Source: GetReligion: "Fundamental" problem in B.C. obitsAll together now. Please take out your copy of The Associated Press Stylebook and turn to page 213 (in the edition currently on my desk) or look up the “religious movements” reference.
There you will find the following, which has been quoted many times here at GetReligion:fundamentalist The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians. In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.I have been planning to bring this up all week because of MSM coverage of the death of cartoonist Johnny Hart, but have been delayed by sickness, academic work, and various online issues.
Thus, it is no surprise that a journalistic friend of this weblog, Frank “Bible Belt Blogger” Lockwood at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette beat me to it. Here is a part of what he had to say:A reminder to the New York Times and the Washington Post — Many American Christians consider the terms “fundamentalist” and “fundamentalism” to be pejorative. In the 1910s and 1920s, the term referred to a Christian who believed in the “fundamentals” of the faith — the Virgin Birth of Christ, his sinless life, his atoning death, his bodily resurrection, and his second coming in the clouds of glory.
Since then, however, the term “fundamentalist” has been hijacked. Today, it is an insult, a slur, a code word the Manhattan media and others use to marginalize people. It’s not nice to call someone a fundamentalist when they’re alive. It’s even worse to use the term in an obituary. (the article)
Source: The Scriptorium: B.C. by Johnny Hart: “This Warm, Mischievous Feeling”We've talked about the majority of Americans wanting out of Iraq at this point. I wonder at what point do you stop doing what you think is right and you start doing what the majority of the American people want? [emphasis added]Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.Edmund Burke to the Electors of Bristol:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
.... In a previous book – Gospel Women (2002) – he was able to show, by a close study of personal names both in our texts and in the records of Palestinian culture, that a particular group of individuals in the New Testament, and their relationships with one another, have a striking internal consistency with regard to names and provenance and also reflect accurately the naming and family connections that were customary in their culture. In the face of such evidence, it is hard to believe either that these names could have been fabricated or that there was any serious loss of accuracy in remembering and recording them by the time the Gospels came to be written. InSource: What He said - TLS HighlightsJesus and the Eyewitnesses, Bauckham continues his investigation into named individuals, and shows that the same conclusion holds for all. We have every reason, therefore, to assume a faithful and unbroken link between the original witnesses of Jesus’ life and death and the record of these things in the Gospels.
Following this clue, Bauckham then suggests we should take seriously the testimony of two second-century churchmen, Papias and Irenaeus – the first of whom has usually been dismissed by scholars as unreliable. Carefully examining the relevant texts – including the famous statement of Papias that Mark’s Gospel is derived from anecdotes heard from St Peter – Bauckham concludes that these writers gave absolute priority to eyewitness accounts of Jesus, many of which are likely to have been given by his closest followers; indeed, he argues that the fact that some minor characters in the Gospels are named, while others remain anonymous, strongly suggests that it was the named ones who were consulted for their personal recollections and that the Gospel writers, or those whom they consulted, were drawing on first-hand evidence that was inherently reliable and consistent, though with the inevitable variations and slight lapses which attend the exercise of memory in any age or culture – hence both the close similarities and the sporadic divergences exhibited by the Synoptic Gospels.
None of these propositions is advanced as if it were merely a matter of common sense and informed intuition applied to the age-old enigma of the Gospels – though it is the sheer lack of plausibility of some modern reconstructions which leads Bauckham to say that “scholars rather easily lose touch with common experience”. He calls in aid the findings of students of primarily oral cultures, the research that has been done in ancient historiography, and the value placed by ancient historians on eyewitness testimony (along with clear and elegant arrangement), psychological studies of memory and its relation to the facts remembered, the various occasions for anonymity which were recognized by ancient writers, and much more; and shows that his conclusions, radically different as they are from those of virtually all mainstream scholars, can be supported both by the testimony of early Christian writers (seldom given due weight in recent scholarship) and by comparative material offered by other disciplines. The book is indeed a serious challenge to the paradigm that has commanded almost universal assent for many years. ....
Johnny Hart, the creator of B.C. and The Wizard of Id, died this past weekend. His were among the most widely read comic strips in the world, and his Christian faith was often expressed in them. Here is a link to the strip that ran yesterday.
At First Things, Gerard J. Russello reviews the HBO series Rome. The first and last paragraphs of the article: What was perhaps the most pro-Christian show on television did not have a single Christian character in it—and there was no way it could have. Rome, the hit series that has just completed its second (and for now final) season on the cable channel HBO, turned out to be a surprising affirmation of the Western religious tradition. While it is packed with sex and violence, its message—intended or not—is that the Roman world was desperate for Christianity. ....Source: First Things: The Fall of Rome: Season Two
These days, some contend that a world without Christian restraints would be more egalitarian, less violent, and more individualistic. But for those with a historical sense, Rome shows that another alternative is more likely. The classical world was not all marble columns and noble rhetoric. It was a world where the strong ruled, and those who could not conquer were themselves conquered. Far from being egalitarian, the only clear rule was inequality: between masters and slaves, husbands and wives, or plebeians and patricians. Those wishing to reject the West’s Christian heritage should take a hard look at what that world was like.
.... I recommend Matt Zoller Seitz's short and sweet explanation of what it's all about. An excerpt:The Sopranos isn't just one of the most stylistically influential dramas in TV history. It's also the most cynical - a worst-case scenario look at human nature in which the inhabitants of an insular, paranoid, highly materialistic subculture are confronted with the choice between doing the right thing and the convenient thing, and nearly always go with option B. It's a butt-backwards cautionary tale that asks, "What should one do in order to be a moral person?" and then replies, "Not this."I would actually go a little further than this (and I do, in a forthcoming piece), and argue that The Sopranos is implicitly - and sometimes explicitly - a show about damnation, and how ordinary, often-sympathetic people can willingly choose to go to hell.
'Tis the spring of souls today; Christ has burst His prison,
What wondrous love is this, O my soul, O my soul!There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains, lose all their guilty stains;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood shall never lose its power
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
Be saved, to sin no more, be saved, to sin no more;
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved, to sin no more.
E’er since, by faith, I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
And shall be till I die, and shall be till I die;
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die.
For me, kind Jesus, was Thy incarnation,
We were told that the rapture is surely coming within the next 25-50 years. Of course we were told this by Scofield a hundred years ago, and Chafer 75 years ago , and Lindsey over 50 years ago, and they were all dead wrong. In fact, in all of church history whenever anyone has predicted the timing of the return of Christ they have all shared one thing in common - they've all been dead wrong! ....Source: Ben Witherington: Lenten Leavings - Things That Should Now Be Left Behind
When the expectation of the return of Christ, which is shared by all denominations, degenerates into prognostication and calculation, [despite Mk. 13.32 which tells us that the time and timing of this event is completely unknown, and was even unknown to Jesus himself whilst on earth (and no it does not mean "we can know the general year or decade, just not the day or hour")], then we have ceased to move on faith, and are engaging in human manipulation.
Why do I say this? For the very good reason that when you look at the definition of faith in Heb. 11.1 it says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction about things not seen" (indeed not visible). But all these supposed signs that LaHaye and company think they can read are all too visible historical events. But there will be no such earthly signs before the return of Christ, only cosmic ones that accompany that return if you read Mk. 13 carefully. Those earthly signs in Mk. 13 preceded the fall of the Temple in A.D. 70. They won't be coming around again, in Mark's view.
So its time to leave behind the Left Behind false prophecy once and for all. Those folks don't even understand either the character or the significance of apocalyptic literature, nor how to interpret it (for more on this see my Jesus the Seer, or my Revelation commentary). [links added]
Her story wrapping up the conference was the most interesting:
Mormon beliefs about God and Jesus Christ make them Christians, no matter what critics say.
This was the message repeated by several speakers on Sunday at the 177th annual LDS General Conference, held in the 21,000-seat Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City and beamed via satellite to Mormon chapels across the globe..... Much of the story deals with speeches about how to live better lives and more closely follow Mormon ordinances — a key factor in the Mormon understanding of salvation. But here we get back to the lede:
Among the day’s sermons, the “we are Christians, too” mantra stood out. It may have been prompted, in part, by the recent distribution of an anti-Mormon DVD produced by evangelical Christians or by some of the harsh statements about LDS theology made in the context of Mitt Romney’s campaign for president.
During the morning session, Hinckley said he found the Nicene Creed, a statement from 325 A.D. about the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ that most Christians accept, to be “confusing.”
The LDS Church relies instead on the personal experience of founder Joseph Smith, who claimed to have a vision of God and Jesus in 1820.
“He knelt in their presence; he heard their voices; and he responded,” Hinckley said. “Each was a distinct personality.”
God is a “being, real and individual. He is the great governor of the universe, yet, he is our father, and we are his children.... Jesus is the living Christ. He is the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Messiah of the New.”
GetReligion: Being of one substance with the FatherApostle M. Russell Ballard added that he believes the Book of Mormon does not contradict the Bible in any way. ....
A core doctrine of the historical Christian faith is the Trinity — that there is one God in three persons. This is articulated in the “confusing” Nicene Creed mentioned by Hinckley, drafted in 325. It describes God in three persons. ....
Mormons believe in a Godhead of three separate beings who are united in purpose. They also use the word Trinity to describe this. Here’s how the BBC characterizes Mormon doctrine about the nature of God:
Mormons believe that:So often stories that mention the debate over whether Mormons are Christian seem to view the topic in the most non-religious terms possible. They view the issue as one of self-determination (people and groups should be able to identify themselves using their own understanding) or think of the descriptor “Christian” as a kind word that polite people should use with each other. I love that Fletcher Stack identifies the debate as a doctrinal one. That’s a good step. ....
Mormons believe that:
- God is an exalted, perfected man
- God has a physical body
- There is more than one God
- Human beings have the potential to become like God...
- Jesus Christ is the first-born spirit child of God
- Jesus Christ assisted God the Father at the Creation
- He was known as Jehovah to the people of the Old Testament
- He was the literal, biological Son of God, and of Mary...
.... For example, there’s Van de Berg, a Parkinson’s patient who asks for euthanasia. But before Keizer can kill him, Van de Berg receives a letter from his religious brother telling him that it would be a sin to commit suicide and would violate the way they were raised as children by their parents.FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » Dutch Euthanasia
The man hesitates. Keizer is not amused. From page 94:
And now this letter, which to my surprise, he takes seriously. I don’t know what to do with such a wavering death wish. It’s getting on my nerves. Does he want to die or doesn’t he? I hope I don’t have to go over the whole business again. . . . Suddenly, I have an idea: “You know what we’ll do? We’ll ask Hendrik Terborgh, our vicar. Would you agree to that?” He cries and types “yes.” ...Keizer does not tell us what the vicar told Van de Berg, but I think it is a good bet he didn’t engage in suicide prevention or validate the brother’s religious concerns. Also, note that Keizer is far more concerned about the bureaucratic matters than with the well being of his own patient. One can imagine how depressing it would feel to have such a doctor, how alone and abandoned it would seem.
Next day Hendrik tells me that it’s all right. He refers to his meeting with Van de Berg. “Well, he knows what has to be done. He knows what he wants now.” . . . It goes well. He has good veins.
Here’s another form of pressure: Not telling a patient about the ability to control pain, or even waiting for a final diagnosis before agreeing to kill a patient. Keizer is asked to euthanize Teus, a man whom he thinks—but does not know—has lung cancer. He discusses the case with his colleague on page 37, who asks if the patient is really suffering badly. “Is it for us to answer that question? All I know is that he wants to die more or less upright and that he doesn’t want to crawl to his grave the way a dog crawls howling to the sidewalk after he’s been hit by a car."
Patients with cancer do not have to die in this manner. Proper medical care would prevent it. But this is never mentioned to the patient. Nor, from what we read, does Keizer even know about the powers of morphine to control cancer pain. He doesn’t even discuss hospice with Teus or his family—which is outrageous negligence. Instead, as he describes on page 39, when Keizer gets ready to euthanize Teus, he will countenance no doubts: “I tell Jaarsma and De Goover [Keizer’s colleagues] that Teus is going to die that evening. Jaarsma seems sore but raises no objection. De Goover looks sharply at me, trying to work out how scared I am. If anyone so much as whispers ‘cortisone’ or ‘uncertain diagnosis,’ I’ll hit him.”
The most telling passage in the book may come when Keizer is asked by a colleague whether he should love his patients. “‘What about love,’ Herman wonders. ‘Shouldn’t you love your patients, if only a little?’ I don’t know right away what to say. I think it’s good for the profession if I heave a deep sigh now and declare my assent. And there are situations that upset you. But love? I doubt it.”
RightWingBob reminds us of the title song of Bob Dylan's first Christian album. The song uses train imagery: .... Amplifying the lyrical image is the rhythm of the tune itself, which evokes a train steadily and inexorably coming down the track; never more so than in this live version from West Germany in 1981.Source: RightWingBob: Slow Train Chuggin'
Sometimes I feel so low-down and disgusted
Can’t help but wonder what’s happenin’ to my companions,
Are they lost or are they found, have they counted the cost it’ll take to bring down
All their earthly principles they’re gonna have to abandon?
There’s a slow, slow train comin’ up around the bend.
People get ready
Theres a train a-coming
You don't need no baggage
You just get on board
All you need is faith
To hear the diesels humming
Don't need no ticket
You just thank the Lord
Warren isn't a great apologist (I'd prefer to see Greg Koukl or Ravi Zacharais) but an eighth-grader who just read a Josh McDowell book could take Sam Harris in a debate.
The Telegraph [London] reports:The Church's traditional teaching of Christ's crucifixion is "repulsive" and "insane", a controversial cleric will claim on the BBC this week.
The Very Rev Jeffrey John, who had to withdraw before taking up an appointment as bishop of Reading in 2003 after it emerged he was in a long-term homosexual relationship, is set to ignite a row over one of the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief.
Clergy who preach this Easter that Christ was sent to earth to die in atonement for the sins of mankind are "making God sound like a psychopath", he will say. ....
Christian theology has taught that because humans have sinned, God sent Christ as a substitute to suffer and die in our place.
"In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him," says Mr John. "This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we'd say that they were a monster."
Mr John argues that too many Christians go through their lives failing to realise that God is about "love and truth", not "wrath and punishment". He offers an alternative interpretation, suggesting that Christ was crucified so he could "share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us".
Church figures have expressed dismay at his comments, which they condemn as a "deliberate perversion of the Bible". The Rt Rev Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, accused Mr John of attacking the fundamental message of the Gospel.
"He is denying the way in which we understand Christ's sacrifice. It is right to stress that he is a God of love but he is ignoring that this means he must also be angry at everything that distorts human life," he said.
Bishop Wright criticised the BBC for allowing such a prominent slot to be given to such a provocative argument. "I'm fed up with the BBC for choosing to give privilege to these unfortunate views in Holy Week," he said.
The Rev Rod Thomas, of the evangelical group Reform, accused Mr John of "attacking the fundamental nature of the Gospel". Reform, which represents about 600 clergy, opposed Mr John's nomination as bishop in 2003.
... I may be wrong about this, but it seems that Christian lyricists these days appropriate the victory before they carry the Cross.... For me, the most moving use of the first person pronoun in any congregational hymn occurs in the haunting Ah, Holy Jesus, to the tune Herzliebster Jesu:Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee?What man in his own right is worth a single drop of blood shed as the lash, weighted with shards of glass and iron, stripped the flesh from Jesus' back? Yet for such as we are, he bore that lash, the mockery, the crown, the Cross. ....
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee.
'Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee;
I crucified thee.
is reviewed by Michael Ward. The volumes have been edited by Walter Hooper, who, over the years since Lewis's death, has been attacked by some as exaggerating his relationship with Lewis - and even accused of passing off his own work as Lewis's. Ward writes:...[T]his volume has Lewis' nine letters to Hooper himself. These reveal that Hooper and Lewis became genuinely close in the short time they knew each other and that...Lewis did intend Hooper to become his permanent and paid secretary. In 1963, about a month before he died, Lewis wrote: "Now about money. It's not so much that I can do nothing as that I am ashamed to offer to a scholar and a gentleman what a servant wd. reject as an insult. I could go (forgive me—I can hardly bear to write it down) to £5 a week."
Although Lewis was a bad judge of his financial situation, he was good judge of character.
Editor and friend Walter Hooper calls him "one of the last great letter-writers"–the last of a generation who did not lift a telephone receiver when he had something to say or tap out e-mails on a computer keyboard. Some of the recipients richly merited his ink: the detective novelist, theologian and Dante translator Dorothy L. Sayers; St. Giovanni Calabria of Verona (correspondence in Latin); T.S. Eliot; the sci-fi maestro Arthur C. Clarke; and the American writer Robert Penn Warren. In these letters, Lewis swaps quips in Latin and Greek and quotes Spenser, Statius, Beowulf, Horace, Wordsworth, Terence and Augustus. Other letters were from cranks, whiners and down-and-out charity cases; he answered them all.Books&Culture: They didn't have email
