"Simple, feel-good solutions"

Tony Payne explains why it isn't enough to have good intentions, especially when dealing with complex social, political and economic problems. In fact, things can be made much worse—an alternative meaning for "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." In this case the feel-good "solution" is to purchase "Fair Trade" products. From "Smell the Coffee" at the Sola Panel:

Trying to solve pricing problems on the other side of the world through our shopping choices may make us feel better, but it is unlikely to have much effect, except possibly to make the situation worse. Basic economics tells us that the usual reason prices for a particular commodity are low is that too much of it is being produced: supply and demand. This normally motivates some farmers to move into other crops that are in shorter supply, and thus have a higher price, giving greater return to the farmer. It's why those nasty free markets tend to promote efficiency and prosperity.

However, artificially propping up the price of a commodity distorts this process and removes the incentive for farmers to diversify. In fact, it does the opposite: it creates an incentive for others to start producing that crop (since it has a guaranteed higher price), thus increasing output and putting an even further downward pressure on price. So there is a reasonable chance that the well-meaning ‘Fairtrade’ movement may actually make things worse in the long run for the majority of third world farmers. The world is very complex place, and solving problems in the world (economic and otherwise) is very difficult. The intuitively obvious action (let's give some farmers more money for their coffee by buying Fairtrade) may, in fact, end up having larger negative consequences we haven't stopped to consider.

The same is true for nearly all the practical, secular problems we face. And the larger, more complex and more distant the problem, the more resistant it is to simple, feel-good solutions. ....[more]

The Sola Panel | Smell the coffee

What is truth?

Sam Storms begins a five-part review of Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be, a book I've recommended before. Storms likes the book - a lot - as I did.

Obviously Evangelicalism has had and continues to have problems of definition and witness [see below], but this doesn't seem like much of an answer. The emerging emergent church seems like the current version of the "seeker-sensitive" church, but for this generation rather than the baby-boomers, except that it combines that inclination with old-fashioned liberal theology.

Brian McClaren - one of the guys most identified with the emerging/emergent whatever - doesn't help much with his inability to actually answer this question:

Q: On the theology behind the emerging church, you reject the idea that there's an absolute truth. So what boundaries are there on theology that churches are teaching? Can any church just call itself an emerging church?

A: Obviously that's a challenge. The flip side of that question is look at the Catholic Church: For all of its orthodoxy, it could have bishops covering up for molesting priests. And evangelicals, for all their claims of orthodoxy, can be barbaric to gay people and can blindly support a rush to war in Iraq and can be, as we speak, fomenting for war with Iran. ... Obviously, I have a lot of critics and they often say, 'You're wanting to water down the Gospel to accommodate to post-modernity.' I say, 'No, I really don't want to do that. But what I do want to do is acknowledge first the ways we've already watered down the Gospel to accommodate modernity.' ... I think the naivete of some of those critics is that they're starting with a pure pristine understanding of the Gospel. It seems to me we're all in danger of screwing up.

And what exactly are the boundaries? Is there truth?

Enjoying God Ministries > A Review Of Why Were Not Emergent By Two Guys Who Should Be Part One, Q&A: How 'emerging church' movement could change U.S. religious landscape

The beginning of a civil conversation?

Yesterday Albert Mohler explained at some length why, although he found much to agree with, he could not sign the "Evangelical Manifesto." He concluded:

In the end, I must judge "An Evangelical Manifesto" to be too expansive in terms of public relations and too thin in terms of theology. I admire so much of what this document states and represents, but I cannot accept it as a whole. I want it to be even more theological, and to be far more specific about the Gospel, I agree with the framers that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, rather than politically, culturally, or socially. This document will have to be much more theological for it to accomplish its own stated purpose.

Now, perhaps we Evangelicals will all gain by a civil conversation about this Manifesto that calls for civility. That at least would be a good place to start. [the column]

Today, after an interview with Os Guinness, one of the authors of the document, on his radio program, Mohler continues:

Evangelicalism is an on-going project and a movement marked by a seemingly permanent identity crisis. We should be thankful for any opportunity to clarify the issues at stake - especially when we agree that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, above all.

An Evangelical Response to "An Evangelical Manifesto", "An Evangelical Manifesto" - Continuing the Conversation

Irena Sendler R.I.P.

Irena Sendler died yesterday. Although she denied it, she was a hero. It is not normal to risk comfort and safety - much less life - to help a stranger. Very few do. Most of us are altogether too normal. Irena Sendler had the integrity and courage to do what was necessary when the time came - and that is the definition of heroism. The idea, of course made her impatient: "Every child saved with my help is the justification of my existence on this Earth," she said, "and not a title to glory," and "The term 'hero' irritates me greatly. The opposite is true. I continue to have pangs of conscience that I did so little,"

"I was taught that if you see a person drowning," she said, "you must jump into the water to save them, whether you can swim or not.

When the Nazis occupying Poland began rounding up Jews in 1940 and sending them to the Warsaw ghetto, Sendler plunged in.

With daring and ingenuity, she saved the lives of more than 2,500 Jews, most of them children, a feat that went largely unrecognized until the last years of her life. ....

"Irena wasn't even 5 feet tall, but she walked into the Warsaw ghetto daily and faced certain death if she was caught. Her strength and courage showed us we can stand up for what we believe in, as well," said Felt, who is now 23 and helps raise funds for aging Holocaust rescuers. ....

She studied at Warsaw University and was a social worker in Warsaw when the German occupation of Poland began in 1939. In 1940, after the Nazis herded Jews into the ghetto and built a wall separating it from the rest of the city, disease, especially typhoid, ran rampant. Social workers were not allowed inside the ghetto, but Sendler, imagining "the horror of life behind the walls," obtained fake identification and passed herself off as a nurse, allowed to bring in food, clothes and medicine.

By 1942, when the deadly intentions of the Nazis had become clear, Sendler joined a Polish underground organization, Zegota. She recruited 10 close friends - a group that would eventually grow to 25, all but one of them women - and began rescuing Jewish children.

She and her friends smuggled the children out in boxes, suitcases, sacks and coffins, sedating babies to quiet their cries. Some were spirited away through a network of basements and secret passages. Operations were timed to the second. One of Sendler's children told of waiting by a gate in darkness as a German soldier patrolled nearby. When the soldier passed, the boy counted to 30, then made a mad dash to the middle of the street, where a manhole cover opened and he was taken down into the sewers and eventually to safety. ....

Most of the children who left with Sendler's group were taken into Roman Catholic convents, orphanages and homes and given non-Jewish aliases. Sendler recorded their true names on thin rolls of paper in the hope that she could reunite them with their families later. She preserved the precious scraps in jars and buried them in a friend's garden.

In 1943, she was captured by the Nazis and tortured but refused to tell her captors who her co-conspirators were or where the bottles were buried. ....

When the war ended, Sendler unearthed the jars and began trying to return the children to their families. For the vast majority, there was no family left. Many of the children were adopted by Polish families; others were sent to Israel. .... [more]

Irena Sendler, 98; member of resistance saved lives of 2,500 Polish Jews - Los Angeles Times

Tyranny and suffering

Far more people have been killed by the acts of their governments than by war. Two more ghastly instances of that are Zimbabwe and Myanmar. The suffering in Zimbabwe is entirely man-made. The suffering in Myanmar is being perpetuated and made much worse by the unwillingness of that country's military dictators to accept help.

Our government will do what it can. We can each contribute materially and pray. But we also need to find a way to get rid of the remaining dictators and encourage democratic governments that will be more responsive to the needs of their own people.

"What is right outweighs what is popular"

Evangelicals wiser than me comment on an "Evangelical Manifesto."

Joe Carter has signed it (and if I thought my signature would be significant, I would too):

This manifesto has bolstered my confidence that I won't be the last person in America to call himself an evangelical. On page 4, they note that the evangelical identity is "powerful and precious to groups as well as to individuals."

Identity is central to a classical liberal understanding of freedom. There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be. We are who we say we are, and we resist all attempts to explain us in terms of our "true" motives and our "real" agenda.

This is an excellent point that should be acknowledged by the nomenclative cowards who have abandoned the term "evangelical." Too often my fellow former evangelicals think that dumping the term will make them (or to be more generous, The Gospel) more palatable to the outside world.

What they are missing (or simply refuse to admit to themselves) is that it is not the term "evangelical" that the world despises but the beliefs behind the word. Call yourself whatever you want—"post-evangelical" is my favorite—but the minute you tell the world that homosexual behavior is sinful, that killing infants in the womb is wrong, and that man has an inherent dignity because we are made in the image of God then you can expect to have that label spat upon too.

The Washington Times quotes Richard Land and Albert Mohler:

"I was never asked to sign it," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, "nor was I allowed to see the document beforehand. I'm not sure there's anything in it I'd disagree with."

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said he was passed over but doubted he would have signed a document "that vague."

The document, he said, "is often eloquent and many ways sets forth some key evangelical convictions. My questions have to do with its actual intent. How specifically do those who are framing this document wish to define evangelicalism with reference to some crucial questions, such as abortion and gay marriage? They appear to be calling for civility, but how do they suggest discussing these issues in the public square and be as civil as they think themselves to be?"

Alan Jacobs in the Wall Street Journal - he thinks it's wimpy, but a real "Manifesto" is needed:

At the bottom of page 15, these words appear: "The Evangelical soul is not for sale." This is what is called "burying the lead." Had the Evangelical Manifesto begun with this affirmation, it could have been a manifesto indeed - a declaration of political, cultural and intellectual independence. "We're fed up with being the Republicans' lapdogs, but don't think we're joining the Democratic kennel" — if only the document had spoken so clearly, so forcefully! If only it had given us some sense of whom it is speaking to, and why.... Moderation is all well and good, I guess; but for my money, the fearless spirit of the true manifesto is just what an increasingly somnolent evangelical movement needs.

Perhaps it does need to be said more clearly. Perhaps the message is buried. But this seems to be what needs to be said. From the "Manifesto":

...[W]e Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power, what is right outweighs what is popular, just as principle outweighs party, truth matters more than team-playing, and conscience more than power and survival.

Alex Chediak interviewed one of the authors, Os Guinness, and got a clarification about whether the statement represented a retreat from being anti-abortion:

CHEDIAK: When you express your desire that we move beyond single-issue politics, are you saying that Christians should be more open to voting for pro-choice candidates if they demonstrate passion and concern for issues like poverty, racism, and the environment?

GUINNESS: Emphatically not, and the Manifesto is blunt about the undiminished fight for life and marriage. [....]

CHEDIAK: The Manifesto reads, "we Evangelicals wish to stand clear from certain conservative and fundamentalist positions in public life that are widely confused with Evangelicals." Why let others dictate what we can be (publicly) for or against merely by their inappropriately conflating pro-life (or whatever) with evangelicalism?

GUINNESS: Life is not the problem, and you are right that we should not be defined by the world. As I said at the press conference yesterday, the issue is not re-branding or image. It is reality. But the Bible says a lot about the fact that we should so live that the name of God is honored. Thus when the Lord is publicly represented by Pastor Fred Phelps (‘God hates fags’) or by the Reconstructionists, it is not surprising that we are called ‘homophobic,’ ‘theocratic,’ and seeking to impose Christendom.

CHEDIAK: You call on "Those who share our dedication to the poor, the suffering, and the oppressed," urging them to work with us to "bring care, peace, justice, and freedom to those millions of our fellow-humans who are now ignored, oppressed, enslaved, or treated as human waste and wasted humans by the established orders in the global world." I agree with this call, but would you acknowledge that our differing worldviews might result in our having widely diverging methods to addressing these problems? For example, socialistic reforms seem to minimize the doctrine of man's depravity. Any thoughts?

GUINNESS: Good point. Francis Schaeffer used to call for our being ‘co-belligerents’ rather than ‘allies’ when it comes to causes we share with people of different faiths, such as atheists against abortion or feminists against pornography. But we always recognize the ultimate inadequacy of their basis for fighting the issue, and when the appropriate moment comes we can be clear about pointing them to Christ. William Wilberforce is a great example – he worked with people of all sorts of spiritual and moral (and immoral) backgrounds, yet led many of them to faith in Christ too.

My impression is that many of those involved in the Evangelical/political environment who should, logically and properly, have been asked to sign the "Manifesto," were not asked. I am impressed by the restraint they have thus far demonstrated. I think the document itself is worthy of that restraint.

Update 5/9: Denny Burk believes that the effect of the "Manifesto" is to dilute our moral and political commitment:

The Manifesto calls for “an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage” (p. 13). The blanket dismissal of “single-issue politics” is what concerns me. Yes, the Manifesto says that “we cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, . . . nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman” (p. 13). But the document also seeks to raise other “public square” issues as if they have the same moral urgency as abortion and marriage. I for one am unwilling to tell evangelicals that they should treat the Kyoto Protocols with the same moral urgency with which we address the abortion issue—especially when it comes to evangelical engagement in electoral politics. Abortion and marriage are transcendent moral issues, and evangelicals should treat them as such.

I am especially concerned about single-issue politics in this high political season in which we presently find ourselves. In November, Americans will go to the polls to elect a president who is likely to appoint at least two Supreme Court Justices. Those Justices will determine whether Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land for the next generation or whether it will be finally overturned. Roe v. Wade has presided over the legal killings of over 50 million babies since 1973. When I step into that voting booth in November, I will not pull the lever for a candidate who will continue the immoral regime of Roe v. Wade, no matter how much I like his views on the Kyoto Protocols or balancing the federal budget. ....

Those are crucial "single issue" criteria for me, too.

Alan Jacobs expands on his concerns at The American Scene:

...[W]hat does it mean for evangelicals to be pro-life (regarding abortion, I mean) if they’re not going to vote pro-life? I can imagine good answers to this question, but the Manifesto doesn’t provide any. And if it’s going to be a real manifesto, not just an inside-the-Beltwayish White Paper, it really should.

And the biggest question of all: For whom was this written? Who cares, or is thought to care? I can’t figure that out at all.

It was, I guess, written for people like me, living in places like I live. I appreciate the distinctions the "Manifesto" makes, but the news media have focused only on what they consider its political implications — and I don't believe it has any of those, as least insofar as influencing how anyone will vote.

Thoughts on the Evangelical Manifesto - the evangelical outpost, Washington Times, Come On, You Call This a Manifesto? - WSJ.com, Alex Chediak Blog: Interaction with Os Guinness on Evangelical Manifesto, Denny Burk » Critical Reflections on “An Evangelical Manifesto”, the manifesto that isn't | Politics | The American Scene

Adding ribbons to your Bible

Via Bible Design and Binding, a link to instructions for adding ribbons to your Bible - a practical and useful bit of information for those whose Bibles are sadly bereft. [Placing your cursor over each picture at the link will bring up the instructions.]

Picasa Web Albums - Matt - Adding Ribbon...

"Evangelicals should be defined theologically...not politically...."

I confess to some apprehension about the Evangelical Manifesto that was to be released this morning, fearing that it would, in the guise of attacking the politicization of the faith, in fact be simply a broadside from one side - the left side. Those fears were unfounded and I find myself, with a minor quibble here and there, approving of and agreeing with what the document says. Below are some extended excerpts, but it should be read whole. It is available as a PDF here.

.... Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (Evangelical comes from the Greek word for good news, or gospel.) Believing that the Gospel of Jesus is God’s good news for the whole world, we affirm with the Apostle Paul that we are "not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation." Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. ....

They define "Evangelical":

To be Evangelical, and to define our faith and our lives by the Good News of Jesus as taught in Scripture, is to submit our lives entirely to the lordship of Jesus and to the truths and the way of life that he requires of his followers, in order that they might become like him, live the way he taught, and believe as he believed. As Evangelicals have pursued this vision over the centuries, they have prized above all certain beliefs that we consider to be at the heart of the message of Jesus and therefore foundational for us — the following seven above all:

First, we believe that Jesus Christ is fully God become fully human, the unique, sure, and sufficient revelation of the very being, character, and purposes of God, beside whom there is no other god, and beside whom there is no other name by which we must be saved.

Second, we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life "from above." We therefore bring nothing to our salvation. Credited with the righteousness of Christ, we receive his redemption solely by grace through faith.

Third, we believe that new life, given supernaturally through spiritual regeneration, is a necessity as well as a gift; and that the lifelong conversion that results is the only pathway to a radically changed character and way of life. Thus for us, the only sufficient power for a life of Christian faithfulness and moral integrity in this world is that of Christ’s resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, we believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word, make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice.

Fifth, we believe that being disciples of Jesus means serving him as Lord in every sphere of our lives, secular as well as spiritual, public as well as private, in deeds as well as words, and in every moment of our days on earth, always reaching out as he did to those who are lost as well as to the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow-creatures.

Sixth, we believe that the blessed hope of the personal return of Jesus provides both strength and substance to what we are doing, just as what we are doing becomes a sign of the hope of where we are going; both together leading to a consummation of history and the fulfillment of an undying kingdom that comes only by the power of God.

Seventh, we believe all followers of Christ are called to know and love Christ through worship, love Christ’s family through fellowship, grow like Christ through discipleship, serve Christ by ministering to the needs of others in his name, and share Christ with those who do not yet know him, inviting people to the ends of the earth and to the end of time to join us as his disciples and followers of his way. ....

Later, they describe ways that Evangelicals have failed:

We confess that we Evangelicals have betrayed our beliefs by our behavior.

All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world.

All too often we have set out high, clear statements of the authority of the Bible, but flouted them with lives and lifestyles that are shaped more by our own sinful preferences and by modern fashions and convenience.

All too often we have prided ourselves on our orthodoxy, but grown our churches through methods and techniques as worldly as the worldliest of Christian adaptations to passing expressions of the spirit of the age.

All too often we have failed to demonstrate the unity and harmony of the body of Christ, and fallen into factions defined by the accidents of history and sharpened by truth without love, rather than express the truth and grace of the Gospel.

All too often we have traced our roots to powerful movements of spiritual revival and reformation, but we ourselves are often atheists unawares, secularists in practice who live in a world without windows to the supernatural, and often carry on our Christian lives in a manner that has little operational need for God.

All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others, such as the killing of the unborn, as well as the heresies and apostasies of theological liberals whose views have developed into "another gospel," while we have condoned our own sins, turned a blind eye to our own vices, and lived captive to forces such as materialism and consumerism in ways that contradict our faith. ....

On Evangelicals and politics:

Christians from both sides of the political spectrum, left as well as right, have made the mistake of politicizing faith; and it would be no improvement to respond to a weakening of the religious right with a rejuvenation of the religious left. Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church – and disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons.

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power, what is right outweighs what is popular, just as principle outweighs party, truth matters more than team-playing, and conscience more than power and survival.

The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. The saying is wise: "The first thing to say about politics is that politics is not the first thing." ....

On religion in the "public square":

We repudiate on one side the partisans of a sacred public square, those who for religious, historical, or cultural reasons would continue to give a preferred place in public life to one religion which in almost all most current cases would be the Christian faith, but could equally be another faith. In a society as religiously diverse as America today, no one faith should be normative for the entire society, yet there should be room for the free expression of faith in the public square.

Let it be known unequivocally that we are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths, including the right to convert to or from the Christian faith. We are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society. We are also concerned about the illiberalism of politically correct attacks on evangelism. We have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose on anyone beliefs and behavior that we have not persuaded them to adopt freely, and that we do no not demonstrate in our own lives, above all by love.

We repudiate on the other side the partisans of a naked public square, those who would make all religious expression inviolably private and keep the public square inviolably secular. Often advocated by a loose coalition of secularists, liberals, and supporters of the strict separation of church and state, this position is even less just and workable because it excludes the overwhelming majority of citizens who are still profoundly religious. Nothing is more illiberal than to invite people into the public square but insist that they be stripped of the faith that makes them who they are and shapes the way they see the world.

In contrast to these extremes, our commitment is to a civil public square — a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a Mormon, and right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and right for all the believers in all the faiths across this wide land. .... [the "Manifesto" as a PDF]

Staying true

An interview with Andrew Adamson, director of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and the soon-to-be-released [May 16] Prince Caspian. One of the answers:

Christian readers are among the most devoted Narnia fans, and Lewis is revered in evangelical circles. Do you feel any sort of responsibility to the Christian audience?

I feel my responsibility to C. S. Lewis's fans is just being true to the books, and letting people take from it what they will. What you take from it depends on your belief, and how much interpretation you place upon it. I think by staying true to the book, I'm staying true to what any fan gets from the book. (the interview)

Interviews: The Weight of Story | Christianity Today Movies

"Why did God let James die?"

Our desires may not conform to God's purposes. "Death comes to us all" says Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons: to us, to our loved ones, to everyone. It is usually unwelcome. Jon Bloom at Desiring God writes about "The Night the Angel Didn't Come":

Luke says it so quickly, so matter-of-factly: “[Herod] killed James the brother of John with the sword” (Acts 12:2). In the flow of the story this little phrase sets the stage for Peter’s dramatic prison rescue by the angel. So that’s what we remember. When Peter later wrote, “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials” (2 Peter 2:9), this is the sort of rescue that easily comes to mind.

But the night that James sat in prison the angel didn’t come. I’m sure he prayed for an angel. He knew God could send one if he wanted to. An angel had already rescued him and the other disciples once before, in chapter 5. But this night there was no bright light, no chains falling off, no sleeping guards. Just desperate prayers and fitful dozing—if he slept at all.

In the morning James was still in jail when the dreaded voice of the captain of the guard shouted, “Bring out the prisoner!” There was an anxiety-filled, prayerful walk to the place of execution. There was a pronouncement of guilt. Possibly there was an offer of pardon in exchange for recanting, followed by a refusal. There was a raised sword. There was a wince of fearful anticipation. No deliverance.

Or was there?

Jesus allowed the sword to fall on James as intentionally as he opened Peter’s prison door. So the death of James is as crucial for us to remember as the rescue of Peter. Why did God let James die?

This question is relevant because at some point most of us will find ourselves facing death, pleading for deliverance, and not receiving what we think we are asking for. And it points to a difficult lesson that all of Jesus’ disciples must learn: Jesus often has different priorities than we do. What may feel desperately urgent to us may not be urgent to him—at least not in the same way. ....

James was not being neglected by Jesus. He was in fact the first of the Twelve to experience what Jesus prayed for in John 17:24: “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me from the foundation of the world.” Peter’s deliverance from prison was remarkable. But he lived to die another day. (more)

The Night the Angel Didn’t Come :: Desiring God

General Conference, 2008

Kevin Butler, the editor of the Sabbath Recorder, is keeping up a running tally of those who register online for this year's Seventh Day Baptist General Conference:

As of today: 37 on-line registrations representing 99 participants.

And 29 rooms are still available where one child (age 11 and under) may sleep on the floor for free.

The 2008 SDB General Conference will be August 3-9 at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

This is the annual conference for American and Canadian Seventh Day Baptist churches. Each year it is held on a different college campus, so far always in the US. Necessary business is conducted [Baptists are democratic] and there is worship, study and fellowship for both young and old. This year, the Conference will also be attended by delegates to the Seventh Day Baptist World Federation, which will have held its sessions the week before Conference.

Rev. Andrew Samuels of Miami, Florida, is President of Conference this year and has chosen this theme:Online registration can be found here.

SDB Exec: May 2008

When does life begin?

Obama and Clinton attempt to answer that question:

N.T. Wright: "Life after 'Life-after-death'"

In an appearance on Nightline Bishop N.T. Wright explains his view that "Heaven is a temporary holding place" to be followed by the "new heaven and new earth." I think what he teaches is what the Bible teaches, but I am willing to be instructed by those many who know more than I do.

My impression is that Bishop Wright is very reliable when it comes to New Testament scholarship, but not at all so when trying to explain the political implications. He seems to think that his conclusions about the end times necessarily result in a greater concern about the physical well-being of people now. He seems to be saying that if he believed that when he died he would go to Heaven and stay there, then he would have less concern about the Earth and the people on it during his life now. I don't understand how that follows.

Our concern about our fellow man should be neither increased nor lessened by the fact that Creation will be re-made and perfected at the end of time. It will, after all, be a new earth. The reason we care about our fellow creatures — both for their spiritual and physical well-being — is because God wants us to. We love because we were first loved. "And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also." We endeavor to do good because it pleases Him and we are His people. Whether we end up in Heaven eternally, or dwelling in a New Creation, the motivation is exactly the same.

Twelve spiritual lessons from "Prince Caspian"

The film of C.S. Lewis's Prince Caspian is about to appear in the theaters [May 16], and Beliefnet offers "Twelve Spiritual Lessons from Prince Caspian.

Throughout the series, and in "Prince Caspian" in particular, the main characters face a series of life-changing situations and learn many things about themselves and others. Click through this gallery of photos from the new movie, and find out more about the world of "Prince Caspian" and the spiritual wisdom we can gain as we revisit the land of Narnia. (link)

Thanks to Joe Carter for the reference.

Top 12 Spiritual Lessons From 'Prince Caspian', 12 Spiritual Lessons from 'Prince Caspian' - Beliefnet.com

Should we blame Veggie Tales?

Calling attention to this article by Wesley J. Smith, Ed Morrissey wonders whether Veggie Tales may be responsible. They did, of course, make veggies very sympathetic. Hunters have long cursed Bambi. Smith:

A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.

A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer's herd - the report doesn't say). But then, while walking home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why. .... [more]

In the Napoleon of Notting Hill, G.K. Chesterton recounted a sad tale:

.... Tolstoy and the Humanitarians said that the world was growing more merciful, and therefore no one would ever desire to kill. And Mr. Mick not only became a vegetarian, but at length declared vegetarianism doomed (‘shedding,’ as he called it finely, ‘the green blood of the silent animals’), and predicted that men in a better age would live on nothing but salt. And then came the pamphlet from Oregon (where the thing was tried), the pamphlet called ‘Why should Salt suffer?’ and there was more trouble. ....

Hot Air » Blog Archive » I blame Veggie-Tales

"She still loves the stories"

No cross, no Bible, no incarnation, no resurrection, although those may be nice metaphors for something or other. How terrible it is when those charged with "the faith once delivered" don't believe it themselves. From Canada's National Post:

There is a Bible on a pedestal in Gretta Vosper's West Hill United Church in Toronto. She would prefer it did not have a special place, she said, because it is just a book among other books. In a similar way, the cross that is high above the altar has no special meaning, but there are a few older congregants for whom the Bible and the cross are still nice symbols so there they remain.

Though an ordained minister, she does not like the title of reverend. It is one of those symbols that hold the church back from breaking into the future - to a time "when the label Christian won't even exist" and the Church will be freed of the burdens of the past. To balance out those symbols of the past inside West Hill, there is a giant, non-religious rainbow tapestry just behind the altar and multi-coloured streamers hang from the ceiling.

"The central story of Christianity will fade away," she explained. "The story about Jesus as the symbol of everything that Christianity is will fade away." ....

Ms. Vosper does not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the miracles and the sacrament of baptism. Nor does she believe in the creeds, the presence of Christ in communion or that Jesus was the Son of God.

In With or Without God, her book that was formally launched this week, she writes that Jesus was a "Middle Eastern peasant with a few charismatic gifts and a great posthumous marketing team."

The Bible is used in her services, but it gets rewritten to be more contemporary and speak to more people. Even the Lord's Prayer - also known as the Our Father - does not make the cut because it creates an image of a God who intervenes in human existence. And then there is the "Father" part that is not inclusive language and carries with it the notion of an overbearing tyrant who condemns people to hell. ....

Ms. Vosper did not change her views over time but said she felt the same way when she took her divinity degree at Queen's University in 1990. She said when the creed was mentioned, which contains those declarations of faith that acknowledge basic Christian tenants, it was uncomfortable. "I fled when I had to read the creed," she said.

For all of this, she still feels rooted in the church. She still loves the stories, metaphors though they may be. And she still measures her life against the meaning of those metaphors. ....[more]The fact that she was ordained is mind-boggling, but since the head of her denomination doesn't think she should be condemned and himself believes that the term "Christian" should be "phased out," perhaps it isn't so surprising after all.

Thanks to Mark Steyn at NRO for calling attention to this story.

Christianity without Christ

Two ways to live

No doubt I've come to this very late compared to those who have been actively involved in organized evangelism. But I recently came across Matthias media, an Australian based ministry, and their gospel materials. A basic tract, somewhat like Four Spiritual Laws [but, I think, better] is called Two Ways to Live and is linked through the logo below. Read it:

Matthias media offers many more materials that I haven't yet read.

Matthias Media USA online store | Serving our Lord Jesus Christ, and the growth of his gospel in the world.

It's not about meeting our needs

Mark Galli, at Christianity Today, explains why he appreciates liturgical worship. All who worship have forms that we follow, whether intentional or not. It is better to be intentional and purposeful and to offer worship. Galli:

.... It is precisely the point of the liturgy to take people out of their worlds and usher them into a strange, new world—to show them that, despite appearances, the last thing in the world they need is more of the world out of which they've come. The world the liturgy reveals does not seem relevant at first glance, but it turns out that the world it reveals is more real than the one we inhabit day by day.

By "the liturgy," I mean the prayers, responses, and shape of worship one finds in Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox services, and to a lesser degree, in Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and other mainline churches. If you examine the full service of each of these traditions, you'll find a surprisingly common worship order, and prayers and responses that are identical in many places. The shape of this liturgy has its origin in the early church, and has been molded by the history of the church up to the present.

Worshiping in the liturgical tradition is no panacea. When not approached wisely, it can be misused and abused; it can tempt participants to substitute mere religious ritual for a vital, personal faith in Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, this tradition does have much to offer contemporary evangelicalism. Take our fascination with relevance: the first thing this liturgy asks us to rethink is what we mean by "relevant" worship. ....

...The liturgy does not target any age or cultural subgroup. It does not even target this century. (It does not imagine, as we moderns and postmoderns are tempted to do, that this is the best of all possible ages, the most significant era of history.) Instead, the liturgy draws us into worship that transcends our time and place. Its earliest forms took shape in ancient Israel, and its subsequent development occurred in a variety of cultures and subcultures—Greco-Roman, North African, German, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, and so on. It has been prayed meaningfully by bakers, housewives, tailors, teachers, philosophers, priests, monks, kings, and slaves. As such, it has not been shaped to meet a particular group's needs. It seeks only to enable people—people in general—to see God. ....

In this regard, the liturgy is more relevant than we can imagine, because it's a place where God is taken seriously, and therefore where we are taken seriously. A liturgical service is by no means the only service that does this, but it is a form of worship that is especially suited to not getting distracted. The Anglican liturgy I participate in begins and ends like this:

Celebrant: Blessed be God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
People: And blessed be his kingdom, now and forever.

Deacon: Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
People: Thanks be to God.

The liturgy, from beginning to end, is not about meeting our needs. The liturgy is about God. It's not even about God-as-the-fulfiller-of-our-need-for-spiritual-meaning. It's about God as he is himself: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not about our blessedness but his. The liturgy immediately signals that our needs are not nearly as relevant as we imagine. There is something infinitely more worthy of our attention—something, someone, who lies outside the self. ....

The liturgy begins by saying that our culture needs not so much to have its "presenting needs" met as to be gently and calmly invited into a wiser culture—the culture of a Trinitarian God and his kingdom. This is what is blessed, now and forever. Our culture is the transitory thing, an apparition that will someday have to pass away, just as childhood has to pass away. The liturgy says to us as we enter, "You're in the culture of God and his kingdom now. Things will be different from now on." (more)

C.S. Lewis: "All that is not eternal, is eternally out of date."

A Deeper Relevance | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Atheists

David Berlinski:

.... It is curious that so many scientists should have recently embraced atheism. The great physical scientists — Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Clerk Maxwell, Albert Einstein — were either men of religious commitment or religious sensibility.

The distinguished physicist Steven Weinberg has acknowledged that this is what the great scientists believed: But we know better, he has insisted, because we know more.

This prompts the obvious question: Just what have scientists learned that might persuade the rest of us that they know better? It is not, presumably, the chemistry of Boron salts that has done the heavy lifting. ....

....[T]here is Darwin’s theory of evolution. It has been Darwin, Richard Dawkins remarked, that has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

A much better case might be made in the other direction. It is atheism that makes it possible for a man to be an intellectually fulfilled Darwinist. In the documentary Expelled, one of those curious exercises in which some scientists, at least, say what they really think, Ben Stein interviews a number of Darwinian biologists eager to evade the evidence whenever possible or to ignore it when not. Rich in self-satisfaction, Dawkins appears at the film’s end.

How did life on earth arise?

The question, Dawkins acknowledges, is very difficult.

Perhaps the seeds of life were sent here from outer space?

It could well be.

Or by a vastly superior intelligence?

Well, yes.

Questions and their answers follow one another, but in the end Stein says nothing. There is no absurdity Dawkins is not prepared to embrace so long as he can avoid a transcendental inference. .... [more]

Pajamas Media » The Scientific Embrace of Atheism

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free...."

A pastor commenting on Jeremiah Wright's statement that the attacks on him were really an attack on the "black church," disagreed saying that there is no black church or white church - there is only the Christian church. He wasn't arguing that there aren't differences in worship and preaching styles, but that there is a theological problem with "black liberation theology." In today's Washington Post, Michael Gerson:

Wright may be a camera-seeking egotist. He is certainly a showman, enjoying his moment. But his main argument seems to be: "No, Barack, I actually hold these theological convictions. You may need to attack me for political reasons. But don't you dare dismiss me as a batty uncle."

It is a tribute to the power of the Christian message that there is such a thing as African American Christian theology at all. Christianity was the religion held by slave masters - often distorted into an ideology of oppression. But African Americans found a model of liberation in the Exodus. They discovered that Jesus more closely resembled the beaten and lynched slave than their pious oppressors. And African Americans - by their courageous assertion of God's universal love and man's universal dignity - redeemed a nation they had entered in chains.

But black liberation theology takes this argument a large step further - or perhaps backward. The Rev. Wright's intellectual mentor, professor James Cone of Union Theological Seminary, retreats from the universality of Christianity. "Black theology," says Cone, "refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him." And again: "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." And again: "In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors."

This emphasis on the structural evil of white America has natural political consequences - encouraging a belief that American politics is defined by its crimes, a tendency to accept anti-government conspiracy theories about AIDS and drugs, a disturbing openness to anti-American dictators such as Castro and Gaddafi. It explains Wright's description of the Sept. 11 attacks as a "wake-up call" to "white America."

But the deepest flaws in black liberation theology are theological, not political. Jesus did advocate a special concern for the rights and welfare of the poor and helpless. But he specifically rejected a faith defined by social and political struggle, much to the disappointment of his more zealous followers. The early church, in its wrenching decision to include gentiles as equals, explicitly rejected a community defined by ethnicity. No Christian theology that asserts "Jesus is not for all" can be biblical.

Michael Gerson - The Perils Of Patronizing - washingtonpost.com