celebrate the dignities of each sacred narrative, all meeting beyond our belief systems, at the feet of mystery" (emphasis mine). It put me in mind of this passage from Revelation (again, emphasis mine)...

3Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5This title was written on her forehead:
MYSTERY
BABYLON THE GREAT
THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.

Is drawing the line between King's statement and this verse fair? Well, consider what King is advocating. The world religions coming together to celebrate at the feet of mystery, or dare we capitalize it as Mystery. What could such a compromise be but prostitution and abomination? For two thousand years, Christians have gone to those who do believe, and told them the Gospel, or were Christians in their own homeplaces. They were often not welcomed, many were persecuted, harmed, and killed, often in truly horrible ways. These two, with their call to "celebrate at the feet of mystery", simply spit on those martyrs' graves, saying thier sacrifices were meaningless, useless, not necessary, that rather then trying to convert people to faith in the living God, they should have gone to the unbelievers to celebrate them, to be converted by them.

I have no patience with these smarter-than-God types, they sicken me to no end. About all I feel is a kind of pity for them. But if the woes Jesus pronounced on the Pharisees, that all their converts were simply more the children of Hell than they were before, how can I not think the same thing for these false teachers? I can only hope and pray that they are not completely hopeless.

Burke: Now the criticism always is: Oh, wait a minute, then I have to check everything at the door. We have this dualism like, it's all or nothing, you know. But you're not necessarily saying that. I mean, just as Merton would say Hey, I can be fully Catholic, fully Christian, and involved with Sufis and with Buddhist's traditions and not let go of who he is, but not necessarily trying to just convert other people, engage.

King: Exactly, and you use a key word there when you say 'convert'. If we could just embrace our sacred narrative--for me, my primal narrative is the Jesus story, that's what resonates with me at the deepest parts of my being. So while I'm not going to forfeit that, but I don't have to forfeit that story to contribute to the lives of others. Now if I feel like have to have a conversion mentality, now all of a sudden there's no chance for peace, none, because if I feel like I have to convert you, I've just drawn a line between us, and implicitly said "You're on the wrong side of that line". And the only way we can have fellowship, let alone celebration, is if you come on my side of the line. But when I'm secure in the fact that I'm not my belief system, I'm beyond that. Then I can celebrate the dignities of the Jesus story, the dignities of the Sufi or whatever relgion, you know, the person we're dealing with is, we can celebrate those things together, because ultimately again at best, they are just pointers to the reality that is, to the presence, to the unnamable, which has to dwell in mystery beyond us, and that's where we can come together, and meet at those crossroads, and have incredible fellowship and understanding.

It's always a bit surprising when someone claims to be into the "Jesus narrative" or some such thing, and then condemns something that Jesus Himself said would be true. This whole video is about the end times, and how these two think the biblical doomsday scenario (which isn't doomsday at all, but rather our blessed hope of Christ's return) needs to be discarded for, well, something more cheery. So, Jesus' words about how things will be are immediately discarded, if that tells you how much they "love" Jesus. Or how much the Jesus of their "Jesus narrative" departs from the Jesus of the Bible.

But consider these two statements, one from King in the paragraph above...

Now if I feel like have to have a conversion mentality, now all of a sudden there's no chance for peace, none, because if I feel like I have to convert you, I've just drawn a line between us, and implicitly said "You're on the wrong side of that line". And the only way we can have fellowship, let alone celebration, is if you come on my side of the line.

And this of Jesus'...

Matthew 10
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

King is right, though he rejects the thing that is right. If we seek to convert, as Jesus commands, there will not be peace. But we seek peace with God, not necessarily with men.

Perhaps this is a humorous and pointed way of comparing their "Jesus narrative" Jesus with the real biblical Jesus.

see more dog and puppy pictures

targetting the weak and ignorant

This is from a video at TheOoze, a kind of driving conversation between Brian McLaren and Spencer Burke. Why in a car, I don't know. Probably not important, anyway. The video is called "ThinkFwd host Spencer Burke drive the streets of Santa Monica with author", and I assume McLaren's name is suppose to be at the end there somewhere, though I don't see it. Perhaps that's a browser issue, though.

Anyway, this quote is from McLaren.

There's a cost to changing, but there's also a cost to not changing. Here's what I would say--the current kind of Christianity that's working for a lot of people, I don't want to mess with that. If you're happy--you know, if you hate my books, if you hate The Ooze--you know, if you like things the way they are, God bless you, we don't want to bother you. we're really--you're not really our main audience, you know. But your children, your grandchildren, your friends, your neighbors, who are completely shut out and disinterested and in many ways excluded by your form of Christianity, uh, you know, those are the kinds of people we're trying to help.

First, let's be honest--emergents are far from the only youth-focused religious or Christian group out there. It seems like every church I can think is focused on getting the kids, the youth, the young adults. As far as it goes, that would be fine, but it seems to become a discriminatory thing, too. On the other hand, I can think of churches that are the other way, who want little contemporary in their services, and I'm not in favor of that, either.

But in terms of the discriminatory, though, McLaren's statement voices something beyond even what those other churches I can think of exercise. The youth-oriented ones will welcome older people, and often have them. The more traditional ones have youth, and welcome them. McLaren, hardly a spring chicken in his own right (and Burke looks like he's seen younger days, too), basically dismiss the older people, saying rather they are focused rather exclusively on the youth.

In other words, those so weak in their faith they can be swayed by anything, and those so ignorant they are swayed by anything that sounds nice.

Yet the underlying message is, it doesn't really matter. They have dismissed things like judgment and hell, so the fact that they think the older people are so wrong simply means those people can be dismissed--let them stay in their conclaves and die out whilst we recruit their kids and grandkids.

the left's new dream team

Sometimes, they spell it right out for us. A Sojo write has done so, at least.

Howard Zinn’s Last Advice to Me (and America): ‘Independence from the Military-Corporation’

It seems to me that the confluence of massive disemployment, plus knee-jerk militarism, plus stalemate on the climate crisis and on health care, plus the Supreme Court decision on corporate financing of elections, plus the use of the filibuster in the Senate — all in what many assumed or hoped would be a year of major progressive change — has shocked enough people that it should, and might, make possible a progressive coalition.

First, what is disemployment? What is knee-jerk militarism?

And the stalemates on climate change and health care are because the people know that these things are false crises--we know the data has been doctored on climate change, and we know that the health care bill will far more damage than good.

The Supreme Court's decision last week was a good and sound one.

And the liberals have had the supermajority in Congress this past year, such that the Republicans could have stopped them from passing any bill they wanted. One also wonders if this person would have been so quick to want it eliminated when, for example, Dems were threatening to use it concerning some of President Bush's justice seat selections.

No, all this person wants is for those opposed to his agenda to be shut up and shunted aside.

I’m imagining a coalition aimed at “independence from the military-corporate alliance,” with a platform that includes strong planks on climate, jobs, health, ending the present wars, major reductions in the military, transforming campaign finance, and ending the filibuster.

I could pretty much rest my case right there.

These paragraphs were excerpts from a letter he wrote, I think to a few people. This is part of one reply he got.

Someone or some group that is respected throughout the progressive movement would need to take the initiative and summon supporters. With blacks, Latinos, women prominent, and not disdaining celebrities. I think of Julian Bond, Danny Glover, Rosie Perez, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Matt Damon, Oprah, Alice Walker, Marian Wright Edelman — some well-known clergy, you and others, some labor leaders. Maybe not that exact group, but just to suggest a direction. And a few super-organizers.

Wow, how many more nut-jobs could have been listed? I do notice Sean Penn missing, but I suppose that wasn't an exhaustive list.

Remember Danny Glover? For a place like Sojo that had a high old time over Pat Robertson's statement about the Haiti earthquake, statement I'm pretty well convinced were taken out of context by a lot of people on both sides, they shouldn't even come within a hundred miles of Glover, after his statement that the disaster was the earth's response to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.

With a dream team like that, prepare for left's new nightmare.

so greed means lots of charitable giving???

Listen to a conservative long enough, and he or she will likely make a statement about how liberals hate the US. Liberals, of course, deny such a charge, perhaps even with reason. Nonetheless, I think the charge has a large degree of validity--while they may not necessarily hate the country, they will often speak with distain of much that the US is about. I give you this Sojo article as a case in point.

Greed is God: Exporting the Values of America’s Prosperity Heresy

Arguably, most wars that America has fought aim to export U.S. values of freedom and democracy. However, a major lesson from Vietnam reveals that military intervention as a means to change values and political ideology can often backfire with indefatigable resistance. Today, we see Islamic extremists using terror as a means to communicate their values in opposition to Western ideals. However, if terrorism is fundamentally a form communication, what values do we represent when we respond militarily? We have chosen to speak their “language” of violence, and only time will tell if we will dominate the conversation.

This is "moral equivalency", equating US military action against terrorism with the actions of the terrorists themselves. This is, quite simply, a weak argument, and offensive to the hilt, but one that liberals have made many times. They will, for example, equate a parent spanking a child to correct that child to a person abusing a child. They will equate people louding voicing opposition to this current US presidential administration to racists in pointy white hoods.

To give you an idea of just how offensive the argument of this Sojo writer is, here some comparisons--the husband who makes love to his wife is not better than the rapist; the man who defends his property is no better than the thief trying to steal it; the police officer who shoots and kills someone shooting at him is no better than the criminal shooting at the police officer.

Changing global values through the economy, however, is a completely different matter. We are winning this fight; we are changing how the world fiscally relates. What economic credo are we exporting to the rest of the world, you might ask?

Jim Wallis names that credo, “greed is good,” in his new book Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street—A Moral Compass for the New Economy. Wallis rightly assesses the current global financial crisis as primarily a moral crisis with severe economic consequences.

I have to smile at this. The naivity inherent in such a statement is almost winsome, if it weren't so silly.

As someone who's done a good bit of international travel and even living, I think I can say with some authority that no one how to tell people how to be greedy. In fact, no one has to tell a small child how to be greedy. They seem to come by it perfectly naturally on their own.

Now, is the US's credo really "greed is good"?

What's funny is that it seems we're suppose to take this statement a face value, or else put out $20+ for Wallis' books. But I suppose I will question it, nonetheless.

Charitable Donations by Americans Reach Record High

Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion -- a record, according to a study released June 25 by the Giving USA Foundation, which reports on charitable contributions.

The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly. Donations from individuals, including bequests, accounted for 83.3 percent of total giving last year, or $245.8 billion, he told USINFO.

“The total amount of money that was given to nonprofit institutions is remarkable,” Jolly said. “What we see is when people feel engaged, when they feel a need is legitimate, when they are asked to support it, they do.”

U.S. charitable giving estimated to be $307.65 billion in 2008

Giving in worst economic climate since Great Depression exceeds $300 billion for second year in a row

Charitable giving in the United States exceeded $300 billion for the second year in a row in 2008, according to Giving USA 2009. Donations to charitable causes in the United States reached an estimated $307.65 billion in 2008, a 2 percent drop in current dollars over 2007.

The 2008 number is the first decline in giving in current dollars since 1987 and the second since Giving USA began publishing annual reports in 1956, says the annual report on philanthropy, released today for the 54th year by Giving USA FoundationTM. (www.givingusa.org) Revised estimated giving for 2007 was a record $314.07 billion.

“With the United States mired in a recession throughout 2008, there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that charitable giving would be down,” said (Ms.) Del Martin, CFRE, chair of Giving USA Foundation. “However, what we find remarkable is that individuals, corporations and foundations still provided more than $307 billion to causes they support, despite the economic conditions.

Kentucky basketball coach, team raises over $1 million for Haiti

The University of Kentucky basketball team, led by first-year head coach John Calipari, has helped raise over $1 million for Haiti earthquake relief. An auction for the cause included a dinner with the coach and actress Ashley Judd, going for $98,100.

Kentucky may be one of the few states in the nation in which someone would pay $98,100 to have dinner with a college basketball coach.

But this is no ordinary dinner invitation; it is dinner for six with the University of Kentucky (UK) basketball coach John Calipari, his wife Ellen and Hollywood actress Ashley Judd, a graduate of the university. And the price of the dinner is a donation to the Calipari-inspired, "Hoops for Haiti" campaign which has collected more than $1 million for the earthquake stricken nation since Sunday, January 17, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The "Hoops for Haiti" charity event was the result of a desire that Kentucky coach Calipari had after the Haiti earthquake to do something substantial to raise money for the relief efforts in the devastated country.

630 WLAP and Southland Christian Church of Lexington, KY collect and ship peanut butter to Haiti.

The above is pictures. People took peanut butter to the station last week, which Southland Christian Church then sent.

I will agree with the Sojo writer that the Prosperity Gospel is poison, though her solution is rather iffy. Her attempt to make John 3:16 into a socialistic spread-the-wealth verse is humorous, but a madly wrong application of the verse.

I'll end this with a little cartoon for you to visit, which I originally saw here. Substitute a Sojoer for the Jihadist, and you'd quite succintly have what I'm saying here.

Quick! Pass the Shovel!!

paradise misnamed

Theology After Google

I’m almost embarrassed to list these differences, because they’re so obvious. But here’s the amazing fact: Denominations aren’t changing. In most cases they’re not planning for and investing in new forms of church for this brave new world. (There are some great exceptions.)

I find it a bit ironic that he should refer to the things happening today as a "brave new world".

A few years ago, I tried to read Huxley's book. I didn't get very far into it, for whatever reason. But I did get enough into it to get some idea of what that 'brave new world' was like--people kept docile in a kind of drug-induced haze; babies mass-produced on a kind of test-tube assembly line; people's lives pretty much engineered from the get-go.

In other words, like Orwell's "1984", Huxley's "Brave New World" is dystopic. It isn't a paeon in praise of that brave new world, but a siren in warning of it, to keep us from going there.

At the risk of having both the shrink and the seer do flips in their graves, perhaps we could say that this choice of words by the Ooze author is both Freudian and prophetic.

If there are "some great exceptions" "planning for and investing in new forms of church for this brave new world", what does this mean? Since this writer seems to be in the Emergent and liberal camps, why should a conservative like myself be overly impressed with his assertions? Could his statements about the death of the traditional church be like Carville's statements last year about the the GOP being dead? Is it not more wishful thinking than actual fact? Is it that, having gone over to the liberal and Emergent sides, he simply may be seeing things wrongly?

Not that the Church is very perfect. Yet I will not thunder as if from on high about the supposed laxity and luke-warmed-ness of the Church. I've known to many Christians whose lives are not going to be famous, who lived quietly and did what they could in the circles they were in, and I have too much respect for them to belittle them and those like them.

I think that, for all it's faults, the Church is far from dead, but I think this writers wants people to think it is. And he has reason for wanting them to think that, for even wanting to speed it's death. And it will become clearer soon, I hope.

gimme that new time religion...

Theology After Google

Take the question of authority. In the frontier town, the Southern city, or the New England village there was the authority of the law and the government. A lot of folks weren’t very educated, so they didn’t read much, and there was no radio or TV. The pastor of the church was not only the moral and spiritual authority — the representative of the only true religion and its obviously true scriptures —but also probably the most educated person in town. He (there were virtually no female pastors!) spoke with authority on a wide variety of issues that were important to the society of his day.

Contrast that with today’s situation. Rarely are pastors approached as figures of authority, except (sometimes!) within their own congregations. Radio, television, and the internet are our primary authorities for the information we need, with newspapers, advertisements, and movies coming in a close second. For many American Christians Beliefnet.com (“Your Trusted Source for Free Daily Inspiration & Faith”) is a bigger authority on matters of Christian belief and practice than any pastor.We love self-help books, so we’re more likely to read Spirituality for Dummies than to go to a group Bible study. Forty years ago people were influenced in their judgments about religious matters not only by their pastor but also by the editorials in the Religion section of their local newspaper. Today the blogs one happens to read are more likely to influence her beliefs.

Well, I suppose he has a point, to an extent. I'm not sure how comparing a pastor as authority figure to various media outlets as sources for information works out, but, oh well.

But if we look at the two time periods, perhaps we can ask which is necessarily better? Oh, no doubt, one could point to ways in which society today has changed for the better from various periods in the past. But just as well, one could point to ways that society today has become worse. And if we look at the attributes he assigns to today, perhaps those attributes are at least one source of those problems.

He says that pastors are not as sought out as authority figures as they were in the past. Perhaps he is right. But can he say that the things he lists as replacements are better? While I know of much good that comes from those media, one doesn't have to look far to see how they have been sources of things that have done no small amount of harm to society. Have people who substituted out the pastor and subbed in the Oprah really been better off? Saying this as one who believes in personal reading and study, have we really become better Christians by replacing the pastor with theological readings, even good ones? Are we better off having been preached to by televangelists? Are the people who get their 'church' from CBN better off than if they had gone to a local church?

...If they have the good fortune to depart seminary with their idealism intact, they’re generally assigned to a traditional church that has virtually no youth or younger families present, an average age of 60, and a major budget crisis on its hands. The orders are, “Keep this church alive!” The church members like the old hymns and liturgies; they don’t like tattoos, rock music, or electronics. They are about as likely to read and respond to blogs as I am to play in the Super Bowl. So the young pastor folds her idealism away in a closet and struggles to offer the
traditional ministry that churches want.

In short: the majority of our resources continue to be flung at traditional church structures. Those doing the real revolutionary work, those trying to envision — and incarnate — the church of the future struggle on with the barest of resources.

This is not smart. Let’s do something different. Let’s do it now.

I've been to many different kinds of churches. When I was young, we went to some rather charismatic types of churchs. I spent much of my youth in a rather strick fundamentalist church. I've gone to Vineyards and Calvary Chapels, and little storefront churches. I've been to those that seemed to think that anything after the 60s was evil, and anything before the 90s was archaic.

It is amazing how this writer gets caught up in the superfluous, like many others do.

The people in the church like the old hymns and liturgies? Ok. Sorry, I don't see that as being much of a problem. Personally, I'm so sick of any church music, be it traditional or contemporary, that I'd as soon arrive at a service after that music has ended than endure it. Still, I do find the words of many hymns fit to use for my own expressions. Some choruses are good, too, though I usually find myself wondering what the song is really about, considering how much many P&W singers and writers are in the charismatic camp that all in on the modern-day frauds calling themselves apostles and prophets, or are into the whole latter rain thing.

And as far as this "real revolutionary work" the writer goes on about, well, I suppose we can ask what he means by that.

the more everything changes...

I suppose it could safely be guessed that the author of this Ooze entry would not mind that someone would make comment on his thoughts, given the content of his article. Well, whether so or not, let us be off...

Theology After Google

There so often seems to be this emphasis by postmoderns on some kind of event or some thing that they focus on as being rather a kind of turning point, or a kind of marker in time, where they say "when X happened, things changed or began to change". World War II, particularly the part in Europe, seemed to be that thing for the philosophical side of postmodernism. For this more popular form, there are a few candidates--the fall of the Soviet bloc, the internet, maybe 9-11.

So, what about Google? Or, more precisely, the internet as a whole?

Why is it that most Americans today don’t walk down to their neighborhood church on Sunday mornings for worship, Sunday School, and a church potluck?

Were I content with just being snide, I would say "They don't walk because they drive their cars". I'm not, though I will throw it out there.

Why don't most Americans do that? Perhaps because most aren't believers? After all, we are a country of religious freedom, so people are not required to attand a church service, Sunday School, or potluck, thank you very much.

And, frankly, I think that a good thing. Why should people who have no desire for church be forced to go? Understand what I just wrote--I think it would be good for them to go, if they go to a church that truly preaches God's Word, but I would not force anyone to go.

Although some Christians seem to get it that “everything must change,” why is it that the vast majority don’t seem to recognize the enormous changes that are already upon us?

Oh, some of us do see these "enormous changes", which I would guess this writer means thing like the Emergents and the Liberals. Sigh, oh yes, such enormous changes, unlike anything in the past, except that, well, there were all kinds of things like it in the past. The church, after all, has had to put up with smarter-than-God heretics in the past. The church has been pronounced dead before, and while most of those who have announced it's death have themselves found their graves, the church has shown more life than they gave it credit for. Such great excitement over, for example, the Gospel of Thomas, like we were the ones who first took it seriously, plainly forgetting that Christians roughly 1800 years ago also took it seriously--so much so, in fact, that they found it to be seriously wrong, and dealt with it accordingly.

Do we really inhabit two different worlds: those who text, Twitter, blog, and get 80%of our information from the internet, and those who are “not comfortable” with the new social media and technologies?

Umm...no. It's the same world. Sorry, but Twittering doesn't make you special. And if there are people who choose to not lead a plugged-in life, or who do so in a very limited sense much like myself, than more power to us.

Could we today be facing a change in how human society is organized that is as revolutionary in its implications as was the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg over 500 years ago?

Well, first, though I am a respecter of Gutenberg and his printing press, I would need to know exactly what this writer means by how it changed human society and how it's organized.

If we are, what does all this have to do with theology and the church?

First, should we assume his "If we are"? What if we are not? For that matter, so what? He has used the language of "everything must change", but why must it change? Must I think that the advent of Google rivals the advent of Christ? Should I think that because a person believed X to be true the day before Google advented, that the day that person must now believe that X is not true, because everything has changed?

No doubt, someone will say that the rhetoric of "Everything must change" is simply hyperalventilation, a bit of overstatement to make that point. Very well, if we wish to be more exact, we may say "Most things must change" or "70-90% of things much change" or "We think that there are things that must change but we're not sure yet what exactly but we know it will be almost everything".

To look at a parallel, how did things change when, for example, the steam engine was created? Well, journeys that once took months became journeys of days or maybe a week or so. Then came the automobile, which became for most people a more personal change. Then the airplane, and trips that took days with the train became trips that took mere hours (not counting layovers and delays).

So, some of the outer forms have changed. But how much have things really changed? People who once walked or rode mules or horses or wagons to work not drive cars to work. People who once took boats to cross the oceans now fly airplanes. Not saying that the changes weren't significant. But the things is, people didn't really change.

Before, a man might have to go to a bar, or a brothel, to satisfy his lustful urges. Then there came the magazines. Now, he can go online and find the pictures and videos. The means have changed, or more accurately diversified, but the man himself has not. Before, a person may have needed guns and dynamite to rob a bank. Now, all he or she needs is someone else's identity, which is far too easy to get. The techniques of robbery may be different now, but theft is still theft.

Why we should assume that what was true 2000 years ago is today not true is beyond me. I suppose a person could argue that the Apostles were wrong to have thought that they had seen the resurrected Christ, because dead men don't become not-dead, but if what they believed was true, then nothing that happened with the advent of Google made it not-true.

The phrase I have heard was "chronological snobbery", the idea that people today (whenever "today" may have been or is now) are vastly superior to the ones who were around yesterday. Oh, let those old-timers be respected, of course, they did the best they could with what they had, but we have more, and are simply smarter. We found the atom, and flew to the moon, and we have the advent of Google. In the face of such modern miracles, we deny that the old miracles really occurred. We can make puppies that glow in the dark, but we cannot accept that God took water and made wine. We can question the nature of matter, but woe betide the man who says that the axehead really floated.

Perhaps it may safely be said "The more everything must change, the more everything just stays the same".

"we're not responsible for out bad policies!!"

The title may as well the be the battle cry of all things liberal. Sojo has a prime example of this type of...I can't call it thinking, because it is more that vacuum left when thinking is abandoned for feelings, weepy stories, a simple demand to "do something".

Honoring King: Economic Justice for All

The gap between the rich and poor has reached Depression-era standards. Corporate CEOs now make nearly 400 times the average worker. African Americans earn less, die earlier and are imprisoned at disproportionate rates than whites. Even in the Age of Obama, young black men are more likely to be locked up than graduate from college, and the leading cause of death for black men under 30 is homicide.

Liberal policies of welfare, mostly focused on racial minorities who are poor, have led to a mindset of waiting for the government check, having children so the check will be bigger, don't work lest you lose the check, don't worry about being a real Daddy to your kids because the government will send the kids and their mothers checks, and hate the people who have worked to get out of the poverty and no longer rely on the government checks. And if you hate the rich white guy whose taxes fund the checks, all the better.

And, in typical liberal fashion, Sojo blames those who work for the problems. They cite CEO salaries, as if one man's wealth much equal another man's poverty. They cite minorities being arrested, without asking why that is--that perhaps, for example, their welfare policies have taken incentive away from all but the most determined.

The tragedy of Hurricane Katrina exposed in stark and shameful ways America’s enduring racial and class inequalities. Our government has spent more than $1 trillion on the Iraq war even as our inner cities crumble and 40 million Americans live in poverty.

So, helping Iraqi's out from under a dictatorial rule and back on their feet is an unworthy goal? Sure, yeah, whatever.

Remember the "War on Poverty"?

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed

Nor is the problem that we have failed to spend money generously. The public expenditure on the variety of governmental schemes devised in the last forty years to eliminate poverty has been extraordinary. Since 1964 we have spent $8–10 trillion on antipoverty programs. In 1996, at the midpoint in the Clinton administration, the federal government expended $191 billion on poverty programs, fully 12.2 percent of the federal budget. President George W. Bush actually increased the effort. The 2006 budget, at the midpoint of Bush’s administration, calls for a massive increase in poverty programs, increasing the expenditure $368 billion to 14.6 percent of the federal budget.7 The Bush administration oversees a host of continuing poverty programs that includes Medicaid, food stamps, supplementary security income, temporary assistance to needy families, child day-care payments, child nutrition payments, foster care, adoption assistance, and health insurance for children.

The conclusion is virtually inescapable: if the availability of nearly an unlimited amount of money and the determination of countless government bureaucracies were the necessary and sufficient conditions to eliminate poverty, then in 2004 we should not still have more than 12 percent of the U.S. population—nearly 37 million people—in poverty.

From the moment the Great Society conceived of the War on Poverty, it was a bad idea to believe that we could eliminate poverty by allowing a government bureaucracy to distribute massive amounts of public money to the poor. In the antipoverty efforts of the last four decades, we have witnessed one of the largest income redistributions from the taxpayers to the poor that the world has ever seen. Still, we have not eliminated poverty. Why should we believe that continued or expanded, new, and “improved” government programs, spending more trillions of dollars, will ever achieve more?

In a very real sense, the Sojo writer pretty much admits the failure of the "War on Poverty" and the ideas behind it, though good luck in getting anyone at Sojo to admit it.

Why the War on Poverty Failed

The war-on-poverty activists not only ignored the lessons of the past on the subject of handouts; they also ignored their own experience with the poor. The case of Harrington himself is especially revealing.

In the early 1950s Harrington worked at the St. Joseph’s House of Hospitality, a shelter for the homeless in New York’s Bowery district. The philosophy of the shelter was pure handout. Beds, food, and clothing were given out, as Harrington proudly reported, on a “first come, first served” basis. The shelter didn’t require anything in return: not small amounts of money, not work, not any effort at self-improvement. In The Other America Harrington described at length the tragic lives of the alcoholics served by the shelter, the degradation, exposure, disease, theft, and violence that made up their lives. Yet he didn’t report having any strategy to uplift them, and didn’t report rehabilitating a single one. Though he became friendly with some of the street alcoholics, he never saw his friendship as a platform for mentoring them, as a way of guiding them to recovery. He simply watched these suffering men go in and out of their drunks, and gave them handouts as they went along. Summarizing his experience, he concluded that alcoholic poverty was not an economic problem but “deeply a matter of personality.” In a revealing aside, he added, “One hardly knows where to begin.”11

For someone so ready to hector others about how easily poverty could be “abolished,” Harrington was astonishingly unreflective about his own performance. His failure as a social worker among the homeless never led him to question his handout approach, and his personal knowledge that poverty was not an economic problem never shook his ideological conviction that it was. The rest, as they say, is history. The man who “hardly knew where to begin” in treating the problems of poverty—and who failed when he tried—became the guru for a massive array of government handout programs that, as even the New York Times now concedes, only deepened the culture of poverty.

Demonizing the one who has will not help the one who has not. Demonizing the one who works to gain will not help the one who lacks because of lack of work, either through choice or through lack of opportunity. That isn't saying the rich are good and poor are bad, we know some rich can be poor bastards and some poor can be saints, and vice versa. But Sojo does employ such simplistic thinking, citing the CEO's salary as if the CEO is responsible for the poverty of the poor man and woman.