"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal AugustFriday, September 17, 2010
One of the Worst/Greatest Groan-Worthy Pun Jokes of All Time
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.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
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.
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
[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.
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.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Seminary president says evolution 'incompatible' with Christian faith
[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."
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."
Thursday, July 22, 2010
A Defintion of the Gospel
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).
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
July 4th, 2010: The Unthinkable Happened
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.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Here's a Joke for All My Roman Catholic Friends ...
Q: Why did the Catholic cross himself?
A: To get to the "other side"
A: To get to the "other side"
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Jesus' Favourite Books and Music
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!
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
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!”
Answer: “He’s so vain he probably thinks that psalm is about him!”
"Deacons" for "Elders", "Ministers" for "Elderess"
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!
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!
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
What is the Gospel?
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).
Thursday, April 29, 2010
PC Answers Questions to a Doctoral Student on Evolution and Religion
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Desperately Seeking Insensitive Servant
"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.]
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.]
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Calvinism, Election, the Atonement, and Infant Damnation: Questions Answered
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.
"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.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Dr. E. Earle Ellis (1926-2010)
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
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
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
A List of 20th and 21st Century Celebrity Christians (Non-Clergy)
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
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
Friday, February 05, 2010
Emo Philips: "The best God joke ever - and it's mine!"
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
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
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Bee Movie
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?"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)