Jezebels, Fundies & My Wife's Review of a Truly Terrible Book

So.

My wife reviewed a truly terrible book this weekend, mostly because a friend piqued her interest. Not in the sense that 'this book will change your life' but 'how this book will destroy your marriage.' Yes. It is that bad. I had to hear about it all weekend as my wife's gasps and eye rolling couldn't dissuade her from sharing the contents of this slaughterhouse piece of hearty half-fiction. Check it out.

While there were many things I found disturbing—the way the author approached Scripture was more than disconcerting—and while the author claimed to believe the Bible was the highest authority, so much of what she did was read things into the text (as she did with the letters she received) instead of taking things out of the text.

Very frequently, the author would lift out single verses from their context and apply them to whatever point she was making. This gave the appearance that her view was biblical when—in actuality—there was very little in the text to support her claim. At other times she would tell the reader what the biblical narrative taught—only it wasn’t to be found—anywhere—in Scripture.

For example, look through the beginning portion of Genesis and see if you can find it say anywhere that Satan decided to target Eve because he knew Adam could not be deceived or that males have a natural resistance to Satan and that women are naturally naïve (107-108). 1 Timothy 2:13-14 does indeed tell us that Eve was the one who was deceived but it does not claim that all women are or that God made them this way or that Satan was looking for this. After all, if women were more easily deceived overall why would God command that women teach other women and children? Isn’t that just a wreck waiting to happen?

Did Eve leave Adam’s side to confront the Devil’s logic alone as this author claims? Not according to Genesis 3:6.

This was just one example, but you can see it everywhere in the book. The author tells you that the picture God creates of a woman is one without armor, “because he intended for her to stand behind her husband’s armor” (108). All of this is linked to her understanding of Genesis, and none of this is actually in the Bible.
The author often leaves out important bits of scriptural information that would better clarify the situation.

For example, on page 96 she tells us that God appointed Adam (man) to rule the planet. Does the Bible say this? Yes. Throughout chapter 8 (75) men are represented as made in God’s image. Are they? Well, yes. However, the Bible says women are also appointed to rule over the planet and women are made in God’s image as well.

For the entire post, try to enjoy it here.

NQ

Sick Burn Theology

Sick Burn Theology -- : a method, or expression, of putting down anyone who falls outside of your tribe. Usually within the realms of uninvolved social media.

Its something we're all guilty of, especially in the age of faceless opponents. Often, in my case, its very easy to dismiss and condescend to someone you don't know. Rendered in pixels and imager instant backhands, its become sort of a phenomenon. This isn't hindered by Twitter which reduces complexities to something the length of a single sentence.

This can include everyone from myself to you to Mark Driscoll to Brian McLaren. This generally isn't regulated to a single group or tribe. You can sense simmering piety in the words of emergent leaders who talk beyond the fundamentalists, and you would be hard pressed to find a fundamentalist who genuinely cares to listen.

Part of the issue could be accounted for in the millennial controversy (Rachel Held Evans for instance; see Greg Boyd for the general debate). For instance, one wonders if millennials are vindicated in leaving the church, especially when the church is only just beginning to emerge from a post-fundamentalist era. Do we change or die? Or do we just keep things static and horizontal? The answer is elusive and beyond the confines of my research so I will just leave this here to extrapolate later.

Millennials, in reduction, are a generation home-grown on social-interactive media, pixels and sarcasm. Its no secret that twitter is far more popular amongst us and we are singularly the one group that feels the most isolated. What does this have to do with theology, especially the kind I alluded to in the title?

Simply, I do worry that my generation is part of the problem. We've reduced interactions, in some significant part, to putting down the established church. For example, you find fundamentalist pastors who enjoy putting down opponents in their sermons while never actually engaging with their concerns. You also have a decentralized network of post-emergent leaders who thrive off the same sort of condescension, equating cultural shifts with theological necessity.

It is difficult to tell the church why you are leaving when you only have 140 characters. Many of us are at least two characters, maybe more.

So what do we do?

Its easy for those of us not in the neo-puritan movement to write blog posts about Mark Driscoll and John Piper, and it is just as easy for them to throw off some 'sick burns' from the pulpit at unnamed (but obvious) opponents.

So we need a Pope.

Not really.

But I do wonder if "sick burn theology" is simply a fad -- or worse -- a reduction of my generation. Since we tend to proclaim openness and inclusivism and dialogue as major tenants of our faith, why then are we so fractured? Its no secret that I tend to be theological conservative, but most of my conservative friends consider me liberal.

In a polarized culture torn between two extremes, I don't see millennials getting any better at bridging this gap simply because we have no sense of history. We could simply change and be perfect, but in some sense, we might like the conflict. In some ways, it may make us 'morally superior.' In other ways, it just makes us petty. Personally, I've been guilty of both so this is something more for us to reconsider.

Consider this a plea: continue to dialogue in humility with your brothers and sisters within the church. The church has gone from radical abolitionism to Jim Crow to wherever we are now. The church, she is flexible. Us, on the other hand, should drop the 'sick burn' mentality and practice some more yoga.

In short, stop. Just stop. Listen. Breathe. Take a chill pill. Step away from twitter, Facebook and instagram. Avoid reduction and embrace the complexities of life.

And we really need a Pope.

--Nick

Clarity, Spirals and Hermeneutics

The debates within evangelicalism are now beginning to boil to this stock-broth reduction:

Scripture is clear. . .

I was listening to a podcast segment on Unbelievable? where the topic centered around the 'Religious Right' and whether or not it was 'wrong.' I appreciated the program, not because I necessarily agreed with the ideas expressed but because it shone a bright light on two important factors.

Those two factors were brought out vividly by a right-wing Christian who proof texted Scripture like a bat out of Tartarus to prove capitalism, and by Brian McLaren. The right-winger would espouse the clarity of Scripture to prove his point, and Brian would undermine the right-wingers clarity of Scripture by allowing the man his opinion but saying people disagree.

Those two things:

One would assert over and over that his view was "biblical" and "clear" as a means of ending the discussion before it had a chance to really begin. I will grant that some topics in Scripture are clear, but many of them aren't. Thus the spiral and lack of clarity.

The other factor was the only response Brian McLaren could make was to simply disagree. Which was fine and Brian was a gentleman about it, but nevertheless I wish that things weren't just boiled down to simply a disagreement in abstract silence. The spiral of hermeneutics is washed down to simply a disagreement and that is that.

Now I grant that disagreements aren't necessarily a bad thing. As someone who does, however, tend towards theological realism, I find that most disagreements are centered around flattening interpretations to accommodate some views and exclude others. In short, while I don't think Scripture at all teaches Capitalism, I really wish more progressive Christians would simply stand up, say that the argument is bad and give really good reasons why it isn't.

I should offer a concluding remark and clarification; I didn't distinguish between salvific and non-salvific issues. What one thinks about the age of the earth has no bearing on one's salvation. But one can be dead wrong.

So, let's make a point to make better arguments (conservatives) and actually give better biblical arguments (progressives). Let's avoid black and white thinking where color is needed, and let's avoid pat answers. The truth usually sucks and I hate believing in it, but the universe is what it is regardless whether or not I want it to stop spinning.

There. I picked on both enough to know that I'm right and that is the clear sober truth.

Psych. :)

--Nick

Gospel Differences and the Southern Baptist Convention

I'm actually on top of a current event for once. This is pretty cool, even if the topic is a bit bifurcated. I should come mostly clean and specify that I support Mike Licona on this one, and find the opposition to be more interested in fighting ant hills. But that's getting a tad ahead of myself. The article is worth your time and I will only be commenting on a little bit of it.

For the original source, enjoy it here.

"I believe in biblical inerrancy, but I also realize that biblical inerrancy is not one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The resurrection is," Licona told Esposito. "So if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is still true even if it turned out that some things in the Bible weren't. So it didn't really bother me a whole lot even if some contradictions existed. But it did bother a lot of Christians."

Mike Licona recalled a student in a class he was teaching at Southern Evangelical Seminary who, with tears forming in her eyes, wanted to know whether there were indeed contradictions. A majority of the class, he said, raised their hands to indicate they were troubled by apparent contradictions. Then he realized it was something he should address. As he studied the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Licona began keeping a document of the differences he noticed. The document grew to 50 pages. He then read ancient biographies written around the time of Jesus because New Testament scholars often regard the Gospels as ancient biographies, he said.

For me, this has been an issue for the past six months. As I began to truly study Scripture, I found prima facie contradictions and have found it necessary to expand my definition of inerrancy. What made it so infuriating was no one told me such things existed. I didn't know what a textual variant was until a few years ago.

"I can tell you that of the 50 pages of differences that I've found in the Gospels -- and I'm still finding new ones -- all of them are in the peripheral details," Licona said. "There isn't a single perceived contradiction or difference in the Gospels that are any major details, any major details regarding an account. For example, was there one or were there two angels at the tomb? No one says the tomb was not empty. Even if you couldn't account for the difference between one and two angels -- and I think you can -- but even if you couldn't, it's still a major thing that Jesus rose and the tomb was empty."

I've found it odd that many fundamentalists and liberals focus so much on peripheral details and miss the centrality of the Jesus narrative. If the tiny details are wrong, the entire story must be wrong, again bringing forth the "all-or-nothing" mentality that pervades what's left of modern fundamentalism.

"... You may lose some form of biblical inerrancy if there are contradictions in the Gospels, but you still have the truth of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead, and I think that's the most important point we can make," Licona said. Also in a discussion of apparent contradictions, Licona said, it is important to distinguish between a contradiction and a difference.  "Most of the things we find in the Gospels are differences. There are only maybe a handful of things between the Gospels that are potential contradictions in my opinion and only one or two that I've found that are really stubborn for me at this point -- and they're all in the peripherals," Licona said.

I think this is a really important distinction that Dr. Licona makes. Licona is referring to what I call a "flexible" inerrancy versus an "inflexible" inerrancy. The former is able to account for potentially contradictory data and allows for tension within the text. It allows for a big picture mentality that is needed these days.

Mohler, in comments to Baptist Press Feb. 6, said, "It would be nonsense to affirm real contradictions in the Bible and then to affirm inerrancy."

"Even Dr. Licona concedes that we 'may lose some form of biblical inerrancy if there are contradictions in the Gospels.' What you lose is inerrancy itself," Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said. "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy clearly and rightly affirms 'the unity and internal consistency of Scripture' and denies that any argument for contradictions within the Bible is compatible with inerrancy. An actual contradiction is an error."

I think what Dr. Mohler means to say is that we lose his inflexible definition of inerrancy. He also misses Dr. Licona's distinction between differences and contradictions. Mike is smart enough to realize that openness is something most reasonable people value, and I commend him for exploring such things.

Mohler identified two other major problems regarding Licona's methodology.

"First, we cannot reduce the Gospels to the status of nothing more than ancient biographies. The Bible claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit right down to the inspired words," Mohler said.

I don't think Dr. Licona is doing this, and I would further add that the Gospels are inspired but also within the recorded time frame and follows some standard conventions. To assert that this is "reduction" is a straw man and is nothing of the kind.

"The second problem is isolating the resurrection of Christ from all of the other truth claims revealed in the Bible. The resurrection is central, essential and non-negotiable, but the Christian faith rests on a comprehensive set of truth claims and doctrines," Mohler said. "All of these are revealed in the Bible, and without the Bible we have no access to them."

Mohler is both correct and incorrect in what he says here. He is correct to say that the resurrection is central and all of that. He is incorrect to assert, yet again, that if the peripheral details are off then the resurrection is suspect. Not much of what Mohler says here would put Licona in serious disagreement. Of course, Dr. Mohler would make it very clear that inerrancy is big potatoes. I think so as well, but I don't think one not affirming inerrancy puts them in the dog house.

Just as I think one not being a Calvinist or Arminian would result in being boxed into the same location. I shall conclude this brief piece with a comment from Licona's University President:

In regard to the hiring of Licona as an associate theology professor at Houston Baptist, Sloan, the university's president, conveyed confidence. The full text of Sloan's statement to Baptist Press Feb. 7 follows:

"Dr. Michael Licona is a very fine Christian. We trust completely his commitment to Scripture. There are those who disagree with his comments on what is a very difficult passage (Matthew 27:45-53, especially verses 52-53), but Mike Licona's devotion to the Lord Jesus, his magisterial defense of the resurrection, his publicly and solemnly declared affirmation of the complete trustworthiness of Scripture and his worldwide efforts to win others to Christ give us full confidence in his work as a teacher, colleague and faculty member of Houston Baptist University," Sloan said.

I'm hopeful that Dr. Licona's teaching career won't be affected by this unnecessary maelstrom. He has done much for the Kingdom and I thank him for his work. We must be allowed to ask and answer difficult questions without wondering where the knife is headed. That is the awful consequence of living in a world full of complexity.

--Nick

Fundamentalism, or the Inability to Play Safely on the Playground

 I know Roger Olson and others have begun to post quite a bit on this subject, but I offer (an admittedly biased) comment on this pernicious topic.

Allison:

Fundamentalist?

Christian Fundamentalism, especially of the evangelical stripe, has also been confusing.  In part this is because evangelicalism at one point transitioned from revivalism into fundamentalism and then back out (though some fundamentalists are also evangelical!). For a while “fundamentalism” just meant one adhered to the fundamentals of the faith. However, it became deeply reactionary against culture and withdrew, especially after the Scopes Trial. They pulled out of their denominations and started to create their own schools in order to maintain doctrinal “purity.” While many who are fundamentalists hold to certain views (premillenialism, dispensationalism, penal substitution, young earth creationism, KJV only and some form of patriarchy—at least today) and tend to resist certain behaviors (no movies, no card playing, and no drinking), not everyone who holds to one or several of these is a fundamentalist.

Evangelicalism is quite diverse. However, Some parts that are key to fundamentalism are: 1) The tendency to view only itself as true evangelicalism at the exclusion of everyone else, 2) non-essentials of the faith become essential (ex: one is not a true Christian if they drink or go see rated R movies), 3) a tendency to separate from what they do not agree with and 4) they are aggressively anti a lot of things such as: Catholicism, evolution, or ecumenicalism. Fundamentalists very often have what they call a “literal” view of Scripture, which is more like a rigid understanding of the inerrancy doctrine and resists all Biblical criticism.

 For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

Evangelicals and the "New" Fundamentalism

As per usual, Brandan offers up an incisive critique of the new fundamentalism, broadly defined as Mark Driscoll and others involved in the Reformed movement. He offers the following definition of what fundamentalism is. Before I comment on this, I want to emphasize that I think I more or less agree with him. We had a wonderful little back and forth a while back so I enjoyed his post a lot.

Robertson:

"Fundamentalism was a movement that arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries within American Protestantism reacting against “modernist” theology and biblical criticism as well as changes in the nation’s cultural and social scene... During the 1920s, fundamentalists waged a war against modernism in three ways: by (unsuccessfully) attempting to regain control of Protestant denominations, mission boards, and seminaries; by supporting (with mixed success) Prohibition, Sunday “blue laws,” and other measures defending traditional Protestant morality and sensibilities; and (fairly successfully) by attempting to stop the teaching of evolution in the public schools." (Wheaton ISAE)
To expand upon the movement itself, Fundamentalism has generally accepted the following list of theological propositions:

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account.
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

 Before I add more of what Brandan wrote, I want to respond a bit to this. I think fundamentalism (1920s and so one) arose out of the modernist controversy, spearheaded by multiple fronts: 'errors' in Scripture, archeology and evolution. The split from Princeton (done by J. Gresham Machen and others) was seen specifically as a reaction to these issues. Whereas folk like B.B. Warfield accommodated the threats and worked to adapt theologically.

This was seen by many as apostacy and evangelicalism ever since has been working out it's faith with much fear and trembling. Fuller Seminary worked within this controversy to find a third way, and it looks like they have succeeded.

Here we get to the meat of Brandan's response. He writes:

So what are your thoughts? Is New Fundamentalism truly a new movement? Let me know!

Frankly, no.

I don't think Mark Driscoll, D.A. Carson or the Gospel Coalition are saying anything new within fundamentalism (and I only use those names because they are easily recognized, not because I'm currently on an anti-Driscoll binge). I don't think this fundamentalism is new simply because they aren't saying anything new. Dress up a puppy dog in jeans and give him a faux-hawk and he's still a puppy dog.

Much of what the current fundamentalists (which could be considered evangelical but I'm not certain they really want the label) are saying is primarily sectarian. Case in point, see Rob Bell. The difference between much of fundamentalism, both classic and modern, is primarily superficial. Carson and Driscoll emphasize gender roles and eternal conscious torment just as much as John Calvin, John Rice and others.

Allow me to conclude that I could be wrong. From my research, there are nuances to be sure but by and large much is what is written and said by Driscoll and others falls directly in line with the fundamentalism in the modernist controversy. I wouldn't call this the "new" fundamentalism simply because, to my knowledge, it isn't "new."

--Nick

The Bible Made Impossible: The Collapse of Evangelical "Biblicism"

I've started reading Christian Smith's book entitled, "The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism isn't a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture." Smith is a top sociologist at Notre Dame (and an evangelical Roman Catholic, a title I particularly enjoy) and I found his book challenging and profound. Much of what he said enlightened me in regards to what Scripture is, what it claims and what we claim about it.

Smith isn't arguing against inerrancy per se (though he makes a few cracks about it in passing), but rather how we read the Bible and how individual claim to hold it as their authority. In another way, when inerrancy becomes a defining point of one's salvation or sole authority. This boils down to a larger critique of evangelicalism, namely pervasive interpretive pluralism.

I will post a little quote by Smith and let you do with it what you will. Scot McKnight has a series over at Jesus Creed about Smith's book so I won't beat the horse further into giblets.

Smith:

I am not suggesting that the Bible is just a set of historical writings set in particular cultures, or the record of human subjective experiences of the divine that has little to say to contemporary people without being translated into terms modern people can accept. Instead, what I say here is simply that the biblicism that in much of American evangelicalism is presupposed to be the cornerstone to Christian truth and faithfulness is misguided and impossible. It does not and cannot live up to its own claims" (1).

Thoughts?

--Nick

Footnote:

1. Christian Smith, "The Bible Made Impossible" pgIX.

Potential Theological Trends within Evangelicalism circa 2013

Brandan Robertson wrote a post, and I hate to say it but I had been pondering the same thing. I think there will be three things approaching.

1. Annihilationism will increase, as will support for universalism.
With the rise of ReThinking Hell and the increasing atmosphere of openness (given the Rob Bell fiasco awhile ago), we will see more open support for annihilationism. Given that Preston Sprinkle of Erasing Hell fame now leans towards annihilationism or conditional immortali, this trend is indeed a hot one. Bad pun intended. You have other scholars like David Instone-Brewer, John Stackhouse and even Justin Brierley throwing their hats in the ring. Within the near future, the traditional view will die down and the debate will shift between annihilationism and universalism, with annihilationism becoming the dominant view.

2. Egalitarianism.
Due in large part to the scholarship of varying egalitarian heavyweights (Philip B. Payne being one), I believe that the equality of women and men in ministry will begin to be sorted out in my generation. Thanks to the continuous remarks of many Complementarians such as Mark Driscoll and John Piper (both whom don't speak for many of my Complementarian brothers and sisters), the trend within evangelicalism is to reassess the traditional standing. Simply put, Christians are beginning to stop and stare and think about this issue. Many who are involved in justice are sensing something amiss, as well as many seminaries doing the same. The tides are changing, both at Talbot and at seminaries across the United States.

3. The battle for the Bible.
Inerrancy has been a hot topic since the 50s, but I suspect that the liberal/fundamentalist divide will begin to widen with more moderate scholarship and attitudes prevailing. Given the aforementioned emphasis on justice, I see many within my generation being repulsed by both the right and the left. This is a tendency to be sure, but I think one could mine for the best of both sides and create something new. We are currently within a giant hole left by the emergent church and the collapsing nature of fundamentalism.

I see multiple topics seething in the background but they are less likely to be explosive; atonement, evolution and maybe even a little something call gay rights.

Thoughts?

--Nick

Mark Driscoll, Twitter and the Inauguration of President Obama

 I'll confess, I'm not certain about how I feel right now. I think this issue is not only sensitive but is quite primed to explode. Driscoll and the President both provoke fairly intense feelings on all sides so this controversy is by and large fueled by passion. Which is by no means a bad thing.

I will lay out a few points and attempt to explain what I believe is going on.

1. Mark Driscoll shouldn't have posted the tweet. Period. For a few reasons. One, it is far too hasty and two, the opening clause about "praying" may be well-intentioned, but what follows seems to contradict it.

2. As with the nature of controversy, it is fanned and flamed because people, simply, lose their minds over it. This is, for many, a special day. The inauguration of the President of the United States creates passion and optimism for the future, particularly on MLK day. Detractors of Mark need to realize this and tone things down. Calling him an asshole doesn't do much besides piss off everyone else.

3. Despite Mark's comment about the President not "knowing" God, the President claims to be a Christian. According to the President,

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course of this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in at the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation.

You can read the entire interview here.

I think we should take the President at his word that he is a Christian. I do not agree with his stance on taxes nor do I approve of his handling of the abortion issue. However, the attempts he has shown to live out in regards to helping the poor and providing healthcare are firmly with the Gospel. If one must criticize him, do so by saying he is "inconsistent," not "unChristian."

Still thinking this through.


--Nick

Evangelicalism, The Center and Boundaries

http://lostinthecloud.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/in-loving-memory-evangelicalism.jpg

Is the Evangelical Quadrilateral good enough?

Do Brian McLaren and Mark Driscoll both have a legitimate claim to be an "evangelical?" Of course, I would make the distinction that an evangelical can be either liberal, moderate or conservative but that is neither here nor there.

I think Roger Olson's post moves us towards a possible consensus. Roger Olson stated, "It has always seemed self-evident to me that movements cannot have boundaries. In fact, secretly, only to myself, I have long considered people who think movements can have boundaries either disingenuous or sociologically ignorant. Organizations have boundaries; movements do not. It’s self-evident. Movements have centers, not boundaries" (1).

If one looks at fundamentalism within the 1920s to the 50s, you get a clear look into the heart of remnant theology rooted in dispensationalism, coupled with the fear of the Soviet empire in the 60s and so on. Today, you have many folks within Protestantism who would prefer a smaller venue with less distinctions in term of doctrinal strife.

Or, in other words, doctrine trumps fellowship.

So, it makes sense that many conservative Christians put inerrancy up as the deciding vote on whether or not one is an evangelical. Besides the difficulty in defining inerrancy to most people's satisfaction, one is really out in a leaky lifeboat if they think the resurrection is as important as the complete historical and scientific accuracy of Scripture.

Biblicism. Conversionism. Crucicentrism. Activism. Bebbington put these out there to attempt a calm in a sea of bewildering chaos. Beyond being disputed by DA Carson among others, people make a point that doctrine is the method by which we measure one's orthodoxy, not character or sociology.

I think we've got multiple deep-rooted problems here, not the least of which is that the people who want to define the legitimacy of certain trump card doctrines all more or less believe the same thing. Therefore, evangelicalism is an exclusive or even ecclesiocentric patchwork quilt, not a big billowing tent.

 Another issue comes about when you have people who seem to fall outside the realm of "evangelical" but still desire the label. Do we honor the request for the title, redefine the title or entirely exclude the inquirer? I confess, I don't know.

Olson, "Thus, I argue that evangelicalism, like Pietism, charismatic movement, “New Age,” etc., etc. refers to a category that can only be defined in terms of prototypes that constitute a center. I would put Noll’s and Bebbington’s four hallmarks at that center and with them Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. What did those men have in common that was not as noticeable among most of their peers in Protestant Christianity? I would say those would be biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism and activism. And I would add to that a tendency strongly to defend the Great Tradition of Christian orthodoxy (broadly defined). Yes, to be sure, there were others who displayed the same characteristics, but they especially stand out as the prototypes of the Great Awakenings of the eighteenth century that gave birth to the modern evangelical movement" (1).

I will confess that I think evangelicalism is a big tent constituency, and I think one can very easily be an evangelical if they hold to the general terms outlined above.  The issues these days is more or less a redefinition of the terms.

The question is, do we allow it or fight it? I have no idea.

--Nick

Ken Ham's Ninja Defense

A bit cheap, but it made me chuckle.

--Nick

What Would Jesus Do to Terry Jones?

Maybe. I just like Terry's grumpy look and the haze coming from above his head.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "Ken Ham and the clubbing of Baby Seals"

This made me laugh as well.

The title is a riff off Peter's original post. I'm not *that* incendiary. Even if I did laugh once I understood.

Peter Enns:

I recently posted some thoughts on reading Genesis like an adult. Ken Ham disagreed, and so posted a response, “Peter Enns Wants Children to Reject Genesis.”

Ham’s well-known chosen method of settling differences with Christians seems to be: attack first and ask questions, well, never. This is especially true when in comes to reading the creation story in Genesis as a literal depiction of historical events.

For Ham, the gospel hangs in the balance, and any disagreement with him is de facto a disagreement with the Bible and God himself. You are, therefore, “the enemy.” Gray is not a color on his rhetorical palette.

Given his well-publicized track record, I think it is fair to ask whether in Ham’s universe it is possible, (1) to be Christian, and (2) disagree with him on Genesis. Sadly, I suspect not.

But if in Ham’s mind is it actually possible to be a follower of Jesus AND disagree with him on Genesis, I would suggest that his engagement of his Christian opponents be more shaped by his acknowledgment of their shared Christians bond.

Now, of course, all Christians (at least that I’ve ever come across) in tense moments will fall off the wagon, so to speak, and forget themselves and say something they regret later. But, normally (hopefully) that doesn’t go on for long, and Christians will recommit themselves to acting like Christ once they realize it. Ham, however, has made those regrettable behaviors into a deliberate “ministry” strategy–and, what is far worse, encouraging his followers to do likewise.

One need only read the title of his recent post to see the problem, “Peter Enns Wants Children to Reject Genesis.” What I say in my post is that adults should not read Genesis like children do. That, I think, is a rather different point, not a subtle difference. But Ham’s “Enns wants to harm your children as he clubs baby seals” approach aids his ultimate goal–to score points by discrediting those who fall on the wrong side of his all-or-nothing ideology.

For the original article/s, enjoy them here.

--Nick

A Place for Christian Moderates, a Rejoinder to Matthew Paul Turner

I read Matthew's piece several times. You should give it a good read, as there is much value in Matthew's writings, here and elsewhere. However, I want to push back a little bit.

I won't be saying a whole lot on areas of agreement, because where I don't push back, I agree with Matthew entirely. And there is plenty to agree with. I also apologize if there is overlap between myself and other commentators, I didn't read through their thoughts. ;)

A BRIEF SELF-CENTERED NOTE

I do claim to be a political moderate. I think the label I've used is "Liberal Republican." As with many people, I'm liberal on many things (immigration, welfare) and conservative on many things (taxes, abortion). I am slow to take sides unless I think I'm fully informed, and I get very discomforted when I see instances of group think. I've been accused of resorting to a "middle of the road" fallacy, and that may be true.

The truth isn't always found in the middle, but starting in the middle and keeping a sure footing has often given me much room to wiggle in the realm of contentious issues.

So, just something to provide a bit of where I am coming from.

THE NECESSITY OF MODERATES

However, I do think Matthew has too narrow a view of moderates. The negative side of moderates can very well includes those who simply avoid extremes or are spineless. The positive side, which I think far outweighs the negative, is that moderates can have a tempering effect on extremism.

Let me explain. In a room where a fundamentalist christian and a stuffy atheist are duking it out, having someone where to pump the breaks and affirm areas of agreement will more than like save the lives of the atheist or theist. Also, having the moderate around to remove sharp objects is a plus, as they are unusually sensitive to their surroundings.

But one a more serious note, when I've debated religious/political liberals, I've been very quick to point out what I think. I think most moderates that I know (save for that one I won't talk about) are very quick to state their views, and with passion.

But, the tempering effect is needed, especially in polarizing times.

EVERYTHING IN MODERATION

I do think Matthew has put some form of the cart before the horse. Certainly, "moderate" can be used as a "get out of awkward conversation" card. I did that once, and it worked like a charm. And I agree with Matthew that if you don't have convictions about the issue then "stay out of political debates."

That is an entirely fair statement. 

But I do think Matthew stretches himself a little thin on this. The personal element is missing. Simply put, people like me are very slow to dive into a bloodied arena where opinions are being used like machetes to hack apart such things as universal healthcare. It is not that we do not have opinions, but that depending on the company, we are very slow to give them.

An example may help frame this:

I have had several people (some friends, some strangers) bring up the topic of hell to me. Depending on who they are, I had various answers, all version of what I currently believe (and if you want to know, buy a ticket). It purely depends on who I am talking to. If one is antagonistic, I am very slow to respond. If one shows signs of interest, I'm more open to giving my thoughts.

It is a defense mechanism.

Sociology and psychology are necessary, and cannot be stressed enough. Some people, depending on their personality types, are slow to respond, or may lack certain nuances to their arguments. Thus, coming across as firing blanks is something that doesn't result from a lack of conviction, but of a thwarted attempting at explaining them. Its like a kid who stutters when asked for her thoughts.

All of this said, some moderates do need to get thick skin. Never be afraid to explain what truth is. But always be ready to give an answer for your opinion. But liberals and conservatives need to realize that there is a place at the table for those that are slow to respond.

THE NASTY POLITICAL DISCORDANT DISAGREEMENTS

Politics is a nasty game. It ruins friendships, compromises marriages and makes for awesome satire. A modest proposal, if you may. Do not be afraid of being a Democrat or a Republican. Do not ruin a conversation by being lukewarm. Stay out fo it.

But, liberals and conservatives need to keep in mind that discussion involving controversial issues that effect our lives need to be slow to anger and realize that not every is as passionate as they are. Moderation is key. But always be prepared to stop, drop and roll when a conversation gets heated.

But if you don't feel a part of either party, there is always the House Party.

--Nick

Willems, "Why the 'Christian Life' isn't worth living"

As usual, Kurt manages to make me think. Thanks Kurt, now I'll be sitting up all night thinking about something that is really awesome. Jerk. 

Willems:

Compulsively, I would give a few bucks to homeless people as they asked. In my youth curriculum (while I served as a youth pastor), more of the emphasis moved toward Christian activism. That is not to say that I didn’t care about relational aspects of knowing God, but that justice (at times superficial forms there of) became a primary emphasis. As a result many areas became important in my personal life: signing every progressive petition that would lead to influencing the system for the poor, avoiding stores that are known for their social Darwinism, and purchasing anything I could find that is organic.

It would be safe to say that I went from conservative evangelical focuses to a progressive faith emphasis. Still holding to the essentials of the Christian theology, but believing that true discipleship meant doing certain things. It’s interesting to me looking back: at one end of the pendulum of my faith journey I tried to avoid things, and at the other end of the swing I tried to do things. Both attempts at living the Christian life miss the point of discipleship – completely!

Which begs the question: What’s the point?

I’m becoming convinced that both polarities of holiness miss the point. We aren’t supposed to live as though God is a cop, ready to bust us each time we sin. Neither does God call us to work ourselves so hard that we become void of spiritual vitality. In this sense, the Christian life isn’t worth living.

For the entire post, click HERE.

--Nick

5 American Myths and Successful Churches and Ministries

I thought this was quite interesting. I just discovered Joseph's blog thanks to Scot McKnight, so what a great first introduction. I hope you find this as interesting as I did. Or not.

Oh.

The picture just made me laugh.

Mattera:

In my reading of the Word of God over the past 34 years I have noticed a keen difference between the biblical measure of success and the way many American churches seem to measure success.

Many of the ways American churches measures success are in fact direct violations of the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 23. In this passage Jesus speaks against people loving titles, celebrity status, and desiring prominent places in public events. Through the centuries theology and church practice have been greatly influenced by the surrounding cultures. The following are my opinions regarding five myths for success that have crept into the church from American culture.

MYTH #1: The Size of the Church Shows Success.

There are some churches in the USA that have grown by the thousands within the first few years of their existence. That may not seem odd in certain parts of the world where the Spirit of the Lord is blowing upon a nation for true revival and evangelism (for example, Brazil, Africa, Indonesia). Unfortunately, most of the time in America, churches that number in the thousands after only a year or two of existence usually have grown so large via “transfer growth” (people who are already saved jumping from one church to another).

This happens usually in two ways: either a celebrity church (a church with an already established worldwide name brand) with a lot of money plants a church, or a celebrity leader (well-known TV personality) with a large following and mailing list opens up a church. In some cases a church without a prior name brand explodes in growth because of their talented worship team, great administrative ability, marketing schemes, or charismatic preacher, and happens to be planted in an area in the midst of many small congregations that don’t offer the same level of excitement through its programs, marketing and presentation.

When churches grow like this I usually don’t fault the pastors of megachurches unless they are specifically targeting a Christian audience in their marketing and even service times. For example, when they advertise on Christian media outlets or choose a time on Sunday to initially meet when most churches don’t have church services, like 6 p.m.

Megachurch pastors can’t be blamed for people leaving other churches if they have not been properly discipled or rooted and grounded in the faith. However, at the same time I do not hold up these churches as models for church growth because they are not growing organically through converting the lost, and because most likely they are gathering an uncommitted crowd rather than a true church that has members relating to one another as a family of families. (There is also a lot of turnover in these kinds of megachurches, with a different crowd every year.)

In megachurches even much of the pastoral staff eventually gets hired from outside the church because many times they do not have the capacity to develop their own leaders fast enough to keep up with their rapid growth! This can perpetuate a cycle of having a hireling and/or a professional mentality among the key staff who are not committed to long-term tenure and to the community they presently serve.

Unfortunately many saints with low self-esteem or ego need to attend one of these “successful” churches because they feel it gives them status. This is a far cry from the early church that numbered in the thousands after the Day of Pentecost because of mass conversions and the contemporary persecuted church (for example, in Muslim nations) who often meet from house-to-house, break bread, and covenant with one another as brothers and sisters, and are willing to risk their lives for the gospel by being baptized!

I am all for explosive church growth: the kind of church growth that involves mostly new converts rather than transfer growth.

I am not necessarily opposed to quick megachurch growth but neither am I enthralled by it or hold it up as a model for true revival or church expansion.

For the four other points, enjoy them HERE.

--Nick

Deconstructing "Hellbound?"

I'll confess, I'm generally not a fan of documentaries. I had to sit through several of them while at Biola, and I always found time to twiddle my thumbs and pretty much ignore everything else.

Well, Hellbound? is the first documentary that both moved me and annoyed me to no end.

Allow me to explain.

Rob Bell's Love Wins brought about a major shift in the tone of evangelicalism. Some reacted, some reconsidered. But a conversation began, starting with a multitude of books and blog posts denouncing Rob Bell. Even the SBC got involved, affirming their commitment to eternal conscious torment. So, clearly, a differing view of hell sparked enough of a debate to warrant intelligent conversation on the topic of eternal damnation.

Writer/Director Kevin Miller takes us on a journey that deals with his own personal struggles with eternal conscious torment, and the idea that God would send/allow some to go to hell. His encounters involve laymen such as the "God hates fags" protestors outside the 9/11 memorial, to famous and controversial pastors such as Mark Driscoll and Brian McLaren. They all offer varying ideas, some of them quite extreme and others predictably toeing the traditional party line.

However, after setting the stage with what is at stake, the film takes a far more intellectual route, dealing with philosophy of religion, ethics, retributive justice and the meaning/s of the word "hell" in Scripture. Kevin marshals ample resources in the form of Brad Jersak, Sharon Baker and Michael Hardin. Greg Boyd makes several appearances to offer his clear perspective on things, but Robin Parry (one of my favorite scholars) has some a very wise perspective he offers. The interview is revealing, and quite profound in it's implications.

Though the film is somber and serious, there are some amusing moments in regards to prominent pastors screaming, and some charming anecdotes from Michael Hardin. It doesn't smack of the cheap editing tricks of "Religulous" but some/many may find them offensive anyway.

What annoyed me most about Hellbound? is the same thing that annoys me when I watch the evening news or listen to talk radio. Like I was, you will be tempted to yell at the screen and start arguing with a computer monitor. Hearing distinctions between theologies that I don't find compelling in the slightest really grated against my instincts. But this is to be expected.

You will be provoked, you will be challenged, and I do think you may be changed. The topic of hell can be extraordinarily divisive, but it would be a debate amongst Christians to conduct in love and respect. There is something in here to offend everyone, but none of it is intended to undermine or disrespect. Hellbound? offers much respect towards each view, though it does not shy away from revealing it's own conclusions on the matter. 

Like "Lord, Save Us From Your Followers," "Hellbound?" isn't interested in simple answers to complex questions. Indeed, many of the scholars and pastors interviewed are skeptical or hopeful or pessimistic about the state of the afterlife. You run the gamut between conservative evangelicals to progressives like Franky Schaeffer, and all have much to say on this topic. The finale of "Hellbound?" is deeply unsettling for some, but it is also moving and forthright.

The media hype about Rob Bell's Love Wins is nothing compared to the potential that Hellbound? is going to offer evangelical and progressive Christians. If Love Wins was a firestorm, Helbound? is a tactical nuclear strike and it's fallout will be felt for quite a long time.

Be open, be honest, and be prepared to have your buttons pushed.

I will post a more in-depth review once the film is released on September 21. You can check out the website for the film HERE.

--Nick

Dual Impressions, "P.O.D.'s 'Murdered Love'" review

P.O.D.'s new release Murdered Love is both high-powered and controversial. Check out the review that James and myself recorded, and then decide for yourself about the controversy.

Here is a sampling of the lyrics that have gotten such a fierce reaction:

I am the murderer, the pervert, sick to the core, 
I am the unclean dope fiend, I am the whore
I am the forgotten child, ravaged and raped and sex trafficked
Since I’m a little strange Daddy called me a faggot
Are you the one that’s come to set me free?
Cuz if you knew who I am would you really want to die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know this is the one and only Son of God, so tell me who the fuck is He?

PS, it is quite good and worthy of discussion.

Murdered Love Review

--Nick

Fundamentalist Christians, Gays & Electric Fences?

Oh my. I thought this was from Cracked. Or the Onion. Or the Huffington Post right beside the Kim Kardashian boob pictures.

Oh. Wait.

Anyway. This is spiritually painful. Even if one doesn't accept same-sex marriage, this still strikes me as unChrist-like.

Huff Po:

The barrage of anti-gay sermons delivered by North Carolina-based pastors to hit the blogosphere continues with yet another disturbing rant caught on tape. 

The pastor, identified on YouTube as Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., condemns President Obama's much-publicized endorsement of same-sex marriage while calling for gays and lesbians to be put in an electrified pen and ultimately killed off.
"Build a great, big, large fence -- 150 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there," Worley suggests in the clip, reportedly filmed on May 13. 

He continues: "Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out...and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out...do you know why? They can't reproduce!"

He also said that if he's asked who he'll vote for, he'll reply, "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover!" Many of the congregants cheer and reply, "Amen." 

Worley added, “It makes me pukin’ sick to think about -- I don’t even whether or not to say this in the pulpit -- can you imagine kissing some man?”
 
The pastor's comments seem in line with statements made by Ron Baity, founding pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem and head of the anti-marriage equality organization Return America, who told his own congregation that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people should be prosecuted as they were historically, and Pastor Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville who advocated parents "punch" their male child if he is effeminate and "crack that wrist" if he is limp-wristed. 

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

"Who Says Homosexuality is a Sin?" Part I

Josh Gould wrote this. The picture has little to do with this, but I thought the picture was funny by itself. ;)

There’s an ancient quote that says, “any interpretation of scripture which leads to hatred or disdain of other people, is illegitimate.” Some of you might recognize this quote from The Charter of Compassion that was launched a few years ago by Karen Armstrong. Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes who lived during the second century first uttered it and made it famous. St. Augustine also came to the same conclusion, but said it in different words.

So what does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, it doesn’t take much effort to see how evangelical Christians oppress and discriminate against someone who identifies as homosexual. These Christians claim that marriage is between one man and one woman and that anything else would destroy the sanctity of marriage, as God established in the Bible. They go out of their way to stand up against issues like same-sex marriage to the point where they pass amendments to ban such an idea. The media especially enjoys plastering their networks with video and pictures of people holding up signs that say, “God hates fags” and “God says fags should die.” Where do they get these ideas from and how can they be so bold as to speak on God’s behalf?

These ideas and interpretations about what God speaks through the Bible come from a place of hatred and, according to Rabbi Meir, this makes them illegitimate. But what exactly are they interpreting? Within the pages of the Bible, there are six verses that are commonly used across the board by Christians opposed to homosexuality: three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. Let’s take a look at the one that is arguably the strongest, most used verse in the Old Testament. We’ll find this verse in chapter 18 in the Book of Leviticus. It might be helpful to follow along in your own Bible, so feel free to turn there and skim down to verse 22. It reads, “do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, it is detestable” (TNIV). Before we begin breaking down the verse, a little context on Leviticus might be helpful.

For the rest, click below.

TheGodArticle.

--Nick