Panis Circenses

Recent and Current Reads

2012-01-25T13:05:00.002-05:00

RECENT READS

Duino Elegies, by Rainer Maria Wilke

The House at Pooh Corner, by A.A. Milne

Letters to Orpheus, by Rainer Maria Wilke

The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

The Sign of Four, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Winnie-the-Pooh, by A.A. Milne

CURRENT READS

Divine Comedy, by Dante

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, by Hunter S. Thompson

The Magic Mountain, by Thomas Mann

Moby Dick, by Hermann Melville

Omeros, by Derek Walcott

Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen

A Study in Scarlet, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The Wind in the Willows, by Kenneth Grahame

I TAKE IT BACK ...

2012-01-25T12:23:00.003-05:00

In 2010, I state how pained I was when Stone Temple Pilot's eponymous album flopped in my estimation. Well, I take that back.

A year has gone by and I revisited the album last month and have been relistening to it for several weeks. My opinion has changed.

I now believe that this is a very good album and is worth the listening. In fact, I have yet to put it down.

But why did I initially not like it? Here is my theory:

For this argument, there are three types of albums for me:

- Albums I initally enjoy.
- Albums I do not like.
- Albums I do not initially like but then learn to enjoy over subsequent listenings.

Now STP was my favourite band of the 1990s and I have either loved or really enjoyed all of their albums. Core (1992) and Purple (1994) are in my Top 50 Favourite Albums and the latter has occasionally been in my Top Ten.

Furthermore, I have either loved or liked every single STP album at first listening. Not a single variation in their first five. But here is their sixth and I do not like it on the first go.

I was flummoxed. But now that I have had more opportunities for the tunes to settle in and find their groove ...

I am now very much relieved. I can now happily state that STP has made 6 albums in a row that I have enjoyed.

Bring on number seven!

MY TOP ALBUMS OF 2011

2012-01-11T12:23:00.005-05:00

Best of Gloucester County (2011) – Danielson

I discovered Danielson and he (they) became one of my favorites real quickly. I lauded Ships (2006) as probably the best “Christian album” I’ve ever heard. Well, it is the best “Christian album” I’ve ever heard and it was the best album I heard last year. In fact, Ships has now been moved into my Top 10. Top 10! Do you know how often that occurs? The last time was 2004! But what about the dreaded follow-up? No fears. This is another great album by one of the best Christian musicians out there. I highly recommend it.

Helplessness Blues (2011) - Fleet Foxes

I discovered Fleet Foxes last year and immediately fell in love with them. Their album, Fleet Foxes (2008), - which has now been moved into my Top 50 - was one the best albums of last year. Wonderfully, their sophomore effort was just as brilliant and is the best album of the year. Their EP Sun Giant (2008) was an honorable mention last year.

Oh, Perilous World (2007) – Rasputina

Here is a quirky little album of cello-rock. Yes, cello-rock. These songs combine great songwriting and arrangement, good production, good singing, great lyrics (many about historical events), and the cello. A great listen. I’m currently listening to the follow-up album, Sister Kinderhook (2010)

Ringo (1973) – Ringo Starr

I first learned of this album while I was in high school. Think about it:

- This album came out in 1973
- ALL FOUR BEATLES wrote songs for the album
- ALL FOUR BEATLES perform on the album

Can we not argue that this is practically the LAST Beatle album? But throw all that out and it’s still a really great album with top-notch songs. Ringo Starr appears in Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper’s ... (1967), and The Beatles (1968) which are in my Top 50 and in Abbey Road (1969) which is in my Top 10.

Seven Swans (2004) - Sufjan Stevens

Here is another fantastic album by certainly one of the best musicians who happens to be a Christian. In fact, I think this album is my favorite of his and once of the best Christian albums I’ve ever heard. I highly recommend it. His album, Illinois (2005) appeared on my last year’s Top Ten. His album, Age of Adz (2010), appears as an honorable mention.

Smile (2011) – The Beach Boys

After forty plus years, The Beach Boys finally released Smile. This was to be the follow-up to Pet Sounds (1966) but was abandoned by the group before it could be completed. For the following decade, songs from the Smile Sessions were “salvaged” for subsequent Beach Boy albums. These, plus many of the unreleased songs, found their way onto bootlegged copies of Smile. It wasn’t until 2004 that Brian Wilson released a newly recorded Smile as a solo album. The popularity of this solo album (and the release of The Pet Sounds Sessions [1997]) sparked renewed interest in this unfinished project. So finally, this year, The Smile Sessions was released and included all of the recordings that were to be a part of the originally proposed album. Now obviously, since the project was abandoned, much of the album lacks the polish that one heard in Pet Sounds and which one can hear in Smile (2004). Think of it in terms of The Beatles Anthology (1995-1996). Nevertheless, this is a great album and a wonder to finally behold. Smile (2004) by Brian Wilson is in my Top 10 and also my favorite album.

Write About Love (2010) - Belle and Sebastian

Belle and Sebastian continue to amaze me with their superb songwriting, vocals, and arrangement. The lead singer and songwriter is a christian and his faith often appears in his songs, Write About Love is no exception. This is a really great album. Their albums, Fold Your Hands Child, You Walk Like a Peasant (2000), If You’re Feeling Sinister (1996), and Tiger Milk (1996) all appeared as honorable mentions last year. Dear Catastrophe Waitress (2003) is in my Top 50.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

Age of Adz (2010) - Sufjan Stevens

Band of Joy (2010) – Robert Plant

Berlin (1973) – Lou Reed

Blue Cathedral (2004) – Comets on Fire

I’m Going Away (2009) - The Fiery Furnaces

In the Wake of Poseidon (1979) – King Crimson

Joe’s Garage (1979) – Frank Zappa

King of Limbs (2011) – Radiohead

Logos (2009) – Atlas Sound

The Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table (1975) – Rick Wakeman

Oar (1969) – Skip Spence

Octopus (1972) – Gentle Giant

S.F. Sorrow (1968) - The Pretty Things

Simple Things (2001) – Zero 7

Thickfreakness (2003) – The Black Keys

Vampire Weekend (2008) - Vampire Weekend

Veckatimest (2009) – Grizzly Bear

Volume One (2008) – She & Him

Widow City (2007) – The Fiery Furnaces

Yeah Ghost (2009) – Zero 7

Start Warts

2011-11-09T23:22:00.000-05:00

Alright, I'm about to betray my generation. So what else is new!

Last week, I watched the entire, original Star Wars trilogy. I hadn't done so in many years.

...

I didn't like it. It was boring, contrived, silly, badly written, badly acted (mostly), stupid, and with gawdawlful dialogue.

Pity.

Samuel, Eli, and Yahweh in 1 Samuel 3

2011-11-09T23:06:00.000-05:00

In 1 Samuel 3, Yahweh calls out to the young Samuel at night, three times. Each time, Samuel thinks it is Eli calling him and, therefore, runs to him. Each time, Eli states that he didn’t summon Samuel. However, on third time, Eli realizes that it is Yahweh calling to Samuel and tells the latter to answer Yahweh, and Samuel does so on the third calling.

When I was meditating on this story last week, I was struck by the question of why Yahweh allowed Samuel to believe it was Eli that was summoning him those first three times. Yahweh could have called out to Samuel once and make his identity known.

Then the answer came to me.

The purpose of allowing Samuel to think it was Eli who was summoning him was for the benefit of Eli. As verse 8 shows, it was on the third time that Eli realized that it was Yahweh who was talking to Samuel. The message Yahweh delivers to Samuel is a prophecy concerning Eli and his family. Eli knows this is a true prophecy because he knows that it did come from Yahweh.

That’s good writing.

An Interesting Parallel in Luke-Acts

2011-11-09T22:38:00.000-05:00

Presuming that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are companions pieces, note the beginnings of both Luke and Acts:

In Luke 1:9 Zechariah is chosen by casting lots.

In Acts 1:26, Matthias is chosen by casting lots.

“I Buried Radiohead”

2011-10-08T10:52:00.000-04:00

I think Radiohead front man, Thom Yorke, and producer Nigel Godrich are incrementally killing off the other members of Radiohead and replacing them with computerized music. I think it began just after OK Computer was released and before Kid A. The drummer went first.

Evidence:

1) Radiohead’s music has become increasingly computertized

2) Radiohead’s music is becoming more and more like Thom York’s solo work

3) Thom York’s solo album is called, The Eraser. (i.e., he’s “erasing” the other members of the band.

4) He thinks computers are “okay” (i.e., the Radiohead album, OK Computer)

5) Songs pointing to this:

a. "How to Disappear Completely", Kid A
b. “Knives Out”, Amnesiac
c. "Go to Sleep. (Little Man being Erased)", Hail to the Thief
d. "We suck Young Blood. (Your Time is up)", Hail to the Thief
e. “Myxomatosis. (Judge, Jury & Executioner)", Hail to the Thief
f. "Bodysnatchers", In Rainbows
g. “Give Up the Ghost”, King of Limbs

More to come.

You Might Find This Amusing ...

2011-10-08T10:12:00.000-04:00

Recently, a youth from the church in which I serve was accusing me of not using the Bible when I taught.

There were people in the church who learned of this and, naturally, became concerned over what I was teaching.

...

It turns out that the youth was complaining that I too often put the scripture for Wednesday night lessons on power point and did not actually open a Bible to read the scripture directly from it.

I actually thought the whole matter was funny. I wasn't worried about the initial charge because I knew the accusations were bogus. Why should I worry? I simply said, "Well, I keep all my lessons saved on power point. You can look over them and see how much Bible I use."

I actually felt honored. "What happened to the Southern Baptist seminary professors during the Conservative Resurgence is now happening to me! Whoopee!"

Astronomers discover planet made of diamond

2011-08-25T14:42:00.000-04:00

"Twinkle, Twinkle, little star ..."

FIRST-PERSON: The root cause of the London riots

2011-08-17T13:44:00.002-04:00

Here is another embarrassing article on biological evolution in the Baptist Press.

This could be one of the worst.

Apparently, the article’s author believes that the root cause of the 2011 London Riots is evolution.

Follow the “logic” of his argument:
1) Young people are rioting because Britain has created a culture in which people no longer believe they have souls.

2) England once believed that God was both Creator and Judge to mankind. After Darwin, God was no longer revered as Creator.

3) Thus, God is no longer feared as Judge.

Q.E.D.

He supports his “theory” by citing a British commentator who used metaphors to describe the rioters in “feral” terms.

Shazam!

It would a waste of time to pick apart the “logic” of this sorrowful piece of an article. So allow me to simply offer some pre-Darwin evidence to the contrary.
The following is a list of riots and protests involving violent disorder that have occurred in London:

• The Massacre of the Jews at the coronation of Richard I in 1189.

• William with the long beard causes riots in 1196 when he preaches for the poor against the rich.

• In 1221 riots occur after London defeats Westminster in an annual wrestling contest; ring-leaders hanged or mutilated in punishment.

• Rioting between goldsmiths and tailors in 1268.

• In 1391 riots break out in Salisbury Place over a baker's loaf.
• Evil May Day riot against foreigners takes place in 1517.

• The 1668 Bawdy House Riots took place following repression of a series of attacks against brothels.

• The Sacheverell riots in 1710, following the trial of the preacher, Henry Sacheverell.

• In 1719 Spitalfields weavers rioted, attacking women wearing Indian clothing and then attempting to rescue their arrested comrades.

• Riots in 1743 against Gin Taxes and other legislation to control the Gin Craze, principally the Gin Act 1736; rioting was fuelled by consumption of the drink itself.

• The Massacre of St George's Fields in 1768 after the imprisonment of John Wilkes for criticising the King.

• The Spitalfield Riots of 1769 when silk weavers attempted to maintain their rate of pay.

• Gordon Riots against Catholics in 1780.

• Old Price Riots, 1809 following a rise in the price of theatre tickets.

• Spa Fields riots in 1816 when Spenceans met in support of the common ownership of land.

• Attacks in 1830 against the Duke of Wellington in his carriage and on his home, for his opposition to electoral reform (which had been seen partly as a solution to rioting by rural workers).

Worst Directors

2011-07-01T15:52:00.001-04:00

Since Transformers 3 is now in theatres, I thought I would post my list of worst film directors.

Michael Bay
Uwe Boll
Kevin Costner
Kevin Smith
Lars von Trier
Paul Verhoeven
John Waters
Doris Wishman
Ed Wood

A Modern Translation of a Word in Isaiah 30:22

2011-06-30T10:19:00.002-04:00

If we use the Dynamic Equivalence approach to this verse, the word should read like this:

"Then you will defile your idols overlaid with silver and your images covered with gold; you will throw them away like a tampon and say to them, 'Away with you!'" (Isaiah 30:22)

My Submission to the July Addition of the Brookwood Builder

2011-06-22T14:21:00.003-04:00

First Lady Hillary Clinton once famously titled one of her books, It Takes a Village. The title was attributed to an African proverb: "It takes a village to raise a child." Senator Bob Dole famously replied responded: "... it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child."

I certainly believe that it takes a family to raise a child. I also believe that it takes God to raise a child. And, most importantly, I believe that it takes Jesus to raise a child.

What can we say about raising children and being a family in the present world? The social, economic, political, and cultural movements of 20th and 21st century America have led to the present situation in which the stability, the definition, and the recognition of family is doubtful and open to serious questions.

Is a family made up of only two parents or also one parent? What is a parent? Is a parent biological or legal? Is a family made up of a child and parents or a child and grandparents? Does a family consist of a child and guardian(s)? If so, what constitutes a guardian? What if a parent or a guardian is gay? What constitutes a marriage? Is it spiritual, legal, or both? Does a marriage still exist if one of these factors is absent? These are questions that have sent governments and social groups to scrambling for answers, public policy solutions, and some form of stability.

Let’s face it: what we traditionally thought a family should look like hasn’t looked like that or been like that for a long time. Certainly, the reality of what it means to be a family has shifted since I was born.

I am a part of the Generation X (born in the 60s and 70s), and mine is the first generation who were children during the mass fragmentation of the American home; a fragmentation that has continued into the Millennial Generation (born in the 80s and 90s). Of my generation it was said that our family lives became so unstable and so prone to disappointment that we lost all faith in family and began to invest all of our trust and personal relationships in friends and non-familiar relationships. Now this is being said of the Millennial Generation.

Yet, despite the undeniable societal sea changes, the individual problems are not new. The Bible mentions single mothers: Tamar was a single mother (Genesis 38), as was Hagar (Genesis 21:10-21), and others (2 Samuel 14; 1 Kings 17; Luke 7:12). The Bible mentions aging couples raising children: Sarah and Abraham raised Isaac (Genesis 21-22), and Elizabeth and Zacharias raised John the Baptist (Luke 1:57-80). In fact, the Bible mentions families that read like the tabloid headlines (Genesis 9:22; 19:36; 38:9; 2 Samuel 13:11-15; Hosea 1:2). In truth, the existence of these problems isn’t new, only the scope and our awareness of them. What we’re seeing in the present world is an aggregate of individual situations. Yet, it seems to me that the very fact that God included these situations in the Scriptures means that it should be of interest to us.

Read these accounts. These are real people with in real circumstances and real problems that needed to be overcome. And God was there. God was with them. He took care of them. God was always there, and he still is. He came as the child of a pregnant and unwed mother. (1) He came as Jesus who is called Immanuel, which means “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). And he is “with us always to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).

The Kingdom of God has come in the in the person and work of Jesus. It is a work of which we as followers of Jesus are called to enact with every aspect of our individual persons. We stand in the present world poised between the Resurrection of Jesus (which is the beginning of God’s plan to heal an unstable, hurting, fragmented, and fluctuating world) and the final consummation when God will make everything over and new. And we are charged with the responsibility and the power of the Holy Spirit here and now to be people through whom signs of that final consummation, of that healing, that forgiveness, that reconciliation, come to birth within the present world.

Remember Jesus’ commission to us: “Just as the Father sent me, so I send you” (John 20:21). We are to be Christ to the world just like Christ is God to the world. We are to be there for others just like God in Christ is there for us. We are to be there for unwed mothers, the divorced, the widowed, the families of the deployed, and the aging guardians of young children.

I stated that the great family problem we’re seeing in the present world is an aggregate of individual situations and this is true. And the greater problem can only be solved by addressing each individual situation one by one. We are called to help build the City of God brick by brick, person by person.

Yes, it takes a family to raise a child. Yes, it takes God to raise a child. Yes, it takes Jesus to raise a child. And, therefore, as his body and his workers, it takes a church to help raise a child and help maintain a family. In fact, we are to be a family for Generation X, the Millennial Generation, and all others (Matthew 12:49; Luke 3:38; Acts 3:26; Ephesians 3:15). So let’s go out and be the stability and trustworthiness of God in Christ.

(1)Did you ever note how many “non-traditional” family situations are referenced in the two Birth Narratives of Jesus in Matthew and Luke? Take particular notice of those alluded to in the Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, David, Uriah’s wife, Solomon, and Mary.

A Pleasure to Burn

2011-06-20T11:11:00.002-04:00

I saw this at a gas station on Friday near the Marine Base.

I question whether it's good form to have such a sign at this in a military town when the country is at war in three Arab/Muslim countries.

Emailed Querstions and Answers on Politics

2011-06-20T10:56:00.003-04:00

Last week friend from university emailed me with this question:

"I have a question that I don't mean to come off confrontational....I'm really trying to learn something. I just watched the republican primary debate in NH and this occured to me: how can a party/belief system be so staunchly pro personal freedom be so anti same sex marraige and anti choice? It seems to be a glaring contradiction at a fundamental level. Again, not trying to pick a fight...just get another perspective!"

Here was my reply:

"Actually, I haven't been interested in politics for over a decade. I flung it all off for the sake of Art and Religion. I don't keep up with it and don't vote. I'm sure I'm a model citizen somewhere. So, I can't help you with any political contradictions on fundamental levels. Sorry, my friend."

It's difficult ...

2011-05-31T10:09:00.002-04:00

It's difficult to be an evangelical Christian these days when you cannot tell the difference between Steven Curtis Chapman and Michael W. Smith.

Ten things Kate can’t do once she marries Wills

2011-04-18T12:01:00.003-04:00

While checking my email this morning, I saw the blurb for this article about the up-coming wedding between Kate Middleton and Prince William of Windsor.

It was the second prohibition that interested me:

2. Vote

Technically, the Queen and other members of her family are allowed to vote, but they do not do so because in practice it would be considered unconstitutional and not in accordance with the need for neutrality.

This is in keeping with the Royal Family's public role, which is based on identifying with every section of society, including minorities and special interest groups.

This is actually one of the many reasons I as a follower of Jesus and a Christian minister do not vote or become involved in politics or political discussions. It's actually the main reason.

FIRST-PERSON: Avoid even a hint of immorality

2011-04-06T12:23:00.000-04:00

FIRST-PERSON: Avoid even a hint of immorality

by Ed Stetzer

Posted on Apr 5, 2011

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--I had an awkward situation a few years ago. My doctor prescribed a sleep study (part of some health tests I was doing in preparation for a new health regimen). The tech called me to arrange the details. She did not seem to have many details about the clinic, so I asked some questions. One of which was the setting -- in this case it was an office building with several faux bedrooms where they would wire me up and measure me sleeping.

I asked about the staff, and she was "it."

Then came that awkward moment. I knew she would not understand it, but I explained, "I can't come if it is just you and me in the building." It was awkward and I am guessing few ever said such a thing. So, I skipped out on my study.

It might seem silly to you, but let me encourage you to not see it as such. Many of you who read this are young pastors. I know too many pastors who have lost great credibility because of an accusation (let alone an indiscretion).

I am not irresistible. I have a great face for radio. I do not think that anyone will swoon over me. But, I do not know the stability, morality and disposition of people that I meet.

When I told my wife what I had done, I thought she might slap me. She has been excited about my health plans. However, she was the opposite. She felt protected and affirmed. She knew I would not put our family in jeopardy.

I remember Danny Akin once saying that he would not pick up a woman on the side of the road in the rain if her car broke down. He would never be alone with a woman who was not his wife. It seemed a bit selfish until he told the rest of the story. He would pull over and give her the keys and let her drive where she needed to be.

Guarding yourself takes work, can be awkward and is often inconvenient. But, one problem averted makes it a good stewardship of your life, ministry and family.

At the churches I planted, we always used something like Saddleback's staff "Ten Commandments":

1. "Thou shalt not go to lunch alone with the opposite sex.

2. "Thou shalt not have the opposite sex pick you up or drive you places when it is just the two of you.

3. "Thou shalt not kiss any attender of the opposite sex or show affection that could be questioned.

4. "Thou shalt not visit the opposite sex alone at home.

5. "Thou shalt not counsel the opposite sex alone at the office, and thou shalt not counsel the opposite sex more than once without that person's mate. Refer them.

6. "Thou shalt not discuss detailed sexual problems with the opposite sex in counseling. Refer them.

7. "Thou shalt not discuss your marriage problems with an attender of the opposite sex.

8. "Thou shalt be careful in answering emails, instant messages, chatrooms, cards or letters from the opposite sex.

9. "Thou shalt make your co-worker your protective ally.

10. "Thou shalt pray for the integrity of other staff members."

(The first three do not apply to unmarried staff.)

I hope you have a list like this for your own life and ministry.

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality..." (Ephesians 5:3).

St. Patrick's Confession

2011-03-17T11:51:00.001-04:00

I, Patrick, a sinner, a most simple countryman, the least of all the faithful and most contemptible to many, had for father the deacon Calpurnius, son of the late Potitus, a presbyter, of the settlement of Bannaven Taburniae; he had a small villa nearby where I was taken captive. I was at that time about sixteen years of age. I did not, indeed, know the true God; and I was taken into captivity in Ireland with many thousands of people, according to our deserts, for quite drawn away from God, we did not keep his precepts, nor were we obedient to our presbyters who used to remind us of our salvation. And the Lord brought down on us the fury of his being and scattered us among many nations, even to the ends of the earth, where I, in my smallness, am now to be found among foreigners.

And there the Lord opened my mind to an awareness of my unbelief, in order that, even so late, I might remember my transgressions and turn with all my heart to the Lord my God, who had regard for my insignificance and pitied my youth and ignorance. And he watched over me before I knew him, and before I learned sense or even distinguished between good and evil, and he protected me, and consoled me as a father would his son.

Therefore, indeed, I cannot keep silent, nor would it be proper, so many favours and graces has the Lord deigned to bestow on me in the land of my captivity. For after chastisement from God, and recognizing him, our way to repay him is to exalt him and confess his wonders before every nation under heaven:

For there is no other God, nor ever was before, nor shall be hereafter, but God the Father, unbegotten and without beginning, in whom all things began, whose are all things, as we have been taught; and his son Jesus Christ, who manifestly always existed with the Father, before the beginning of time in the spirit with the Father, indescribably begotten before all things, and all things visible and invisible were made by him. He was made man, conquered death and was received into Heaven, to the Father who gave him all power over every name in Heaven and on Earth and in Hell, so that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, in whom we believe. And we look to his imminent coming again, the judge of the living and the dead, who will render to each according to his deeds. And he poured out his Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and pledge of immortality, which makes the believers and the obedient into sons of God and co-heirs of Christ who is revealed, and we worship one God in the Trinity of holy name.

He himself said through the prophet: "Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me [Psalm 50:15]." And again: "It is right to reveal and publish abroad the works of God."

I am imperfect in many things, nevertheless I want my brethren and kinsfolk to know my nature so that they may be able to perceive my soul's desire.

I am not ignorant of what is said of my Lord in the Psalm: "You destroy those who speak a lie [Psalm 5:6]." And again: "A lying mouth deals death to the soul." And likewise the Lord says in the Gospel: "On the day of judgment men shall render account for every idle word they utter [Matthew 12:36]."

So it is that I should mightily fear, with terror and trembling, this judgment on the day when no one shall be able to steal away or hide, but each and all shall render account for even our smallest sins before the judgment seat of Christ the Lord.

And therefore for some time I have thought of writing, but I have hesitated until now, for truly, I feared to expose myself to the criticism of men, because I have not studied like others, who have assimilated both Law and the Holy Scriptures equally and have never changed their idiom since their infancy, but instead were always learning it increasingly, to perfection, while my idiom and language have been translated into a foreign tongue. So it is easy to prove from a sample of my writing, my ability in rhetoric and the extent of my preparation and knowledge, for as it is said, "wisdom shall be recognized in speech, and in understanding, and in knowledge and in the learning of truth."

But why make excuses close to the truth, especially when now I am presuming to try to grasp in my old age what I did not gain in my youth because my sins prevented me from making what I had read my own? But who will believe me, even though I should say it again? A young man, almost a beardless boy, I was taken captive before I knew what I should desire and what I should shun. So, consequently, today I feel ashamed and I am mightily afraid to expose my ignorance, because, [I am not] eloquent, with a small vocabulary, I am unable to explain as the spirit is eager to do and as the soul and the mind indicate.

But had it been given to me as to others, in gratitude I should not have kept silent, and if it should appear that I put myself before others, with my ignorance and my slower speech, in truth, it is written: "The tongue of the stammerers shall speak rapidly and distinctly [Isaiah 32:4]." How much harder must we try to attain it, we of whom it is said: "You are an epistle of Christ in greeting to the ends of the earth... written on your hearts, not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God [2 Corinthians 3:3]." And again, the Spirit witnessed that the rustic life was created by the Most High.

I am, then, first of all, countrified, an exile, evidently unlearned, one who is not able to see into the future, but I know for certain, that before I was humbled I was like a stone lying in deep mire, and he that is mighty came and in his mercy raised me up and, indeed, lifted me high up and placed me on top of the wall. And from there I ought to shout out in gratitude to the Lord for his great favours in this world and for ever, that the mind of man cannot measure.

Therefore be amazed, you great and small who fear God, and you men of God, eloquent speakers, listen and contemplate. Who was it summoned me, a fool, from the midst of those who appear wise and learned in the law and powerful in rhetoric and in all things? Me, truly wretched in this world, he inspired before others that I could be-- if I would-- such a one who, with fear and reverence, and faithfully, without complaint, would come to the people to whom the love of Christ brought me and gave me in my lifetime, if I should be worthy, to serve them truly and with humility.

According, therefore, to the measure of one's faith in the Trinity, one should proceed without holding back from danger to make known the gift of God and everlasting consolation, to spread God's name everywhere with confidence and without fear, in order to leave behind, after my death, foundations for my brethren and sons whom I baptized in the Lord in so many thousands.

And I was not worthy, nor was I such that the Lord should grant his humble servant this, that after hardships and such great trials, after captivity, after many years, he should give me so much favour with these people, a thing which in the time of my youth I neither hoped for nor imagined.

But after I reached Hibernia I used to pasture the flock each day and I used to pray many times a day. More and more did the love of God, and my fear of him and faith increase, and my spirit was moved so that in a day [I said] from one up to a hundred prayers, and in the night a like number; besides I used to stay out in the forests and on the mountain and I would wake up before daylight to pray in the snow, in icy coldness, in rain, and I used to feel neither ill nor any slothfulness, because, as I now see, the Spirit was burning in me at that time.

And it was there of course that one night in my sleep I heard a voice saying to me: "You do well to fast: soon you will depart for your home country." And again, a very short time later, there was a voice prophesying: "Behold, your ship is ready." And it was not close by, but, as it happened, two hundred miles away, where I had never been nor knew any person. And shortly thereafter I turned about and fled from the man with whom I had been for six years, and I came, by the power of God who directed my route to advantage (and I was afraid of nothing), until I reached that ship.

And on the same day that I arrived, the ship was setting out from the place, and I said that I had not the wherewithal to sail with them; and the steersman was displeased and replied in anger, sharply: "By no means attempt to go with us." Hearing this I left them to go to the hut where I was staying, and on the way I began to pray, and before the prayer was finished I heard one of them shouting loudly after me: "Come quickly because the men are calling you." And immediately I went back to them and they started to say to me: "Come, because we are admitting you out of good faith; make friendship with us in any way you wish." (And so, on that day, I refused to suck the breasts of these men from fear of God, but nevertheless I had hopes that they would come to faith in Jesus Christ, because they were barbarians.) And for this I continued with them, and forthwith we put to sea.

And after three days we reached land, and for twenty-eight days journeyed through uninhabited country, and the food ran out and hunger overtook them; and one day the steersman began saying: "Why is it, Christian? You say your God is great and all-powerful; then why can you not pray for us? For we may perish of hunger; it is unlikely indeed that we shall ever see another human being." In fact, I said to them, confidently: "Be converted by faith with all your heart to my Lord God, because nothing is impossible for him, so that today he will send food for you on your road, until you be sated, because everywhere he abounds." And with God's help this came to pass; and behold, a herd of swine appeared on the road before our eyes, and they slew many of them, and remained there for two nights, and they were full of their meat and well restored, for many of them had fainted and would otherwise have been left half dead by the wayside. And after this they gave the utmost thanks to God, and I was esteemed in their eyes, and from that day they had food abundantly. They discovered wild honey, besides, and they offered a share to me, and one of them said: "It is a sacrifice." Thanks be to God, I tasted none of it.

The very same night while I was sleeping Satan attacked me violently, as I will remember as long as I shall be in this body; and there fell on top of me as it were, a huge rock, and not one of my members had any force. But from whence did it come to me, ignorant in the spirit, to call upon Elijah? And meanwhile I saw the sun rising in the sky, and while I was crying out "Elijah, Elijah" with all my might, lo, the brilliance of that sun fell upon me and immediately shook me free of all the weight; and I believe that I was aided by Christ my Lord, and that his Spirit then was crying out for me, and I hope that it will be so in the day of my affliction, just as it says in the Gospel: "In that hour", the Lord declares, "it is not you who speaks but the Spirit of your Father speaking in you [Matthew 10:20]."

And a second time, after many years, I was taken captive. On the first night I accordingly remained with my captors, but I heard a divine prophecy, saying to me: "You shall be with them for two months." So it happened. On the sixtieth night the Lord delivered me from their hands.

On the journey he provided us with food and fire and dry weather every day, until on the tenth day we came upon people. As I mentioned above, we had journeyed through an unpopulated country for twenty-eight days, and in fact the night that we came upon people we had no food.

And after a few years I was again in Britain with my parents, and they welcomed me as a son, and asked me, in faith, that after the great tribulations I had endured I should not go any where else away from them. And, of course, there, in a vision of the night, I saw a man whose name was Victoricus coming as if from Hibernia with innumerable letters, and he gave me one of them, and I read the beginning of the letter: "The Voice of the Hibernians", and as I was reading the beginning of the letter I seemed at that moment to hear the voice of those who were beside the forest of Foclut which is near the western sea, and they were crying as if with one voice: "We beg you, holy youth, that you shall come and shall walk again among us." And I was stung intensely in my heart so that I could read no more, and thus I awoke. Thanks be to God, because after so many years the Lord bestowed on them according to their cry.

And another night-- God knows, I do not, whether within me or beside me-- most words which I heard and could not understand, except at the end of the speech it was represented thus: "He who gave his life for you, he it is who speaks within you." And thus I awoke, joyful.

And on a second occasion I saw Him praying within me, and I was as it were, inside my own body , and I heard Him above me-- that is, above my inner self. He was praying powerfully with sighs. And in the course of this I was astonished and wondering, and I pondered who it could be who was praying within me. But at the end of the prayer it was revealed to me that it was the Spirit. And so I awoke and remembered the Apostle's words: "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we know not how to pray as we ought. But the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for utterance [Romans 8:26]." And again: "The Lord our advocate intercedes for us [Romans 8:27]."

And then I was attacked by a goodly number of my elders, who [mentioned] my sins against my arduous episcopate. That day in particular I was mightily upset, and might have fallen here and for ever; but the Lord generously spared me, a convert, and an alien, for his name's sake, and he came powerfully to my assistance in that state of being trampled down. I pray God that it shall not be held against them as a sin that I fell truly into disgrace and scandal.

They brought up against me after thirty years an occurrence I had confessed before becoming a deacon. On account of the anxiety in my sorrowful mind, I laid before my close friend what I had perpetrated on a day-- nay, rather in one hour-- in my boyhood because I was not yet proof against sin. God knows-- I do not-- whether I was fifteen years old at the time, and I did not then believe in the living God, nor had I believed, since my infancy; but I remained in death and unbelief until I was severely rebuked, and in truth I was humbled every day by hunger and nakedness.

On the other hand, I did not proceed to Hibernia of my own accord until I was almost giving up, but through this I was corrected by the Lord, and he prepared me so that today I should be what was once far from me, in order that I should have the care of-- or rather, I should be concerned for-- the salvation of others, when at that time, still, I was only concerned for myself.

Therefore, on that day when I was rebuked, as I have just mentioned, I saw in a vision of the night a document before my face, without honour, and meanwhile I heard a divine prophecy, saying to me: "We have seen with displeasure the face of the chosen one divested of name." And he did not say "You have seen with displeasure", but "We have seen with displeasure" (as if He included Himself) . He said then: "He who touches you, touches the apple of my eye."

For that reason, I give thanks to him who strengthened me in all things, so that I should not be hindered in my setting out and also in my work which I was taught by Christ my Lord; but more, from that state of affairs I felt, within me, no little courage, and vindicated my faith before God and man.

Hence, therefore, I say boldly that my conscience is clear now and hereafter. God is my witness that I have not lied in these words to you.

But rather, I am grieved for my very close friend, that because of him we deserved to hear such a prophecy. The one to whom I entrusted my soul! And I found out from a goodly number of brethren, before the case was made in my defense (in which I did not take part, nor was I in Britain, nor was it pleaded by me), that in my absence he would fight in my behalf. Besides, he told me himself: "See, the rank of bishop goes to you"-- of which I was not worthy. But how did it come to him, shortly afterwards, to disgrace me publicly, in the presence of all, good and bad, because previously, gladly and of his own free will, he pardoned me, as did the Lord, who is greater than all?

I have said enough. But all the same, I ought not to conceal God's gift which he lavished on us in the land of my captivity, for then I sought him resolutely, and I found him there, and he preserved me from all evils (as I believe) through the in-dwelling of his Spirit, which works in me to this day. Again, boldly, but God knows, if this had been made known to me by man, I might, perhaps, have kept silent for the love of Christ.

Thus I give untiring thanks to God who kept me faithful in the day of my temptation, so that today I may confidently offer my soul as a living sacrifice for Christ my Lord; who am I, Lord? or, rather, what is my calling? that you appeared to me in so great a divine quality, so that today among the barbarians I might constantly exalt and magnify your name in whatever place I should be, and not only in good fortune, but even in affliction? So that whatever befalls me, be it good or bad, I should accept it equally, and give thanks always to God who revealed to me that I might trust in him, implicitly and forever, and who will encourage me so that, ignorant, and in the last days, I may dare to undertake so devout and so wonderful a work; so that I might imitate one of those whom, once, long ago, the Lord already pre-ordained to be heralds of his Gospel to witness to all peoples to the ends of the earth. So are we seeing, and so it is fulfilled; behold, we are witnesses because the Gospel has been preached as far as the places beyond which no man lives.

But it is tedious to describe in detail all my labours one by one. I will tell briefly how our most holy God frequently delivered me, from slavery, and from the twelve trials with which my soul was threatened, from man traps as well, and from things I am not able to put into words. I would not cause offense to readers, but I have God as witness who knew all things even before they happened, that, though I was a poor ignorant waif, still he gave me abundant warnings through divine prophecy.

Whence came to me this wisdom which was not my own, I who neither knew the number of days nor had knowledge of God? Whence came the so great and so healthful gift of knowing or rather loving God, though I should lose homeland and family.

And many gifts were offered to me with weeping and tears, and I offended them, and also went against the wishes of a good number of my elders; but guided by God, I neither agreed with them nor deferred to them, not by my own grace but by God who is victorious in me and withstands them all, so that I might come to the Irish people to preach the Gospel and endure insults from unbelievers; that I might hear scandal of my travels, and endure many persecutions to the extent of prison; and so that I might give up my free birthright for the advantage of others, and if I should be worthy, I am ready [to relinquish] even my life without hesitation; and most willingly for His name. And I choose to devote it to him even unto death, if God grant it to me.

I am greatly God's debtor, because he granted me so much grace, that through me many people would be reborn in God, and soon after confirmed, and that clergy would be ordained everywhere for them, the masses lately come to belief, whom the Lord drew from the ends of the earth, just as he once promised through his prophets: "To you shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers have inherited naught but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit [Jeremiah 16:19]." And again: "I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles that you may bring salvation to the uttermost ends of the earth [Acts 13:47]."

And I wish to wait then for his promise which is never unfulfilled, just as it is promised in the Gospel: "Many shall come from east and west and shall sit at table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob [Matthew 8:11]." Just as we believe that believers will come from all the world.

So for that reason one should, in fact, fish well and diligently, just as the Lord foretells and teaches, saying, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men [Matthew 4:19]," and again through the prophets: "Behold, I am sending forth many fishers and hunters, says the Lord [Jeremiah 16:16]," et cetera. So it behooved us to spread our nets, that a vast multitude and throng might be caught for God, and so there might be clergy everywhere who baptized and exhorted a needy and desirous people. Just as the Lord says in the Gospel, admonishing and instructing: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always to the end of time [Matthew 28:19]." And again he says: "Go forth into the world and preach the Gospel to all creation. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned [Mark 16:15]." And again: "This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached throughout the whole world as a witness to all nations; and then the end of the world shall come [Matthew 24:14]." And likewise the Lord foretells through the prophet: "And it shall come to pass in the last days (sayeth the Lord) that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams; yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit and they shall prophesy [Joel 2:28]." And in Hosea he says: "Those who are not my people I will call my people, and those not beloved I will call my beloved, and in the very place where it was said to them, You are not my people, they will be called Sons of the living God [Hosea 1:10]."

So, how is it that in Hibernia, where they never had any knowledge of God but, always, until now, cherished idols and unclean things, they are lately become a people of the Lord, and are called children of God; the sons of the Irish and the daughters of the chieftains are to be seen as monks and virgins of Christ.

And there was, besides, a most beautiful, blessed, native-born noble Irish woman of adult age whom I baptized; and a few days later she had reason to come to us to intimate that she had received a prophecy from a divine messenger [who] advised her that she should become a virgin of Christ and she would draw nearer to God. Thanks be to God, six days from then, opportunely and most eagerly, she took the course that all virgins of God take, not with their fathers' consent but enduring the persecutions and deceitful hindrances of their parents. Notwithstanding that, their number increases, (we do not know the number of them that are so reborn) besides the widows, and those who practice self-denial. Those who are kept in slavery suffer the most. They endure terrors and constant threats, but the Lord has given grace to many of his handmaidens, for even though they are forbidden to do so, still they resolutely follow his example.

So it is that even if I should wish to separate from them in order to go to Britain, and most willingly was I prepared to go to my homeland and kinsfolk-- and not only there, but as far as Gaul to visit the brethren there, so that I might see the faces of the holy ones of my Lord, God knows how strongly I desired this-- I am bound by the Spirit, who witnessed to me that if I did so he would mark me out as guilty, and I fear to waste the labour that I began, and not I, but Christ the Lord, who commanded me to come to be with them for the rest of my life, if the Lord shall will it and shield me from every evil, so that I may not sin before him.

So I hope that I did as I ought, but I do not trust myself as long as I am in this mortal body, for he is strong who strives daily to turn me away from the faith and true holiness to which I aspire until the end of my life for Christ my Lord, but the hostile flesh is always dragging one down to death, that is, to unlawful attractions. And I know in part why I did not lead a perfect life like other believers, but I confess to my Lord and do not blush in his sight, because I am not lying; from the time when I came to know him in my youth, the love of God and fear of him increased in me, and right up until now, by God's favour, I have kept the faith.

What is more, let anyone laugh and taunt if he so wishes. I am not keeping silent, nor am I hiding the signs and wonders that were shown to me by the Lord many years before they happened, who knew everything, even before the beginning of time.

Thus, I should give thanks unceasingly to God, who frequently forgave my folly and my negligence, in more than one instance so as not to be violently angry with me, who am placed as his helper, and I did not easily assent to what had been revealed to me, as the Spirit was urging; and the Lord took pity on me thousands upon thousands of times, because he saw within me that I was prepared, but that I was ignorant of what to do in view of my situation; because many were trying to prevent this mission. They were talking among themselves behind my back, and saying: "Why is this fellow throwing himself into danger among enemies who know not God?" Not from malice, but having no liking for it; likewise, as I myself can testify, they perceived my rusticity. And I was not quick to recognize the grace that was then in me; I now know that I should have done so earlier.

Now I have put it frankly to my brethren and co-workers, who have believed me because of what I have foretold and still foretell to strengthen and reinforce your faith. I wish only that you, too, would make greater and better efforts. This will be my pride, for "a wise son makes a proud father [Proverbs 10:1; 15:20]."

You know, as God does, how I went about among you from my youth in the faith of truth and in sincerity of heart. As well as to the heathen among whom I live, I have shown them trust and always show them trust. God knows I did not cheat any one of them, nor consider it, for the sake of God and his Church, lest I arouse them and [cause] persecution for them and for all of us, and lest the Lord's name be blasphemed because of me, for it is written: "Woe to the men through whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed."

For even though I am ignorant in all things, nevertheless I attempted to safeguard some and myself also. And I gave back again to my Christian brethren and the virgins of Christ and the holy women the small unasked for gifts that they used to give me or some of their ornaments which they used to throw on the altar. And they would be offended with me because I did this. But in the hope of eternity, I safeguarded myself carefully in all things, so that they might not cheat me of my office of service on any pretext of dishonesty, and so that I should not in the smallest way provide any occasion for defamation or disparagement on the part of unbelievers.

What is more, when I baptized so many thousands of people, did I hope for even half a jot from any of them? Tell me, and I will give it back to you. And when the Lord ordained clergy everywhere by my humble means, and I freely conferred office on them, if I asked any of them anywhere even for the price of one shoe, say so to my face and I will give it back.

More, I spent for you so that they would receive me. And I went about among you, and everywhere for your sake, in danger, and as far as the outermost regions beyond which no one lived, and where no one had ever penetrated before, to baptize or to ordain clergy or to confirm people. Conscientiously and gladly I did all this work by God's gift for your salvation.

From time to time I gave rewards to the kings, as well as making payments to their sons who travel with me; notwithstanding which, they seized me with my companions, and that day most avidly desired to kill me. But my time had not yet come. They plundered everything they found on us anyway, and fettered me in irons; and on the fourteenth day the Lord freed me from their power, and whatever they had of ours was given back to us for the sake of God on account of the indispensable friends whom we had made before.

Also you know from experience how much I was paying to those who were administering justice in all the regions, which I visited often. I estimate truly that I distributed to them not less than the price of fifteen men, in order that you should enjoy my company and I enjoy yours, always, in God. I do not regret this nor do I regard it as enough. I am paying out still and I shall pay out more. The Lord has the power to grant me that I may soon spend my own self, for your souls.

Behold, I call on God as my witness upon my soul that I am not lying; nor would I write to you for it to be an occasion for flattery or selfishness, nor hoping for honour from any one of you. Sufficient is the honour which is not yet seen, but in which the heart has confidence. He who made the promise is faithful; he never lies.

But I see that even here and now, I have been exalted beyond measure by the Lord, and I was not worthy that he should grant me this, while I know most certainly that poverty and failure suit me better than wealth and delight (but Christ the Lord was poor for our sakes; I certainly am wretched and unfortunate; even if I wanted wealth I have no resources, nor is it my own estimation of myself, for daily I expect to be murdered or betrayed or reduced to slavery if the occasion arises. But I fear nothing, because of the promises of Heaven; for I have cast myself into the hands of Almighty God, who reigns everywhere. As the prophet says: "Cast your burden on the Lord and he will sustain you [Psalm 55:22]."

Behold now I commend my soul to God who is most faithful and for whom I perform my mission in obscurity, but he is no respecter of persons and he chose me for this service that I might be one of the least of his ministers.

For which reason I should make return for all that he returns me. But what should I say, or what should I promise to my Lord, for I, alone, can do nothing unless he himself vouchsafe it to me. But let him search my heart and nature, for I crave enough for it, even too much, and I am ready for him to grant me that I drink of his chalice, as he has granted to others who love him.

Therefore may it never befall me to be separated by my God from his people whom he has won in this most remote land. I pray God that he gives me perseverance, and that he will deign that I should be a faithful witness for his sake right up to the time of my passing.

And if at any time I managed anything of good for the sake of my God whom I love, I beg of him that he grant it to me to shed my blood for his name with proselytes and captives, even should I be left unburied, or even were my wretched body to be torn limb from limb by dogs or savage beasts, or were it to be devoured by the birds of the air, I think, most surely, were this to have happened to me, I had saved both my soul and my body. For beyond any doubt on that day we shall rise again in the brightness of the sun, that is, in the glory of Christ Jesus our Redeemer, as children of the living God and co-heirs of Christ, made in his image; for we shall reign through him and for him and in him.

For the sun we see rises each day for us at [his] command, but it will never reign, neither will its splendor last, but all who worship it will come wretchedly to punishment. We, on the other hand, shall not die, who believe in and worship the true sun, Christ, who will never die, no more shall he die who has done Christ's will, but will abide for ever just as Christ abides for ever, who reigns with God the Father Almighty and with the Holy Spirit before the beginning of time and now and for ever and ever. Amen.

Behold over and over again I would briefly set out the words of my confession. I testify in truthfulness and gladness of heart before God and his holy angels that I never had any reason, except the Gospel and his promises, ever to have returned to that nation from which I had previously escaped with difficulty.

But I entreat those who believe in and fear God, whoever deigns to examine or receive this document composed by the obviously unlearned sinner Patrick in Hibernia, that nobody shall ever ascribe to my ignorance any trivial thing that I achieved or may have expounded that was pleasing to God, but accept and truly believe that it would have been the gift of God. And this is my confession before I die.

The End

Rob Bell: Universalism and Hell

2011-03-16T15:05:00.005-04:00

Wow! Who to believe?

Do we believe the accusers (Rob Bell book 'Love Wins' stirs controversy, denies core Christian beliefs; Rob Bell: what SBC leaders are saying) who say that Rob Bell doesn't believe in hell and holds to universalism or do we believe the accused, Rob Bell, who says that he does believe in hell and doesn't believe in universalism?

Personally, I do believe in hell and do not believe in universalism. How do I reconcile these truths with the love of God? I have yet to do so. It really doesn't make sense to me. However, I do trust God and his perfect mercy and his (im?)perfect justice. I also know that the answer exists in Christ and that all things will be recognized in Christ.

And full disclosure: while I do believe in the existence of Hell, my understanding of what the Scriptures teach about it and, therefore, how it should be understood differs from that of most evangelical Christendom and almost all of those who speak freely in evangelical Christendom.

Here are my articles on the subject:

The Abandonment of Hell

Identifying Gehenna: An Answer to a Question on Annihilationism

Naturally, I am an inerrantist who believes that the Scriptures/Bible are/is authoritative, infallible, inspired/"God-breathed", and that the Word of God speaks through it.

...

I bet you'll be wondering what I meant by "(im?)perfect".

'Awesome, it's the end of the world': Doomsday campers travel the country preaching the Apocalypse ... on May 21

2011-03-08T12:16:00.004-05:00

[PC: The missus and I saw this group and their vehicles when we visited Tampa recently.]

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Most people like to push thoughts about the end of the world to the back of their minds, hoping that the apocalypse, if it ever comes, will be a long way off.
But for one group of not-so happy campers, doomsday is a lot sooner ... May 21 to be precise.

[PC: May 21st is my daughter's birthday. I'd hate for her to have to celebrate her birthday each year on the same date as the end of the world.]

According to the predictions of the Family Radio ministry, on that date a massive earthquake will shake the world apart, littering the ground with 'many dead bodies'.

[PC: Just like Charlie Sheen.]

Those who believe in Jesus will be carried into heaven, while the rest of humanity will endure 153 days of 'death and horror' before the world ends on October 21.
The group of 10 Christians from Oakland have set out across the country in a convoy of caravans to bring the 'awesome' message of impending doom to as many people as possible.

'Project Caravan', as it has become known, is made up of members of the Family Radio network all of who have given up jobs, families and all their possessions to join this final mission.

Calling themselves 'ambassadors', the church members point to baffling biblical codes to demonstrate their reasoning.

Speaking to CNN the group's leader, 89-year-old Harold Camping, is adamant that the date is accurate.

He said: 'I know it's absolutely true, because the Bible is always absolutely true.
'If I were not faithful that would mean that I'm a hypocrite.'

Despite his conviction, Camping has predicted the world would end before - on September 4 1994.

[PC: That was the day that Kansai International Airport in Osaka, Japan opened. It took SEVEN years to build. Coincidence?]

That, he says, was a mistake, a misreading of the biblical codes used to decipher the exact date of the 'rapture'.

In order to get the warning out in time he fudged his calculations, a mistake he maintains he did not make this time.

[PC: Yes, he's made all new mistakes.]

According to the Church's website, there are two 'proofs' that May 21 2011 is the judgement day.

According to them, Noah's great flood occurred in the year 4990 B.C., 'exactly' 7000 years ago.

[PC: Question.]

At the time, God said to Noah he had seven days before the flood would begin.
Taking a passage from 2 Peter 3:8, in which it is said a day for God is like a thousand human years, the church reasoned that seven 'days' equals 7000 human years from the time of the flood, making 2011 the year of the apocalypse.

[PC: A day in Algebra II is also like a thousand years.]

In its second 'proof' the exact date is revealed by working forward from the exact date of the of the crucifixion - April 1, 33 AD.

[PC: April Fools Day? Are they trying to say that the crucifixion was a April Fools Day prank gone wrong?]

According to their reasoning, there are exactly 722,500 days from April 1, 33 A.D. until May 21, 2011 - the alleged day of judgement.

[PC: Which calendar did they use - Gregorian, Julian, or Hebrew?]

This number can be represented as follows: 5 x 10 x 17 x 5 x 10 x 17 = 722,500.
The church then argues that numbers in the bible have special meanings, with the number 5 signifying atonement or redemption, the number 10 signifying 'completeness' and the number 17 equalling heaven.

[PC: What will they say if it doesn't happen on that day? "Oops! Forgot to carry the one."]

'Ambassador' Sheila Jonas, another of the Family Radio faithful, spoke of her joy at joining the not-so merry band of travellers.

She said: 'I'm in it until the end.This is so serious, I can't believe I'm here.
She will not however talk about her past because: 'There is no other story. ... we are to warn the people. Nothing else matters.'

Travelling in a convoy of five caravans, the doom-mongers are adamant that Jesus is coming in three months.

[PC: It's amazing that after several hundred years of such false predictions in American Christendom, people still think they've figured it all out.]

And for anyone harbouring doubts over the accuracy of the prediction, the group has a cast iron answer - 'the Bible guarantees it'.

[PC: One of my areas of theological and religious interest is how so many Christian believers can never seem to comprehend that there can be a difference from what the Bible says and what one thinks the Bible says. Such a lack of comprehension can manifest itself in the following ways:

1) Such people, when confronted with a different interpretation of the Bible, will not say that the person with the differing view is simply mistaken; rather, they believe that such a person doesn't BELIEVE the Bible.

2) Such people will charge the person with the differing view of abusing the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer: "The the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer doesn't mean that the Bible means whatever YOU think it means to YOU." (Oh, the irony!)

3) Such people attempt keep other believers from learning of the existence of other interpretations of the Bible.

4) Such people attempt to codify their personal interpretations of the Bible and force other believers to hold to that interpretation on threat of exclusion.

I am not saying that "Doomsday Campers" have such a mentality. I don't know that they do. And these manifestations (particularly 3 & 4) are not exclusive to conservative Christians or Christians in general. These are manifestations of human nature we are all susceptible.]

With T-shirts and banners declaring the 'Awesome News' that Judgement Day is coming, the first convoy of five caravans set off in October last year.

They have now been joined by two other convoys, all travelling to different parts of the country spreading their message.

["Roll up - and that's an invitation
Roll up for the Mystery Tour
Roll up - to make a reservation
Roll up for the Mystery Tour

The Magical Mystery Tour is waiting to take you away
Waiting to take you away"]

The oldest believer on the convoy, 75-year-old Gallegos from Utah, is similar to the rest of the church members.

In order to join the trip he had to leave behind a wife of 53 years and be away from his 10 children and their families.

Others have left empty houses, sold antiques, disposed of art collections or given up cars and other expensive items to join the road trip of doom.

And as if the end of the world is not bad enough, there is one final bitter pill as we approach the apocalypse.

Apparently no one from Family Radio is sure what to do to guarantee a place in heaven.

[PC: Book early.]

God, they say, has already predetermined the roughly two to three percent of those who will be saved come May 21.

Sadly for the rest of us all we can do is wait until the end comes. Again.

[PC: 2-3 percent!? It's 7 percent. They're false prophets!"]

["Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun.
If the sun don't come, you get a tan
From standing in the English rain.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob."]

SBC Executive Committee decides not to oust Alliance churches

2011-02-25T16:24:00.000-05:00

By Bob Allen
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
0
digg
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) –Membership in a group that welcomes and affirms gays does not automatically disqualify a church from participation in the Southern Baptist Convention, the SBC Executive Committee decided Feb. 22.

Two years ago the convention expelled a Texas church for violating a membership requirement banning churches that "act to affirm, approve or endorse homosexual behavior."

Last year, a motion was made at the annual meeting and referred to the Executive Committee to take similar action against churches that choose to affiliate with the Alliance of Baptists, an organization formed in the 1980s in response to changes going on at the time in the SBC.

Since then the Alliance has adopted statements supporting gay marriage and welcomes members regardless of sexual identity. The SBC, meanwhile, has taken numerous actions to label same-sex relationships sinful. In 2009 the convention expelled Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, after investigating the congregation and learning that it allows openly gay members to serve on leadership committees.

At the SBC annual meeting last June, Wes Kenney, a messenger from Oklahoma, made a motion asking the Executive Committee "to consider any church's affiliation with the Alliance of Baptists to constitute an action which affirms, approves or endorses homosexual behavior." By rule the motion was referred to the Executive Committee, which after study recommended against the idea.

Convention leaders said it would be unwise to disqualify a church simply because the Alliance claims it as a member. Should questions arise about a particular church's qualifications, they said, they will continue to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

The Executive Committee recommendation, which will come in the form of a motion at this year's SBC annual meeting June 14-15 in Phoenix, reports that the group "already is authorized to make recommendations to the convention between annual meetings in regard to such matters which would call into question the friendly cooperation of any local church on any grounds."

It encourages any Southern Baptist "knowledgeable about why specific churches should not be in friendly cooperation" to convey that information to either the Executive Committee or SBC credentials committee if it is during the annual meeting.

-30-

Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

The "Best" Rejection Email Ever!!!

2011-02-05T00:00:00.004-05:00

Good Evening Mr. [P.C.]!

I wanted to contact you in regards to the Youth Pastor Position at XXXXXX Baptist Church.

After considering our phone interview from Wednesday, you are no longer being considered for the vacant Youth Pastor Position.

Mr. [P.C.] you have a fantastic resume and it humbles me to inform you of this, yet I feel I must.

In answering several of the initial questions you failed to display a basic understanding of the very core beliefs of the Baptist Faith in regards to Salvation.

Mr. [P.C.] it is quite possible that you may have been nervous, and if so I can understand and apologize. However the committee is responsible for nominating the Man we feel GOD has picked to lead HIS children.

I want to encourage you in studying the Bible and have Faith in it. Please considering reviewing the following verses:

Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23; Romans 5:8; Eph. 2:8-9; John 1:12; 1 John 5: 11-12-13

In Brotherly Love, XXXXXX

*** ***

The Question was: "How does a person become saved?"

Here is what I said:

"God calls an individual to him. A person hears the Word of the Lord and the Gospel and is given the opportunity to either accept or reject the message. Those who do accept the Gospel message are making a commitment to obey God’s Word and follow Jesus by turning away from sin and conforming to his image in both Word and Deed."

Association seeks building sale to resolve Southwestern Seminary controversy

2011-01-26T12:06:00.002-05:00

[PC: I am shocked! I would never expect the Baptist Press to be so much better in their reporting on an issue such as this than the Associated Baptist Press ... but there you are. Perhaps it is because the writer (Samuel Smith) lives in Fort Worth, Texas. You are a brave man, Mr. Smith.

I must tell you, once you learn how certain elements in the Southern Baptist Convention do business, you can see events unfold in the convention and know exactly who is behind it. In a similar way, when you begin to see those certain people in the convention act, you quickly realize what their unstated goal is. The modus operandi hasn't changed. You are a VERY brave man, Mr. Smith.]

Posted on Jan 24, 2011 | by Samuel Smith

FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--The Tarrant Baptist Association's executive board voted unanimously Jan. 24 to offer to sell a building that has been a point of contention with Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

If the seminary is unwilling to buy the building on its campus in Fort Worth, Texas, for fair market value, the TBA executive board asked that the matter be referred to a three-member arbitration panel as stipulated in a 1982 affiliation agreement, according to TBA moderator Al Meredith. The executive board also resolved to pray for seminary leaders in the matter.

The seminary sent a letter on Dec. 10, 2010, informing the association that it had six months to vacate the building located at 4520 James Ave. in Fort Worth. According to Meredith, while the building is located on the seminary's campus, Southwestern transferred the deed to the association in 1997. Meredith added that three or four years ago representatives of the seminary inquired about the availability of the property, but that nothing had been said on the matter between then and last December. A second letter from the seminary dated Jan. 18 reaffirmed the seminary's position, but allowed for some leeway in when the association would have to move, Meredith said.

"I don't have another step if these measures don't resolve the issue," Meredith, pastor of Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, told Baptist Press after the meeting, voicing hope that the issue can be resolved through a negotiated settlement. Otherwise, "If the TBA wins, the Kingdom loses. If Southwestern wins, the Kingdom loses. No one wants to see the Kingdom lose because of this."

Representatives of Southwestern have declined comment until the matter is resolved.

Published reports indicate that the seminary holds that the affiliation agreement between the entities has been breached and is no longer in force.

The seminary's letter raised two issues: the TBA's inclusion of churches that are not in "friendly cooperation" with the Southern Baptist Convention and a lack of help with finding preaching assignments and ministry opportunities for seminary students and faculty.

TBA member Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth no longer is affiliated with the SBC and the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) over differences in how to deal with homosexuality among church members. The Southern Baptist Convention stipulates that any church that affirms homosexuality is "not in friendly cooperation." The SBC voted in 2009 to cease relationship with the church, and in 2010 the church voted to leave the BGCT.

"What the SBC does is not binding on state or local institutions or the local churches," Meredith said. "It is different for Southwestern, since it is a denominational entity. As an association, we're trying to work with people who are archconservatives and moderates and everything in between."

As to the association's lack of help in placing students and faculty, Meredith said, "The great majority of the pastors on staff in the Tarrant Baptist Association attended Southwestern. At my church, I am the only person on staff who did not attend Southwestern. That does not even take into account the myriad of seminary students who volunteer in TBA churches."

Meredith added, "I pray for Paige Patterson and Southwestern Seminary every day, as I know many of our members do."

Association invites seminary to make on offer on purchasing disputed property

2011-01-25T16:06:00.002-05:00

[PC: I've always liked Pastor Meredith. Yeah, I knew what this situation was all about. I mean, anyone who knows anything about those involved here knows what this was about. It's just nice to see Pastor Meredith reply in such a nice and revealing way.]

By Ken Camp
Tuesday, January 25, 2011

FORT WORTH, Texas (ABP) -- Tarrant Baptist Association’s executive board met Jan. 24 and unanimously approved a motion asking Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary either to purchase a disputed piece property from the association at fair market value or submit the matter to arbitration.

Southwestern Seminary notified Tarrant Baptist Association before Christmas it had six months to vacate its offices on the edge of the seminary campus. The seminary asserted the association was in violation of its affiliation agreement -- in part because of perceived toleration of homosexuality by some member church or churches.

But while Tarrant Association Moderator Al Meredith contends the seminary lacks authority to take unilateral action, he expressed hope the situation can be resolved -- either by the seminary purchasing the property from the association or by submitting the dispute to an arbitration panel.

Meredith, pastor of Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, repeatedly underscored his desire that the association’s longtime fraternal relationship with the seminary be maintained.

Southwestern Seminary officials did not respond to e-mail or phone calls requesting a response for this article.

The association office received a registered letter from Southwestern Seminary Dec. 10. The letter stated the association was in violation of its 1997 affiliation agreement, and it directed the association to vacate its property on James Avenue within six months. It also stated title on the property should revert back to the seminary.

In 1982, the seminary provided Tarrant Baptist Association land and the funds to build its office building, granting a 99-year lease on the property, Meredith explained. At that time, the seminary and association entered into an affiliation agreement stipulating the property would not be used for commercial activity, and the association and seminary would commit to remaining in theological harmony.

In 1997, the property agreement was renegotiated, and Tarrant Baptist Association received the deed to the property, he said. “The affiliation agreement remained intact,” Meredith added.

According to the agreement, if any disagreement should arise between the association and the seminary, the matter should be resolved a three-member arbitration panel with one seminary representative, one associational representative and one party mutually agreed upon by both parties, he noted.

On Dec. 20, three associational representatives -- Moderator-elect Meredith, Moderator Bobby Bridges and Leadership Development Director Becky Biser -- met with Seminary President Paige Patterson and some of his staff to discuss the situation.

“We had a lengthy and amicable discussion,” Meredith said in an interview.

He noted during the discussion, Patterson commented that had learned information he did not have when the original Dec. 10 letter was delivered. He agreed to consider the matter further and discuss it with the seminary’s attorneys.

However, a letter from Southwestern Seminary he received Jan. 18 indicated the seminary planned to pursue its claim on the property.

Tarrant Baptist Association’s executive board subsequently met a few days later and unanimously approved a motion asking the seminary either to purchase the property from the association at fair market value or submit the matter to a three-person arbitration panel.

“We hold the deed. We believe the property to be ours,” Meredith said in an interview. “If the seminary needs the building, … we would be willing to talk about selling it to them for a fair market value.”
“Tarrant Baptist Association has enjoyed a longstanding fraternal relationship with Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and we want that to continue,” he said.

-30-

Ken Camp is managing editor of the Baptist Standard.

Top Albums of 2010

2010-12-31T17:43:00.005-05:00

For me, 2010 was a mixed year for music.

On the one hand, several of my favourite bands came out with bad albums (I hate having to note them): The Resistance by Muse, Plastic Beach by Gorillaz, Nobody's Daughter by Hole, and (it really pains me to write this) Stone Temple Pilots by Stone Temple Pilots.

On the other hand, I did discover many great new bands and musicians, such as Danielson, Dr. Dog, Fleet Foxes, MGMT, Joanna Newsom, Secret Machines, Sufjan Stevens, and Zero 7.

But on the other other hand, there were a couple of my favourites who did release some good material. I am specifically referring to Black Gives Way to Blue by Alice in Chains and Backspacer by Pearl Jam. Neither made my Top Ten but they were still good albums that deserve mentioning, particularly in light of the bombs mentioned above.

Of course, I have yet to listen to The Age of Adz, by Sufjan Stevens and Write About Love by Belle and Sebastian. Both albums are from recent favourites and both have received rave reviews. I’ll let you know, probably in December of 2011.

Please note, I base my Top Ten Albums not on what was released a specific year but on the year I first listened to the album. Also, while I do have a Top Ten list, I do not number them from 1-10 or the reverse. That is far too much precision for me on this matter. Anyway, #1 would have been Want One.

Note last year’s list: The Top 50 Albums I Listened To This Year (which includes a Top Ten)

I’ve since added Top Ten choices Demon Days, Their Satanic Majesties Request, and Transformer to my Permanent Top 50 List. But I’ve also added Dear Catastrophe Waitress and Pink Flag from last year’s bottom 40 to the Permanent Top 50. It’s amazing how things like this work out.

Heroes to Zeros, The Beta Band (2004)

Here is the last album of now defunct group, an album that I really like. I’ve already started keeping my eyes open for their previous albums.

Ships, Danielson (2006)

This is probably the best “Christian album” I’ve ever heard. (Does one count U2 albums as Christian? If so, it’s better that the overrated Joshua Tree but almost as good as the underrated Achtung Baby [Don’t get me wrong; I really like Joshua Tree. I’m actually listening to it as I write this sentence. ‘Where the Trees Have No Name …!”]). But I digress.

This really is a fantastic album! Unique, ambitious, witty, conceptual, and, yes, the songs are great. And this is probably why no one in American Evangelical Christendom hears of them.

Let me put it this way: this is the closest American Evangelicalism has ever gotten to having their own version of Sgt. Pepper’s, Dark Side of the Moon, and OK Computer.

When one is having to slum through several generations of musical banality and mediocrity, anything exhibiting some form of originality is welcome with open arms and open ears. But this album is gob-smacking fantastic!

Yes, Danielson is so good that he should not be referred to as a Christian musician but as a musician who is a Christian. If you don’t understand the difference then you don’t understand the problem.

Fate, Dr. Dog (2008)

I really love this album. This is what new bands should sound like. Can you conceive in your mind the collective musical sound of The Beatles on their album, Abbey Road? That’s what Dr. Dog sounds like!

Fleet Foxes, Fleet Foxes (2008)

This is really a perfect album. Every song is great; I never skip. And very few albums end as beautifully as this. Yes, critics have been raving about this album but (and this is the point) this time the critics are right. Even The Guardian claimed this album to be "a landmark in American music, an instant classic".

I pretty much can guarantee that their next album will be the most highly anticipated sophomore album of 2011.

The Milk-Eyed Mender, Joanna Newsom (2004)

A fantastic album! Here is a Great Song-writer (very Harry Nilsson) with quirky, semi-Beck-like lyrics and a quirky voice ... and she plays the harp.

Yes, Joanna Newsom plays the harp. I never would have thought I would - not just like, but – love an album of a harpist. Granted, the entire album isn’t just a harp; there are keyboards, violins, etc. accompanying the harp and some songs without a harp at all. But she plays the harp so well that it’s simply wonderful to hear her play it.

A musician friend of mine in Boston had mentioned her to me but it took me four of five years to finally listen to one of her albums. Such wasted years.

The accolades for this album have been tremendous. This really is superb and COMPLETELY original.

Check out the first three songs on the album (“Bridges and Balloons", "Sprout and the Bean", and "The Book of Right-On"), particularly the second.

Be warned: her voice is a little shocking at first, but one quickly gets used to it.

Yes, this ambitious lady is one to keep an eye on. Check out her sophomore effort, Ys.

Have One on Me, Joanna Newsom (2010)

Talk about ambition! I told you to keep an eye on Newsom.

Here is a TRIPLE album. Songs that are 6, 9, 11 minutes long (only 6 tracks on each disc). With long, cryptic lyrics. Again, played mostly on a harp. How in the world could this work? But it does!

Illinoise, Sufjan Stevens (2005)

Here is a great album by a highly ambitious (there is that word again) song-writer and musician. And he is a Christian!

Want One, Rufus Wainwright (2003)

In January I stated that if I had listened to this album prior to Jan 1st 2010, it would have been on my Top 10 List … and it still would have been! Nevertheless, I can now put this album on my Top Ten List. Yes, this is one of the best albums I’ve ever heard and it was immediately put on my permanent Top 50 List.

Pacific Ocean Blue, Dennis Wilson (1977)

Here is the only solo album released by Beach Boy Dennis Wilson. A really superb album! Granted, Brian Wilson is the great musical genius of the family (and one of the great American songwriters along with Gershwin, Dylan, and Beck) but Pacific Ocean Blue shows how a lot of hard work and careful attention can pay off handsomely. Unfortunately, due to drugs, alcohol, a wild life, and an accidental drowning, Dennis Wilson died before he could complete the follow-up album Bambu. Perhaps even more unfortunately, but Pacific Ocean Blue was virtually unavailable for 15 years due to ongoing disagreements over copyright ownership.

I always hate it when a musician dies or has his career cut short before reaching his or her ultimate potential (e.g. Nick Drake, Curt Cobain, Shannon Hoon, Bradley Nowell, Andrew Wood, Jeff Buckley, and Syd Barrett).

Regardless, Pacific Ocean Blue is a truly great album and deserves a good listening.

The Garden, Zero 7 (2006)

This is a beautiful album. Down-tempo, ambient, electronica. There is not much more I can saw about it than that because it really must be experienced in order to be so greatly appreciated. The vocals, the harmonies, the songwriting, the studio production – how could such a wonderful album be made in this day and age? Oh, wait! They’re British!

Honorable Mentions (with just a few comments about the first two)

Backspacer, Pearl Jam (2010)

As stated above, I was dismayed at the lackluster work of Muse, Gorillaz, Hole, and (alas) Stone Temple Pilots. Pearl Jam did not disappoint me, though it helped that my expectations were low. I actually believe that this is their best album since Vitalogy!

Black Gives Way to Blue, Alice in Chains (2010)

Alice in Chains did not disappoint me either. I do not think that this album rises to the heights that their albums of 90s did (how could it?), but it is still a good addition to their oeuvre and contains a few really good songs.

Blue Record, Baroness (2009)

Fold Your Hands Child, You Walk Like a Peasant, Belle and Sebastian (2000)

If You’re Feeling Sinister, Belle and Sebastian (1996)

Oracular Spectacular, MGMT (2007)

Rockpommel's Land, Grobschnitt (1977)

Sun Giant, Fleet Foxes ([EP] 2008)

Sweet Oblivion, Screaming Trees (1992)

Tanz der Lemminge, Amon Düül II (1971)

Ten Silver Drops, Secret Machines (2006)

Tiger Milk, Belle and Sebastian (1996)

Tio Bitar, Dungen (2007)

When It Falls, Zero 7 (2004)

Ys, Joanna Newsom (2006)

You know, I started writing this blog post back in October and I still couldn’t finish it by 1-1-2011. Eh, who cares ... ?

Baptists debate social drinking

2010-12-30T12:20:00.001-05:00

Check out the article. It stinks.

Pastor recaps reasons for alcohol motion

2010-11-22T20:13:00.002-05:00

Jesus drank. I dare you to say otherwise! ... Yeah, I thought so. Now is Jesus of Nazareth (Yeshua ben Yosef) the Messiah (מָשִׁיחַ, Mashia, Māšîăḥ, Χριστός, Khristós) or not? Is he the Son of Man, the Son of God, the God-Man, the fully incarnate Word of God, the second part of the Trinity, the fullest revelation of God, adn the fullest and ultimate example and standard on all aspects of faith and practice or not? I would humbly say "yes". ... Apparently, some Southern Baptist pastors and leader believe otherwise.

Hubris In The Pulpits: 14 Problems With Advocating Complete Abstinence Of Alcohol Consumption

Oinos: Yes, It Actually Means "Wine"

BP: Alcohol, Acts 29 and the SBC [Or ... PC: Minding your own Guinness, Rev 6:6 and Complete Bricks]

Mohler on Booze

The Doctrine of Drinking

Gun Control vs. Alcohol Abstinence

For the "Enjoyment" of Those Searching for a Ministry Position

2010-11-03T17:42:00.004-04:00

Here is an email for the "enjoyment" of those searching for a ministry position:

Dear XXXXXX,

Thought I'd let you know that our search committee at So-and-So Denominational Church ended up rewriting our job description and calling a person from within our church to be our Director of Christian Education.

In addition to this, we have just approved another job description and will elect a committee to search for a part-time Director of Youth Ministries. I know that you are searching for full-time employment, but thought I would let you know about this anyway. With the talents and abilities that you and your wife both have, bi-vocational work could certainly be an option for you.

If you are interested at all, let me know. I hung on to your resume and would be happy to pass it on to the committee as soon as it is in place.

Hope you are well,

XXXXXX

My God, I love the Church in America!

Common English Bible 2011

2010-10-28T18:20:00.004-04:00

On Tuesday I received a printed copy of the entire New Testament out of the new Common English Bible (or CEB) that is due out in 2011.

I was pleased to see these names on the list of translators: John J. Collins, David deSilva, Beverly Gaventa, Joel Green, Christopher B. Hays, Richard Hays, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Rob Wall.

There are some great Lucan scholars here!

Though I doubt they will take any suggestion I make into consideration, I do look forward to reading it and making comments.

I'll probably read Luke-Acts in its entirety. Maybe 1 Corinthians, John and the Apocalypse as well.

I'll read Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. And I'll probably read choice passages in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, and the Pastorals.

...

Man! There are a lot of footnotes to 1 Timothy 2!

Inter-denominational Ministry Position Communication

2010-10-25T17:07:00.002-04:00

From a Pastor:

Thank you for your resume, and information. [...] and as soon as the application process is completed in mid-November, I will be getting in touch with you. South Georgia may be a bit of a culture shock to you. Oppressive heat, gnats, grits and Wesleyan theology may be points for you to ponder. Blessings to you and yours.

From ME:

I think I like you almost immediately, Pastor XXXXXX. A great response!

I grew up in Shelby, NC and most of my immediate family now lives in South Carolina. I also lived through 5 summers in Texas while at seminary. Also, between college and seminary, I lived for a year in Warner Robbins, GA. I also have family in Montgomery, AL and Jacksonville, FL. I currently live in Ohio and have found oppressive and gnats in every place that I've lived.

I have no real problem with Wesleyan theology. I think his outline of salvation is far more accurate than some of the Reformed traditions. I attend and serve in Ginghamsburg UMC in Tipp City, NC. In the summer of 2004, I visited Wesley's Chapel, John Wesley's House, and the Museum of Methodism, all on City Road in London, England. But most importantly, I consider myself "Kingdom-minded" and will work with all believers for the Kingdom of God. If Christ works with all believers, how can I not? I do not believe that it is my prerogative. Granted, it is easier to work with faith traditions like the Methodist with theology very close to my own.

True, I really hate grits, but I've been around it most of my life. I would never let personal tastes prevent me from serving where God wants me to serve.

I look forward to hearing from you once the application process has is complete.

Thank you and God Bless.

CHANGE the WORLD Conference 2010, Day 1

2010-10-21T13:34:00.001-04:00

Wednesday was the First Day of the CHANGE the WORLD Conference 2010 at Ginghamsburg Church.

My flexible schedule allows me to serve in various capacities at the event.

During one of the down times I was able to hear the presentation by Sue Nilson Kibbey, the executive pastor at Ginghamsburg.

Her latest book, Ultimately Responsible, is on the art of leading and managing the church.

Pastor Sue gave a very good, informative lecture on deploying staff and unpaid servants into mission and ministry.

One of the things that she said that really struck me was the following:

If a church limits the number of ministries in which it involves itself to the so-called “standard” or traditional church ministries, then that church is limiting the involvement of members in the church by cutting off or not acknowledging avenues of ministry in which God has called them to serve.

Liberty University instructor wages shoeless crusade with soles of his feet

2010-10-19T11:29:00.003-04:00

LU instructor wages shoeless crusade with soles of his feet

Barefoot professor in Virginia preaches shoelessness

I have not given the LU factory enough credit. I'm all for this!

Ministerial Rejection Letters

2010-09-30T17:10:00.001-04:00

In February, I applied for a ministry position at a church in Alabama but was turned down a month or so later. This month (September), I applied for a different position at the same church. I received the rejection notification today, but I loved how it began:

“Again, ..."

They remembered me!

And you can just hear their thoughts in the use of that word:

“Oh, Christ! It’s him again.”

And don’t you love how ministry rejection letters go out of their way to inform you that they are sure that God has something special in mind for you. They seem to say,

“We’re not saying you’re not called into ministry. We’re simply saying that you might want to ask God about it.”

♪ "Don't cause a ri-ot" ♪

2010-09-30T15:53:00.006-04:00

Today on The Weather Channel, as I was looking at the local and regional weather, I noticed that they were playing an acoustic version of Sublime's "What I Got" from their eponymous album.

Now we know what generation is making musical rotation decisions at TWC.

♪ "You feel it when the dance gets hot." ♪

Worm hits computers of staff at Iran nuclear plant

2010-09-26T20:28:00.002-04:00

Wormwood?

Ha, ha, ha! That's a little, obscure, premillennial dispensation joke for those of you in the know.

One of the Worst/Greatest Groan-Worthy Pun Jokes of All Time

2010-09-17T16:41:00.001-04:00

Apparently, God gave me a great memory for detail, anecdote, and humor. As far as I can tell, I’ve only ever forgotten one joke in all of my life. It had to do with Star Trek, William Shatner, T.J. Hooker, Rescue 911, and a Rhinoceros. I even remember where I was went it came to me and I believe it was in either 1990 or 1991. But it’s gone.

However, I do remember watching this Boston Pops Special on PBS in 1994 with John Williams conducting and with special guests Itzhak Perlman and Peter Schickele.

And it is here that Professor Schickele tells one of the worst/greatest groan-worthy pun jokes of all time.

2010-09-14T12:20:00.002-04:00

Some quick thoughts about Wade Burleson's article, A Different Take on Dr. Kevin Ezell's Leadership in His Church's Small CP Giving.

This really is great analytical reasoning and a careful apprehension of recent SBC history and movements. Given 1961 to 1979 and then 1979 to the present, such “societal” giving was inevitable:

- No more “liberalism” in the convention supported by SBC funds, so liberals/moderates removed from positions.

- Since the SBC will no longer employee, appoint, support, or train such people, the “liberal” and moderate churches start CBF etc. for their members and CP giving declines.

- Moderate/conservative churches split their giving between the SBC and the CBF until the SBC raises a fuss about split giving, so some of these churches cease supporting the SBC and, therefore, CP giving declines.

- Then the SBC prohibits employees/ministers who are charismatic, who were baptized in churches that believe in apostasy, or who denounce the policy of prohibiting such employees/ministers. The churches of these employees/ministers cease supporting the SBC and, therefore, CP giving declines.

- No more “liberalism” supported by SBC funds, no more “bad theology” supported by SBC funds, no more “theology/praxis we don’t really like” supported by SBC funds, and now no more “methodology of which we disagree” or “leaders that we don’t really like” supported by SBC funds.

No wonder why CP giving is declining.

But I’m still very much optimistic that God is doing amazing things for his Kingdom in this country, through the SBC, and with the CP. At the very least, “societal” giving is just another tool in Christ’s belt.

A Different Take on Dr. Kevin Ezell's Leadership in His Church's Small CP Giving

2010-09-14T10:59:00.002-04:00

[Here is an absolutely sublime article by Wade Burleson. I hope everyone can get some grasp of the logic here.]

When Al Mohler's office issued a press release in early January 2008 that the President of Southern Seminary would allow his name to be entered into nomination for President of the Southern Baptist Convention, I wrote a blog detailing the reasons why I believed Dr. Mohler would not be elected President.

The third reason for my rationale involved Al's home church, Highview Baptist in Louisville, Kentucky, Highview's low percentage giving to the Cooperative Program and their nearly non-existent giving to the traditional SBC missions offerings, including the Lottie Moon Offering for international missions and the Annie Armstrong offering for continental missions. I wrote in January 2008 the following:

"Mohler is a member of Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, where he serves as a "teaching pastor" and a Sunday school teacher. The church contributes 3.3 percent of its $5 million in undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program and nothing to the SBC's two mission offerings according to Baptist Press. The mission's giving of one's home church is more important than it might seem at first glance, and in the coming months and years I am quite positive that this issue will only grow in importance in the minds of those whom will chose who leads the SBC."

Although Al Mohler later pulled his name from nomination for President of the SBC, Highview Baptist Church and her pastor, Dr. Kevin Ezell, spent a few weeks "clarifying" their missions giving. In one press release Highview's pastoral leadership explained that the church gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to missions, just not through the traditional CP mechanism. Explaining their low CP giving, Dr. Ezell stated:

"As for our Cooperative Program giving, Highview has chosen to give the majority of our cooperative funds directly to the SBC instead of funneling the funds through the Kentucky Baptist Convention. The reason is simple: The KBC retains 64% of those funds, and we want to ensure that more of our dollars went directly to evangelism, missions and other programs that Highview supports."

Last week, September 1, 2010, the Search Committee for the President of the North American Mission Board announced they would be presenting Dr. Kevin Ezell for approval as the new President of NAMB. One of the advantages of the Internet is to look back over the past several years and make observations based upon the written record and not simply one's faulty memory. I'd like to give a couple of observations on Dr. Ezell's nomination that might be a different take than most.

(1). The Southern Baptist Convention has just come through a mega-shift in terms of leadership. Dr. Ezell has publicly stated that he led his church to bypass his state convention in the church's missions giving, and then the Presidential Search Committee of NAMB, the mission organization tasked with working directly with the respective SBC state conventions, is nominating Dr. Ezell as NAMB's President. I believe Dr. Ezell is a phenominal leader and a wonderful man. I have no argument against him as a person. My observation is a philosophical one. When Dr. Ezell is elected, the Southern Baptist Convention's Cooperative Program as we have known it for decades will be over. We are increasingly moving toward the 1800's model of SBC giving called "societal." Churches will give to those "societies' or "agencies" that best reflect their own ideology or philosophy and/or benefits them the most. Cooperation between state and national agencies in the Southern Baptist Convention, cooperation between churches and their respective state conventions and national missions' agencies, and between mission minded SBC churches will be over. SBC churches, SBC state conventions, and SBC national agencies will be emphasizing their own work and requesting respective cooperation from others, depending less and less on the "Cooperative Program."

(2). When Dr. Ezell is elected, a new crop of leadership, including the new President of the Southern Baptist Convention (Wright), the new President of the North American Mission Board (Ezell), and the impending new President of the International Board (the top prospect is a stunner), will now be asking for people and churches in the Southern Baptist Convention to give more to the Cooperative Program and the national missions offerings, but at the same time, attempting to cut cooperative links traditionally tied to the offerings. As I mentioned in the previous post, I find it very interesting that those who formerly refused to give to the CP change their tune when elected to leadership. What's changed? The answer of course is, "The leaders have changed." So, I must ask the question: Do we give to the CP because we like the leaders or do we give to the CP because we like way we are doing missions? I think if Southern Baptists stepped back and took a hard look at the missions work of the SBC over the past few years, we would come to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with our agencies when we spend millions of dollars to "change" the way we do missions every time new leaders are elected. The gospel is not a political philosophy that changes like the platforms of Democrats and Republicans. However, the SBC is looking more and more like a wasteful government agency than a gospel organization.

(3). I like Bryant Wright, Frank Page and Kevin Ezell. They are really fine men. The concern I have with the SBC as it relates to my church is the fact that our church gets way more excited about the mission work we do directly in India, Africa, Guatamela, New York and our own state than we do trying to figure out why our national agencies spend tens of millions of dollars constantly changing methodologies, organizational structures, and the way they do missions at the whims of new leadership. Frankly, I wish we listened more to the missionaries on the field (state, national and international) than we do to the ever changing leaders in Nashville, Richmond and Atlanta. Until we have a mechanism that allows our appointed missionaries to have more of a say in what our Convention accomplishes in the field, there is a hesitancy to give more to national offerings just because "new leaders" have emerged.

A Principle: Any move toward "societal" giving in the Southern Baptist Convention creates an atmosphere where larger churches become more and more convinced that the best "society" for accountable, effective missions giving is the local church, not a national board.

I'm not saying the above principle is right or wrong, it is simply a fact. That's the danger of political and ideological infighting in a Convention built on cooperation. The cooperation fractures to the point the local church believes the best investment in mission dollars is the work being done by its own members.

Seminary president says evolution 'incompatible' with Christian faith

2010-08-26T11:50:00.004-04:00

[I'm a bit busy at the moment and unable take the couple of minutes necessary to refute the silly arguments of Dr. Mohler's gross ignorance of the Scriptures and evolutionary theory. Not that Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, does much better defending his position. But I have argued the point elsewhere. You can find my many articles on the subject below under "Evolution".]

By Bob Allen
Wednesday, August 25, 2010

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- According to the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, evolution and Christianity are not compatible.

"The theory of evolution is incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures," Albert Mohler, head of the Louisville, Ky., school, wrote in his blog.

Mohler's Aug. 25 blog posting was an open letter in response to an Aug. 21 Huffington Post article that accused him of making false statements about Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who originated the concept of natural selection to explain the diversity of life.

Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group formed to promote harmony between science and faith, reacted in the Huffington Post to comments critical of Darwin by Mohler delivered June 19 at an annual conference of Ligonier Ministries, founded by Calvinist theologian and pastor R.C. Sproul.

Giberson first questioned Mohler's critique of Darwin in an open letter July 6 on the BioLogos website. After waiting two months for a response, Giberson concluded in the Huffington Post article that Mohler "does not seem to care about the truth and seems quite content to simply make stuff up when it serves his purpose."

In his June speech, Mohler argued for the "exegetical and theological necessity" of affirming the universe is no more than several thousand years old and was created in six 24-hour days as recorded in Genesis.

Mohler said Bible passages like Romans 8 attribute death, pain and disaster to the fall of Adam as recorded in Genesis 3.

"We end up with enormous problems if we try to interpret a historical fall and understand a historical fall in an old-Earth rendering," Mohler said, referring to the school of interpretation that views a metaphorical reading of the creation passages in Genesis as compatible with both Christianity and evolutionary science. "This is most clear when it comes to Adam's sin."

"Was it true that, as Paul argues, when sin came, death came?" Mohler asked. "Well just keep in mind that if the Earth is indeed old, and we infer that it is old because of the scientific data, the scientific data is also there to claim that long before the emergence of Adam -- if indeed there is the recognition of a historical Adam -- and certainly long before there was the possibility of Adam's sin, there were all the effects of sin that are biblically attributed to the fall and not to anything before the fall. And we're not only talking about death, we're talking about death by the millions and billions."

Giberson, author of Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, objected primarily in the Huffington Post article to Mohler's suggestion that evolution was "invented" to prop up Darwin's worldview rather than to explain observations in the natural world. He called it a "common misrepresentation" that evangelicals use to discredit evolution.

In his earlier blog post, however, Giberson questioned other statements in Mohler's address. They included: "We need to recognize that disaster ensues when the book of nature or general revelation is used in some way to trump Scripture and special revelation."

"I am taking you to mean that we should not let information from outside the Bible change our minds about what is inside the Bible," Giberson wrote.

"The example in your talk would suggest that information from geological records, radioactive dating, cosmic expansion and so on -- all of which suggests that the universe is billions of years old -- should not persuade us to set aside the natural reading of Genesis which suggests that the Earth is young," he wrote. "Is this a fair statement of your position?"

Giberson observed that the "natural reading" of Psalm 93 is that the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved. "Indeed this was thrown at Galileo and got him in trouble for proposing an 'unbiblical' astronomy."

He said "natural" readings of other Bible passages also suggest that slavery is OK and the moon is a light-creating body similar to the sun and "not just a big rock."

"Is there not a long list of examples where general revelation has forced us to set aside special revelation?" Giberson asked in his open letter to Mohler.

Mohler conceded in his blog to one statement that "appears to misrepresent to some degree Darwin's intellectual shifts before and during his experience on the Beagle" but otherwise proclaimed that "I stand by my address in full." He said he plans to address some of the issues raised by Giberson in the coming months.

"If your intention in Saving Darwin is to show 'how to be a Christian and believe in evolution,' what you have actually succeeded in doing is to show how much doctrine Christianity has to surrender in order to accommodate itself to evolution," Mohler admonished Giberson.

"In doing this, you and your colleagues at BioLogos are actually doing us all a great service. You are showing us what the acceptance of evolution actually costs, in terms of theological concessions."

N.T. 'n Me on Piper: Worship, Big Pictures and Geocentricity

2010-08-24T14:40:00.003-04:00

[PC:Here is a nice article from a blog that no longer appears to exist. Thanks to whoever wrote it.]

"It is one of the great laws of spirituality that you become like what you worship."

This is one of N.T. Wright's favorite sayings. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say I worship Bishop Wright, well, you'll soon see where I'm gong with this.

So I got my pirate copy of Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision from Amazon UK a few days back. The book is to be released in the U.S. this May, but I'm not one to blindly play along with international/corporate power plays.

For those unaware of the background story, John Piper wrote a book, released in late 2007, called The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. It purported to be a defense of the Reformed view of the Doctrine of Justification against the "New Perspective" being espoused by Wright and his brethren.

"Justification" is Wright's response to that book.

I don't have a precise definition of "worship." But I would assume it has something to do with purposely fixing one's being to align itself with the ways of the thing/person being worshiped.

Like I said, I don't worship N.T. Wright. But after accidentally stumbling across one of his books, within a few years I had devoured pretty much everything the good Bishop had written. I wrote a book in which I re-placed my story within the global theological/biblical narrative that Wright illuminated. I try to take every opportunity to evangelize Wright's vision to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I was not altogether surprised, therefore, when I broke open "Justification" and began poring through Chapter 1.

During the fledgling first months of this blog, back in late 2007, I posted a piece or two on Piper's book, not as much reviews as overarching thoughts. In one of the pieces, I said this:

"[Y]ou simply cannot appreciate Wright's conclusions unless you go through the entire process of how he arrives at them, from his eschatological "big picture" on down, if you will. Before I've even gotten through Piper's Introduction, I can clearly tell that he hasn't grasped this "big picture," that it is so far removed from his tradition of understanding the gospel as being about "God and me," or "How individual sinners get saved," that he doesn't even recognize Wright's vision...

In some ways, I guess, I'm glad for Piper's book, because it seems to be highlighting the fundamental, category-level misunderstandings of the modern western Church, misunderstandings that Wright has been trying to point out and remedy for the last few decades. But I fear that, unless his readers are familiar with Wright's work, they will gloss over those category mistakes and get swept up in an act of kicking the shadow's [bottom]."

So, like said, I was not altogether surprised when I cracked open Chapter 1 of "Justification," which begins with the following parable:

"Imagine a friend coming to stay who, through some accident of education, had never been told that the earth goes round the sun. As part of a happy evening's conversation, you take it upon yourself to explain how the planetary system works. Yes, from where we stand it does of course seem that the sun circles around us. But this is merely the effect of our perspective. All we now know about astronomy confirms that the earth on which we live, in company with a few other similar planets, is in fact revolving around the sun. You get out books, charts and diagrams, and even rearrange objects on the coffee table to make the point. Your friend alternates between incredulity, fascination, momentary alarm, and puzzlement. Eventually you smile, have another drink, and head for bed.

Very early in the morning, while it is still dark, there is a tap at the bedroom door. He is up and dressed and invites you to come for an early walk. He takes you up the hill to a point where the whole countryside is spread out before you, and, as the sky begins to lighten up, you can just see, far off to the east, the glistening ocean. He returns to the subject of the previous night. So many wise people of old have spoken of the earth as the solid fixed point on which we stand. Didn't one of the Psalms say something about the sun celebrating as it goes round and round, like a strong giant running a race? Yes, of course modern scientists are always coming up with fancy theories. They may have their place, but equally they may be just fads. Wouldn't we do better to stick with the tried and tested wisdom of the ages?"

[PC: I've actually heard N.T. Wright give this analogy a few times in his lectures. While I was studying the lectures and books of Dr. Dale Moody in seminary, I found that many of his lectures given on a particular subject in the late 1940s would appear in the books he published in the early 1980s and with only minor changes. I've noticed similar examples with other professors that I've similarly studied.]

For those who haven't yet caught the point, he goes on...

"I have been writing about St. Paul now, on and off, for thirty-five years. I have prayed, preached and lectured my way through his letters. I have written popular-level commentaries on all of them, a full-length commentary on his most important one, and several other books and articles, at various levels, on particular Pauline topics. And the problem is not that people disagree with me. That is what one expects and wants. Let's have the discussion!

...But my problem is that that's not how things are working out. I have thought about writing this book for some time, but have finally been prodded into doing it because one of my critics -- John Piper -- has gone one better than the rest and devoted an entire book to explaining why I'm wrong about Paul, and why we should stick with the tried and trusted theology of the Reformers and their successors.

...And the problem is not that he, like many others, is disagreeing with me. The problem is that he hasn't really listened to what I'm saying. He has watched with growing alarm as I moved the pieces around the coffee table. It has given him a sleepless night. And now he has led me up the hill to show me the glorious sight of another sunrise.

...My friend has simply not allowed the main things I have been trying to say to get anywhere near his conscious mind. He has picked off bits of my analysis and argument, worried away at them, shaken his head, and gone back to the all-powerful story he already knew.

...The theological equivalent of supposing that the earth goes round the sun is the belief that the whole of Christian truth is all about me and my salvation...

Now, do not misunderstand me...Salvation is hugely important...

But we are not the center of the universe. God is not circling around us....We are in orbit around God and His purposes."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

...And I think I feel a bald-spot coming on.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

Controversial theologian Clark Pinnock dies

2010-08-19T09:46:00.000-04:00

By Bob Allen
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
0
diggs
diggHAMILTON, Ontario (ABP) -- Clark Pinnock, an influential theologian whose spiritual pilgrimage led him from a fiery fundamentalism as a young professor to an openness that caused some to brand him a heretic, died Aug. 15 of a heart attack. He was 73.

Pinnock, longtime professor of systematic theology at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, had withdrawn from public life since announcing in March he had Alzheimer's disease, but his death was unexpected.

Pinnock, the grandson of British Methodist missionaries to Nigeria who switched their affiliation to Baptist when their understanding of baptism changed, grew up in a fairly liberal home congregation, Park Road Baptist Church in Toronto. But as a youngster he wasn't particularly interested in church. Through influences including Youth for Christ and evangelical theologian Francis Schaeffer, he began his theological career in the context of "post-World War II fundamentalism."

Teaching at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary from 1965 until 1969, Pinnock became an influential figure in the Southern Baptist Convention's battles over biblical inerrancy. Among his students was Paige Patterson, today president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and co-founder with Houston layman Paul Pressler of what became known alternately as the "conservative resurgence" or "fundamentalist takeover" of America's second-largest faith group.

In his first book, A Defense of Biblical Infallibility in 1967, Pinnock said the doctrine "is a necessary, not merely an optional inference from the Biblical teaching about inspiration" and that "Sola Scriptura cannot be sustained apart from Biblical infallibility."

A year later, in New Reformation: A Challenge to Southern Baptists, Pinnock accused professors of Southern Baptist seminaries and related Baptist colleges of holding a "scaled-down" view of Scripture and called for "a new reformation" in the denomination.

After moving on to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1969-1974; Regent College in Vancouver, 1974-1977; and McMaster, 1977-2002, Pinnock's views on the Bible softened. At a 1987 conference on biblical inerrancy, Pinnock said that moderate Baptist scholars were never far removed from the biblical theology of rank-and-file church members. He said Southern Baptists' approach to the Bible was really not inerrancy but rather a "simple Biblicism," and that the "inerrancy controversy" was invented as a political weapon.

Pinnock's evolving views on inspiration were controversial to his former disciples, but it was nothing compared to his theological journey regarding the nature of God. Originally a Calvinist who emphasized God's sovereignty and foreknowledge, Pinnock gradually embraced a theology giving greater weight to human free will.

Pinnock was an early proponent of "open theism," which focuses on God's self-imposed limitations in dealing with humanity.

"The Christian life involves a genuine interaction between God and human beings," Pinnock wrote in his 1994 book, The Openness of God. "We respond to God's gracious initiatives and God responds to our responses ... and on it goes."

That means the future is not entirely settled. While God knows all possibilities, God does not know with certainty what human beings will do until they act. "If choices are real and freedom significant," Pinnock argued, "future decisions cannot be exhaustively known."

Those views nearly got Pinnock kicked out of the Evangelical Theological Society. In 2002 members of the group for academic professionals voted 388 to 231 to retain him as a member.

The Southern Baptist Convention rejected open theism in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message with a statement declaring that God's "perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures."

In his 2001 book, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness, Pinnock linked the SBC's statement on God to other statements in the confession of faith that the Bible limits the pastorate to qualified men and that wives should submit to their husbands in the home.

"I get suspicious when the same people who want to protect God's sovereignty also want to keep women in their subordinate place," Pinnock wrote about the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. "Why do they not see that the Father whom they claim to exalt is not the 'father' of patriarchal power but the God of Jesus Christ who woos us through his self-giving love?"

Despite his influence in Baptist affairs, in his later years Pinnock was a member of Little Bethel Community Church in Hamilton, Ontario. His funeral service was scheduled there for Aug. 18.

Assessing Pinnock's sometimes-contradictory legacy, Russell Moore, theology dean at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said conservative evangelicals owe him a debt of gratitude.

"A list of his former students during that time is amazing to anyone with any grasp of the history of Southern Baptists and the inerrancy controversy: Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers, and on and on," Moore wrote in his blog. "I cannot think of a single figure of crucial importance in the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention who is more than two steps away from Pinnock's direct influence."

"As I write this, I’m about to go into a classroom to teach 150 future pastors and missionaries," Moore continued. "We're in an institution committed to biblical authority and the centrality of the gospel. This would not be possible if Clark Pinnock hadn't taught Adrian Rogers and Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines."

-30-

Bob AllenThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

Opinion: What some Baptists don't want to hear about others

2010-08-10T10:40:00.001-04:00

By Laura Rector
Friday, August 06, 2010

[A nice little article that caught my attention in the Associated Baptist Press]

2010-08-04T13:17:00.001-04:00

FIRST-PERSON (Russell D. Moore): Anne Rice hasn't betrayed you

I didn't think she had. Nevertheless, I thought Dr. Moore’s article on the “apostasy” of Ann Rice was good. I appreciated the sentiment behind it and the advice offered.

I had first heard of Rice’s decision Sunday at church. My pastor actually mentioned it. He said he was broken hearted about it but that – and he stressed this – Rice has abandoned the Christianity but not Christ. That’s an important point. I must admit I was relieved to hear of it.

Dr. Moore wrote this:

“Anne says she still loves Jesus but she doesn't love Christianity. Yes, I know that it is impossible to love Jesus without loving His church. I've preached that for years, and I still believe it.”

I am of the ilk that makes a distinction between Christianity and the Church. For me, the Church is the people of God and Christianity is the (organized?) religious expression of Christendom in all its varied and conflicting forms.

So when I hear that Rice is rejecting Christianity and not Christ, I hear that she is saying that she is not rejecting the Church but the way the Church “does Church”.

Here is a great audio recording of Anne Rice and N.T. Wright at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco conversing on the subject of “Writing Our Way to God”.

A Defintion of the Gospel

2010-07-22T16:22:00.001-04:00

The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14), that God has broken definitively into history and the world (Luke 4:18) with power (1Th 1:5) and grace (Acts 20:24; Eph 1:13) in the person and work of Jesus the Christ (1Th 3:2; 2Th 1:8; Gal 1:7; 1Cor 9:12; 2Cor 2:12; Rom 1:9; Phl 1:27), who is the first fruits of the resurrection (1Cor 15:20, 23) bringing Justice (Rom 2:16), Peace (Eph 6:15), and Healing (Matt 4:23; 9:35) to the World and the offer of Salvation (Rom 1:16) for Repentance and Faith (Mark 1:14; Acts 15:7) to all peoples, fulfilling the God’s promise to Abraham (Rom 4:13; Acts 7:17; Gal 3:29) and inaugurating New Creation (Gal 6:15) and the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).

July 4th, 2010: The Unthinkable Happened

2010-07-06T11:20:00.001-04:00

July 4th, 2010: The Unthinkable Happened. During the second service at church, we ran out of Cheerios. Yes, you could actually see rising tension on the faces of those Toddlers. Soon they began to protest, they began to chant, they began to sing “We Shall Overcome” and “The Itsy-Bitsy Spider”. Eventually, the Infants walked out in sympathy. I ran out into the hall and yelled for the Children’s Director: “The Toddlers are Speaking Truth to Power!” What started out as a peaceful protest escalated into something resembling the 1968 Gerber Convention riots in Chicago. Little girls began to burn their diapers. Little boys were flipping strollers over. They stormed the Nursery and broke open all the cribs. If they hadn’t taken their nap I might not have gotten out alive.

“Surely God has a Reason for Our Present Struggles”

2010-07-03T12:08:00.001-04:00

A good friend of mine noted, “Surely God has a reason for our present struggles.”

I believe that is true but the real problem in our personal cases is that God will often not tell us what the reason is. And that led me to think of the following:

Funny enough, Yahweh is a God who likes surprises. I suppose that since he is omniscient, he can't be surprised, and makes up for it by giving us surprises.

“Yeah, I became fully incarnated as a human being. 'Betcha didn’t see that one coming. Nothing up my sleeve ...”

Liberty University demotes seminary president

2010-06-29T14:53:00.002-04:00

I did not know this:

"Liberty is not formally tied with the Southern Baptist Convention, but former SBC presidents Bailey Smith, Jerry Vines, James Merritt, Jack Graham and Johnny Hunt serve on its board of trustees."

I did know this:

"Southern Baptist blogs including FBC Jax Watchdog and Ministry of Reconciliation got involved about time that Caner accused the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention of using deception to witness to Muslims on the mission field.

'I just can't imagine that type of lying, and that's exactly what I call it,' Caner said in a February podcast interview criticizing a method used to engage Muslims in conversations that critics say downplays important differences between Christianity and Islam. 'So you're saying [IMB President] Jerry Rankin lies?' he continued. 'That's exactly what I'm saying.'"

I'm also amazed that a 38 year old can become Dean of the School of Theology at a Christian University. He must've had a great resume.

Pastor calls on SBC to adopt zero-tolerance of intolerance

2010-06-02T12:11:00.002-04:00

"A prominent African-American pastor has announced plans to ask the Southern Baptist Convention to amend its constitution to ban churches that condone racism."

I’d like to ask a few questions.

Who actually is supposed to repent?

Does McKissic believe that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) currently holds racists views? What are they?

Does he believe everyone in the SBC currently holds racists views? If not everyone, who does?

Should white Southern Baptists repent of any racists views they have ever had?
Should black Southern Baptists repent of any racists views they have ever had?

Should those of us who are Southern Baptists but have no racists views repent from doing something we never did? If we should repent from doing something that we never did, would that not be lying? Would we not then have to repent from lying? Would we not then have to repent from pretending to repent? Does Pastor McKissic want us to sin in this regard?

If I go into a Lifeway store and find a book that has a line in it that teaches a charismatic belief contrary to Scripture and a “private prayer language” belief contrary to Scripture, should Pastor McKissic repent of such teachings even if he already disagreed with such a false beliefs?

Should Lifeway not sell any books that express opinions different from McKissic?

Since Smith's Bible Dictionary was published in 1884, I’m going to assume that William Smith is dead. Yes, Dr. William Smith died in 1893. That being the case, it is unlikely that we will be able to get him to repent. Should we contact his descendents and urge them to repent? Should we contact the church in which William Smith worshipped and urge them to repent?

William Smith was a lawyer as well as lexicographer. Should all lawyers and lexicographers repent and apologize?
He was a Doctor of Civil Law at Oxford and Dublin – should the Universities of Oxford and Dublin repent and apologize?
Yes, Smith was British and not American. He was neither a Southern Baptist or a Baptist. But the honor of knighthood was conferred on him the year before his death on 7th October, 1893. Should Britain and the House of Windsor repent and apologize?

Let me ask you directly, Pastor McKissic: Do you even know what “repentance” means? In the Greek it is metanoia: a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done. I like to use the phrase “turning away” to explain what repentance means.

With this accurate definition in mind, the only way the SBC could repent from racist theology is if it currently held racist theology. Does it? The only way the SBC could repent from racism is if were currently racist. Is it?

If so, where? Who? Show me and the world. But you won’t. Because you can’t. Because there is none. The SBC has plenty of problems, but it ain’t racism.

The only evidence you seem to be able to conjure up is a book edited by an English lexicographer from 1884 (originally published in 1863) that was special ordered and then discarded on a shelf when no one claimed it.

I would advise you not to look on the shelves of the library at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary – there are some very old books there which might have a false teaching that was once believed but no longer. If so, and since you went to Southwestern and probably paid some tuition, then you would have to repent for supporting a racist institution that has books in its library that has ideas with which we disagree.

Why not ask Lifeway to search their records and find the person who ordered the book? Have that person repent for ordering a book that he may or may not have known contained a false and racist belief that no one believes today. Of course, it might be that this person was an African-American seminary student or pastor doing research on false and racist theology of the past and had to special order this book in order to use it for his work. Should such a person still be urged to repent of racist beliefs towards African-Americans?

Let us suppose that your resolution fails at the SBC convention and nothing of its kind is ever voted upon.

Let us suppose that two hundred years pass. Should such a resolution be urged upon the convention of 2210 CE?

Let us suppose that the population and demographic shifts of the next two hundred years results in an SBC that is 99% African-American. Should such a resolution be urged upon the 99% African-American convention of 2210 CE? Why or why not?

If so, then should you and other African-American Southern Baptists repent and apologize now? Why not lead the charge and set the example by having all the African-American pastors and ministers of the SBC repent and apologize for your racist theology and bigoted hegemony? [I’ve yet to ask to whom the SBC should apologize. I don’t think I shall. I’ll assume it is to African-Americans.]

I currently attend and volunteer at a Methodist Church with a very racially and ethnically diverse congregation and pastoral staff. My pastor is really fantastic and does excellent work. Now he is an admitted evangelical but nevertheless leans towards the left on some political matters. He would never say so but when he does reference some current political matter I can always tell where he gets his info and that he has accepted the political left’s interpretation of such an event. I’m not at all saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with that. I am as non-political as I can be. My estimation of his ministerial work and political leanings would not change if he was accepting the political right’s interpretations of events. It is what it is. I’ve served under both types of pastors.

But a few weeks ago, my pastor said something in a sermon very interesting that got me thinking. The church is going through an excellent series on the Sermon on the Mount this summer and we had come to the teachings on Forgiveness.

“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” [Matthew 5:12-15]

My pastor noted how unforgiveness and holding grudges can fester in the soul and wreak havoc upon the future. He mentioned a trip to Israel in which he saw how Israeli school children would spit and throw things at and on Palestinian school children. He mentioned that so many of these Israeli children hold festering grudges for things that Palestinians did to Israelis long before either side was born. He noted how unforgiveness led to generational anger and corrupted youths. In all this, the Israelis were blaming the present Palestinians for crimes and sins of the past, for crimes and sins of which contemporary Palestinians were completely innocent. Point taken.

My pastor continued on in his sermon and eventually got around to the subject of racism and slavery and segregation and then lamented that WE white Christians allowed slavery and segregation to go on and have a whole lot of sins to answer for.

I leaned over to the missus and asked her, “What does he mean WE?”

This strange disconnect in my pastor’s thinking and conception of forgiveness lingered with me throughout the week. On the one hand, we were told that Israeli school children blaming Palestinian school children for the sins of the past was wrong and hurtful, but, on the other hand, white American Christians were to culpable for the slavery and segregation of black Americans.

Do you, Pastor McKissic, forgive the SBC for its “racist past” ... even before they ask for forgiveness?

Do you, Pastor McKissic, forgive the SBC for its “racist past” ... even if they do not ask for forgiveness?

You claim to want the SBC to amend its constitution to ban churches that condone racism. Are there churches currently in the SBC that condone racism? If so, who are they Where are they? Identify them by name, Pastor McKissic.

Do you really believe that if the SBC allows a church that holds to the 19th century “curse of Ham” theology to remain in cooperative work with other SBC churches that such a theology will spread? Do you really believe that? If so, why do you believe it?

Where is your evidence that it is spreading now?

I like you, Pastor McKissic, but you are acting poorly. You are not thinking. You do not have a firm grasp upon reality, and, by result, you are hurting your cause.

I know you are not a fundamentalist, Pastor McKissic, but you are certainly behaving like one.

Here is my last question:

Exactly what is it about the 1995 Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention that does not reject racism and seek reconciliation?

Church secretary accused of embezzling $1.5 million

2010-06-01T11:22:00.002-04:00

MORRISTOWN, Tenn. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist church in East Tennessee is considering cutting back on ministries amid reports that a trusted employee of 47 years embezzled more than $1.5 million in church funds.

Police arrested Barbara Whitt, 68, longtime financial secretary at First Baptist Church in Morristown, Tenn., May 10 after a church audit found nearly $500,000 in funds were missing. She is out of jail on $175,000 bond.

By May 26 local media were reporting that the amount of money stolen could be $1.5 million, making it the biggest theft in the history of Hamblen County.

"We're not going to stop the programs entirely," First Baptist Pastor Dean Haun told the Knoxville News-Sentinel. "But we might have to tap on the brakes."

Haun, who came as pastor of the 1,800-member congregation in 2008 from First Baptist Church in Jonesboro, Ga., said the greatest thing Whitt stole was their trust. Though not a church member -- she belongs to nearby Grace Baptist Church, also a Southern Baptist congregation -- Haun said members of First Baptist viewed her as family and would have helped her if she had a need.

Whitt, a widow, is accused of writing 1,647 checks to herself between January 2008 and mid-April of this year. Investigators say that each of the checks was larger than $900 and totaled an average of more than $50,000 each month.

Taken from an account that funds things like scholarships and ministries, the checks would allegedly start in the church's accounting program made out to "cash." Whitt would then get one of the church's authorized officials to sign the check, add "Barbara Whitt" on a typewriter and then cash it during her lunch hour at a nearby Suntrust Bank.

Police said they don't know the motive for the alleged thefts. Neighbors said they had noticed her making a lot of large purchases recently and thought she might have won the lottery.

Whitt is scheduled to face a grand jury July 2. If convicted she could be sentenced from eight to 12 years in prison.

First Baptist Church reportedly filed a civil lawsuit against Whitt to try to stop her from selling any of her property. Grace Baptist Church also has filed a civil lawsuit against Whitt and her son, Michael, who owns a business called Whittco Electric Company housed at her home.

[Why would Grace Baptist Church file a civil lawsuit against the woman's husband and son?

There are a few names and places in this story which have appeared in several important SBC and Tennessee Baptist Convention news over the last few years. It's worth following, I think.]

A Ministerial Application Question

2010-05-27T13:32:00.002-04:00

Check out one of the questions I received on an application today?

11. What are your professional and theological opinions of the following people, groups, or organizations?

Willow Creek Association
LifeWay Publications
Child Evangelism Fellowship
AWANA International
Mark Driscoll
Joel Osteen
Saddleback Church

I hope that I am on a Ministerial Application Questionnaire one day.

Metropolis Restored

2010-05-21T11:14:00.002-04:00

I cannot imagine that there is someone out there in this world who can see this trailer and not be interested in seeing this film.

"Metropolis" in its restored glory

Coming to the Columbus, OH Wexner Center for the Arts, August 6th-7th.

Last year the missus and I went to see the 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia. I suspect a tradition is forming.

COMING SOON TO DVD & BLU-RAY - November 2010

I may actually buy a Blu-ray player just so I can watch the best version of this film possible. Hey, I originally bought a DVD player so I could watch Amadeus.

Here's a Joke for All My Roman Catholic Friends ...

2010-05-16T18:20:00.002-04:00

Q: Why did the Catholic cross himself?

A: To get to the "other side"

Jesus' Favourite Books and Music

2010-05-11T15:05:00.002-04:00

Do you know what Jesus’ favorite books of the Bible were? If we base our assumptions on the Gospel accounts, Jesus frequently quoted Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Daniel and Psalms - particularly the Psalms!

He and the disciples sang a few psalms before leaving the Last Supper (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26) to go to the Gethsemane gardens. Even when he was receiving the standard Roman welcome on Golgotha, he was thinking of a psalm (Matt 27:46; Matt 15:34; cf. Psalm 22:1).

Yes, Jesus liked music. Probably due to the influence of Mary - she wrote psalms!Luke 1:46-55. She was just forbidden to explain them!

A Joke

2010-05-11T15:04:00.000-04:00

Question: What did the Scribes in Luke 20:41-44 say to each other after Jesus taught on Psalm 110?

Answer: “He’s so vain he probably thinks that psalm is about him!”

"Deacons" for "Elders", "Ministers" for "Elderess"

2010-05-11T13:55:00.006-04:00

It is a well-known fact that many Southerns Baptist churches have a leadership structure in which “deacons” effectively perform the function of “elders”. Such churches do not recognize "elders" as such and do not use the term in any sense. This interchangeability of terms rarely causes a problem in churches. Neither English term is actually found in the New Testament Greek Bible.

Of course, the New Testament Greek terms for “pastor” (poimen), “overseer” (episkopos), and “elder” (presbyteros) are virtually synonymous (Acts 20:17, 28). The term “elder” (presbyteros) (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17-18; Tit 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-4) can refer either to chronological age or to a specific ministry within the Church.

The title itself suggests spiritual oversight, for elders fulfilled certain ministries such as anointing the sick (Jas 5:14) as well as preaching, teaching, admonishing and guarding against heresy (Tit 1:9). Therefore, an “elder” is a believer whose has the Christian maturity (the fruit) to mentor another Christian. Women are called to this function (1 Tim 5:2) just as men are (1 Tim 5:2).

In 1 Timothy 5, Paul refers to both “elder” (presbytero) and “elderess” (presbyteras). In Titus 2, Paul uses a slightly different word for “elder” (presbytas) and “elderess” (presbytidas). Both are adjectival forms of the terms of 1 Timothy 5. In the context of the Pastoral Epistles and with regard to the similarity between the requirements of both in the 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 chapters, it appears obvious that Paul is speaking of the same function. This conforms to the Biblical support for female prophets (Ex 15:20, 21; Jud 4:4, 5; 2 Kin 22:12-20; Is. 8:1-3; Joel 2:28; Lk 2:36; Ac 21:9; I Cor 11) and female apostles (Roman 16:7).

Nevertheless, I believe that individuals are called by God and that ordination is the church’s recognition of what the Holy Spirit has already done in the life and ministry of an individual believer. The Church does not always accurately discern the Holy Spirit in this matter and, thus, some Christians are ordained who have not been called and others who have been called have not been ordained. I do not believe that a church’s error in such a case invalidates the call. An individual can still perform the function of a deacon and pastor whether or not they are formally recognized as such.

Therefore, since almost every Southern Baptist church not only permits but encourages spiritually mature women to be involved in evangelizing, encouraging, discipling, worshipping, serving, admonishing, praying, and setting a faithful witness to what God has done in their lives through Christ, I am quite content to let the Holy Spirit work out this issue in his own time. Within the local church, I prefer to remain silent on the contentious subject.

Apparently, many Southern Baptist churches have adopted the same approach. Instead, of a woman serving as "Administrative Pastor" or "Children's Pastor", we have women serving as "Minister of Administration" or "Children's Minister" and, one that I recently noticed, "Director of Administration" and "Director of Children's Ministry".

Think about it: Minister, Director, Manager, Executive, Administrator, Supervisor, Advisor, Principal, Superintendent, Officer, Controller ...

Just so long as a church doesn't use a term found in an English Bible Southern Baptists will not be able to exclude them for having a female functioning as a "pastor".

This is how we know the egalitarians are going to win!

Worst-Paying College Degrees

2010-05-10T18:17:00.002-04:00

[Hey! I have #7 and #3! But put them together and I have a starting annual salary of $71,000 and a mid-career annual salary of $105,600! Woo-hoo!]

by Charles Purdy, Yahoo! HotJobs senior editor

There's no denying the value of a college education: According to recent U.S. Census surveys, the median salary for college grads is more than $20,000 higher than that of people with only a high school diploma. And the unemployment rate for people with bachelor's degrees is almost half the rate for people without.

But some degrees are worth more than others, as PayScale.com shows in its 2010 report on the earning power of bachelor's degrees.

No surprise, engineering degrees continue to be top earners--and (also no big shocker) you have to go pretty far down the list before you see the liberal arts well represented.

But there's more to choosing a major than comparing dollar amounts. We salute and congratulate the graduates whose interests (and hard work) have led them to the following degrees--the lowest-earning degrees on PayScale's list.

10. Drama (starting annual salary: $35,600; mid-career annual salary: $56,600)
Some mega-millionaire movie stars with drama degrees (Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, for instance) may be skewing these numbers upward--for every Denzel and Meryl, there are thousands of thespians struggling to make ends meet. But you don't study drama because you want to get rich--you study drama because you love the theater. (And an ability to act comes in handy in many professions.)

9. Fine arts (starting annual salary: $35,800; mid-career annual salary: $56,300)
Well, it takes an artist to make a thrift-store wardrobe look like a million bucks.

8. Hospitality and tourism (starting annual salary: $37,000; mid-career annual salary: $54,300)
Jobs that include tips may be skewing these numbers downward--and this is an industry that looks to be on the rebound as the economy improves. Plus, the perks associated with jobs in hospitality and tourism may compensate for the comparatively low salaries--many jobs in the industry allow extensive travel (or provide considerable travel discounts).

7. Education (starting annual salary: $36,200; mid-career annual salary: $54,100)
For the right people, teaching is an immensely rewarding career--and it's truly a noble one. The good news is, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the employment opportunities for primary, secondary, and special education teachers are expected to grow by 14 percent in the coming decade. And there will be plenty of new opportunities in continuing education for adults, as professional skill requirements change ever more rapidly.

6. Horticulture (starting annual salary: $37,200; mid-career annual salary: $53,400)
It seems that a green thumb doesn't necessarily bring in the greenbacks. But when you work among flowers and plants in a nursery or garden, who needs 'em?

5. Spanish (starting annual salary: $35,600; mid-career annual salary: $52,600)
As an old proverb puts it, when you learn a new language, you "gain a new soul." Who could put a price on that? And certainly, knowing Spanish--the language with the second-highest number of native speakers (after Mandarin)--in addition to English opens up a world of job opportunities beyond Spanish teacher or translator (as a plus, you can better enjoy a world of fantastic Spanish-language music, movies, and literature).

4. Music (starting annual salary: $34,000; mid-career annual salary: $52,000)
Hey, if being a musician were easy, everyone would do it. Some of us are guitar heroes; most of us just play the video game.

3. Theology (starting annual salary: $34,800; mid-career annual salary: $51,500)
This is the perfect example of a degree earned by someone who's "not in it for the money": people who choose to study theology often feel they're pursuing a higher calling (and often feel a strong desire to do good in the world, no matter the cost).

2. Elementary education (starting annual salary: $33,000; mid-career annual salary: $42,400)
Specializing in elementary education means a lower median salary than an education degree (number 7).

1. Social work (starting annual salary: $33,400; mid-career annual salary: $41,600)
They say that crime doesn't pay. As this list seems to point out, neither does helping people. So it's a good thing that many college students seem to believe that helping others is its own reward--social workers are an indispensable safety net for people who've fallen on difficult times. And the BLS reports that the outlook for opportunities in this field are favorable--particularly for social workers who work in rural areas or with senior citizens.

Fake Pastoral Interview Question #1

2010-05-06T10:21:00.002-04:00

Q: And what if someone gave you a fright -
Would you laugh, "Ha, ha, it's quite all right"?

A: NO! I get mad! I get mad! I get mad!
It ain't bad to get mad.

What is the Gospel?

2010-05-05T12:41:00.001-04:00

The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14), that God has broken definitively into history and the world (Luke 4:18) with power (1Th 1:5) and grace (Acts 20:24; Eph 1:13) in the person and work of Jesus the Christ (1Th 3:2; 2Th 1:8; Gal 1:7; 1Cor 9:12; 2Cor 2:12; Rom 1:9; Phl 1:27), who is the first fruits of the resurrection (1Cor 15:20, 23) bringing justice (Rom 2:16), Peace (Eph 6:15), and Healing (Matt 4:23; 9:35) to the World and the offer of Salvation (Rom 1:16) for Repentance and Faith (Mark 1:14; Acts 15:7) to all peoples, fulfilling the God’s promise to Abraham (Rom 4:13; Acts 7:17; Gal 3:29) and inaugurating new creation (Gal 6:15) and the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).

♪"A dragon, a dragon, I swear I saw a dragon ..."♪

2010-04-29T11:09:00.005-04:00

Last night the family and I went to a Dayton Dragon’s Baseball game. We actually had a lot of fun there – the game seemed to go by a lot quicker than the professional games I’ve attended. I mean, when I’ve attended a Braves game, I’ve wanted to leave at the 7th inning stretch, singing, ♪“Take Me Out Of The Ballgame.”♪

I know why the White Sox had Harry Caray lead the home crowd in singing, ♪“Take Me To The Ballgame”♪ – by the seventh inning I’m ready to commit hara-kari.

But like I said the game seemed to fly by and so we had a good time. Hey, the game goes by quickly when one team can’t hit the ball! We were out in the left field stands so we were only in danger when the Lake County Fielders were up at bat.

Apparently, the Lake County Fielders are owned by Kevin Costner.

I think Susan Sarandon may have been seated a few rows behind us. At one point a woman yells out to the Lake County Fielders’ left-fielder, “Number 35! You’ve got a great XXX!”

To which I leaned over to my wife and said, “Yeah, but the other guy is Feiner.”

And now for something completely different:

"Hey, what if ... Hey!"

PC Answers Questions to a Doctoral Student on Evolution and Religion

2010-04-29T10:02:00.003-04:00

Last year a doctoral student at a university in Tennessee discovered my blog and a few discussions on Baptist online forums of which I had taken parting 2003. The student was researching the issue of evolution and religion for his dissertation, and I am apparently one of only a handful of evangelical Baptists that accepts the theory of biological evolution. Doesn’t speak well to the validity of my position, does it?

Nevertheless, the student sent me a few questions whose answers I shall now post.

First, are you currently a Baptist pastor?

No. I am a Baptist looking for a ministry in which to pastor.

I’ve pastored in churches in Texas and North Carolina.

I’m a son of a Baptist pastor and a grandson of Baptist missionaries.

Oddly enough, while I have been looking for ministry work in Southern Baptist churches, my wife and I have been attending a Methodist church here in Ohio, partly because it is like a Southern Baptist church we enjoyed in Texas.

And just this past Sunday, the pastor (a conservative and an inerrantist) made an aside comment that Christians should not be beating each other up over evolution.

Second, many people with whom I've talked have told me that the SBC has gotten increasingly fundamentalist in the last couple of decades. Would you agree with that? Any comments on it?

I include this lengthy response because I it might be of interest to you.

Yes, that is unfortunately true. I have fundamentalist friends and family, and I both love them and thoroughly enjoy ministering with them. And while I do not agree with many of their distinct positions, I don’t care that they have them.

The SBC has always been a very conservative body of Christian believers. The vast majority are conservatives in which there is a very large block of fundamentalists of various sorts. There have always been a significant minority of moderate Baptists and a very insignificant minority of liberals. The leadership of the SBC was made up of moderates and conservatives.

As I’m sure you are very much aware, the issues of biological evolution and the interpretation of the Bible caused tremendous controversy in the SBC during the 20th century. Under pressure from fundamentalists and conservatives, the SBC leadership wrote a confession of faith in 1925 and amended it in 1963. Both of these versions state the orthodox Christian beliefs that God created the world and that the Bible is authoritative. Moderates and many conservatives sought to be present an inclusive document.

However, in the 1980s, conservatives (with fundamentalist leaders) began to use their denominational leadership positions to reform the structure of the SBC to prevent anyone but conservatives from being appointed to positions in the organization. At the same time, conservatives began to fire all the non-conservatives that were already in SBC positions. They also fired conservatives who were critical of the other firings and the takeover. This continued through the 1990s and culminated in the conservatives and fundamentalists amending the confession of faith in 2000. After it was adopted, every employee of the SBC was required to sign this document or be fired. Many, many were fired or made a hasty retreat before they were. By itself, the implementation of this confession and its fall out had the SBC reeling from the inside out.

However, the 1963 version of the confession included a prologue that explicitly stated that this document was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” This allowed SBC employees (particularly seminary professors) from holding positions contrary to the 2000 confession just so long as they do not teach or preach otherwise. The last decade of the SBC has been repeated incidences of fundamentalist weeding these employees out and getting them fired.

What occurred in the SBC seminaries during the 1990s and 2000s has now begun to occur in Baptist colleges such as Carson Newman in TN and, most recently, at Truett-McConnell College in Georgia which plans to become the first Baptist college to require its faculty to affirm the 2000 confession.

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4671/53/
Many of the same fundamentalist leaders are involved.

None of the three Baptist confessions (even the fundamentalist penned version of 2000) reference the issue of evolution either explicitly or implicitly.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

But there are many issues important to SBC fundamentalists on which there is less than solid convention support. And there is very little support for amending the Baptist confession.

Therefore, for the past few years, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC has been using the trustee system of the various convention agencies, including the seminaries, to enact theological standards which would not pass via the regular practice of convention vote.

I mention all this because if you’re asking about the SBC becoming increasingly fundamentalistic and how this relates to evolution and education (particularly in TN), then this is what has been done to the Baptist seminaries and what is now being done at the Baptist colleges.

Third, and this is related to the second question, how common are your views on evolution among evangelicals? As I said, from my own perspective, they seem extremely rare.

From my perspective, I assume that they are very rare too. Most evangelicals seem to associate biological evolution with atheism.

But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that most Southern Baptists who accept the theory of biological evolution would keep it to themselves.

Obviously, biological evolution isn’t mentioned in 2000 plus year old documents that make of the Bible. It’s certainly unessential to the Faith. A Christian can reject evolution and still have a healthy and productive spiritual life. And it’s not an issue with which the average pastor, religious teacher, or church confronts. Combined with its controversial nature, for a pastor or religious teacher to announce their support for the theory would only be a distraction from the essentials.

In my four years at seminary, I never heard a professor state their position on the issue. Only one student ever stated his position to me and only through commenting on my blog. During that time, I only heard two SBC leaders make statements at seminary denouncing biological evolution, and both of them are two of the three recognized individuals who led the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention.

Given this and all I mentioned regarding the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention, I think it’s quite understandable that many SBC employees and pastors would keep their position quiet.

Fourth, in the baptist discussion board I read when you were talking about Brady Tarr, you were talking about reading Genesis as an apocalyptic text. What do you mean by that? I'm afraid I'm not theologically trained.

It was a hypothesis I had then that I have yet to pursue any further than you have read. I have only met one Old Testament scholar (a friend) who holds this position. I’ve never seen it in any other paper, article, or book that I can find.

The Apocalyptic genre of literature essentially presents a “spiritual” interpretation of history. It offers a “behind-the-scenes” view of what is going on with particular events and peoples and how it relates to God and the writer of the apocalyptic work’s intended audience. Apocalyptic literature is popularly known to focus on future events, but it just as often comments on present and past events. The Biblical books of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are prime examples but there are others in and outside the Jewish and Christian canons.

Apocalyptic literature will use symbolism, word play, exaggerated actions, fantastic creatures, “angelic beings”, truncated history, and otherworldly scenarios. This Biblical genre has a lot in common with basic dreams and many apocalyptic passages will occur in the context of a dream (Daniel chapters 2, 4, and 7; but also, as I will argue one day, Genesis 28, 40, and 41). The first three chapters of Genesis contain symbolism, puns and word play, fantastic talking animals, “angelic beings”, and many other apocalyptic characteristics that I’ll argue. The connection to the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2 is my favourite.

But even though my apocalyptic argument has yet to be made, many other evangelical and conservative scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and the Genesis story hold the story to be figurative but true because its genre (whether poem, psalm, apocalypse, “myth”, short-story, etc.) permits to be non-literal but true.

Ask a fundamentalist about whether he or she believes that the book of Revelation is true. Naturally, he or she will say yes that they do, even though it is written in symbolic, non-literal language.

Fifth, have you been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky? I don't think it's far from you, but I figured you'd have blogged about it if you had gone. Any comments on it?

I have not been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

It was this question of which I was reminded while reading the Baptist Press article on “Noah’s Ark”. The Baptist Press quoted a statement from Answers in Genesis, the apologetics ministry that operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I currently live just over an hour away from the museum but have yet to visit.

Creation ministry cautious about Ark find

2010-04-29T09:57:00.001-04:00

I seriously, seriously doubt this.

Posted on Apr 28, 2010 | by Staff

PETERSBURG, Ky. (BP)--Claims that a group of Turkish and Chinese explorers have found Noah's Ark in eastern Turkey are being met with caution by one of the world's leading creation science organizations.

Answers in Genesis, the apologetics ministry that operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati, said in a statement it needs more time to study the findings.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, one of the explorers of the Noah's Ark Ministries International team that made the find, said at a Hong Kong press conference the explorers are "99.9 percent that this is it." The discovery resides on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey. The team even says carbon dating has dated the wood to 4,800 B.C., possibly preserved over the centuries under ice and snow.

"Every few years we hear of claims that Noah's Ark (or what may remain of it) has been found on the mountains of Ararat in Turkey," Answers in Genesis said. "... Answers in Genesis has seen many photos that were released, but without corroboration by the leading creationist organizations and not knowing all the research methods that were employed, we will withhold judgment until further study. Over the decades, we have learned to be cautious about such Ark claims."

The ministry added, "We have no doubt, however, that there once was a massive Ark that served as a vessel of salvation during a global Flood and landed on the mountains of Ararat, as recorded in the book of Genesis."

The explorers say the discovery has compartments, supposedly where animals would have been housed.

"The significance of this find is that for the first time in history the discovery of Noah's Ark is well documented and revealed to the worldwide community," Dutch researcher Gerrit Aalten, who is not part of the team, said at the press conference, according to FoxNews.com. "There's a tremendous amount of solid evidence that the structure found on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey is the legendary Ark of Noah."

Panda Lee, one of the researchers, gave a descriptive account of her first sight of the discovery: "In October 2008, I climbed the mountain with the Turkish team. At an elevation of more than 4,000 meters, I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about 8 inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails. We walked about 100 meters to another site. I could see broken wood fragments embedded in a glacier, and some 20 meters long. I surveyed the landscape and found that the wooden structure was permanently covered by ice and volcanic rocks."

Reasons for Decline

2010-04-22T16:49:00.002-04:00

My good friend and Anglican minister, The Right Rev. Andrew K. Lee, sent me this very insightful article on the current "decline" of Christianity in America. Personally, I believe that there is an authentic revival occurring in America, and I have claimed as much in recent years. Nevertheless, I highly recommend that you read this article. I have highlighted three of its parts with my own brief [commentary].

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Dr. James Emery White

"Many Church Rolls Decline" declared the recent article distributed by the Religious News Service.

Not exactly breaking news. According to new figures released by the National Council of Churches, most mainline Protestant denominations report continuing decline.

While the top two religious groups, the Southern Baptists and Catholics, reported membership losses in the 2009 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, in the 2010 edition released February 12th, only the Catholics reported a rebound with a 1.5% growth rate to more than 68 million members.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) experienced the greatest loss among the top 10 denominations - down 3.3% to 2.8 million members.

Okay, enough with the data. I certainly have no problems with the accuracy of the statistics. In fact, the NCC's annual Yearbook is regarded as one of the most reliable recorders of church membership in North America.

It's the post-game analysis, highlighted in the report, that I found interesting.
The Rev. Eileen W. Lindner, editor of the Yearbook since 1998, said many experts cite "an increasing secularization of American postmodern society, and its disproportional impact on liberal religious groups" as the cause of decline in some American churches.

Jack Haberer, editor of the Presbyterian Outlook magazine, said the trend has been prompted by baby boomers who "have been drawn more to churches that are more informal, less institutional and more rock ‘n' rollish."

Um, okay.

But do you really think that's what's causing those churches to decline? It seems to me all such analysis offers is an acknowledgment of the cultural challenge (secularization), and then a begrudging, caricaturing nod to the churches that are somehow growing (becoming more "rock ‘n' rollish").

Let's keep going with this.

To blame secularization for the decline only reveals that said churches are demonstrating an inability to effectively meet the cultural challenge. Secularization alone does not keep a church from growing. It just means you are standing on Mars Hill (Acts 17) instead of among the God-fearing Jews of Jerusalem (Acts 2). But Paul bore fruit on Mars Hill, though it took a different strategy than Peter's.

Consider the most robust church on the planet which, arguably, is the underground church in China - a church in perhaps the most secular (and hostile) environment on the planet.

And to say that this secularization is particularly impactful on liberal churches, again, does not mean secularization is to blame as much as liberal theology has failed to gain a hearing in our secular environment. Or more to the point, that liberal theology has not proven to be a compelling alternative to secularism. [Wow! Best criticism of so much of liberal Christianity these days.]

As for blaming informal, non-institutional, "rock ‘n' rollish" (sorry, third time I've quoted that line, but ya gotta love it) churches for the decline, well, again, that speaks less to the reason for the decline than to what increasing numbers of people who are spiritually seeking and spiritually open are wanting in a church.
Why?

Because no one "steals" people away from churches. They leave of their own free will, in the apparent discovery that another church makes the Bible more relevant, offers a mission more dynamic, and embodies a community that is more authentic.

So let's put to rest the idea that informal dress, Starbucks coffee, and rock music is what is attracting people, as if such churches are abandoning orthodoxy to get warm bodies, or that such strategies in and of themselves attract the unchurched. The unchurched do not have to go to church to dress informally; if they want Starbucks, they can just go to Starbucks; and whatever music they want is easily downloaded and available any time they want on their ipod.

[Dang, that's such a simple yet so apt rebuttal. I'm actually irked that I never thought of it. I'll have to steal for one of my own articles and books.]

Bottom line: Growing churches are obviously offering something more than what people already have in abundance, and that something more is clearly spiritual in nature. Most of these churches, as has long been demonstrated as far back as Dean Kelley's breakthrough sociological study, are highly conservative in nature. Their breakthrough is offering the gospel, raw and unfiltered and uncompromised, through contemporary modes of communication.

Give credit to Pope Benedict who recently told priests, "For God's sake, blog!" The Pope admonished priests that they must use new forms of communication to spread the gospel message. In his message for the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Communications, the Pope, who is 82 and not known for his technological acumen, acknowledged priests must make the most of the "rich menu of options" offered by new technology. ["Für Grund des Gottes, Blog!" You heard it here first: ex aranea verbum,]

"Priests are thus challenged to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources - images, videos, animated features, blogs, Web sites - which, alongside traditional means, can open up broad new vistas for dialogue, evangelization and catechesis."

Priests, he said, had to respond to the challenge of "today's cultural shifts" if they wanted to reach young people.
Props from this Protestant.

The Pope seems to get the two big things many of my Protestant brothers and sisters seemingly don't: don't just decry culture, connect with it; and realize that when you connect with it, it's for the purpose of the gospel.
No wonder the Catholic Church turned things around this year.

FIRST-PERSON: Marketing alcohol to the underage

2010-04-21T09:38:00.000-04:00

After nearly 10 years of personal perusing, I have finally red an almost 100% responsible article in the Baptist Press about alcohol.

I say “nearly 100%” because the last paragraph sort of falls back into the same knee-jerk of “ban it all to hell” when it comes to alcohol.

Nevertheless, as I have been arguing for far too long, the main thrust and substance of this article is how Christians should approach the issue of alcohol abuse: focus on alcohol ABUSE.

Yes, that’s right, you post-modern Pharisees and self-appointed Sanhedrins, the best strategy of fighting against alcohol abuse is to fight against the abuse. So simple.

Unfortunately, this article stops short of getting an A+ because its conclusion is too simply ban alcohol all together and remove it from our midst.

Yes, shake your heads in pity.

Still, the piece’s relative originality in terms of its Southern Baptist traditions is noteworthy.

And now that Southern Baptist scholar Dr. E. Earle Ellis has passed away, I think it’s safe more me to say the following: Dr. Ellis drank alcohol all the time, God bless him!

Church Signs - Backside Baptist Church

2010-04-20T12:11:00.001-04:00

Desperately Seeking Insensitive Servant

2010-04-12T13:23:00.001-04:00

"Seeking a full-time, bi-vocational pastor for youth, worship, visitation, lawn care, and can preach every other Sunday. Preferably college-aged or seminary-aged who hasn't had any experience negotiating with a deacon board. Preferably single or, if married, not planning to have any children. The deacon chairman is a doctor and can perform the medical procedure ("snip, snip"). He has lots of such experience working with church staffs.

Direct all questions and resumes to:

Attn: Rev. Geddy Lee Gibb
2nd Baptist Church
2 Origen High Street, Enoch, Connectitcutt, 90125

‘Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name ...’ (Isaiah 56:5)”

[I applaud the person who can catch the "90125" joke.]

Calvinism, Election, the Atonement, and Infant Damnation: Questions Answered

2010-04-08T13:29:00.006-04:00

I had someone reply to the True/False Test on Calvinism article I post early last year. Great questions! Really good. I decided to post his questions and comments and my answers for all our general educations.

"Christ is the elect" So Paul is writing to Jesus in Titus? Peter is writing to Jesus as well in 1 Peter? Your use of "election" in 12 is interesting.

Please reread what I wrote:

“I believe that, first and foremost, Jesus Christ is THE ELECT, and that only those who are connected with HIM are ‘elected.”

If I had meant that Jesus was the only elect, I would not have used the words “first” and “foremost”; I would have used the word “only”.

In 1 Peter 1:6, Peter refers to himself as elect.

In 1 Peter 2:4 and 6, the “elect” to which Peter refers to is Christ.

In 1 Peter 2:9, the “elect” refers to believers.

But the point Peter is making here is that believers are elect because Christ is the elect first and foremost. Christ is the choice cornerstone on which God is building a temple of living stones (believers, the elect).

In Matthew 21:42, Jesus applies Psalm 118:22-23 to himself: “Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes”?’” (see also Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11).

Paul refers to believers as a “temple” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19).

Jesus was well-known in his time for saying that if the temple was destroyed, he could rebuild it in three days (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19). But as the Gospel of John notes, Jesus was referring to his own body (John 2:21).

Now, in verse 1 Peter 2:9, Peter quotes from Exodus 19:6: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Peter is making a connection here between Israel as God’s chosen people and all believers of the church as God’s chosen people. How can he do so?

The essential concept here is that Christ IS Israel in a very significant sense.

Note Exodus 4:22: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn.”

Of course, we all know that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, his firstborn.

The idea here is that Christ is “first and foremost” the elect and all who have faith in him are elected because they associated with him whether they are believing Jews of racial “Israel” or Gentiles “grafted” into him.

In the Old Testament, Israel was often referred to as a vine (Isaiah 5:2; Jeremiah 2:21; 6:9; Hosea 10:1; 14:7). In John 15:1-2, Jesus refers to himself as the “true vine”. He notes that "every branch in me that does not bear fruit, He takes away”.

In Romans 11:17, Paul writes, “If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root.” Gentile believers have been “grafted” into Israel and unbelieving Jews have been broken off. This is how Paul can say in Romans 11:26 that “all Israel shall be saved.” Paul is not referring to specifically to Jewish people but to Israel as it is constituted in Christ. Any other interpretation of Romans 11:26 would mean that a Jewish atheist will die and “go to heaven” simply because he is Jewish. That’s obviously nonsense.

So as you can see, 1 Peter actually confirms what I wrote concerning #12:

“I believe that, first and foremost, Jesus Christ is THE ELECT, and that only those who are connected with HIM are ‘elected.”

13 If you don't believe in penal substitution then your answer about propitiation (35) in that it relates to the atonement needs expanded on. The rest of it is not in contrast to Calvinism, you just didn't define who is in him. His death is sufficient for any and all that are in him. One question in regards to 13 is "Christ atones for himself" what about himself needs atonement?

Here are a few of the blog posts I have written upon the subject of the Atonement. These should give you a good idea of my position upon the matter and the Scriptural evidence which supports it.

JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY

The Problem With Penal Substitionary Atonement

The "Suffering Servant" and the Atonement

What I Believe About the Atonement of Christ

A Discussion On The Atonement

In brief, I believe Jesus Christ by his life and death atoned for the sin of man to God. I believe that if Christ had not sacrificed himself and atoned for man’s sins, then every person would be damned. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that this atoning sacrifice involved PUNISHING Christ for the sins of man. I do not believe that God was punishing Jesus in our place.

What occurred in the life and crucifixion of Christ was the perfect example of love and obedience from Man to God. It was certainly a sacrifice of propitiation in a sense that it was pleasing and acceptable to God and removed his wrath towards man, but that appeasement was not because Christ was punished but because Christ was obedient to God’s will. It was the self-sacrificing, self-denying love towards God and Man that pleased God the Father.

This ties into the subject of “the Elect”. Christ is the “Elect” and believers are “elected” IN him.

Christian believers have answered the call of God to follow Christ. Our choice to attach ourselves to Christ means that God looks at us through the lens of Christ and sees Jesus’ pleasing, perfect, self-sacrificing love in us.

And 1 Peter also speaks to this: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God THROUGH Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

Ultimately, all our sacrifices are only acceptable because we offer them through Christ and God receives them through Christ.

Difficult stuff, to be sure, but the idea that God was punishing Christ for our sins is completely foreign to the Bible. It’s actually a horrid idea! In fact, as you will see in my blog articles on the subject, the Gospel writers go out of their way to establish that God was in no way punishing Jesus. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory was not developed until well into the second millennium of the church and is completely antithetical to what the Scriptures teach.

16 No, you need to research that. Total misunderstanding of Calvinist doctrine. Spurgeon for example believed that all babies went to Hell. Most (all that I've met) Calvinist believe that there are elect babies and reprobate babies just the same as grown ups. Particularly Presbyterians that believe in the covenant home.

Are you sure that you have done your research?

Charles Spurgeon (A sermon preached in London, Sept. 29, 1861)

“Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days . . .”

“Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too?”

Granted, there are millions of Calvinists in this world and throughout Church history, but, in general, they’ve generally tended to believe that infants do not go to hell.

Now I do know Calvinists who are annihilationists (they believe that the eternal punishment of the “damned” is eternal death and not “eternal conscious torment”) and believe that the infants of unbelieving parents will remain dead and not participate in the resurrection of believers. However, if that parent subsequently becomes a believer, THEN the dead infant will then be able to be resurrected. I believe they get this concept partially from 1 Corinthians 7:14. This is the idea of the “covenant home” that you referenced. I’m incredulous to the idea and the exegesis myself. Yes, I believe in annihilationism but I think the use of 1 Corinthians 7:14 is dubious and unnecessary.

Now the question was whether or not Calvinists believe that babies go to “Hell”.
The author of the question could have meant “Hell” either as hades (the abode of the dead, or, specifically, the state of death in which all those who die – believer and unbeliever alike – until the resurrection) or as gehenna (the state of ultimate punishment for unbelievers, which is permanent death or hades).

Since most people (Christian or not) would assume he was referring to the gehenna-like hell, I myself assume the author was referring to the latter and still assume so.

I imagine that the author would have used a qualified if he was referring to “hell” as hades.

Danny Boy (The Muppets)

2010-04-06T13:40:00.002-04:00

How a Prospective Pastor Can Turn Down an Ultra-Conservative or Ultra-Liberal Church

2010-03-29T15:04:00.005-04:00

In the apparently never-ending quest to find a ministry position, I have occasionally felt led to break off the process with a particular church due to their doctrinal requirements. So far this has only occurred with conservative churches - there aren't many ultra-liberal churches looking for pastors! Nevertheless, I believe that what follows can be used for both conservatives and liberals.

Please note that my use of the terms "Ultra-Conservative" and "Ultra-Liberal" is only pragmatic and meant to position a church and a prospective pastor in relation to the other. Nothing derogatory is meant. Indeed, my purpose is not only to not offend but to help other Christian ministers not offend. I thought the following example from my own experience might be of help to others.

After studying the information you sent me, I believe my positions on [the process of creation], [the "end times"], [the Atoning work of Christ], and [the proper roles of women in the church] might make me an impediment to the mission and ministry of XXXXXX Church. That's the last think I would want to do!

But God will provide you with the person you need.

Thank you and God Bless

Georgia Baptists Targeting Churches With Women "(p)astors"

2010-03-20T11:55:00.000-04:00

Did you see this article in the Associated Baptist Press?

ABP: Georgia Baptists target second church with woman pastor

No surprise. The Georgia Baptist Convention and many of its local associations has been aggressively rooting out women “pastors” over the past few years.

According to news report, this female minister is part of a husband/wife co-pastor team.

“Female minister.”

There was a Georgia Baptist Church in the news a few years ago that hired a woman as an Associate Pastor. The local association eventually kicked the church out because of it. The Director of Missions was actually quoted in the press as saying that if the church had given her the title of “Associate Minister”, then there would not have been any problem.

You might be asking, “If it is all about semantics, then why don’t these churches simply change these titles from ‘pastor’ to ‘minister’?”

Actually, many of them do. Go to the websites of some of the Southern Baptist Conventions mega churches. On the staff webpages, you’ll see rows of males and females: “pastor of x”, “pastor of y”, “minister of z”. Guess which ones are male and which one is female.

But let me ask you something, “If this is all about semantics, then why are Southern Baptist associations and conventions so dedicated to excluding all these churches with women “pastors” and not women “ministers”?

Consider it:

- A woman is called “Associate Pastor” and that is bad.
- A woman is called “Associate Minister” and that is okay.

Under this line of thinking, a woman could perform the function of a Senior Pastor just as long as she uses the title of “Senior Minister” or, even, simply “Preacher”.

At this point I would go as far to say that a woman could be regularly called “Senior Pastor” just as long as her official title as written in the church by-laws etc. is identified as “Minister”.

Heck, why not simply call a woman to be the Associate Minister of the church, give her all the duties of a “Senior Pastor” and simply keep the position of the “Senior Pastor” vacant.

There are numerous ways a church can get around the arbitrary and unscriptural rules of ignorant Christians.

Of course, the English term “pastor” is a translation of the Greek.

Here is my “nutshell” overview of the terminology and functions:

The New Testament Greek terms for “pastor” (poimen), “overseer” (episkopos), and “elder” (presbyteros) are virtually synonymous (Acts 20:17, 28). The term “elder” (presbyteros) (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17-18; Tit 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-4) can refer either to chronological age or to a specific ministry within the Church.

The title itself suggests spiritual oversight, for elders fulfilled certain ministries such as anointing the sick (Jas 5:14) as well as preaching, teaching, admonishing and guarding against heresy (Tit 1:9). In 1 Timothy 5, Paul refers to both “elder” (presbytero) and “elderess” (presbyteras). In Titus 2, Paul uses a slightly different word for “elder” (presbytas) and “elderess” (presbytidas). Both are adjectival forms of the terms of 1 Timothy 5.

In the context of the Pastoral Epistles and with regard to the similarity between the requirements of both in the 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 chapters, it appears obvious that Paul is speaking of the same function. This conforms to the Biblical support for female prophets (Ex 15:20, 21; Jud 4:4, 5; 2 Kin 22:12-20; Is. 8:1-3; Joel 2:28; Lk 2:36; Ac 21:9; I Cor 11) and female apostles (Roman 16:7).

Therefore, an “elder” is a believer whose has the Christian maturity (“the fruit of the Spirit”) to mentor another Christian. Women are called to this function (1 Tim 5:2) just as men are (1 Tim 5:2).

I ask you: where in the Bible does it say that women CANNOT be pastors? I’ve already showed you where the Bible says that women CAN be pastors.

How many of you belong to a church that has a deacon board? Women are permitted to be deacons in the SBC?

How many of you belong to a church that has an elder board? Women are permitted to be elders in the SBC?

If, as shown above, “elder” and “pastor” are synonymous terms, then why can’t women be “pastors”?

As I’ve shown above, the matter is largely semantic. If you can get evangelicals beyond the ephemeral English words they deem so important to the Kingdom of God, then you have evangelicals far more tolerant and open to the true meaning of God’s Word.

Truly, I realize that I’m not going to convince many Southern Baptists to my way of thinking, which, I believe, is the teaching of Scripture and the Will of God. And I don’t care. And not caring about what people think about the matter has served me well.

I’m really only care about the ministry aspects of the issue. I want to see Christian women performing the function for which they have been called. If they can do so by using one English word instead of another, so be it! I’m quite content to have the Holy Spirit sort out the question of “women in ministry” for us in his own time. And he will.

I’m certainly not here to tear down the linguistic and cultural constructs of our society and its largely ephemeral religious expression. Christ will do that! And it’s not my prerogative to do so; it’s his!

I prefer to transcend culture. I want to focus on the eternal things and leave the fleeting emptiness that is human culture to the dustbin of history – a dustbin which will one day be put into another dustbin and then into another and then into another and so on.

As Paul of Tarsus wrote, “What matters is New Creation.”

The coming of the Kingdom of God is a slow and gradual process - like a glacier sliding, edging over a continent. And yet it always seems to take people and the culture by surprise. Why is that?

But in my own theology, I cannot separate the eternal from the ‘body of Christ’. And without going any further down this aside street, I’ll only say that the exclusion of Christians from fellowship, evangelism, service, discipleship, and worship is a very serious matter to me indeed (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).

Therefore, for those who believe the Georgia Baptist Convention and all the various Southern Baptist Conventions should be excluding churches with female pastors, ask yourself the following:

Why does the issue of “female pastors” rise to such a level of importance that we should break fellowship, evangelism, etc. over it?

Advocates of Universal Alcohol Abstinence (Part 3)

2010-03-18T14:08:00.002-04:00

[Commentary on] FIRST-PERSON: Alcohol & the church (part 3)

CARROLLTON, Ga. (BP)--If we could, allow us to finish out this mini-series by making a brief case for Christians to abstain from intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes. Due to space, I offer but two of many reasons which could readily be marshaled in support.

-- First, abstinence is absolutely preferable. When it comes to ethical options for biblical Christians to entertain pertaining to their moral stance toward consuming intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes, there are really only two broad options to consider. On the one hand, the believer may choose abstinence, the view which this mini-series advocates. And, on the other hand, many believers choose what is popularly known as moderation. Obviously, there exist other views. However, surely no Bible-believing Christian considers the undisciplined indulgence of dangerous intoxicants a viable moral option. Hence, we will consider either abstinence or moderation to be the superior moral option for believing Christians.

[In a previous article on one of his previous articles, I raised the following point about the Advocates of Universal Alcohol Abstience:

“[T]hey never admit that a person can drink alcohol responsibly. Why not? Why do they always jump immediately from drinking to drunkenness? Because it would hurt their argument. In fact, and unfortunately so, the Biblical standard for the use of alcohol hurts both their argument and their movement. What does that tell you?”

I wrote that, but here he is making the distinction and stating that one can drink in moderation. I applaud him for that.]

When we compare the two options, it is our view that abstinence is definitively the moral option believers should both embrace and practice. As I show below, abstinence is not only thoroughly biblical but also fully consistent with other factors bearing on our moral impulse. Contrarily, moderation has more to do with Athens than Jerusalem, to borrow Tertullian's legendary comparison. That is, moderately consuming intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes gleans its moral underpinnings more from Greek philosophy than biblical revelation. Aristotle's "golden mean" between virtue and vice or courage and cowardice fits nicely the moral trajectory of those embracing moderation.

[So he is saying here that Jewish culture of the 1st century and before only either drank till they were drunk or didn’t drink at all. They had no concept of moderation because the idea of not doing something in excess like drinking, eating, sleeping, working, and giving was an invention of the Greek philosophy.

Of course, even if it were true that the idea of “moderation” didn’t appear until the time of the ancient Greeks, one must still contend with the fact that alcohol abstinence didn’t appear until the 19th century. And even before the rise of the abstinence movement, it was preceded by the Temperance Movement. The Temperance Movement was religious in nature and worked, not for the prohibition of alcohol, but for its moderate use.

Funny enough, this movement got it’s name from the English Bible which translates the Greek word egkrateia as “temperance” (see Acts 24:25; Galtians 5:23; 2 Peter 1:6).]

Exactly what do those who embrace moderation mean when they propose the moderate consumption of intoxicating beverages? The catch phrase which sums up the position we call moderation is pithy and precise: the Bible does not condemn the use of alcoholic beverages but the abuse of alcoholic beverages. Hence, to drink a few beers with the boys as they watch the Braves shame the Yankees is not what the Bible condemns. Instead, this viewpoint holds, the Bible clearly condemns drunkenness, the abuse of alcoholic beverages.

[You’ve got that right. That is the idea that the Bible teaches.]

As a reminder here, we note that both views fully agree that the Bible condemns drunkenness. A glance at the Scriptures demonstrates this beyond question. Therefore, those who embrace abstinence have no moral reservations in happily agreeing with moderationists on the biblical warnings against drunkenness. The real question is, whether the Bible offers any prohibitive indicators toward the use of intoxicating substances. The moderation view denies that the Bible offers moral indicators against the consumption of alcoholic beverages for pleasurable purposes ("wine" for medicinal purposes is not in question here, as discussed in 1 Timothy 5:23).

But the Bible not only condemns drunkenness, it also puts in place the moral underpinnings to condemn consuming intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes.

[Note: he provides no Scriptural evidence for his view.]

Indeed it is not too much to conclude that if moderationists are correct concerning the Bible's moral trajectory for moderation, then it proves entirely too much. How so? Consider: If the Bible does not condemn the use of intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes, then the Bible does not condemn the use of other intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes.

For example, if moderationists are correct, how could we morally argue against the moderate consumption of marijuana for pleasurable purposes? Or, for any number of other mind-altering drugs for that matter? Granted, some may respond, "Yes. But marijuana is illegal. Therefore, because we are to obey government (Romans 13), it would be immoral to consume illegal drugs." Such a response is not only a classic Red Herring avoiding the proposition at hand, but also a socio-cultural consideration not necessarily related to the biblical question. Indeed, all one has to do to avoid its thrust is to suppose an actual and believable scenario in which marijuana for pleasurable purposes is legal, a scenario that may happen in the United States sooner than we realize.

[Do you follow his logic here? So if the Bible teaches that drinking wine for enjoyment is okay then it must mean that smoking marijuana and taking LSD is okay. Since smoking marijuana and taking LSD is wrong then the Bible would not teach us to smoke marijuana and take LSD. Therefore, since the Bible would not teach us that its okay smoke marijuana and take LSD, then the Bible doesn’t teach us that it is okay to drink.

Of course, if God commanded us to smoke marijuana and take LSD, we as God-followers would do so. And, if God said that smoking marijuana and taking LSD was alright under “moderation”, then we as God-followers would believe that God allows us to smoke marijuana and take LSD in moderation. I’m sure if the Bible taught that smoking marijuana and taking LSD in moderation was permitted then we would all believe that this was an acceptable practice by God. But (thankfully) the Bible doesn’t teach that smoking marijuana and taking LSD in moderation is permissible. BUT IT DOES TEACH THAT DRINKING ALCOHOL IN MODERATION IS PERMISSABLE.

Granted, I have not had any experience with smoking marijuana and taking LSD, but is it possible to use these in moderation?

Of course, God did create the marijuana plant. Why? What is its purpose? I do know that people once used the plant for making rope and such things. Perhaps making rope with it is its proper use and smoking it is an improper use. And as the Bible teaches, a proper use for wine is drinking.]

If our laws eventually allow for such pleasurable usage of marijuana, upon what moral basis will the moderationist boldly stand and counsel their congregations to abstain from the pleasurable consumption of smoking pot?

[Easy. The Bible is silent on smoking pot but not-silent on drinking alcohol. Smoking marijuana makes one “drunk”. Again, I don’t know if its possible to smoke pot in moderation?]

Would it not behoove those who have been faithfully taught moderation from their pastor to remind him that it is not the use of pot the Bible condemns but the abuse of pot the Bible condemns?

[Again, the Bible is silent on the subject of marijuana but not on the subject of wine.

Come on, man! This is embarrassing.

Do you recall in the beginning of this blog post how I applauded him for making the statement that people can drink alcohol in moderation? I’m afraid he has disappointed me in his equating the moderate and un-drunken use of alcohol with the “drunken” use of marijuana. I had such hopes.]

Moreover, would they not rightly insist that only "tortured exegesis" could insist on abstinence from intoxicating substances like marijuana, which, in some important ways, has been demonstrated to be much less dangerous than even alcohol?

[“Tortured exegesis”? Pot black, pot black!]

It seems, then, that moderation is clearly an inferior moral option for the Biblical Christian. And, if THE choices are either moderation or abstinence, abstinence remains the superior moral position for Christians to both practice and propose.

[He didn’t use any Scripture at all to make his point. You all know this. NOT EVEN ONE VERSE.
How can he claim “that moderation is clearly an inferior moral option for the Biblical Christian” and not cite the Bible?]

-- Second, abstinence is thoroughly biblical. In fact, abstinence itself is as old as the human race. God instituted abstinence as the first moral imperative demanded of the human pair He had especially made in His own image (Genesis 2:17; 3:17; 1:26-27; 5:3). Clearly, the don't-eat-don't-touch structure of God's moral expectation for human behavior echoes for us the ethical maxim of abstinence (Genesis 3:3). Imagine Eve arguing it was not the use of the fruit God had in mind but the abuse of the fruit. Indeed God's clear command implied that usage itself defaulted to abuse.

[Obviously, this is a completely specious argument.

“And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (Genesis 2:9)

“And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.” (Gen 1:29)

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."” (Genesis 2:16-17)

“And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.' "” (Genesis 3:2-3))

Now for those who may not know what I have done here … I’ve gone to the Biblical passages he cited for his argument and – just be quoting these Bible verses in full! – I’ve shown that his point is erroneous, baseless, and contrary to Scripture. To call this “tortured exegesis” would be an insult to anyone who is even bad at exegesis. This isn’t exegesis at all.]

Nor is the moral trajectory of abstinence an exceptional principle in biblical norms. A casual consideration of the moral law recorded in the Ten Commandments verifies the undeniable thread of moral abstinence interwoven within Scripture (Exodus 20:1-17; see also Leviticus 11:1-47; Mark 7:18-19).

[Good God, man! This is unbelievable! You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of what you speak. You would have been wise to have stopped with your second of three articles.

Leviticus 11:1-47 concerns the eating of clean and unclean animals – not alcohol. Even though the Israelites were forbidden to eat unclean animals, they still used them. There was a proper use for unclean animals and an improper use. But, even after all that, the New Testament makes it perfectly clear that these formerly unclean animals are now permissible for the believer to eat.
Cheese and Crust! Do you not know what was going on in the first century church?

God had made the eating of formerly unclean animals permissible. Note Mark 7:18-19! Everyone in the church knew that he had done so. Yet, there were a large faction of traditionalists in the Church who didn’t like eating unclean. Of course, they were never forced to eat “unclean” animals – it was their choice. But they didn’t want ANYONE to eat “unclean” animals. So they started a major effort to force everyone in the church to not eat “unclean” animals … despite the Word of God. Sound familiar?

Paul constantly dealt with these traditionalists in the various churches. Again, these traditionalists were not being forced to eat “unclean” animals – they had the right to refrain from eating. But that wasn’t enough for them. They wanted to force everyone to not eat “unclean” animals.

Note how Paul responds to them: “Do we have not have right to eat and drink?” (1 Cor 9:4)

We might add that signs are rare, if any, that moderation as a moral principle appears in the biblical text. God commands the people to worship Him not moderately, but exclusively (Exodus 20:3). The yardstick by which moral behavior is always measured appears to us in the absolute, not the relative -- that is, in abstinence, not moderation.

What about the commands to eat food but not be a glutton? Doesn’t that suggest moderation?
What about the commands to drink but not be a drunkard? Doesn’t that suggest moderation?

YOU’VE GOT NOTHING!!!]

As with both Eve (Genesis 3:3) and Israel (Leviticus 11:1-2) so similarly with our Lord, the occasion Satan first advances to challenge the Messiah tempts Him to deny abstinence and to indulge Himself (Luke 4:1-4). Indeed, when we consider what New Testament discipleship entails we immediately are confronted with the principle of abstinence. Our Lord on more occasions than one uttered the central hub of practicing the Jesus life: "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 8:34; Matt. 16:24; Luke 9:23).

[You all notice that none of the verses he references deals with the subject of alcohol. Doesn’t the Bible discuss the subject? What does the Word of God say about drinking alcohol?]

According to Jesus, denying self is the bedrock spiritual demand to being His disciples. Indeed, our discipleship to Jesus and His Lordship remains an inward faith-vow, a definitive abstinence from our sinful, self-made lordship toward which we've so uncontrollably indulged our spiritual allegiance leaving but a darkened, empty hull behind. Jesus calls us to say yes to Him and no to all competition, again the principle to abstinence in play.

[Jesus drank alcohol. That is all the evidence any one of the his followers should need.

But note what Mr. Lumpkin says here: “a definitive abstinence from our sinful, self-made lordship.”

Is he stating that drinking alcohol is a sin? If so, let him prove it. Again, Jesus drank alcohol.

Did you ever notice that the Bible warns people to not get drunk? If God didn’t want us to drink alcohol then why didn’t he just come out and say so? In complete isolation from all the other Scriptural teachings promoting the drinking of alcohol, the very command to not get drunk implies that one can drink just so long as you don’t get drunk.

Duh!]

Even so, Jesus was carving out no self-made salvation in these Lordship sayings. Abstinence can no more save one than any other moral behavior we may perform. Being a disciple of Jesus does not begin with us; rather it begins with God's free grace in justification, as we place our faith in the atoning work of Christ's redemptive cross. Nevertheless, the grace of discipleship -- if it is truly God's grace and not some antinomian counterfeit -- necessarily proceeds from justification into sanctification and ultimately glorification. Our faith in the Lord Jesus seals us to the Father and secures us as living, breathing disciples of Jesus. Consequently, as disciple -- true followers of Him -- through continued faith in the Lord Jesus and power from the indwelling Spirit, we flesh out biblical discipleship in holiness. The moral principle of abstinence remains crucial in doing so.

[There is far more Biblical evidence of the “moderation principle” than the “abstinence principle.”

Does Mr. Lumpkin really understand what the word “moderation” means?
1. the state or quality of being moderate; avoidance of extremes
2. a change which improves quality
3. something which avoids excesses
4. an instance of moderating; to bring away from extremes
5. self-control.
6. supervision; mediation.

From Middle English moderat, from Latin moderātus, perfect active participle of moderor (“regulate, restrain, moderate”) < moder-, modes-, a stem appearing also in modestus (“moderate, discreet, modest”) < modus (“measure”).

The whole point of moderation IS self-denial! It is about self-restraint, self-regulation, and all the qualities that Jesus himself exhibited when he drank alcohol.

And that’s an important point: if any believer or any person cannot drink alcohol in moderation, cannot drink alcohol without getting drunk – then do not drink alcohol. Just don’t do it!

And most importantly for those believers who can drink alcohol responsibly, do not do so in front of believers who can’t drink responsibly. That’s the principle Paul states concerning the eating of meat that has been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8), and he applies it to drinking as well (1 Cor 9).

He says that we should be careful that our Christian freedom to eat and drink does not cause spiritually immature believer to stumble. But Paul can only say this if we believers have the freedom to eat and drink. And we do.]

While the above represents only a survey of biblical revelation to demonstrate the biblical trajectory of moral abstinence, one may object why no specific texts are used which explicitly prohibit alcohol usage.

[Someone might say that, yes.]

Perhaps no question comes to the table more quickly and enthusiastically by moderation advocates than, "Where in the Bible does it say, 'Thou shalt not drink wine?'" Indeed, some appear to think this question is the showstopper which shuts the debate down. However, on a number of levels this question is completely moot. Given what we know about the nature of "wine" on the pages of Scripture (part 2 in this series), one might as well ask, "Where in the Bible does it say, 'Thou shalt not smoke marijuana'?"

[Jesus did’nt smoke pot. Jesus did drink wine. And you can’t claim that the argument for drinking wine is an argument from silence when the Bible is chock full of instances of people drinking wine.]

The fact remains, there are many moral issues with which the contemporary Christian must wrestle which are not directly addressed by the Word of God.

[Not addressed, is it? The subject doesn’t come up, does it? Funny … I thought I read somewhere in some book that alcohol was mentioned in the Bible. Where was that again? … Marriage of Cana, was it? Yes, that’s where Jesus turned the water into wine … but, apparently, if we are to believe Mr. Lumpkin, not all the water.]

However, we must enthusiastically insist that all moral issues we face -- including issues not touched directly upon in Scripture -- are, at minimum, indirectly addressed by the Word of God. The moral position that since the Bible is silent on a matter (i.e. there is no direct proof text to quote) the behavior is permissible is frankly absurd for biblical Christians.

[Ha!]

It reduces the Bible to a revelation of God shackled in time and chained to the culture of a place far removed from us, offering little help to get through the maze of modern morality.

[But isn’t that what you are arguing? Aren’t you saying that the alcohol of today is so intoxicating that no one can drink it and not get drunk … despite the fact that believers all over the world do so every day? Aren’t you saying that the alcohol of Biblical times couldn’t get people drunk … despite the fact that it could and that is why the Bible warns believers to drink in moderation?

No, God foresaw the alcohol today just as he foresaw the alcohol of the Biblical times.]

Nevertheless, we remain convinced that God's Word transcends not only time but all cultural milieu which divides societies both ancient and modern. We further embrace that God guides His people through His inspired written Word as illuminated by the indwelling Holy Spirit, and does so both directly and indirectly, as we fulfill Christ's call to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him.

[And, again, it is the modern, conservative evangelical Christian culture in America that is attempting to assert its particular traditions and worldview upon the Bible. Look at every believing culture that followed the God of Abraham for the past 4000 years: alcohol was permissible.

Christ is my context. Christ is my example. I will follow him and deny the points and places where fundamentalism seeks to assert its traditions and personal preferences upon believers.

"Kneel before, Zod!"]

Advocates of Universal Alcohol Abstinence (Part 2)

2010-03-17T15:54:00.003-04:00

In this post I respond to the article in the Baptist Press, FIRST-PERSON: Alcohol & the church (part 2), by Mr. Peter Lumpkin.

But how to respond? I am of two minds on how to respond to the point Mr. Lumpkin is attempting to make:

1) Part of me simply wants to reject the premise of his point altogether.

2) Another part of me wants to accept the premise as is and then show how the point is false nonetheless.

I shall do both!

Mr. Lumpkin bases the entirety of his argument in this article on a short article by Robert H. Stein published in Christianity Today several years ago entitled "Wine-drinking in New Testament Times" (June 1975).

“Dr. Stein's conclusion concerning the term "wine" (oinos) as we find it in the New Testament: "The term 'wine' or oinos in the ancient world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today but wine mixed with water." It was, he argues, the "safest and easiest method of making the water safe to drink."

First off, this is nonsense. Absolute nonsense. And no reputable scholar believes this. Please note that the article cited is from 1975 – 35 years ago! Why? Because it’s the most recent “scholarly” article anyone can find with such an opinion. And I have nothing against Christianity Today, but it isn’t really known as a scholarly journal of peer-review.

“If Dr. Stein is correct, those who insist upon biblical neutrality concerning the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages today are not reading the New Testament from the perspective of what the text meant to the original recipients.”

“If Dr. Stein is correct ... ”? What do you mean “if”? Don’t you know? Have you not reached an opinion on the matter? Or are you simply trying to find any scholar who will provide any opinions that seems to buttress your personal preference?

“... those who insist upon biblical neutrality concerning the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages today ...”

I love the use of the phrase “those who insist upon biblical neutrality”. It highlights one of the unfortunate characteristics of “Christian fundamentalism” but numerous other mindsets (including secular politics) as well: there is no neutrality. You either agree or you disagree and are swiftly escorted form the room.

"In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts water, but one's drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind."

So let’s assume this is correct. Let’s assume that God on High has deemed this to be his Word. WHAT DO WE CONCLUDE: YOU CAN DRINK AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T AFFECT THE MIND!

Whammo!

Even if what this guy is saying about the wine drunk in the New Testament world is true (and it’s not!), he’s still only made the point I and every other competent interpreter of the Scriptures has been making since the 19th century: drink alcohol responsibly.

But let me leave you with a few questions:

1) If the “wine” of the New Testament was watered down, then is it okay for today’s Christians to drink wine so long as it’s watered down?

2) What about the “wine” of the Old Testament times? The stuff mentioned in this article only applies to the Greek culture … of which the Jewish culture of Palestine only meshed with after the 300s BCE.

3) Why the New Testament warnings about getting drunk from drinking too much wine if it was simply watered down?

4) Why has every Christian faith tradition never interpreted the Bible as such until the rise of the temperance movement (in America!) in the 19th century? Sure the whole of Christendom could have been wrong but if so, why were they wrong?

5) Why do almost all conservative evangelical scholars who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture not agree with the opinions mentioned in this article?

6) Why can the Baptist Press not find ONE professor (New Testament, Old Testament, or otherwise) at any of the five SBC seminaries or any of the Baptist colleges to write an article about “wine” in the Biblical times?

“Back off, man. I’m a scientist.”

Advocates of Universal Alcohol Abstinence (Part 1)

2010-03-17T15:07:00.003-04:00

The Baptist Press has begun a three-part series of articles by a Mr. Peter Lumpkin concerning Alcohol and the Church. FIRST-PERSON: Alcohol & the church (part 1)

As regular readers of my blog will know, I have written voluminously on this subject for many years now.

My position remains unchanged: moderate and responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages is acceptable for Christians based upon the Scriptural teachings, the historical practices of Christendom, and, most importantly, the person and teachings of Jesus Christ.

And of all the theological and religious issues that I have delved into, none has caused me as much frustration and driven me to such depths of exasperation as has the issue of alcohol and the life of a Christian. There are 4 reasons for this:

1) The Bible is crystal clear that the believer can drink alcohol.

2) Advocates of Universal Alcohol Abstinence violate their own sacred principle of inerrancy to argue their position and then adopt the kind of cultural and personal arguments of which they rightly criticize moderate and liberal Christians.

3) It has always been so completely easy to annihilate any argument put forth by the Advocates of Universal Alcohol Abstinence. Their arguments can be collapsed with a feather. I’ve spoken face-to-face with Senior Pastors of very “important” SBC churches who have been state convention presidents, SBC entity trustee chairmen, and have doctorate degrees – they can’t withstand a few basic Scripture references. They will descend into personal anecdotes about an alcoholic family member.

4) The Advocates of Universal Alcohol Abstinence are more than willing to force their personal preference upon everyone they can – and they are! Now these people can be wrong about what the Bible teaches, they can believe that Christians shouldn’t drink – I honestly don’t care about what they believe about this issue – but when you take the above three reasons and combine them with a determined effort to prevent all believers from drinking ... then my hackles get up.

I begin by noting that Mr. Lumpkins ends by asking the question about alcohol consumption, “With our most sacred responsibilities as parents at risk, how can we say yes to an age of indulgence?”

The answer should be, “We don’t say yes to an ‘age of indulgence’, we say yes to Christ.” Christ is our example, not the culture, whether it is secular or “Christian”. Christ is our culture; Christ is our context for what to believe and how to behave.

I’m sure Mr. Lumpkin would tell you to listen to Christ well before you listen to his self. Most Christians and even some Christian ministers would tell you something similar: “Look to Jesus.”

Unfortunately, there are some evangelicals in contemporary American Christianity who believe that we should only follow Jesus’ example if he is doing something that our current day secular culture isn’t doing to excess.

This is the theological error of cultural relativity that conservatives call liberalism and that Christians in general call fundamentalism.

They’ll site the shocking statistics of our depraved society. But their proposed solution to the problem is not the inerrant Scriptures and the person of Christ. Rather, they tell both Christians and the World to ignore the Bible in this matter and do something else. Is this not the case?

In an age of sexually immorality, rampant adultery and illicit smut-peddling, a case could be made for abstaining from sex. “Ah,” I hear you say, “but the human race must copulate to continue as a species.” True, but that doesn’t mean that pastors, professors, and ministers shouldn’t refrain as a righteous example to us all. That’s what the Roman Catholic Clergy argue, and they base it on the Bible and the examples of Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist. Heck, there is more of an argument for ministers abstaining from sex than from alcohol. But allow me to suggest another example:

In an age of gluttony, obesity, fast food, microwaves, and (horribly so) childhood obesity, a case could be made for abstaining from meats and sweets. Does the Bible mention sweets? Well, it does mention meat, but no one must eat meat. Vegetables and fruits are quite sufficient.

How often have we heard pastors and other evangelical leaders chide liberals, moderates, conservatives, and other Christian believers for ignoring the Word of God and seeking solutions to spiritual problems apart from the Scriptures?

Did they not have problems with alcohol abuse and drunkenness in the Biblical times? “Sure, they did,” I can hear you say. “But the situation today is far worse than then, and the Scriptural teachings cannot apply to our cultural situation.” I suppose the Holy Spirit did not anticipate the alcohol problems of post-modern America when he inspired the Biblical writers. Just like the Holy Spirit did not anticipate the birth control pill, industrial modernization, High Capitalism, atom-bomb, democracy, the auto-mobile, and homosexuality, or so liberal Christians tell me.

Apparently, when it comes to issues like alcohol consumption, the prohibitionists believe that the Bible is inerrant but just not applicable.

Of course, if the Advocates of Universal Alcohol Abstinence simply warned Christians to only drink in moderation, to drink responsibly, to never get drunk, to fight the good fight for responsible drinking in the culture, TO FOLLOW THE BIBLICAL TEACHINGS ON ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION - well, then there would not be any problems at all with me or any other Christian believer.

BUT THEY CAN’T DO THAT.

In fact, they never admit that a person can drink alcohol responsibly. Why not? Why do they always jump immediately from drinking to drunkenness? Because it would hurt their argument. In fact, and unfortunately so, the Biblical standard for the use of alcohol hurts both their argument and their movement. What does that tell you?

I could argue my case from the Scriptures but it would be a waste of my time. I’ve made the Scriptural case countless times before on this blog. I’m sure anyone can peruse around and find my articles. I am under no illusion that whatever I write or say on the matter will make any difference whatsoever to the Advocates of Universal Alcohol Abstinence. The Scriptural teachings do not matter to them in this issue. Neither does the example of Jesus and the Apostles. What other conclusion is there?

In truth, the essence of the matter comes down to only one point:

The advocates of universal alcohol abstinence don’t like alcohol and don’t want anyone to drink it. It is as simple as that.

Dr. E. Earle Ellis (1926-2010)

2010-03-04T13:48:00.002-05:00

Oddly enough, around the time that Dr. Ellis died, I had a flicker of thought in myself that someone important to my thinking had died, i.e., someone in the realms of Art and Theology. Soon after, I did a quick Internet search to see if anyone had passed away. In Art ... Nope! Stoppard, Gilliam, and Beck are still with us. But after checking up on N.T. Wright in the realm of Theology, I got distracted with something else and broke off my perusing.

Just today, a friend sent me an email informing me of Dr. Ellis's passing.

I had the privilege of taking two courses with Dr. Ellis. Both were amazing. No one understood the doctrine of the “corporate Christ” as well him. He was fundamental in the shaping of my Christology in this respect.

The doctrine of Christ's corporate nature has become the single most important doctrine in all of Christianity's teachings. Not only did this doctrine solve a whole lot of theological problems that had been befuddling me, but it brought ALL of the teachings of the Faith into a sublime, coherent whole.

In the summer of 2004, I even had the extreme privilege being a part of a group that toured both the British Library and the British Museum with Dr. Ellis as our guide. How sweet was that!

Of course, as it appears to be well know, Dr. Ellis had been writing a commentary on 1 Corinthians for decades. With pen and paper, he was picking away at it and moving like a glacier. But what is time to great theology and great art? My understanding is that Dr. Ellis completed about 15 chapters of 1 Corinthians. That’s more than enough to warrant publication.

Everyone who knew of Dr. Ellis will be praising his character, mind, theological output, and great contributions to the Christian Faith. As they should. So in order to be somewhat different, I'd like to post two great jokes that I heard Dr. Ellis tell while lecturing:

"Do you know how people take a vote in a charismatic church? They lower one hand."

(Dr. Ellis was a "charismatic" insofar as he believed that such "gifts" had not ceased and that he had spoken in "tongues" on many occasions.)

"The Calvinists have their flower: the T.U.L.I.P. The Arminians have their own flower: the Daisy. 'He loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not ...'"

(Dr. Ellis was a "good Calvinist" by his own reckoning and I am not but, man, that’s a great joke.)

I read one blog post praising Dr. Ellis and ended with the heartfelt sentiment, "May he enjoy his heavenly rest!"

Of course, Dr. Ellis was an annihilationist and believed in "soul sleep" and not in a “heavenly” intermediate state (another of his great theological qualities).

If I may, a more fitting salute would be: May he rest in Christ. And he most certainly is.

E. Earle Ellis (1926-2010)

Passing of E. Earle Ellis

Earle Ellis, RIP

A List of 20th and 21st Century Celebrity Christians (Non-Clergy)

2010-02-09T17:02:00.001-05:00

While I’ve been writing my first novel I’ve also been collecting and recording the names of 20th and 21st century celebrities who are Christians but not necessarily known as ministers or clergy. For example, I would list Angela Bassett, Alice Cooper, Kathy Ireland, and Barak Obama but not Billy Graham, N.T. Wright, James Dobson, and Joyce Meyer.

Quite a while back I posted my then current list and asked for any suggestions. I got a few and added the ones I could vet.

So I’ve decided to post the current list and see if there are any new suggestions.

The List

Willie Aames
Harold Abrams
Clay Aiken
Anna Akhmatova
Ivo Andrić
Reginald "Fieldy/Reggie" Arvizu
Bret Baier
Stephen Baldwin
Angela Bassett
Orson Bean
William J. Bennett
Jodi Benson
David Berkowitz
Crystal Bernard
Fred Berry
Tony Blair
Bono
Pat Boone
Hermann Broch
Gary Busey
George W. Bush
Candace Cameron
Kirk Cameron
Glen Campbell
Orson Scott Card
Jimmy Carter
Johnny Cash
June Carter Cash
Samuel Truett Cathy
Kristin Chenoweth
Kelly Clarkson
Bruce Cockburn
Stephen Colbert
Natalie Cole
Alice Cooper
Ann Coulter
David Crystal
Billy Ray Cyrus
Miley Cyrus
Charlie Daniels
Judy Dench
Dion Francis DiMucci
Alfred Döblin
Pete Docter
Steve Doocy
Donna Douglas
Tony Dungy
Scott Durbin
Bob Dylan
T.S. Eliot
Shusaku Endo
Josef Eszterhas
The Everly Brothers
Mark Fredrick Farner
Anthony Field
Jane Fonda
George Foreman
Gordon Gano
Raymond Garlick
Jon Gibson
Kathie Lee Gifford
John Glenn
Al Green
Justin Guarini
Alec Guinness
Jester Joseph Hairston
MC Hammer
Johnny Hart
Steve Harvey
Edith Head
David Heath
Evander Holyfield
Brit Hume
Kathy Ireland
Michael Irvin
Victoria Jackson
Avery Johnson
Dean Jones
Quincy Jones
Martin Luther King Jr.
Thomas Kinkade
Evel Knievel
Nikita S. Koloff
Lenny Kravitz
Lawrence Kudlow
Anne Lamott
Steven Michael Largent
Halldór Laxness
Tom Lester
C.S. Lewis
Eric Liddell
Rush Limbaugh
Donna Jean (Godchaux) MacKay
Gavin MacLeod
Kōichi Mashimo
Nicko McBrain (long time Iron Maiden drummer)
Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe")
Nancy McKeon
Steve McQueen
Shawn Michaels
Toshiro Mifune
Moby
Ricardo Montalbán
Mr. T
Stuart Murdoch
Chuck Norris
Bob Novak
Barak Obama
Sinead O’Connor
Johnny Otis
Betty Paige
Sarah Palin
Boris Pasternak
Mary Jo Pehl
Tyler Perry
Chynna Phillips
Dennis Quaid
Anthony Quinn
Ronald Reagan
Harry Reems
Christina Ricci
Ann Rice
Cliff Richard
Little Richard
David Robinson
Fred Rogers
Dean Roland
Ed Roland
Caesar Romero
Mickey Rooney
Rene Russo
Jane Russell
Tim Russert
Pat Sajak
Deion Sanders
John Schneider
Charles Schulz
Al Sharpton
Martin Sheen
Jessica Simpson
Michael Singletary
Tony Snow
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Dusty Springfield
Noel "Paul" Stookey
Andrew Sullivan
Andrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky
John-Michael Tebelak
John Tesh
Cal Thomas
J.R.R. Tolkien
Chris Tucker
Miguel de Unamuno
Sigrid Undset
Jay Underwood
Luna Vachon
Courtney B. Vance
Luther Vandross
Eduardo Verástegui
Michael Vick
Lark Voorhies
Rick Wakeman
Andy Warhol
Kurt Warner
Denzel Washington
Pauletta Pearson Washington
Brian “Head” Welch
Fay Weldon
Cornel West
Lisa Whelchel
Barry White
Reggie White
Juan Williams
Demond Wilson
"Weird Al" Yankovic
Franco Zeffirelli

Emo Philips: "The best God joke ever - and it's mine!"

2010-02-05T10:58:00.001-05:00

by Emo Philips

The Guardian, Thursday 29 September 2005

This morning I received thrilling news: a joke I wrote more than 20 years ago has been voted the funniest religious joke of all time! In case you've missed it, here it is:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Two things, however, have slightly tarnished my thrill.

First, the website that conducted the poll, Ship of Fools, did not attribute me as the author. Arghhhhh! Sure, it has been quite a while since I performed it. And true, I'm not on TV all the time like some comedians I could name if I watched TV all the time. But come on, guys! The slightest Google search! But back in the day ... ah, my friends! That joke and I astounded the world! Everywhere I played, in the largest of British theatres, the audiences clamoured for it! I told it not once but twice on British television. A few years ago it was voted by my peers as one of the top 75 jokes of all time. It has been anthologized in several joke books, most recently in Italian; the translator gave me a copy a few weeks ago after one of my shows. He pointed the joke out, without telling me which it was ... but I immediately recognised my old friend by the word "ponte".

Second, I learned why Ship of Fools was running the poll ... to shed light on the possible effect if the British government goes ahead with its intention to outlaw "offensive" religious jokes. Such a law would be a bad idea, for the simple reason that jokes are how we humans avoid violence. Jokes are our safety-release mechanism. Sure they can sometimes be offensive. So can burps. But if you ban them even worse results happen. And believe me, if someone tells a joke that truly offends, he or she will be punished for it. That's one area for sure where the government can take it easy and relax.

So I hope the ban never goes into effect. But in case it does, I had better seize this last glorious moment to tell the rest of my religious jokes. Here goes:

· When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me ... and I got it!

· So I'm at the wailing wall, standing there like a moron, with my harpoon."

· A Mormon told me that they don't drink coffee. I said, "A cup of coffee every day gives you wonderful benefits." He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, it keeps you from being Mormon ..."

· I'm not Catholic, but I gave up picking my belly button for lint.

· When I was a kid my dad would say, "Emo, do you believe in the Lord?" I'd say, "Yes!" He'd say, "Then stand up and shout Hallelujah!" So I would ... and I'd fall out of the roller coaster

· The "Guy on the Bridge" joke can be heard on E=MO Squared (1985) which coincidentally is re-released on CD this month.

www.emophilips.com

Floyd: IMB/NAMB merger not in GCR plan

2010-02-04T10:13:00.001-05:00

Well, apparently I was not the only one speculating that the GCR plan would recommend the merger of the NAMB and the IMB.

It seems there are others out of the official loop in the SBC who believe they know how the convention leadership typically works. And they would be right.

Yes, it appears that the standard modus operandi for enacting convention change is still in churning along.

Of course, the members of the GCR taskforce and others are calling plans for such a merger “ridiculous” and “absurd”. And they are telling the truth. Granted, there was considerable attention given to such an idea, but since the members of the taskforce will no longer be recommending such an action, any talk of a merger at this juncture is “ridiculous” and “absurd”.

But as is said in this article, the merger of the IMB and NAMB may not be “ridiculous” and “absurd” next year.

*** ***

Among mnay other things that I learned at seminary, I came to realize that rumours being spread through the seminary were almost always correct. I'm talking 99% accurate.

I remember reading an article in the paper by a SBC leader who warned students about listening to remours and believing them. He stated that many of the rumours were false and that even he would occasionally start a false rumour himself simply to be mischievous. Darn it, if he didn't like a good practical joke.

And while it is true that this SBC leader does spread false rumours ("This person is a liberal", "This person is a moderate," This person doesn't believe the Bible," "This person may have a low view of the Scripture which is not in line witht the beliefs of most Southern Baptists," "The CBF supports homosexuality," "This group attached to the BWA is also connected with a local association in the Northwest which has connections with a group of believers that is open to gays, so we Southern Baptists should no longer associate ourselves with the BWA now that I have made the allegation a few minutes before the SBC votes to remove ourselves from the BWA", and, one of my favourites, "This person only says that I spread false rumours because he isn't getting his way."), the timing of his article suggested that he had gotten caught saying something he didn't want anyone to know about. So now that everyone knew about it and he could thus not move forward with his plan, what he had said ended up being a false rumour.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JAMES JOYCE

2010-02-02T10:31:00.002-05:00

And Happy Birthday, Michel Estève, too.

Bee Movie

2010-01-13T11:00:00.002-05:00

Did you ever see this movie? The reviews were mixed when it first came out, but I watched it and laughed much of the time. I certainly enjoyed it. I really recommend it.

Here is my favourite joke in the film:

During the climactic action sequence when the human heroine faces the terrifying prospect of taking the controls of a jumbo jet a la Karen Black in Airport 1975:

"I can't fly a plane!" she gasps.

"Isn't John Travolta a pilot?" asks her bee compatriot. "How hard can it be?"

Lucifer, The Satan, and Isaiah 14: Why These Three Are Not Related

2010-01-11T13:57:00.004-05:00

The pastor at the church I attend has begun a series called Angels & Demons: winning the battle of heart and mind. Yes, my fellow Baptists, Methodists do believe in Angels and Demons. I heard the first part yesterday and did enjoy it. There were a few errors (the traditional ones) but there inevitably are when Christians start talking about an issue as nebulous as "Angels and Demons".

The only error on which I would like to comment is the identification of the Satan with the figure "Lucifer" from Isaiah 14:3-20. They are not the same character. In fact, as a LITERAL reading of the passage indicates, the oracle is about the human king of Babylon, not an angelic or demonic figure.

Now many will concede that the oracle is indeed about the King of Babylon and not specifically an angelic or demonic being but that the King is being compared to an angelic or demonic figure. In this way, some will use the comparison to construct a picture of this figure as being Lucifer or The Satan. I can certainly see that the poetics of verses 12-15 must refer to something other than a man but 16-20 obviously do refer to a man as does all that comes before verse 12.

But what about verses 12-15? Note verse 12:

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!"

The Hebrew phrase "הילל בן־שׁחר" (Helel Ben-Shachar) in verse 12, means "day star, son of dawn". It can be translated "Day Star" or "Morning Star" and properly refers to the planet Venus. In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome translated the Hebrew as "lucifer qui mane oriebaris" (morning star that used to rise early).

There is no Scripture that connects Lucifer (the Morning/Day Star) with The Satan. This connection was made by inference and was mistaken. Because of some of the expressions contained in this these few verses, Christian tradition began to associate the "Morning/Day Star" or "Lucifer" figure as being identical with the Satan. A quite similar passage is found in Ezekiel 28:1-19, which is expressly directed against the king of Tyre.

Please not my definitive paper on the identity of the King of Tyre. The aptly named: The Satan and Ezekiel 28: Reasons Why These Two Are Not Connected

Indeed, the only figure in the Bible I can find that is referred to as the "Morning Star" is Jesus in Revelation 22:16:

"Jesus says: '... I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.'"

No, Isaiah is not referring to Jesus in verse 12.

So what then is going on?

I hold the position that Isaiah is comparing the King of Babylon, not to an angelic or demonic being, but to gods in the Canaanite mythology.

He uses the image of the Morning/Day Star, which rises at dawn as the brightest of the stars, outshining Jupiter and Saturn, but lasting only until the sun appears. This imagery was used in Canaanite mythology about the Morning/Day Star who tried to rise high above the clouds and establish himself on the mountain where the gods assembled, in the far north, but was cast down into the underworld. Just as the Roman poets personified the Morning/Day Star and the Dawn (Aurora), as well as the Sun and the Moon and other heavenly bodies, so in Canaanite mythology Morning/Day Star and Dawn were pictured as two deities, the former being the son of the latter.

That last point is very important. The Morning/Day Star was considered the Son of the Dawn. Isaiah 14:12 refers to the figure as "Day Star, son of Dawn."

How could "Lucifer" or the Satan, or any other angelic or demonic figure have a father?

True, angelic figures in the Bible are sometimes referred to as "sons of God" (Job 1:6), but the context here seems to suggest something other than identifying God with shachar (שחר), the Dawn. In light of its Canaanite origin, I do not think its tenable to identify this passage with The Satan.

We'll just have to settle for the mystery of his origins.

Favorite Songs [Updated]

2010-01-11T12:55:00.000-05:00

“Albinoni Adagio G Minor” – Remo Giazotto

“All Along the Watchtower” - Jimi Hendrix

“All Apologies” - Nirvana

“All Summer Long” - The Beach Boys

“Also sprach Zarathustra” – Richard Strauss

“American Pie” - Don McClean

“Another One Bites the Dust” - Queen

“Bachelorette” - Bjork

“The Barber of Seville Overture” – Gioachino Rossini

“The Blue Danube” - Johann Strauss II

“Bohemian Rhapsody” - Queen

“Brandenburg Concerto Allegro No. 2 in F Major” – Johann Sebastian Bach

“Brandenburg Concerto Allegros No. 3 in G Major” - Johann Sebastian Bach

“Brandenburg Concerto Allegro No. 6 in B Flat” - Johann Sebastian Bach

“China Girl” - David Bowie

“Concerto in F” – George Gershwin

“Coronation Mass in C Major K.317” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Così fan tutte, opera, K. 588 Act 1. Aria. Un' aura amorosa” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Creeque Alley” - The Mamas and the Papas

“Danse Macabre” – Camille Saint-saens

“Deathwish” - The Police

“Don Giovanni, opera, K. 527 Finale” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Don Giovanni, opera, K. 527 Lasciala, Indegno! (Moonlight Trio)” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Don Giovanni, opera, K. 527Overture” - Wolfgang Mozart

"Don't Come Around Here No More" - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers

“Drifting” - 4 Non Blondes

“Emergency Exit” - Beck

“The End” - The Doors

“Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera, K. 384 Act 2. Aria. Martern aller Arten” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Esther” - Phish

“Every Night” - Paul McCartney

“A Face in the Crowd” - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers

“Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis, for 2 string orchestras” - Ralph Vaughan Williams

“Fee” - Phish

“Fire Water Burn” - The Bloodhound Gang

“Friend of the Devil” - Grateful Dead

"Girl Don't Tell Me" - Brian Wilson/The Beach Boys

“The Godfather Waltz” - Nino Rota

“Going to California” - Led Zeppelin

“Granchester Meadows” - Pink Floyd

“Green Onions” - Booker T. & the M.G.s

“Gypsies, Tramps, & Thieves” - Cher

“Heaven” - Talking Heads

“Hello” - Lionel Richie

“Heroes and Villains” - Brian Wilson/The Beach Boys

“Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me” - U2

“Home” - Brian Eno and David Byrne

“Hot Wax” - Beck

“Hunter” - Bjork

“I Got Plenty o' Nuttin'” - George Gershwin

“I Only Have Eyes For You” - The Flamingos

“The Imperial March” - John Williams

“It Ain't Necessarily So” - George Gershwin

“It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” - Bob Dylan

“‘Jupiter’ Symphony No. 41 in C major K. 551 1. Allegro vivace” - Wolfgang Mozart

“KRS-One” - Sublime

“Lara's Theme” - Maurice Jarre

“The Last Day of Our Acquaintance” - Sinéad O'Connor

“Late Home Tonight Pt. 1” - Roger Waters

“Lather” - Jefferson Airplane

“Laudate Dominum (from Vesperae solennes de confessore for soloists, chorus & orchestra), K. 339” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Lawrence of Arabia (Main Theme)” - Maurice Jarre

“A Life of Illusion” - Joe Walsh

“Like a Rolling Stone” - Bob Dylan

“Linus and Lucy” - Vince Guaraldi

“The Longest Time” - Billy Joel

“Loser” - Beck

“Mary Jane’s Last Dance” - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers

“Monday, Monday” - The Mamas and the Papas

“Moonlight Sonata” - Ludwig van Beethoven

“Mrs. Robinson” - Simon and Garfunkle

“My Life” - Billy Joel

“Nadia’s Theme” - Barry De Vorzon and Perry Botkin, Jr.

“November Rain” - Guns N’ Roses

“Le nozze di Figaro, opera, K. 492 Overture” - Wolfgang Mozart

“The Ocean” - Led Zeppelin

“Ordinary World” - Duran Duran

“Otto e Mezzo” - Nino Rota

“Paranoid Android” - Radiohead

“‘Paris’ Symphony No. 31 in D major K. 297 (K. 300a) 1st movement” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Pay No Mind” - Beck

“Peaches in Regalia” - Frank Zappa

“Piano Concerto No. 21 in C Major K.467” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Piano Sonata No. 12 in F major, K. 332 (K. 300k) 2. Adagio” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Piggies” - George Harrison

"Positively 4th Street" - Bob Dylan

“Prelude #2” - George Gershwin

“Rape Me” - Nirvana

“Reuters” - Wire

“Rhapsody in Blue” - George Gershwin

“Rocket Man” - Elton John

“Roy Walker” - Belle and Sebastian

“Runaway” - Del Shannon

“Scarborough Fair” - Simon and Garfunkle

“Der Schauspieldirektor, opera, K. 486 Overture” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Serenade No. 10 for winds in B flat Minor” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Sex Machine” - James Brown

“Smooth Criminal” - Michael Jackson

“Something” - The Beatles

“The Song Remains the Same” - Led Zeppelin

“Space Oddity” - David Bowie

“Stayin’ Alive” - The Bee Gees

“Stranglehold” - Ted Nugent

“Suite for solo cello No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007 Prelude” - Johann Sebastian Bach

“Suite: Judy Blue Eyes” – Crosby, Stills, and Nash

“Sultans of Swing” – Dire Straits

“Summertime” - George Gershwin

“Superfly” - 4 Non Blondes

“Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Take My Hand” - Toto

“Tales from the Vienna Woods” - Johann Strauss II

“Tangled Up in Blue” - Bob Dylan

“Terrapin Station” - The Grateful Dead

“That’s the Way” - Led Zeppelin

“These Boots Are Made for Walkin'” - Nancy Sinara

“The Thieving Magpie” - Gioachino Rossini

“Train” - 4 Non Blondes

“Violin Concerto No. 3 in G Major K. 216 3rd Movement” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Violin Concerto No. 5 in A Major K.219” - Wolfgang Mozart

“‘Waisenhausmesse’ Mass No. 4 for soloists, chorus & orchestra in C minor” - Wolfgang Mozart

“Wake Up Little Susie” - The Everly Brothers

“Waltz 2 from Suite for Variety Stage Orchestra” - Dmitri Shostakovich

“When the Levee Breaks” - Led Zeppelin

“Where It’s At” - Beck

“White Rabbit” - Jefferson Airplane

“White Wedding” - Billy Idol

“Who Are You?” - The Who

“Won’t Get Fooled Again” - The Who

“Wynona” - Primus

“Die Zauberflöte, opera, K. 620 Aria. Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen” - Wolfgang Mozart

Recent, Very Good Music

2010-01-07T15:23:00.003-05:00

I've been exploring the musical landscape now for a year as I write my novel which uses music as a very important theme. As last year ended I had been listening to a lot more "World Music" and music from various countries and cultures. Also a few obscure groups (well, obscure to me) and some of the side projects of more famous bands. With regards to the latter, I've been working my way through the solo and side projects of the various members of the Grateful Dead.

I've also been listening to a lot of Krautrock recently (no offense). I like Faust, Neu!, The Can, Grobschnitt, and Amon Düül II in particular.

Here are a few albums that I have been listening to recently.

Tanz der Lemminge (English: Dance of the Lemmings) - Amon Düül II

Copperopolis - Grant Lee Buffalo

Demons and Wizards - Uriah Heep

The Magician's Birthday - Uriah Heep

Oracular Spectacular - MGMT

Rockpommel's Land - Grobschnitt

Ten Silver Drops - Secret Machines

Tio Bitar - Dungen

Want One - Rufus Wainwright

[If I had listened to this last album prior to Jan 1st 2010 (The Year We Make Contact), it would have been on my Top Ten List.]

Allow me to mention a few a lot of the recent groups I've been listening to that are worth your time (some of them you will certainly recognize):

Damon Albarn, Amon Düül II, Belle and Sebastian, Blur, David Byrne, Camel, The Can, Nick Cave, Crowded House, Ry Cooder, Deep Purple, Nick Drake, Dungen, Brian Eno, Faust, Gentle Giant, Grant Lee Buffalo, Grobschnitt, The Hives, The Lemonheads, MGMT, Mudhoney, Neu!, The Pixies, Lou Reed, Screaming Trees, Secret Machines, The Stooges, Talking Heads, Uriah Heep, Violent Femmes, Rufus Wainwright, Wire

Perception is Reality: The Continued Slide of the SBC toward Independent, Landmark, Fundamentalism

2010-01-05T12:26:00.000-05:00

A very good article by Pastor Wade Burleson.

I particularly appreciate this part:

"I disagree with the removal SBC missionaries from the field for refusing to sign the BFM. At the time, I trusted our SBC "leaders" and assumed these missionaries were 'liberal.' Far from it; they saw coming what has now arrived."

When I entered seminary I was in full support of the Conservative Resurgence and its goals.

Like Pastor Burleson, I trusted our SBC "leaders" when they said that their opponents were liberals who didn’t believe the Bible.

But I was a child when the main thrust of the Resurgence occurred and was far removed from the situation as it was occurring.

But when I went to seminary (fully supporting the Resurgence) I saw with my own eyes what this Resurgence was about. I was shocked and dumbfounded. I couldn’t believe what these “leaders” were doing.

I am completely serious and not exaggerating when I make the following claim. While I was at seminary I saw these “leaders” lie, cheat, ignore rules, re-write rules at a moments notice, trump-up chargers on professors and students, bear false witness (i.e., knowingly misleading others about another person), and many other egregious actions. I have both personal experience and documentation to prove my claims.

Now the overwhelming majority of other seminary students saw the same thing I did and had similar shocked and beleaguered reactions. Too their credit, most students chose to ignore the abuses, finish their education, and pursue their God-ordained ministries. I respect their dedication and service. A minority of students (like my self) chose to get the word out about the abuses. Most of us were dealt with in various degrees of retribution. BUT WE DID GET THE WORD OUT.

Though I would never advocate this method to anyone … it is sometimes necessary to throw yourself upon the gears so that the machine will become visible. Jesus taught me that.

Now this majority of shocked and beleaguered students - most of them had the same conclusion regarding these events: “The Conservative Resurgence was necessary but it has gone too far.”

Why do they believe this?

They personally witness what is now occurring and inevitably lead to the conclusion that it is wrong. But what about what occurred prior to their personal witness? What about the Southern Baptist Convention events of the 1970s and 1980s? These students were children when the main thrust of the Resurgence occurred and were far removed from the situation as it was occurring.

All they know about what occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention in the seventies and eighties is what they have been told by those who won – the ones who these students now believe have gone too far.

Like Pastor Burleson and me, these seminary students trusted their SBC "leaders" when they said that their opponents were liberals who didn’t believe the Bible.

What was it that led me to the realization that the Conservative Resurgence was not necessary and was always going too far from its very start?

I spent most of my second year at seminary and much of my third research the Conservative Resurgence, its history, its precursors, its results, its key figures, everything that I could get my hands on from BOTH sides.

What I learned was of these same “leaders” I see today similarly lying, cheating, ignoring rules, re-writing rules, trumping up charges, and bearing false witness and so much more egregious actions and behavior.

I read personal accounts by professors, seminary students, missionaries, and pastors about what occurred then and it mirrored what is going on now.

I even read stories about seminary students from fundamentalist colleges who would attend classes, hear something with which they disagreed, audio record it, and within an hour after the class was finished the seminary president would receive a call from a Resurgent leader (usually connected with a fundamentalist college) complaining about some “liberalism”.

Interestingly, those seminary students from these fundamentalist colleges are now in key positions on the faculties of the seminaries they helped takeover.

Incidences like the ones I just described are what gave me the idea to use blogs in a similar manner. Not to takeover the convention or seminary – I would never be so heinous. I also don’t want the convention and seminary.

But I did want to see how the Resurgent convention and seminary leadership would react to similar tactics like the ones they employed. I assumed that they would see the potential threat of seminary students publicly airing [errors]. If Resurgent leadership could takeover a seminary using such tactics they knew others could do the same. Therefore, they would overreact to squash any such threat, either from students on blogs, pastors on blogs, or trustees on blogs.

And they did.

Sometimes it’s necessary to throw yourself upon the gears so that the machine will become visible.

(Sorry, Pastor Burleson, but I may have paved the way for a stiffer sentence.)

Today’s seminary students know what is occurring today is wrong. They know it just as the previous generation of seminary students knew it was wrong.

And if today’s seminary students knew of what occurred in the 1970s and 1980s like they know what is now occurring they would not believe that the Conservative Resurgence was necessary but has gone too far. They would believe as I do that the Resurgence (however noble its goals or however genuine its advocates) was a huge blunder and dire mistake that has crippled the Southern Baptist Convention and its leaders want to continue it till it leaves us limbless stumps.

Not that these leaders believe that this is what they are doing. I pity them.

But this is why I urge every Southern Baptist interested in the Resurgence to study BOTH sides of the issue and accounts from BOTH sides. The overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists will reach the same conclusion I did.

We just have to have the courage to except it.

I didn’t like Avatar.

2010-01-04T16:05:00.005-05:00

I found it so boring. Almost unbearably so. I probably would've walked out if I hadn't been there with friends. In fact, if I was on an airplane with no friends, I'd walk out.

I had some fun for the first hour or so making fun of the predictable plot, the lame dialogue, and the uninteresting characters.

However, when I checked my watch (the first of many subsequent times) and realized that I was only half-way through this Spruce Turkey of a film, no amount of wit could save me.

With regards to the plot:

It was so highly predictable. Probably because it has been done numerous times before. See Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, Pocahantas, FernGully: The Last Rain Forest, At Play in the Fields of the Lord, and The Emerald Forest.

Even if you haven’t seen any of these films you already have seen Avatar in numerous other movies, TV shows, and books.

If you think you know what is going to happen in Avatar, you probably do. In fact, subconsciously, you probably know more than you will at first realize. And believe me: we’re not talking Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung here.

With regards to the uninteresting characters:

It's sort of conflicting to have such flat characters in 3-D (he says with a pat on the back and a self-satisfied laugh).

Really, I just didn't care about the characters, the story, and or anything else.

It certainly didn't help that the film is so preachy and with such worn-out preaching cliches. I prefer not to get political, especially when it comes to currently contentious issues and please do not consider the following statement as such: I am absolutely sick of all these futuristic works of film, television, and books in particular, which have corporations running the world. How is such a thing possible? How does one suspend their disbelief to buy such a scenario? It's ludicrous! It's a cheap and cliched plot device.

As you can hopefully see, my criticism of such stories is purely literary and not political or economical. Perhaps such a plot-device would be more palatable if it was used less.

Thus ends my digression.

Now I am not a big James Cameron fan. I really liked The Abyss and I liked the bad guy in Terminator 2. I didn't like Aliens 2 or Titanic, though I only saw the first half of the latter film. Did Leonardo Dicaprio die?

Will Avatar open up a grande new era in film? I hope so. Both The Jazz Singer and Jurassic Park did and neither were any good.

END TIMES: Humility essential in debate [with Commentary]

2010-01-04T12:21:00.003-05:00

GRAPEVINE, Texas (BP)--While the majority of Southern Baptist seminary faculty members are premillennialists,

[only sense the 1990s when the older crowd either retired or was fired]

some professors are re-examining their eschatological positions. In a survey conducted by the staff of the Southern Baptist TEXAN, some premillennialists indicated they did not hold their positions as adamantly as they used to.

[Why? Because as I’ve noted before, eventually the younger generation of professors will eventually reach many of the same conclusions that caused the older generation of professors to get fired. ]

A handful of faculty members in Southern Baptist seminaries believe amillennialism best represents the biblical witness regarding last things. [I certainly do.] Of the Southern Baptist Convention's six schools, half -- namely, Southern Seminary, Southwestern Seminary and Midwestern Seminary -- reported having faculty members who hold this minority view. Although the number holding to amillennialism pales in comparison to those holding to premillennialism [again, only since the 1990s], the existence of a minority view could signal an overall trend of decreased dogmatism in Southern Baptist life over eschatology [the dogmatism didn’t exist until the Fundamentalist Resurgence of began to take over the seminaries].

David Beck, professor of New Testament and Greek and associate dean of biblical studies at Southeastern Seminary, told the TEXAN he holds to a premillennial and pretribulational view of last things, but with less certainty than he used to.

"I was raised in a somewhat dispensational context and taught a pretribulation, premillenial eschatological view as if it was the biblical position," Beck said. "When I first began my theological education I discovered that the Bible was not that explicit on the timeline of eschatological events. Nothing in my study led me to change my view, but it caused me to realize a biblical argument could be made for other interpretive positions (though I did not find them convincing)."

[I was raised in a similar background but, after I took a class on hermneutics at Southwestern Seminary, I immediately realized that the view I has did not fit the Scriptural teachings.
Don’t worry, Pre-trib professors: you will see the light.]

Commenting on the changing views of end times in evangelical life, Southeastern President Daniel Akin said such views are not usually measures of orthodoxy.

[Why? Why female pastors and the type of liquid used in communion but not Christ’s return?]

"I think you will find a continuing commitment by the overwhelming majority to premillennialism, but an unwillingness to draw swords over the tribulation issue," he said.

[Again, why not? We draw swords over everything else. We will fire a professor who believes that the second half of Isaiah (Duetero-Isaiah) was written by someone other than the Isaiah who wrote the first half. Why not fire a professor who disagrees with the majority on the timeframe of Tribulation?]

David Allen, academic dean of Southwestern Seminary's theology school, said diversity on secondary doctrines such as eschatology can be a "healthy pedagogical tool."

[Thus we must conclude that female pastors, alcohol, and the authorship of Isaiah are primary doctrines. Funny, huh?]

Of the respondents from Southwestern Seminary's theology school to the TEXAN survey, 20 held to premillennial and posttribulational views, 15 professors held to premillennial and pretribulational views, three held to amillennialism, and two abstained from comment.

[As a recently, former Southwestern student I know that of the three amillennialists, two are of the older generation and have tenure. One is not and thus very brave. Of the two abstainers, I am not certain of who one of them is.]

"For faculty, having a variety of eschatological views creates healthy dialogue and fosters respect for those holding differing views," Allen said. [But on no other subject, right? I’m sure the variety of views of Calvinism and of Arminianism creates such healthy dialogue at Southern Seminary. Should we not have “healthy dialogue” on female pastors, etc.? No fear, my Fundamentalist friends. As soon as the premillennialists begin to lose prominent battles over the issue, there will be a movement to fire all non- premillennialists.] "For students, exposure to faculty with diverse eschatological positions minimizes the risk that students will accept a particular viewpoint merely or primarily because all faculty support the same position." [Do you not see the irony here? Do you think they would ever say such a thing about female pastors, alcohol, or any other pet issue or, more importantly, a political issue? I’m sure they themselves don’t see it – probably for the best.]

For those who participated in the poll at Midwestern, all but one of the nine respondents were premillennialists with two specifying historic premillennialism and another holding to amillennialism. [Guess which of the nine is older and has tenure?]

Jerry Johnson, academic dean of Midwestern Seminary and professor of ethics and theology, explained his position by saying, "I am premillennial for emphasis, and pretrib for details. By that I mean the main eschatological emphasis of the Old and New Testament is the return and rule of Christ, and that should be our main emphasis in confession and preaching. The rapture, and especially its timing, is a footnote in the biblical material and not to be our focus. In other words the primary message is about who is coming (Christ) and not who is leaving (the Church)."

[Have we had one amillennialist named yet?]

AMILLENNIALISM: A MINORITY VIEW

Amillennialism is one such orthodox option of last things. Amillennialists interpret the 1,000-year reign of Christ mentioned in Revelation 20 symbolically. The millennium, then, is not a future event but is being fulfilled in the present age in which Satan is restricted as the Gospel goes forth among the nations. Because the present age ends at Christ's second coming, amillennialists do not understand the nature of the millennium as the period of time between Christ's first and second comings.

As with other orthodox views of the eschaton, amillennialism affirms two resurrections. Within amillennialism opinions vary, but the first resurrection generally is understood to be spiritual, referring to the regeneration of believers. The second resurrection is physical, referring to the resurrection of both believers and unbelievers that will occur at Christ's return.

Like premillennialism, amillennialism has a rich heritage dating back to the early church. But it was Augustine who codified the belief for much of church history.

Even into the 20th century, the position was held by a significant portion of Baptist academia. Despite the popularization of the dispensational and premillennial views, amillennialism was the dominant position among "working theologians" for much of Baptist history -- a point suggested by Southern Seminary theology dean Russell Moore in his chapter on eschatology in the systematic theology "A Theology of the Church," edited by Southeastern Seminary's Akin.

During the modernist controversy, amillennialism became largely associated with liberal theology, a connection that contributes to misconceptions regarding the position today, said Southwestern Seminary's Paul Wolfe.

[Hey, they did mention an ammillennialist! Dr. Paul Wolfe! The brave one.]

Wolfe, associate professor of New Testament and an amillennialist, teaches a course on Revelation at the Fort Worth seminary.

"There is an unfortunate link in the mind of many that amillennialism is a first step toward or an indicator of latent liberalism. This is partly due to the unfounded link of premillennialism and inerrancy," said Wolfe, pointing out that orthodox believers throughout church history often have advocated this view. "In other words, amillennialism is not tied to a certain view of salvation, the person and work of Christ, etc."

[Quite true.]

Commenting on the perceived link between the amillennialist position and liberal theology, David Allen pointed out there are numerous conservative amillennialists as well as non-premillennial inerrantists.

[Yep. I’m one.]

"It would be inaccurate to say that amillennialism entails (in the philosophical use of that term) liberalism, just as it would be inaccurate to say that inerrancy entails premillennialism," Allen said. "However, I do think the case can be made that a majority of those who reject inerrancy and who would classify themselves as liberals would also identify themselves as amillennialists. Perhaps this is the reason for the misconceptions."

[i.e., “while amillennialism isn’t itself ‘liberal’ most liberals hold to it”.

Dr. Allen, liberal Christians don’t care about the “millennium” whether it’s a-, pre-, post-, or non-. Think about it: do you think that Christians who believe the Bible is full of errors cares about fine-tuning a Biblical correct model of a theological concept that occurs in only ONE chapter of ONE book in the entire Bible?”]

THE CASE FOR AMILLENNIALISM

Adding that he is not 100 percent committed to the position, Wolfe believes amillennialism best represents the New Testament picture of believers being presently engaged in an interim Kingdom, awaiting the final consummation of God's Kingdom.

[Yes.]

"Other than Revelation 20, there is no mention of a possible second interim Kingdom," said Wolfe, suggesting that the burden of proof for a literal reign of Christ lies with premillennialists.

[True.]

Moreover, Wolfe believes the amillennial position harmonizes with a traditional Baptist way of life in three ways:

First, amillennialism heightens the mandate for evangelism, he said, adding that "there is no second interim Kingdom during which repentance is apparently possible."

Second, amillennialism heightens the view of the church as the "highest and clearest manifestation of God's Kingdom short of the consummation."

[Yep. Dr. Wolfe is a smart man.]

"The realities associated with a millennial Kingdom -- for example peace, a radical ethic of godliness and love, creation care -- are to be exercised in and through the church here and now. It is the church through which God is revealing His wisdom between now and the judgments," the professor said, referring to Ephesians 3:10.

[Yep. More power to you.]

And third, Wolfe said, amillennialism encourages social engagement.

"This would make a radical difference in our churches and individual lives. Our priorities, use of resources and engagement with the world around us would all be transformed from the present situation," he said. "It was not unusual for the early church to think of the millennial Kingdom as a time for the saints to discipline ourselves for life in heaven. Amillennialism says that time is now. What difference should that make in how we live now?"

[Yes, quite true. My ethic of social engagement emerged prior to my change in eschatology but it did reinforce that ethic. BTW – my ethic of social engagement came from my studies of the Sermon on the Mount and the parables of Jesus.]

But beyond the practical implications of the amillennialist view, Wolfe said he holds to the position because he believes it remains faithful to the nature of the Book of Revelation.

[It so does, yes. In fact, if you read the book of Revelation in terms of amillennialism (and preterism) much of the confusion clears.

For you premillennialists, I would recommend a theoretical exercise: try reading the book of Revelation in terms of amillennialism (and preterism) and see how the book reads under such a hermeneutic.]

"Given the New Testament emphasis apart from Revelation 20, and the fact that Revelation is a message encoded in symbols as John himself makes clear in Revelation 1:1, I find it more appropriate to understand Revelation 20 in a symbolic fashion in keeping with the patterns and emphases throughout the remainder of John's vision," he said.

[He is quite right. I can already tell that Dr. Paul Wolfe is going to have a long and stellar ministry and career at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Oh, wait! Dr. Paul Wolfe is NO LONGER AT Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Didn’t he leave after the Spring 2009 semester? This Baptist Press article must have been some time in the making.

Do you wanna know how and why he left?]

Radu Gheorghita, associate professor of biblical studies at Midwestern Seminary, holds to amillennialism for a similar reason.

[A VERY brave man.]

"I believe the most attractive aspect of this school of interpretation is that it matches the characteristics of the apocalyptic genre of the book of Revelation, a literature rich in symbolism, imagery and similes, a genre chosen by John to venture into the spiritual territory which Paul himself chose to avoid (2 Corinthians 12)," said Gheorghita, who recently took two years to memorize the entire Book of Revelation.

[That’s his thing, man.]

As such, attempts to "decode" Revelation raise the professor's suspicions, he said.

Gheorghita believes another attractive tenet of amillennialism is it solves potential theological issues, such as the rapture.

[True.]

"If John provides in Revelation a map of the events associated with the eschaton, he would have surely included all the major events that will usher it, including the rapture of the church," Gheorghita said. "I read, reread and reread the book hundreds of times. I did not find the rapture in the Revelation. As I faced this reality, I had two options: either insert the rapture at various potential stages in the book (chapter 4, chapter 11, etc.) or, alternatively, I would have to conclude that John's map of final events does not include it."

In looking solely at the information provided in Revelation, Gheorghita said it seems "more exegetically honest" to conclude there is no rapture mentioned in the book.

[Probably because one ISN’T mentioned.]

Formerly a premillennialist, Gheorghita said he is still working out his own understanding of the book.

[As we all SHOULD.]

"I hope I will not ossify my position too early, but continue to let my interaction with the text and with Revelation scholars continue to shape its outcome."

[“Sounds to me like he’s leaning upon his own understanding. Get ‘em!”]

Although each offers his own reason for holding to his particular millennial commitment, premillennialists and amillennialists agree that absolute certainty about the specifics of the Kingdom's final consummation does not exist.

[But about issues like alcohol, female pastors, etc. there is absolute certainty! “Ban ‘em all!”

Do you see the trend in my examples? These are more readily available and understandable examples for non-seminary educated individuals … like seminary trustees.]

"I finally came to the conclusion that if honest biblical scholars who shared a commitment to inerrancy could not agree on the interpretation of the timeline of eschatological events, then perhaps that is not the purpose of the eschatological teachings of Scripture," said Southeastern's Beck.

[Boy! I want to answer so much but I know I’m being far too redundant.]

"We find these texts difficult and confusing because we are asking them questions that they were not written to reveal.

[Biological evolution, anyone? Do I hear “cosmology” and “the shape of the world” out there?]

If we let them speak for themselves, their message is not difficult to understand, but very clear: God is sovereign, His judgment against sin is both terrible and inevitable, the righteous will be vindicated, believers are exhorted to persevere and continue in faithfulness," Beck said.

"This leads me to where I no longer focus on the issue of what happens when, but are we living as God's Word demands us to be, alert, watchful, always seeking to please Him, always proclaiming His truth, and ready whenever He chooses to send Jesus back to take us home?"

[We ARE home! We were made for Earth and the Earth was made for us. The Return of Christ will mean a physical (and spiritual) resurrection of the body and the transformation of the Earth into a “New” Earth. Matter isn’t bad and Creation is good. But what matters is NEW Creation.

No fear; you’ll learn.]

Ga. Baptist college to require faculty assent to SBC faith statement

2009-12-31T12:53:00.000-05:00

This is not a good idea.

Consider the implications:

If you want to teach math at a Baptist College, you must agree that women cannot be pastors.

If you want to teach P.E. at a Baptist College, you must agree that women cannot be pastors.

Now at Southern Baptist seminaries (such as Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), the leadership appears to have finally come around to agreeing that the Bible really doesn't explicitly forbid women to be pastors. Rather they believe that the Bible states that women are forbidden to teach theology or anything related to doctrine. A clearer result of their hermeneutics literally states that women are not to teach men in general. Of course, even the seminaries leadership realize there is some practical and common sense problems that make this position reductio ad absurdum. Therefore, they have settled on the position that the Bible only limits women from teaching theology and subjects related to doctrine. This position allows them include the banning of women from the pastorship as well as the seminaries.

This position also allows Southern Baptist leadership a little room to identify "theology" as they see fit.

Technically, since all truth is God's truth, all of creation can be identified as "theology", depending upon the whim of the designator. Isn't that one of the matters of contention in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate?

So if administrators at a Baptist college doesn't like a particular female science professor, they can proclaim that science is, of course, a study of God's creation and thus should be considered theology and, thus, cannot be taught by women according to the Scriptures.

If an administrator doesn't like a female history professor, he can proclaim that everyone knows that history is "His-story" and is really theology.

Much of Western writing disciplinary studies and hermeneutics find their earliest source in attempts to interpret the Bible. And didn't God give man the ability to write? For his Glory he did!

God invented human language and confused it at Babel. English, French, and Latin are theology. Wasn't that the justification for firing female Hebrew professor, Dr. Sheri Klouda, at Southwestern Seminary? If someone teaches the Hebrew language, they must venture into matters of theology.

I once listened to a chapel lecture by a seminary president who made the courageous declaration that his position on women in ministry was whatever the Bible taught. A good political answer.

If I was a female professor at a Baptist college, I would be asking the administration what subjects they believed a woman can teach.

Of course, there is really no practical need for getting the answer on the record - assenting to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) only means that you agree that women cannot be pastors. You do not have to agree that women cannot teach men theology. The membership of the convention would not have supported that. So it's up to the leadership of the SBC and the trustees of seminaries and colleges to divine the meaning of the Biblical teachings to which the 2000 BFM points.

Women are permitted to be trustees.

The Top 50 Albums I Listened To This Year

2009-12-22T18:25:00.003-05:00

The Top Ten

Brainwashed - George Harrison

Demon Days - Gorillaz

Fear of Music - Talking Heads

Five Leaves Left - Nick Drake

A Ghost is Born - Wilco

The Good, the Bad, and the Queen

I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got - Sinéad O'Connor

Low - David Bowie

Their Satanic Majesties Request - The Rolling Stones

Transformer - Lou Reed

The Other 40

Absolutely Free – Frank Zappa

Absolution - Muse

Acquiring the Taste – Gentle Giant

The Basement Tapes - Bob Dylan and the Band

Billion Dollar Babies - Alice Cooper

The Black and White Album – The Hives

Blur - Blur

Bringing It All Back Home – Bob Dylan

Chávez Ravine – Ry Cooder

Dear Catastrophe Waitress - Belle and Sebastian

Desire – Bob Dylan

Dig!!! Lazarus Dig!!! – Nick Cave

Dust - Screaming Trees

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today - Brian Eno and David Byrne

Gasoline Alley - Rod Stewart

Gaucho - Steely Dan

Good God’s Urge – Poro for Pyros

The Grand Wazoo - Frank Zappa

Greatest Hits - Blondie

Greatest Hits – Duran Duran

H.A.A.R.P. Lively from Wembley - Muse

Hampton Comes Alive - Phish

In the Court of the Crimson King - King Crimson

It Is Time For a Love Revolution – Lenny Kravitz

Journey to the Center of the Earth - Rick Wakeman

Live at Madison Square Garden New Year’s Eve 1995 - Phish

Live Frogs Set 2 - Les Claypool

Loaded - The Velvet Underground

Music from Big Pink - The Band

Mystery White Boy, Live ’95-’96 – Jeff Buckley

A Night at the Opera - Queen

Pink Flag - Wire

Raw Power - The Stooges

Reload - Metallica

Remain in Light - Talking Heads

Rust Never Sleeps - Neil Young

Seal (1994) - Seal

Speaking in Tongues – Talking Heads

Time on Earth - Crowded House

Violent Femmes - Violent Femmes

Driving and the Environment

2009-12-22T12:45:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I was driving around town when I found myself at a four way traffic stop behind another car in the left turn lane.

Now it is absolutely obvious to all other drivers at that this intersection that this car was in the left turn lane with myself and a handful of other cars.

Yet this car in front of me had its left turn signal on!

All the other cars in the left turn lane (including myself) did not have our left turn signals on. Why should we? Just being in the left turn lane itself is sufficient warning to other drivers of our vehicular intentions.

But this one car decided that he should flood our senses with his objective. Why not then stick an arm out and give the left-turn hand signal?!

Here again is another example of energy waste and electronic gluttony – the kind of overuse and capitalistic excess that is polluting our planet and destroying our future.

It is far past the time that the Federal government should be involved in rectifying this environmental problem. The EPA should order local police and sheriffs to begin to fine drivers who use their turn signals in turn lanes.

Indeed, the money donated through these fines could be used for Federally funded environmental protection programs.

I urge everyone to write to their congressman or congresswoman and demand that they demand local law enforcement demand fines from those who use their left-turn signals in the left lane.