Who's afraid of the big bad evangelical?

An Insider's View of Evangelicals
First of all, they are not fundamentalists. They're your neighbours who read, and try to live by, the Bible, but not to the point of absurdity. Some may see them as boring, but they're definitely not scary.
by Michael Davenport
This article was written to non-believers in response to a series of articles in the Vancouver Sun in July 2005, warning people about Evangelicals. Advertisements for the articles asked, for example, "Are they active in a church near you?" One reader wrote a letter affirming that she was afraid of Evangelicals. The Liberal party of Canada conducted a poll before the last federal election asking Ontarians if they would be "more or less likely to vote for the Conservative/Alliance if they knew it had been taken over by Evangelical Christians."
Mike Davenport wrote to the editors of the Sun suggesting that such rhetoric was marginalizing and thus incompatible with Canadian values. He offered to write an "Insider's View" and promised not to preach. To his surprise, they immediately said "yes" and offered him a quarter page. He said he needed a whole page, and in the end they gave it to him.
The following text is (approximately) the article that he submitted to them. They published a large portion of it, adding the headlines and their own photos and captions.
This article can be helpful to church leaders and individuals who wish to help seekers gain an understanding of the Christian faith and Christian community.
Does it ever happen that you and a friend view the same event or object and see completely different things? We have a blanket in our house that looks grey to me, but when I say so to my son he rolls over laughing and says "no Dad, it's green." Now, I can see green just fine, and that blanket does not look green to me.
… think of this as a National Geographic article about a strange tribe …
That's the sort of disconnect I experience when the media "warn" people about Evangelicals, or when someone writes a letter to the editor saying "I am afraid of Evangelicals." Afraid? Of us? The ones—you know—that bring you a casserole when there's a death in the family, that don't cheat on our taxes, that stop for you at the crosswalk?
My son and I resolved the blanket controversy by taking it outside into the sunlight, where I had to admit that is was green (a grey-green, ok?). My objective in this article is to bring Evangelicals out into the Sun where you can see for yourself what our true colours are. Think of this as a National Geographic article about a strange tribe living in your midst.
Not fundamentalists
Let's get some common misperceptions out of the way. First, don't confuse Evangelicals with TV evangelists—they are no more similar than Conservatives and conservationists. In 30 years of attending Evangelical churches, I have honestly never seen Bible-thumping hucksters or white-shoed crooners … well, except once in New York in 1979, but let's not go there.
What the Words Mean
Christian: a follower of Jesus, whose life is described in the Christian Bible;
A Church: a group of Christians that worship together
Being "Saved": being reconciled to, and declaring allegiance to, Jesus
Evangelist: a Christian (not necessarily an Evangelical) who is telling non-Christians about Jesus;
Evangelical: a movement that affirms traditional theology and submits to the authority of the bible while striving to participate creatively in modern society
Christian Liberalism: a movement to assert intellectual and cultural authority over the bible, including revising traditional theology where it conflicts with modern ideals
Fundamentalism: an extremist movement within any religious or secular group, marked by dogmatic anti-intellectualism, unwillingness to engage opposing points of view, and separation from society.
Second, please don't confuse "Evangelical" with "Fundamentalist"—most Evangelicals would be offended by that. Fundamentalism began in the 1920s as a movement among Christians to separate from their "corrupt" society and to avert their eyes from intellectual attacks on the Bible. By the 1940s, the Fundamentalist movement had strayed so far from Evangelical values of intellectual and cultural engagement with society, that mainstream Evangelicals formed alliances and created programs specifically to strengthen their members against Fundamentalist influence. So you can imagine how galling it is for those same churches to now be called "Fundamentalist"—sort of like mistaking Greenpeace for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
An approach to faith
One source of confusion is that the term "Evangelical" identifies an approach to faith, rather than a separate denomination. The distinguishing features of the Evangelical approach are:
• acceptance of the authority of Scripture over all other documents and traditions;

• affirmation that, suddenly or gradually, individuals are transformed ("reborn") into believers;

• belief that Jesus' death and resurrection were historical facts, necessary for our new life; and

• commitment to prayer, discipleship, and faithful service to wider humanity.

You will find people who believe and live these principles within every Christian church. You can't be a card-carrying Evangelical, because there is no agency issuing "cards." We have no one like the Pope to rule on who may call themselves Evangelicals, and of course no one can control what Evangelicals say. So if you hear a prominent "Evangelical" promoting, say, assassinations of foreign leaders, please know that the real Evangelicals in the audience are as uncomfortable with this as you are.
Evangelicals in the community
… evangelicals: a bit different, but not scary …
Surveys indicate that about 12 percent of Canadians are Protestant Evangelicals. So there's a good chance that you know some from work, hockey, or your kid's preschool. Will they seem any different? Probably not at first. In my experience Evangelicals are often kind, generous, and thoughtful people, but so are people of all backgrounds. There are apparently some statistical differences—polls indicate that compared to average Canadians, Evangelicals
• typically give more money to charity, even when gifts to churches are ignored,

• are less likely to smoke, swear, or get drunk,

• are more likely to volunteer their time, and

• tend to place a higher value on marriage and family.

None of these attributes suggest to me that Evangelicals are scary. Boring, some would say, but definitely not scary.
Social justice
Evangelicals have a long and honourable history of social activism, often as revisionists rather than conservatives. Here are some of my favourite examples of Evangelicals who had an impact on our world:


William Wilberforce, an Evangelical politician,
persuaded England to abolish the slave trade.
• William Wilberforce: an English member of parliament who single-handedly forced the abolition of the slave trade in 1807;

• The Clapham Sect: social activists from the same parish as Wilberforce who set up schools for impoverished children, improved the prisons, and pioneered labour laws and animal welfare laws;

• Tommy Douglas: former premier of Saskatchewan and recently voted the "greatest Canadian," who established universal health care in Canada;

• World Vision: global aid agency that brings crisis relief, feeds and educates children, builds self-sufficiency, and acts against social evils such as child prostitution, all without regard for race or religion;

• Jimmy Carter: former US president who works with "Habitat for Humanity" to build decent homes among the world's poorest people;

• Preston Manning: founder of the Reform Party who badgered the Liberals into eliminating the fiscal deficit;

• Brian McConaghy: RCMP scientist from Richmond who brought medical aid to children in the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia two years before the UN dared to become involved. More recently, he gathered key evidence in Cambodia leading to the first conviction under Canada's new child sex tourism law;

• Lillian To: Vancouverite and immigrant who established "SUCCESS" to help new immigrants adjust to living in Canada.

The environment
The Evangelical Environmental Network, in a widely-endorsed declaration, sums up our attitude to the environment as follows: "We urge individual Christians and churches to be centers of creation's care and renewal, both delighting in creation as God's gift, and enjoying it as God's provision, in ways which sustain and heal the damaged fabric of the creation which God has entrusted to us." This is the only approach to environmental issues that I have ever heard preached in church.
… morality does not revolve around human happiness …
Some fundamentalists (very few as far as I can tell) seem to use end-time prophecies as an excuse to neglect the environment, but that view is definitely not an Evangelical view.
Living from the heart
So what motivates Evangelicals to serve the world with such vigour? Are we, for example, reacting to a guilt trip laid on us by a manipulative church or vengeful God? More frighteningly would an Evangelical, given political power, visit the same guilt trip on you?
The answer is "no," but it is an interesting "no." In ancient times, and I think still in some religions, one tried to avoid God's wrath by following God's laws. Christians believe that this is a hopeless strategy—that we humans are predisposed to screw things up and break the laws. We believe instead that closeness to God comes as a free gift, when by faith we are ready to receive it. This is the "Good News" (in Greek evangelion) that gives our movement its name.
This means, logically, that our good deeds are of no value in "saving" us. So why do we do them? We do good deeds because we have fallen in love with a God of love, and when you love someone there is no greater joy than to please them.
It also means that Evangelicals believe very profoundly that you can't force a belief system or a morality onto others. Our God does not "force" us to believe or behave morally, but rather calls us to do so in love. You can expect that same model from Evangelical leaders—moral leadership based on influence rather than power politics.
Good and evil
I hope this hasn't given the impression that we take morality lightly—as you've probably noticed quite the opposite is true. Evangelicals believe that when a child is abused in Cambodia it is not an isolated tragedy, but rather an assault on the whole world. The grief and the pain ripple out around the globe and for generations forward in time.
The word we use for this is "evil," and it is the visible manifestation of an epic battle—a spiritual Lord of the Rings if you like—that, we believe, rages around our world. It is a battle best fought not with violence but rather with fierce love, patience, kindness, and self-control. And in this battle we do not see the "bad" people—the abusers, the cheaters, the destroyers—as the enemy, but rather as hostages of, and collaborators with, the enemy.
This view of good and evil makes moral relativism untenable for Evangelicals. Some choices, we would say, are inherently and non-negotiably wrong. It is just plain wrong to cheat on your wife even if "she'll never know so it can't hurt her." I mention this because some postmodernists, for example, believe that any talk of "right" and "wrong" is, well, wrong.
I suspect, however, that those who are frightened by Evangelical morality are less frightened by the prevailing environmental morality, which is equally committed to concepts of "right" and "wrong." Surely we can all agree that it is absolutely wrong to hunt a species to extinction. No argument of how "that species helps humanity" need be given, because morality does not revolve around human happiness.
… committed to excellence in biblical scholarship …
Environmentalists also understand the need to be careful of "small sins" which, integrated over time, can add up to great evil. Hiking on Vancouver Island years ago, I went up a forbidden trail to see the Carmanah Giant cedar tree. When a Park Warden stopped me on the way back, I explained that I was just one person, and I had been careful to stay on the path. "It's the path that's killing the tree!" the Ranger explained "What would happen if everyone ignored the trail signs?" He didn't give me a ticket, but I deserved one—not because I lacked concern for the trees but because, thinking I knew what the sign "really meant," I ignored what it plainly said.
High regard for the Bible
Evangelicals believe that humans are equipped to recognize what is right and what is wrong, and that the Bible provides essential "trail signs" to guide that instinct. More specifically, we believe in reading, discussing, and prayerfully considering the whole Bible, and allowing it to direct our morality. Very nasty things have been said and done by people who use segments of the Bible out of context to defend their pet projects.
Evangelicals are sometimes accused of "reading the Bible literally" as if we are blind to its subtleties. The truth is that Evangelicals place a very high value on excellence in biblical scholarship, as exemplified by the writings of CS Lewis. One of the world's leading Evangelical think-tanks, Regent College, is located in Vancouver and draws scholars from all over the world. So we read the Bible literally when appropriate, but we also know a metaphor when it hits us in the face.
Sexual morality
Some people seem to be threatened by Evangelicals' apparently "old fashioned" sexual morality. More disturbingly, some have suggested that we are hateful to people with alternative sexual orientations. On the contrary; I have seen only loving and respectful acceptance of all people at our churches.
One Sunday long ago, when I was a junior Sunday School coordinator, a man came up to me wearing a very nice blouse, skirt, medium-rise shoes, and blonde wig, and offered to help teach a class. I explained that we did not appoint teachers until they had attended our church for some time, and suggested other ministries that might be appropriate in the mean time. Over the coming months he attended regularly, sometimes as a woman and sometimes as a man, and I was very impressed with the complete absence of fuss within the congregation. We accepted him as he was, and trusted that God would make our church for him a place of both grace and transformation just as it had been for so many of us.
So I find the accusations of "hatred" bewildering. Cannot our liberal society just accept Evangelicals as an odd minority group that avoids sex except between husbands and wives? Wouldn't that be just like accepting vegans as an odd minority group that avoids foods derived from animals? Cannot vegans dislike meat and still love meat-eaters? Should our laws forbid vegans from suggesting that their diet is healthier or morally superior? If I go to a vegan home would it be right, when they politely refuse to prepare bacon and eggs for my breakfast, to accuse them of hating me?
And if they refuse to appoint me, a meat-eater, as an official vegan spokesman, can I accuse them of unfair discrimination?
Evangelicals in politics
I am very proud of the achievements of Evangelical politicians such as Wilberforce, Douglas, Carter, and Manning. They show that great good can be done by people with solid moral foundations and a willingness to serve their people in the political arena. They also show that Canadians should welcome, not fear, the contributions of Evangelicals on the political stage.


In a media poll, Evangelical Tommy Douglas
was identified as the "greatest Canadian"
for bringing universal health care to Canada.
1965 CP Photo
But what about Evangelical politicians who seem to be doing bad things? The first thing to remember is that no-one will ever perfectly exemplify Christian principles. Evangelical leaders struggle against many of the same failings and temptations as the rest of humanity, and of course they are not all intellectual giants and brilliant speakers. Furthermore, politics is a complicated dance of rhetoric and compromise, and I suspect there is often no way to move forward without in some way compromising ones ideals.
So if an "Evangelical" politician is making you squirm, take some comfort in knowing that if they were not Evangelical it might have been even worse. Or maybe, just maybe, you have something to learn from them.
It's also possible, of course, that they are just claiming to be Evangelical for political gain. Not that there is much gain to be had in Canadian politics. Polls indicate that in our last election, Evangelicals split their vote approximately evenly between the Liberal and Conservative parties, just as the rest of Canada did. I have never heard any political party endorsed by my church leaders.
Welcome in a liberal society
OK, so after all these words, I'm guessing that some of you still don't really like Evangelicals. Maybe I've convinced you that we're not all dangerous, but even in the bright light of day we don't quite match your colour-scheme. Here's my challenge: get over your fear—it's called xenophobia—and accept us as just one more quirky component of this country we call Canada.
We are a minority group accounting for about one eighth of all Canadians and holding some values that differ from the ruling elite. Should we be encouraged to get politically active? The answer is "yes" if Canada is a liberal democracy, and "no" if it is a liberal hegemony.
With the passage of the same-sex-marriage law, perhaps it is time for social liberals in Canada to accept that they are now the Establishment. As the Establishment they have the primary responsibility for defending Canada's commitment to tolerance and multi-culturalism—core elements of our identity. This means they need to shift from "fighting for their voice to be heard" to "fighting to ensure that other voices are heard."
Judging from some of the rhetoric we read in the media, this may require a bit of an adjustment.
Mike Davenport bases his observations on 25 years of membership in Vancouver Evangelical churches. He has a PhD in theoretical physics, works as a research scientist, and attends St. John's (Shaughnessy) Anglican Church with his family.

You are Romans.


Which book of the Bible are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

The Better Part of Valor?

So my hockey team (Ottawa Senators) has begun the season with a very strong 4-0 run. IN accumulating that reconrd they have beaten Montreal, Buffalo, and Toronto (twice). I am pretty proud of this team. I love the style of hockey it plays. Its a colourful team with a lot of persoality to it.

First there is the Spezz Dispenser (Jason Spezza) who is still very much a kid in the way he plays and grins at the camera. You also have Zdeno Chara, who is one of the very few elite defensemen who will actually fight when called out. The Dominator (Hasek) is always interesting just because you're always waiting to see what move he pulls to stop a puck. Alfredsson is a guy with a sense of humour.

Without a doubt though the most intriguing personality in the room for me is Razor Ray (or Sugar Ray) Emery. For a goalie, he gets into a lot of fights, and he makes no bones about that fact. He sems to actually enjoy the fights. Last night, a Montreal player, Ivanans, was yapping at him, and Emery claimed he hadn't realised it, but that it was probably a good thing since he "wouldn't want to hurt" Ivanans.

Now don't get me wrong, I am still a pacifist; I am just pointing out the humour and personality that lies behind comments like that. Ottawa has historically been about as colourful as white bread, so its nice to see these things happening.

That said, colourful is a lot easier to enjoy when your 4-0.

Now, throughout this post I have steadfastly avoided making comments about the other teams. I could have made many. But some peopel I know seem to think that it is inappropriate to say negative things (even if they are true) about another team. If I do I am trashing the team. Saying nothing is supposedly the better part of valour.

Let me say that I don't support real trash talk. I have been to enough game to know what trash talk really is a bout; personal comments against ones parentage, sexuality, race, ethnicity, etc. I would even include such vague comments as calling a player a bum or saying they can't play.

But I do believe I can make some comments, provided they are true, without them being considered trashing the team. There are players out there who are just slow skaters. They look lost on the ice and can't keep up with the pace. Simply pointing to these things is not trashing the team. There is nothing personal about the comment.

I believe in giving a team its due, both in the positive and the negative. That is the better part of valor.

Except where the Leafs are concerned. (wink)

Dilemma?

Tonight I took my kids grocery shopping with me. I generally enjoy doing that, since it affords me some good, fun time with them. I usually make silly with them while shopping, simply because I recognise that grocery shopping for kids is not an incredibly fulfilling experience.

Usually the grocery run follows a pretty predictable course. We start at the deli counter where the kids get a slice of bologna, then get the milk and other dairy prodicts, followed by frozen things, and then bread at the bakery where the boys get a cookie. From there, its through the last few aisles to the checkout. Finally its off to the van , there to place the bagged groceries in preparation for the short drive home.

Tonight though, while I was loading the groceries into the van I found a couple of items of deli meat that didn't get rung through because they were under the flyer. Once I saw them I had to make a couple of decisions. The first was pretty easy: I was going to go back into the store and pay for the deli meat.

The second decision was harder. I debated how much to tell the boys. On the one hand I thought it would be a good chance to illustrate what you are supposed to do as a Christian in these situations. On the other hand I was conscious that I might be puffing myself up. In the end I decided that it was more important for the boys to get an example than to worry about whether I was being humble enough. Still, it was a bit of a dilemma for me.

Its a bit silly I know. But these are my boys and I reallt wonder about how I teach them to behave. Maybe too much, eh?

Sad Things

I have been doing some reading of various opinions about the Iraq War and the so-called war on terrorism. It isn't a pretty picture.

One thing that has become very disturbing is the propensity to play chicken with sin. Many tactics are being employed by the American military in order to extract information. Some Christians seem quite comfortable with this, apparently wanting to justify it with a certain "ends justifies the means" argument. They think it courageous to want to debate the finer points of what constitutes torture and what is justified in extracting information.

This of course runs exactly counter Jesus' teaching. Jesus did not commend to us a process of seeing how close we can get to the line without crossing it. Rather he told us to hold to his teaching. Any process that tries to see how we might go about doing what we feel justified in doing without being overtly disobedient is sophistry, and closer to the spirit of the Pharisee than to the Holy Spirit.

One of the most facile justifications is that "I am sorry but they started it." Now Americans will likely find my next statement repugnant because I am Canadian and 9/11 "didn't happen to me," but it must be said: Jesus said "turn the other cheek." He did not say we would be justified in hitting back. Love your enemies, pray for them, yes. Hit them back, no.

Some might wish to point to the scale of 9/11, but that really is a bogus argument. No one has ever been more justified for retaliating against personal attacks, for no one has suffered more or more severe ones, than God. God the Father sent God the Son to reconcile the world to Himself. In short the War on Iraq, as it is nothing more than a pretense for vengeance, and a false pretense at that (no WMD) cannot be supported by Christians.

Another simplistic reason for supporting the war is the "fact" that Christians make up a good size chunk of the armed forces. This is also false. We should support the troops in prayer for safety, that they will be proper agents of reconciliation, that they will not compromise their Christian witness. Should we support them in the sense of giving approval if they do breach their witness or do harm? No. If they sin then we need to simply say that they need to repent and offer them forgiveness and help so that they do not lapse into further sin.

It is also unfortunate that some try to make false comparisons in justifying torture. One blogger mentioned that we don't send surgeons to the Haag when they inflict pain and suffering as a means to an end. This argument is offered after pointing out the definition of torture involves coercion. Patients submit to surgery willingly.

This particular blogger has a habit of making this kind of argument. It involves going from a specific situation allegedly analogous to the one under discussion (ostensibly for "clarity") to a general principle. That general principle is justified and then is then used to justify, not the allegedly analogous situation, but the one under discussion. Of course if the analogous situation is not analogous at all, the argument does not work. As noted the blogger fails to provide a truly analogous situation.

IT is very sad that we actually do manage to live down to the caricatures that Muslim extremists have of us. If we were more Christlike, I have no doubt that things would be better.

No doubt some will say that Christians should expect to be hated. That is true, but they are to be hated for being Christlike. No one I think would argue that Muslims hate the US for its being an exceptionally Christian nation.

Signifying Nothing.

Long ago I learned that there are relatively few things that are so complicated that they can't be simply stated.

Sadly, that fact is lost on many people of intelligence.

Over the years of reading shcolars, I have often lamented that while they may be great thinkers, they are not therefore also great communicators. In fact, it is most often the opposite that is true.

Why this is the case is a mystery, but I have a few thoughts. The one that I find most liekly is that these thinkers have become basically disconnected from the world they live in. It doesn't matter that they may be husbands and fathers, mothers and wives, or whatever else. Fundamentally they "live" in their area of expertise. Its where they spend most of their time, and are most at home. Its laguage has become thier first language. The people in it are more real to them. Their feelings and opinions matter more.

Now one may argue that a person cannot become a true authority in their field without making such acccomodatioons, but that is empirically false. There are scholars who are able to communicate complex ideas accurately in simple ways. They have not lost touch with the world outside their area of expertise.

Why?

Becuase they have remained balanced. They have not taken the world of the academy moe seriously than the one outside the academy. They remain essentially "down to earth."
That's why they are such good communicators fo ideas. Great scholars who are also great communicators are essentially great translators. They take ideas conceived in one world (the academy) and elucidated in that one world's laguage and translate them into laguage which is used by another world (the one outside the academy). That requires being well versed in both laguages, being connected to both worlds.

Some folks are out of balance, too connected to one world. They take themselves and their ideas too seriously. They deride those who don't. In the end all they do is isolate themselves furhter, make themselves more irrelevant.

That's too bad; the world needs people of intelligence to provide a certain leadership.

Some scary stuff

At least its scary for those of us who have kids in the public school system. Read about it: http://christianity.ca/news/weblog/2005/9.07.html

Katrina and the Waves

I don't know that I'll ever think of the name Katrina witout reference to the recent storms that hit the Louissiana coast recently. The destruction is beyond anything that I would have imagined.

But apart from the physical destruction that the strom caused is the spiritual damage that is being caused. Of course Katrina herself is not causing it, but there are peopel, Christians and non-Christians alike, who seize upon the opporutnity afforded by Katrina to grind an axe.

So far, I have seen three such axes. The first is one that I am sure Christians have come to expect;the old theodicy argument, which essentially melts down to: "If there is a god and he is so good, how could he allow this to happen?" The problem of evil has confronted Christians, indeed all theists, from the beginning. There are some things that are well worth noticing:

1) It doesn't make sense really for people who posit a non-moral universe to attach moral values such as "evil" to what are, by thier definition, random acts of nature.

2) The presence of evil in the universe, if accpeted, does not mean that the theis is the only one with a philosophical problem. Those arguing for the non-existence of God cannot simply use evil to disprove the existence fo a good God, they have to account for the existence of evil itself.

A second axe comes from Christians who want to show that God really isn't in control of everything, or at least that he doesn't cause things like "evil storms." But that doesn't square with the Bible. The Bible does say he causes things to happen. But the Bible also says that God brings good out of things. Even calamity is a tool in His hand. Perspective is also an issue. We rush to judge something as evil and horrendous without waiting to see what good might result. Certainly I don't want to say that God is into the ends jsutifying the means, but it would be wrong to say that stroms and such show God is not in control or does nt cause, because really we need to wait and see what God is going to do with it.

A third axe also comes from Christians, and it is specifically from ones whose main focus is Israel. There are actually people who want to say that this storm is a judgment because of the American support for the current pull out in the Gaza. There are a lot of problems withthis, not least of which is a post hoc type of reasoning and a blatant sense of America at the center of all things, but the most permicious thing is the timing! The rush to judge ios smply unacceptable. This is no time to be pointing fingers and laying blame. Even if the claim is true, it is also irrelevant to the suffering going on. Those who are calling out "judgment" would be wise to show mercy and send help to those in need.

All in all I think it obvious that for the time being all the axes need to be put away or else be put to use in rebuilding and rescue efforts.

What's been going on:

I had a fun time performing a wedding for a couple who took what they were doing seriously, but not themselves seriously. An excellent combination as it turns out; they were innovative without being irreverant. Highlights included:

Having a wedding reception in a tobacco barn. The stacks of dried leaves made for pungent decoration.

Watching people go ga-ga for what must be the gazillionth time over the "Chicken Dance Song". Praise the Lord, the Macarena failed to make an appearance.

Seeing the bridal party show up in NFL Jerseys.

Seeing at least one person freak out because a rather large bug crawled up her leg.

It was a fun time. What made it really awesome though was the fact that the couple was aunashamedly Christian without being pretentious or stuffy about the fact.

Neo-Orthodox Influence?

Back in the 20th Century there was a movement called Neo-Orthodoxy. It was spearheaded by such theologians as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Rudolph Bultmann.

Beginning as a reaction against liberal Protestantism, one of its key tenets was that historical investigation was not to be relied upon for to provide verification for scriptural historical claims. Instead, Neo-Orthodoxy began with human experience for doing theology.

The reason I bring this up is that some elements of Roman Catholicism, and the so-called "Reformed Catholicism" seem very much, if unintentionally, influenced at this point.

In reading several conversations between Evangelicals and the RCs and "rCs", I have noted that the claim is made that the standard method of biblical interpretation, known as the Grammatical-Historical Method, is invalid as there is no sound epistemological foundation for it (epistemology deals with the question of how we know things). This, it seems to me, is not unlike the claim that the Neo-orthodox made.

Another similarity lies in that RCs and rCs seem to claim that the individual must reckon first with the epistemological issue and then build a theology. This beginning with the individual seems again to hearken to the Neo-Orthodox notion.

(On a side note, the emphasis on the individual is ironic since both RCs and rCs seem to decry the "every individual an interpretational island" idea.)

But if this seeming connection to Neo-Orthodoxy is true, then the thinking of the RCs and rCs would share the same weaknesses, such as it being essentially fideistic, as it insulates itself from any kind of verifiability or falsibility. That makes sense as neither RCs nor rCs have actually put forward a positive case for their position. Perhaps it is because, under the influence of Neo-orthodox-style thinking, they don't see the point of such evidence. It is also vulnerable because it makes a claim about history that is inconsistently applied (in that they accept the historicity of the resurrection on usual historical proof grounds without the issue of epistemology arising) and actually essentially skeptical, meaning it is at bottom negative, and can therefore make no real positive contribution to theological method or hermeneutics.

Now in saying this I am making no claim to being a master of Neo-Orthodox thought; these are at best impressions garnered from a few years of seminary and some random book reading from Neo-0rthodox authors. Please take this post for what it is; a suggestion, and perhaps a starting point for discussion, thought, and debate.

A note about spam

I suppose it was only a matter of time. In our materially-driven society, selling is everything, and sales are tied very closely to advertising. This of course leads to junk mail of various types, especially "spam" in the e-world.

I have noted that sme enterprising people have started sending "junk comments." Until I can figure out how to delete or otherwuse filter comments. I am just turning off the comments feature. If anyone wants to make a commenbt, please contact me using email. A link exists somehere on the page for that purpose.

Can you not hear the "sigh" in this...

The wonder of unity

What is unity in a church?

Some think that it measn every person believeing the same things. I can see value to that. A lot of arguments would be avoided if we all agreed on all theological matters. In fact a lot of arguments are avoided by the level of agreement we already have.

Still, doctrinal agreement isn't everything. I have been in churches where there was as close to 100% doctrinal agreement as I have ever seen, but there wasn't much unity. In fact they fought often like cats and dogs over personality and control issues. So it seems to me that unity without an actual love for one another is impossible.

That kind of love though is from above, and only from above. Only God can give us a love that allows us to disagree with others over important issues and still worship, pray, and work with them.

That kind of love is vry evidet in my church. That's why we have no fear in facing potentially divisive issues. We know that even if there is not unanimity, there will always be a loving consensus.

Hammer Time

I am a stickler for theology, so I tend to be pretty particular on the conclusions that other people reach, as well as the way they reach them. (Yes, I am also that way about my own conclusions and methods, but we don't get into trouble discussing ourselves nearly as often as we do when discussing other people.)

For example, in my conference we are discussing the possibility of eliminating all restrictions to women in ministry leadership (currently only the office of senior pastor is denied to women). The method used to arrive at a consensus, which has been used very well in the recent past, has failed us in this instance. That's because the process has foucssed on what has clearly become the wrong question. The conclusions that people are reaching are by and large being influenced by a new hermeneutic, one whose validity ought really be discussed on its own, independantly of the women in ministry issue. But there doesn't seem to be a desire to really discuss the hermeneutic; it seems that the "need" to answer the question of women in ministry is too pressing.

That distresses me. It seems to me that the value and validity of the hermeneutic must be discussed first, or else we risk arrriving at the right decision for the wrong reasons. Those who are more concerned with the immediate question of women in ministry might not be upset about that, but some of us who take a longer view to things realise that the wrong reasons won't always lead to the right answers, so its better to get your reasons right first. Jesus taught as much with the parable of the two builders.

Then there is the issue of women as elders in our church. Thankfully there is enough wisdom in the elders to realize that we do need to have a sound process for determining what direction the church takes. We still ahve to figure out what the process should look like, but at least ther seems to be more of a commitment to the process than the outcome. IMO, if we fail in that we fail as elders, for we will have begun to lead by pragmatism.

Yes, I am back

Strange to say that, since I have not actually gone anywhere, really. I did move to my newly purchasedhome though, which is the cause of my absence. It took a few days to get the computer up and running, and then Bell didn't transfer my number from the old address to the new one.

Anyway, I thought I'd put a link to some news which ought to be of interest to t believers and non-believers alike on the qquestion of whether the Bible,specifically the gospels, are reliable historical guides.

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOnews.html#siloam

There is no longer any doubt in my mind

That I am confortable with theological tensions. Check this out:

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists. Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 79% Reformed Evangelical 79% Neo orthodox 71% Fundamentalist 61% Emergent/Postmodern 57% Charismatic/Pentecostal 46% Classical Liberal 36% Roman Catholic 32% Modern Liberal 18% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

Some thoughts on something not all that vital

What I have been pondering is the fate of my hockey team, the Ottawa Senators.

Deep stuff, I know. Bear with me. If get this out of my system now, I will likely be fine for a few weks if not months. I mean, I said hardly anything during the lockout, so give me a break here...

On the plus side, we finally have a hockey season to look forward to. Of course the price, especially for fans, was pretty steep. The new CBA should provide some pay back, in the form of more competitive balance. Sure, there have been a series of cinderellas making it deep into the Stanley Cup Playoffs the last few years, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that all teams have a reasonable chance at winning the Cup each year. That should change under the new arrangement, which effectively caps the disparity in payrolls, and the increased movement of players created by liberlaised free agency and the cap, should make more and better players available every year. That means a pretty quick rebuilding process. Revenue sharing should also give encouragement for low incomce teams to spend, further narrowing the payroll disparity.

So what does this mean for my team? Well I am of two minds. On the one hand the liberalised free agency should make it harder to keep the team together. The cap ensures that the team can't just keep paying your players more money all the time. Eventually you bump your head against the cap. So keeping a large core of really good players together may be impossible.

On the other hand, I expect that a team that pays really good attention to scouting, drafting and development should be able to continuallly turnover its roster of middle and low skill players. That would have the impact of keeping the cost of 3rd and 4th line players as well as #5-7 d-men down, freeing up salary for more elite players. Ottawa does excel at drafting and developing, so this may work out alright. The so-called "middle class" player gets squeezed though.

Of course it is also posible that teams will opt to stock their rosters with mostly middle class players. Lots of depth that way. But I confess that when I think of that, I see a whole lot of Minnesotas. That defense first style is what we want to avoid. But that defense first style comes from not being able to compete in terms of skill, which is partly due to inability to compete in terms of salary. Maybe the new CBA will make i so easy for teams to get skill players that there won;t be the need for such stiff defensive strategies.

Of course parity could also make such startegies that mcuh more important.

As for the rule changes, the only one that matters is enforcement. If enforcement on the clutch and grab doesn't happen, the rest is just window dressing.

If it does happen though, teams like Ottawa, which are built on speed, should thrive.

Other little thought for my team:

Sign and trade Todd White, and leave a roster spot open for Alexei Kaigorodov. The Russian is bigger, faster, cheaper, with more offensivce upside.

Don't resign Curtis Leschyshyn. You already have a very solid defense corps in Phillips, Redden, Chara, DeVries, Pothier, and Volchenkov. If depth iw what you want, there are some AHL guys who could stand to be called up, and would be cheaper. Think Christoph Schubert.

The answer to the Sens left wing problems may already be in the system in the form of Brandon Bochenski.

I would favour ditching Chris Neil in favour of B-Sens captain Chris Kelly. Even if you don't get rid of Neil, Kelly deserves a look.

Antone Vermette is wasted on the 4th line. Get that kid on the 3 or even the 2nd line.

Speaking of lines, here is what I would like to see:

(Forwards)
Hossa - Spezza - Vermette
Alfredsson - Smolinski- Fisher
Havlat - Kaigorodov - Langfeld
Kelly - Neil - Varada

Spare: Schaeffer; First call up: Bochenski

(Defense)
Redden - Volchenkov
Phillips - Chara
Pothier - De Vries

Spare: Schubert; First Call up: Platil

(Goaltenders)

Let me first say that if I had my druthers, I'd sign Khabibulin. I am not convinced that Hasek can do it. So, in the absence of anohter signing, here is what I see:

#1- Hasek
#2- Emery

Prusek gets traded. First call up would be Billy Thompson, who will get the #1 job in Binghamton, backed up by Kelly Guard or Jeff Glass.

I Hasek doesn't come bac, then expect Prusek to stay and platoon it with Emery.

I expect Patrick Eaves to sign and play in the AHL. He may get a look towards the end of the season.

So that should be all you hear out of me hockey wsie for a while.

Some things that occurred...

Is there a biblical theology of home ownership? I take possession of my first home in 5 days, and, beyond the borad category of "stewardship", I can't say as I am aware of one. Anyone feel free to enlighten me.

An odd week in the family, with a couple of deaths occurring. In both cases the relations are a bit on the distant side, but its amazing how far the ripples of such events extend into the lake of life.

It is a pleasure to welcome Holly Adele into the world.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think its weird that the same country can refuse to call the people responsible for the bombings in London "terrorists" while at the same time denying the reigning Miss Universe (a national) the opportunity to be greeted at Toronto City Hall?

Do mainline protestant Christians who deny the deity of Jesus consider themselves Trinitarians? I don't see how they can.

When ants come marching into the house, it ain't by no measly two by two.

Speaking as someone who grew up as an only child, every day I seeing how and why my two boys fight is a revelation. Speaking as a parent, its an Apocalypse.

My oldest arrived home from summer camp with a great attitude. God is good.

My youngest greeted his arrival with a lot of grief about no longer being the center of attention. God is still good.

I'm Back

I had a great time, too.

This was a three day retreat from pretty well everyone. I spoke to virtually no one. It was great.

This was a big step for me. I am an extrovert, so I tend to thrive on being around and interacting with other people. I really enjoyed the solitude though. I realized that I have really come to be comfortable with who I am. I have really gotten to know who and what I am, both good and bad. I am not satisfied with who I am. I want to be more godly, more effective for Christ. But I am comfortable with who I am at this moment. I don't need external validation like I once did. I now realize that part of the reason for being an extrovert was a need to find such external validation.

But I was alone, and I was happy to be so. I played 27 holes of golf, and I was just happy to be on the links. I really didn't care if I scored well or not. I just wanted to enjoy the time. As it happened (and I understand this is normal) I ended up playing my best 27 holes in over 5 years. I scored a combined 138, with 9 hole breakdowns of 44, 53, and 41, for an average of 46 per 9 holes. I lost exactly 1 ball. I know that isn't stellar, but considering that the last time I played 18 holes I scored 135, I think I have reason to be pleased.

I also got a lot of opportunity to read my Bible as well as a commentary on Luke. Over the three days, I read James, Luke, and some scattered old Testament passages. I also read about half of a book by Greg Laurie, called "God of the Second Chance." I enjoy the book; its a nice change of pace from the other things I usually read.

Well, I look forward to sharing some of the insights I gained in my (very) mini-sabbatical next time.

Gone Camping

See you in a few days.

A Frightening Thought

A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of performing a marriage. I will have that pleasure again in about 8 weeks. So why am I sad?

The simple answer is that these may be the last two weddings I perform in my life.

No, I am not dying, nor am I leaving the ministry. But I may be abandoning marriage as a legal institution.

This week a parishioner asked me directly if I would ever officiate a same sex-marriage ceremony. I said, equally directly, that no I never would. The Law may have a different view.

It is my hope that denominations would free themselves from any possibility of prosecution or persecution by simply getting out of the marriage business. The arrangement that denominations have with provinces regarding the registration of marriages that ministers solemnize is, to the best of my understanding, a voluntary one. That is, there is no legal requirement that ministers serve as agents of the state in performing a marriage ceremony. My thought is that ministers could continue to perform marriages "in the sight of God" that would be recognized by the churches. Couples would be therefore married in the eyes of God, if not that of the state.

But this week the thought crossed my mind that we ministers may not be permitted to disentangle ourselves so easily. It occurred to me that some might try to accuse ministers of an illegal activity. I know that this probably sounds alarmist, but hear me out. The federal and provincial governments have, with the passage of this Bill and existing jurisprudence, established that they alone have the right to define marriage, and have exclusive control over its solemnization. With that in mind, and assuming that churches do indeed get out of the "marriage business," I ask: If a minister performs a ceremony of marriage, calling it such, would that minister be guilty of performing an unauthorized service?

In a prior post I had said that the government ought have no more say over a marriage performed purely as a matter of religious observance than it does over baptism. Yet the state does claim exclusive right to control marriage. It makes no such claim to baptism.

So what will happen? I don't know. I am no lawyer. Nor am I prophet. But I am sad.

Why Is It So Hard To Understand?

One of the central issues of the Reformation is also a central issues of human eternal destiny: How does one get right with God?

In theological terms, this is called "justification." It's an ancient legal, or forensic, term that carries a very special meaning in the Bible. Our legal system really has no parallel for it. "acquitted," or "not guilty" comes close but doesn't quite capture it.

The situation that is envisaged in the Bible really is a mixture of what we would call legal and civil proceedings. A legal proceeding is one wherein a law has been broken, and the alleged perpetrator is before judge or jury to determine guilt or innocence. In a civil proceeding, the judge chooses between two parties, one who has been harmed in some way, and the one who has allegedly done the harm.

According to the Bible we are judged by God for our sins, which are at the same time matters of breaking God's Law, and a matters of causing harm to God. One trial, one judgment, speaks to both the "judicial" and "civil" elements.

It would be, in our society, a gross miscarriage of justice for the victim to be the judge in either case, let alone both. We would assume impartiality to be impossible, and that this "justice" is little more than vigilantism.

What then are we to say when it is made clear to us that through faith we are justified by God? As I said earlier, the words we typically apply, "acquitted" and "not guilty," are insufficient. Those terms suggest that we in ourselves are found to be innocent. That isn't the case; if it were then no one would be punished. Yet Christ died for our sins. Clearly in the matter of our sins, we are found guilty. The reason we are not punished though is Christ Jesus. He took our penalty upon Himself. In that process we received his righteousness, and that is stronger than just innocence. Innocence connotes the mere absence of evil, but righteousness gives the idea of having been obedient.

That's what happens when we believe in Jesus Christ. When we trust Him to bear our punishment for us, we find that He did just that. We also find that God declares that we have not been disobedient, but we have been actively obedient to His will, in all ways, and in all things. Our obedience is found to be perfect, because that's the obedience that Jesus had.

Now since that obedience is perfect, there is nothing we can do to add to it. Nothing at all. And it doesn't matter if our obedience from the point of belief onward is not perfect; all our failures were born by Jesus on the Cross, even the ones that follow that moment of faith.

That doesn't mean though that we can just live however and get away with it. The fact is that when you are justified, your whole life orientation changes; you want to serve and please God. Your lifestyle will reflect that inevitably. There is no going back to the old way because you don't want to go back. Sure, there may be moments when you feel like it, but over the long run your life will be characterized by obedience to God, not sin.

So it happens that when the Final Judgment comes, God can say what he already said; you are justified, righteous. He said you were when you believed, and because of that, your life since gives evidence of it.

This is how the Reformation has come to understand the answer to the question: How do you get to be right with God? I confess I don't understand why so many don't believe when they have it explained to them. I don't understand why so many who are Christians don't accept it, but would rather try to add to Jesus' obedience with some of their own.

Maybe its just because I've studied the question so long. Maybe.

The Day After

So last night the bill to legalize same sex marriages was passed in the House of Commons. You would think that the world should be ending, or at the very least that Canada would be dramatically changed.

It isn't however, and I think for good reasons. First and foremost is the fact that the bill simply codifies what has been, via jurisprudence, the law of the land for some time now. Then there is the fact that over the course of the entire debate, public opinion has not changed at all; most people still prefer the traditional definition. The fact of this bill becoming law is not likely to change that.

It is likely that whatever changes do come about as a result of the passage of this legislation are likely to take years to be felt fully. Some things I can see happening:

1. Denominations in the free church tradition will experience splits or slips. There are already rumblings that rogue, or "free thinking" ministers will want to marry same sex couples, regardless of denominational beliefs or policy statements. This will test the resolve, internal discipline, and unity of several denominations. Either they will discipline the ministers and the congregations who want to head in that direction, meaning suspension of denominational credentials and membership, or they will compromise.

2. A large percentage of Christian denominations, if not of faith communities generally, will get out of the marriage business. Marriage ceremonies will be performed, but no longer will ministers register them for the government. That function is voluntary, and only matters if the couple wishes their marriage recognized by the government. There are favorable tax implications to not registering the marriage, and there is no legal obligation to do so, thus no issue of failing to submit to authorities is involved. Couples would be free to register their marriage so via a justice of the peace at their option in any case. Spousal benefits are not at risk since the government accepts all conjugal cohabitation arrangements as defacto common law marriages.

3. In fact getting out of the legal marriage business may be the only way for churches to avoid prosecution in the future. If marriage in churches is strictly a religious matter independent from, if parallel to, the legal institution, then it would seem impossible for churches to be sued for discrimination. It would simply be a matter of the church separating from the state, and removing itself from the state's jurisdiction. The state has no say on whom churches may baptize, so making marriage a purely religious ceremony should provide the church a similar jurisdictional hedge. Strange as it may sound, the best way for marriage to be preserved in the church may be for the church and state to amicably divorce over what can only be called irreconcilable differences on the point of the definition of marriage.

There is however one change that has become immediately apparent; Prime Minister Martin is decidedly more cocky than he was yesterday. Today he dared Opposition Leader Stephen Harper to overturn the newly passed bill. The way he id it though was utterly dishonest. Martin essentially said that if Harper wanted to go to an election on the issue of using the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to overturn the law, then he was ready for that. The problem is that Harper has consistently stated he supports the creation of a parallel institution for same sex couples. That would not involve the use of the notwithstanding clause at all, just a good old fashioned amendment bill.

Of course it is more politically expedient to try to paint the opposition as a radical fringe that will go to the extreme.

That is an old tactic of the Liberals. In that regard, nothing has changed.

A slightly technical quiz

You scored as Karl Barth. The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology. Karl Barth 93% Anselm 87% John Calvin 80% Martin Luther 73% Jonathan Edwards 67% Charles Finney 53% J�rgen Moltmann 53% Friedrich Schleiermacher 40% Augustine 33% Paul Tillich 0% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

I sin. I don't know too many people who would say otherwise. It isn't something I am proud of, nor something I enjoy even admitting. Every once in a while though it is wortwhile to remember that I am really no better than anyone else, and in some ways worse, than those around me. Its good for the ego.

I really appreciate how Paul calls himself the chief of sinners, not becuase I am a masochist who likes to beat himself up, ut simply because it helps me keep God's grace in perspective. It can be very easy to forget that what you have and are is a gift of grace. I don't deserve the intelligence, the gifts, the family, the ministry that I have. But as Paul said its all about grace, and God's grace has not been without effect.

I often wish it were of greater effect than it has been; I would like to be more of what I one day will be right now. Patience is hard. But I know the time will come. I just need to trust and obey.

So what's a right anyway?

It's odd but just about anything is considered a right these days. One seemingly can assert that they have a right to something and support it with nothing other than gratuitous slogans such as the Young Liberals did in wearing buttons that read "It's the Charter Stupid!."

Now, I delpore such argumentation, simply because it assumes so much and says so little. What does it mean to say a thing is a Charter Right? It seems to me that a Charter Right is little more than a legal fiction. The Rights we see being "won" today are won on the basis of legal argumentation not ethical, moral, or philosophical vision. In short if you can win the legal battle you have won a right. This however strikes me as little more than opportunism. Your chances of winning a legal battle depend on timing and who the Supreme Court Justices are. Hardly stirring stuff.

To my mind, it should be that principes that really matter, rights that really are rights, stir the passion and move the soul. Surely the "right" for two people of the same gender to engage in some perversion of God's ordinance of marriage is not to be considered on the same level as the grat fight for freedom of slaves, or the freedom from bondage and tyranny.

Where are the grand principles that guide a nation? They are absent. It seems that the great battles of the past, such as are enshrined in such landmark documents as the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independance are gone. These were issues that could rally the spirit. Freedom from tyranny. Now all we have are a series of far less substantial rights, ones are but motes in the eye comapred to those former rights.

If this is what we are reduced to then surely we are bankrupt as a society, philosophically and intellectually.

A Dubious Potential First

When I was a boy, growing up in Ottawa, I would occasionaly get to see the Changing of the Guard. For those of you who don't know, that's when a troop of soldiers in the traditional red surcoats and bearskin hats marches from the Governor General's residence, acccompanied by a band, in order to relieve another troop.

This all happens duing the summer when temperatures cn reach 30-35 degrees Celsius. Now take into consideration the uniforms, especially the bearskin hats (no fans), and you can understand why they have ambulances standing by for those who faint due to the heat.

So why do I bring this up? Because today I am performing an outdoor wedding, with no shade, in a black suit, and it is supposed to reach 35 degrees Celsius. Factor in the humidity, and it will feel something like 40 degrees Celsius, or 105 Farenheit.

There will be no ambulances, but I dread being possibly the first minister needing to be dragged off the field...

Ok, not really. But I really don't look forward to all the sweating. Ew.

Go-Go's on My Mind

Yes the Go-Go's are on my mind. No, not because its an all girl band. I am not one of those who in the 80s who thought Belinda Carlisle was all that. (Acually I was kind of partia to Jane Wiedlin. She made a great Joan of Arc in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.)

No, the reason that I have the Go-Go's on my mind is because of a particular tune of theirs.

Sing along now (or hum):

Vacation, all I ever wanna do.
Vacation, have to get away.
Vacation, meant to be spent alone.

Yes I have scheduledmyself a vacation. Part of it will be spent withthe family, but, being in some desperate ned of some alone time (even us extroverts need solitude once ina while) I will spend from 11th to the 13th of July all by myself. I am hoping to camp at Tukey Point Campground, just me, my Bible, and my golf clubs. NO WORK.

Well, I am off to book a campsite!

My wife insists that there is value in having lists of things to do. She often speaks of the satisfaction derived from being able to strike off an item from a list. Well, that may be true, but I have to say that the joy of striking off one thing is mitigated somewhat wwhen the list is long.

As you might guess, my list this week is very long.

It is at times like this that I am thankful that Jesus was able to take time amidst a very demanding ministry to pray. If He were more like the White Rabbit from Alice in Wonderland, I think I'd be frazzelled. Can you imagine Jesus looking at a watch and saying "I'm late!"?

Jesus was never late. He was rather more like Gandalf the Grey, who said that a wizard is never late, but arrives precisely when he intends to.

If only my deadlines were amenable to that kind of thinking.

A Technical Point About Baptism

Well, it is technical, but it is also a vital point.

Being broadly Reformed in my theology, and yet a committed adherent to the biblical doctrine of Believer's baptism (credobaptism), I sometimes have to deal with the arguments that some put forth in favour of Infant Baptism from a Reformed Protestant perspective.

Recently I have been reading a discussion wherein a Presbyterian is arguing for "Baptismal Forgiveness/Justification." I won't go into teh details, but it is interesting to me that this Presbyterian does seek to answer the question "What does Baptism do?" At this point it is a good idea to quote Wayne Grudem:

"Roman Catholics have aclear answer to this question: Baptism causes regeneration. And Baptists have a clear answer: Baptism symbolizes the fact that inward regeneration has occured. But paedobaptists cannot adopt either of these answers. They do not want to say that baptism causes regeneration, nor are they able to say (with respect to infants) that it symbolizes a regeneration that has already occurred. The only alternative seems to be to say that it symbolizes a regeneration that will occur in the future, when the infant is old enough to come to saving faith. But even that is not quite accurate, because it si not certain that the infant will be regenerated in the future-some infants who are baptized never come to saving faith later. So the most accurate paedobaptist explanation of what baptism symbolizes is that it symbolizes probable future regeneration. It does not cause regeneration, nor does it symbolize actual regeneration; therfore it be understood as symbolizing probable regeneration at some time in the future.

But at this point it seems apparent that the paedobaptist understanding of baptism is quite different from that of th New Testament. The New Testament never views baptism as something that symbolizes a probable future regeneration. .. This is simply not the way the New Testament speaks of baptism. Baptism in the New Testament is a sign of being born again, being cleansed from sin, and beginning the Christian life. "

It seems to me that two things are happenning in the discussion with the Presbyterian. One is that he is adopting a view that is not actually Reformed. His view seems closer to the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, or Lutheran. That it is very akin to Lutheranism may be the most accurate since the Presbyterian has cited Luther often in his comments.

But here is the secnd thing that I see happening. The Presbyterian seems keen on denying Reformed Baptists the title of being "Reformed" because they stream from the "Radical Reformation," regardless of the fact that the only point of differnece between their beliefs and those of Calvin is in the area of Baptism, and of course the related issue of Covenant Theology. But Prebyterians also disagree with Lutherans on the issue of regeneration, as Lutherans hold that regeneration actually occurs at baptism. Is this not a double standard? Is no the difference between Luteran and Reformed views of baptism not great enough for Lutherans to not be "Reformed" (which the Pesbyterian sometimes broadens to refer to "major" groups arising out of the Reformation, and sometimes narrows to "pure" Reformed theology)? Or is the fact that Reformed Baptists come from Anabaptism merely a comfortable pretext which allows the Presbyterian to pick and choose those whom he considers Reformed?

We'll see how the conversation unfolds.

For Isaac and Joel

I have memories of childhood
Images of happy times
So scarce I scarcely remember

I look to my children's childhood
Unfolding like a flower
In the warm morning sun

I pray for plentiful memories of play
Of happiness in bloom
No mourning sons.

Always thinking of the long run
A telescopic visionary
Missing the forest for the horizon

Seeking insights into the distant future
I fear being blind to distance
That being absent from the present creates

Lord God grant that I guide
As I walk at your side
And lead my sons as I am lead

2 Signs That People are Depraved, Sick, and Stupid

These are the sorts of events that drive parents who really love their kids crazy. Is there anyone who seriously doubts that the doctrine of Sin is anything less than completely true?

Cabbie Rage

Whose Fault Is It Anyway?

Some Random Thoughts

1. Why is it that people who say that "gender doesn't matter" when it comes to leadership positions in a church are the first to insist that both genders have to be represented? Either it matters or it doesn't.
   
2. "Star Wars 3: Revenge of the Sith" reminded me that I really need to love God more than anything I have.
3. You know that sex has saturated the culture when your 6 year-old comes home saying there is a girl in his class who wants to "hump."
4. You can't afford to be too French (ie. talking with your hands) with people who don't understand "personal space." Too much accidental contact involved.
   
5. I never thought I'd see the day when I would want to preach just because the pulpit was right under the ceiling fan.
6. It is an odd feeling when you get a hug and slap from the same person for the same act. Talk about ambivalence!
7. Wendy's is definitely a better bargain than McDonlad's.
8. I get really annoyed with people who are younger than I am and think they are smarter for no reason other than that they are younger. My elders tell me I should just ignore them, but they're old. What do they know?
9. Having your kids fall asleep on your lap is really sweet. Except when the house is 85 degrees. Then its just sweat.
10. I don't actually have a 10th thought. I just wanted to get to 10.
    

Debate on Same-Sex Marriage

I have been listening to a debate dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage called "Breaking With Radition," found here. Now, I have only gotten about half way through it, but I must say that I have been left with some impressions, some good, and some bad.

On the positive side, I appreciate that Michael Coren, a defender of marriage, was able to effectively communicate that heterosexuals don't corner the market on bigotry and hatred. It is a good thing that we keep homosexuals in proper perspective, by which I mean that we see them as human beings fully capable of the same range of behaviors, positive and negative, as heterosexuals. That they have been greatly discriminated against there can be no debate. Yet we must resist the urge to develop a romanticised vision of homosexuals on that account so that they become inherently more virtuous, their cause inherently more just, than that of heterosexuals who defend marriage. Michael made himself something of a sympathetic figure, and, I think, leveled the rhetorical playing field somewhat in so doing.

On the negative side, I was saddened mainly by two related things. The first was that the proponent for same-sex marriage from the outset ratcheted up the emotional volume of the debate by casting himself and his cause in the victim's role, playing for sympathy, and elevating the role of emotion and denying the proper place of reason in what is already an emotional topic. Such placed Coren immediately in the position not only of having to defend marriage, but also of having to disassociate himself from others who may share his position on the issue of same-sex marriage, but few if any of principles.

The second thing that has disappointed me thus far has been the fact that there have indeed been those present who spoke in a way that fully justified the emotional characterizations that the proponent of same-sex marriage out forth. Now, one might well wonder why I was saddened by this. If one is cynical, then one might conclude that I was saddened to have been, in a sense, "outed," for having seen my camp portrayed in what some consider to be its true light. Those of a fairer frame of mind however might well recognize the truth: that I am saddened because debate ought to be the place where both sides put forth their best arguments, presented by their best representatives. Anything less than this fails to advance the discussion.

Again, I have only listened to about half the debate, so there is yet hope that the event will to some extent be redeemed. I' ill report back when I have finished listening.

Because someone asked...

http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/positionsummaries.pdf

This is a link to a pdf file that does a good job of providing an overview of rthe issus surrounding egalitarianism and complimetarianism.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310231957/qid=1118109296/sr=8-3/ref=pd_csp_3/103-5208224-1375007?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

This is a link to the book I most recommend for a discussion of the issues. Why do I recommend it? Well, it "presents two essays representing the complementarian/hierarchical view of women and ministry--one by a man and one by a woman--and two essays representing the egalitarian view of women and ministry--one by a man and one by a woman." I don't think you can get more balanced than that. Also it is a discussion of the contemporary issues, meaning it does not deal with points that both sides consider settled.

What I like in a good theology book

I read a lot of theology books. Mostly dealing with pastoral issues.

Now, some of you may be wondering what theology has to do with pastoral ministry. I can understand why you would wonder, since a lot of pastors don't care for theology, and are willing to downplay it. Myself, I find that a frightening state of affairs. I certainly am not one who defends "doctrinal detailism", but it is important for pastors to be well grounded in the how, why, and what of theology.

For instance, one of the hot button issues today is the role of women in ministry. I am of the opinion that a pastor should have reasons for holding a position that are based in the Bible first, and personal conviction second. Granted that every pastor would say they do that, I think it is prima facie true that all people also go looking for ways to have the Bible say what they want. I do not exclude myself from that.

That's why I like theology books that deal with these kinds of issues that follow a certain format. I am thinking particularly of Zondervan's "Counterpoints" series at this point, but there are books that follow this kind of format:

All sides are represented. Each side makes its best case, and has a chance to rebut all other contributions. The interaction is, I think, vital. When we read something we agree with, we think the arguments that support that position are unanswerable. It is valuable to see how they in fact can be answered. It keeps us humble. It seems to be too often the occurrence that a person will offer a point or argument in a way that suggests they think it has no answer. That has the effect of making the person offensive, and hence harming relationships. That has to be paramount since no discussion or debate should degenerate to the point where relationships are sacrificed on the altar of being right.

Another, related effect, is that it is likely that the argument will not get addressed. When you as a person offend, then your argument's merits are never considered. That may not be right, but it is how human nature works, and it is important to make that admission, or, if you prefer, that condescension.

So I highly recommend this format in theology books, particularly on contentious issues. It will help you gain a better respect for the people you disagree with, and their arguments.

So Why Am I Mennonite Brethren

when I have already stated that I stand largely in agreement with the distinctives of the Reformed faith?

Well, let me explain first that the M-Bs are anabaptist. The M-Bs are related to, and have been influenced by, baptistic thought. Hence there is baptism by immersion, and of beleivers. That eliminates my concerns about covenantal misunderstanding, and in fact places me in agreement with the MB polity as well.

Really, for someone with Calvanist leanings, the only real problem should be that anabaptism is historically arminian. It should also be a significant one. But it is not a problem, significant or otherwise.

The reason for that simply is M-B biblicism. The statement of faith sticks to biblical phrases, without getting into potentially contentious and controversial explanations of those phrases, which I appreciate. M-B approach to the Bible is inherently Christo-centric, which makes it a natural fit for Kingdom Theology, of which I am a big fan. The M-Bs also practice biblical interpretation in a believing commmunity context, so that is never the case that the individual interprets the Bible in a vacuum, but the individual interprets surrounded by the rest of the family. This means that M-Bs are willing to be influenced, but not overtaken, by new ideas.

Finally, the M-Bs are not opposed to Reformed theology as such, but rather to an emphasis on the soverignty of God that does not adequately make account for human responsibility. As one who holds that divine sovereignty and human responsibility are necessary complements, this is wonderful.

So if I were starting out again, I would start where I am now. Too bad it took so long to get here. God however has His reasons.

Your #1 Match: ENTP

The Visionary You are charming, outgoing, friendly. You make a good first impression. You possess good negotiating skills and can convince anyone of anything. Happy to be the center of attention, you love to tell stories and show off. You're very clever, but not disciplined enough to do well in structured environments. You would make a great entrpreneur, marketing executive, or actor.

Your #2 Match: INTP

The Thinker You are analytical and logical - and on a quest to learn everything you can. Smart and complex, you always love a new intellectual challenge. Your biggest pet peeve is people who slow you down with trivial chit chat. A quiet maverick, you tend to ignore rules and authority whenever you feel like it. You would make an excellent mathematician, programmer, or professor.

Your #3 Match: ENTJ

The Executive You are a natural leader - with confidence and strength that inspires others. Driven to succeed, you are always looking for ways to gain, power, knowledge, and expertise. Sometimes you aren't the most considerate person, especially to those who are a bit slow. You are not easily intimidated - and you have a commanding, awe-inspiring presence. You would make a great CEO, entrepreneur, or consultant.

What's Your Personality Type?

For you philosophers

You scored as Divine Command. Your life is directed by Divine Command: Your god and religion give you meaning and direction. “Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.” --King James Version of the Bible “Even as a tree has a single trunk but many branches and leaves, there is one religion--human religion--but any number of faiths.” --Mahatma Gandhi More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... Divine Command 95% Utilitarianism 75% Justice (Fairness) 65% Kantianism 65% Existentialism 60% Hedonism 45% Strong Egoism 15% Apathy 15% Nihilism 10% What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com

What about Eastern Orthodoxy?

What about it, indeed?

I know very little about Orthodoxy, really. I know that it can make a legitimate claim to being the real flagship of historic Christianity, as the RCC does. I know that it differs from Western Christianity in a number of ways, not least of which is the celebration of Easter.

One difference that is significant is the issue fo the filioque. That is the term gien to the western doctrine of "double procession," meaning that, as a matter of relationship, the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from both the Father and the Son. The Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds frm the Son.

Is that important? On the surface you would think it should be, what with it dealing with the nature of God. But I honestly don't see it being about the nature of God so much as a description of the internal relationships of the Trinity. I can't say I regard such a description as being a central element of the faith. Besides, I can't find much in the Bible that even speaks to the question of the filioque, let alone anything that supports it.

Yet there is also much about Orthdoxy that appeals to me. I like the way the colegial manner in which tye govern themselves. I appreciate that their theology generally deals with mystery; if you go to a service you will be struck with awe and wonder if you're not immediately confused by what you see. There is a greater sense of the sacred in an EO service than in your typical evangelical worship time. It is also somewhat darker, in many sense of that word.

In the end though, Eatern Orthdoxy is a bit to comfortable with the doctrinal developments that we see in the RCC for me to be comfortable with it. The Mariology is not as developed, neither is the doctrine of the saints. The fact that it deals with mystery makes it hesitant to affirm things that it is unsure of, but also makes it hesitant to deny things. When speaking of questionable matters, I am fine with the hesitancy to affirm, but the hestiancy to deny strikes me dangerous. In terms of guarding truth, the hesitation to deny error can be costly.

Just because so many people have asked...

You Are From Neptune

You are dreamy and mystical, with a natural psychic ability. You love music, poetry, dance, and (most of all) the open sea. Your soul is filled with possibilities, and your heart overflows with compassion. You can be in a room full of friendly people and feel all alone. If you don't get carried away with one idea, your spiritual nature will see you through anything.

What Planet Are You From?

Could I be Episcopalian/Anglican?

No, I don't think so.

It isn't that I have a visceral reaction against it; in fact I know relatively little about it.

I know that its beginnings are less than pious, with the motivations being more political than religious. I don't claim to be an authority of the history surrounding the founding of the Church of England, but what I do know suggests that covnenience and political expediency, rather than conviction were the prime movers. That does not autimatically rule out Anglicanism, mind, as it has surely outgrown those roots, but it does play in to my thinking.

I also of course have an issue with the practice that Anglicans have surrounding baptism. I cannot agree that infants are to be baptised. In the New Testament the pattern is, as far as I am concerned, baptism follows faith, without exception. I also have an issue with the mode of baptism, that is, by sprinkling as opposed to immersion. Even if we accept the argument that sprinkling has historically been accepted, going as far bacxk as the Didache, we have to ask the question: why was it accepted in the Didache? The answer is very practical: absence of water. If there was no water to immerse yo u spinkled, and, if water was that scarce, oil was permissible.

No one can claim that those practical reasons for allowing other modes besides immersion stand up today. One of the more vivid pictures I have in my mind is that of an Anglican church by the shore of the Bay of Fundy. A very natural baptistry right behind it, and still they sprinkled.

For me, baptism is an act that has great symbolic significance, much of which is lost if we use sprinkling rather than immersion. Sprinkling just does not convey as well what Paul speaks of in Romans 6.

So, with all that said, I really could not be an Anglican.

A Couple of Odds and.. Well, More Odds.

Your Linguistic Profile:

40% General American English

30% Yankee

20% Dixie

5% Midwestern

5% Upper Midwestern

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

You Will Die at Age 73

73 You're pretty average when it comes to how you live... And how you'll die as well.

What Age Will You Die?

You Are 29 Years Old

29 Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe. 13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world. 20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences. 30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! 40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.

What Age Do You Act?

Your Taste in Music:

Progressive Rock: Highest Influence

80's Alternative: High Influence

Classic Rock: High Influence

80's Pop: Medium Influence

80's R&B: Low Influence

80's Rock: Low Influence

Punk: Low Influence

How's Your Taste in Music?

Could I be Presbyterian?

No. That's a bit surprising.

You see, I am very sympathetic to much of Reformed or Calvanistic theology. I believe, for example, that every aspect of human nature has been corrupted by the Fall. I believe in inherited guilt and inherited corruption. (That would be the T in TULIP)

I also believe that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, so yes I affirm that God's election is unconditional (Ro. 11:29).

I do not affirm the "L" though. I believe that the atonement of Jesus was for the whole world, without exception. It is not applied to all however.

I affirm that the call of God is, logically, effectual, since it is also unconditional. When God calls someone, he does so at the perfect time, when their response will inevitably and only be "Yes God, Yes!" Tat would be the "I" (irresistible grace) in TULIP.

I also affirm that those who are called will persevere to the very end. They may have times when their obedience and sanctification are hard to see, but they will, over the long haul, show that their faith has the works that vindicate the Father's declaration, offered when an individual believes, that they are righteous in His sight.

So I affirm 4 out of 5 points in Calvanism. You would think that I would embrace Presbyterianism easily. But I don't.

That's because I feel that their view of the New Covenant is askew. That shows up most clearly in their approach to baptism. Presbyterian affirm baptism of infants, the logic being that New Testament baptism is parallel to Old Testament circumcision. I find this parallelism to be simply incorrect. There are several reasons, but I will restrict myself to three main ones.

1) Paul goes to great lengths to show that the outward sign of circumcision is of no account. One is not a Jew outwardly, but inwardly, and not on account of circumcision, but on account of a heart change wrought by the Holy Spirit.

2) In he Old Testament, circumcision was administered to anyone and everyone who wanted to be a citizen of Israel. Circumcision was administered regardless of religion. Non-believers were circumcised in the Old Testament. I defy anyone to show me in the New Testament a clear example of an unbeliever being granted baptism.

3) The only clear examples of people being baptized are of people who have previously professed faith. One can quibble about "households" if they like, but no one can say that those passages are "clear" examples of infant baptism in the same way that we have clear examples of believer's baptism.

What this means is that I am happy to affirm agreement with my Reformed brethren where I can, but I cannot join them in the Presbyterian church for the simple reason that the difference in understanding the New Covenant is too big an issue for me to overlook. That does not mean that the areas of agreement are unimportant, but that the area of disagreement is just as important to me.

Where would I go? Part 1

If I were starting my Christian walk now, knowing what I know, where would I go? What christian tradition would I choose to make my home in?

I know that can't happen, but let me specualte for a moment. I will do this in a series of posts and, at least for a while, explore the question negatively; where would I not go?

I could never go back to Roman Catholicism, the faith of my mother's mother, who was the single greatest influence on my spiritual development from within my family when I was a boy. That is by no means a disrespect to her; I continue to honour her memory and revere her as an example of what a person who is convicted of the truth of their beliefs shoudl be like. She was pious and faithful. Her faith was very much her life, not merely an appendage to it.

Nevertheless, I could never go Roman Catholic. That she was a great example of what it means to be true to ones faith does not change the fact that the faith she was true to was, and is, ultimately false. in too many respects. The non-biblical, and anti-biblical (yes, all "in my opinion") make such a move impossible. My convictions are such that I could not submit to Church Tradition (or tradition) as a control upon the meaning of Scripture. I accept it as an informer of the meaning, but that is not enough for Roman Catholicism. I am, at bottom, convinced of sola scriptura.

I fear I am also far too convinced that the idea of a state-church is wrong, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Roman Catholic Church, having once been that, and not having fundamentally changed in that respect over the years, needs only opportunity for it to become that again. The state-church ideal remains part of its ethos, dormant, but present.

Does that make me paranoid? Not really. I am not saying that I fear that such a turn of events is iminent. Nor am I suggesting there is a conspiracy of any kind to make it happen in apocalyptic fashion. I am simply saying that the idea inheres to Roman Catholicism, and it is anathema to sound biblical spirituality, faith, and practice.

Where else would I not go? See next time.

Who would have thought...

Which Extremity of the World Are You?
From the towering colossi at Rum and Monkey.

Internet Subculture???

Which internet subculture do I belong to? [CLICK] You are a Trekkie! It's a geek, Jim! You probably have a starfleet uniform and a tricorder. Bonus points if you speak klingon. One day you will walk down the aisle with your buttertroll trekkie partner, humming to the Yoyager theme. More Quizzes at Go-Quiz.com

I am not sure what a "file extension" is but...

Which File Extension are You?

Haven't you always wondered what OS I am?

Which OS are You?