Junk Drawer Spirtuality

The Path To Theological Liberalism . . .

I was reading Michael Patton's blog today and he made a comment that I thought was pretty interesting:

"In one of our annual two-day meetings about ten years ago, we got to discussing theological liberalism during lunch. . . . Most of the scholars on this committee were theologically liberal, and one of them casually mentioned that, as far as he was aware, 100% of all theological liberals came from an evangelical or fundamentalist background. I thought his numbers were a tad high since I had once met a liberal scholar who did not come from such a background. I’d give it 99%.  Whether it’s 99%, 100%, or only 75%, the fact is that overwhelmingly, theological liberals do not start their academic study of the scriptures as theological liberals. They become liberal somewhere along the road."

I thought that was an interesting observation.  Of course I'm not aware of any academic studies to verify the numbers (although that would be an interesting study), but at least from an observational perspective, it's sorta ironic that those who carry the torch for Biblical liberalism most highly originally cut their teeth on the theology designed to guard itself against liberalism.  I mean, what is fundamentalism or evangelicalism if there is no liberalism or modernism?

I think the common assumption is that theological liberals become liberals because they're too close to liberal areas of the country/ liberal academic institutions/ liberal churches/ liberal parents, and not grounded enough in good old fashioned evangelicalism.  If Patton's right, it makes you wonder #1, how good a job evangelicalism is doing in really grounding people in good theology in a way that's defensible.  or #2, How important are the categories to begin with?   

"Does Satan Exist?" The Nightline Debate

I recorded it on my DVR last week, but I was watching basketball, so I couldn't watch it when it aired.  But tonight, I finally got the opportunity to watch the "NIghtline Face-Off" debate on the question "Does God Exist?"

I'll be honest. . . the only reason I was interested in watching this debate was for the sheer gluttonous entertainment value of watching Mark Driscoll debate Deepak Chopra.  For a theology nerd like myself, entertainment doesn't get any better than that.  As far as how challenging the debate was for either the debaters or the audience, I'd say it was sub-par and flawed from the beginning. 

Bad News

I am definintely not a doomsday prophet, "the world's going to hell in a handbasket," kind of guy.  I'm usually the guy looking for the silver lining.  I'm usualy the one saying, "things might SEEM bad, but it's really probably not all that different than how it usually is, or how it was back then, or we're only hearing about the bad stuff . . ."

But my gosh . . . is it just me or is the amount and intensity of the violence and evil we're seeing in the news reaching crazy levels?  My web-browser home page is CNN.com, and on the front page of CNN's homepage are these news headlines:

Is John Calvin Changing the World?

I just read a Time Magazine article in their latest issue titled, "10 Ideas Changing The World Right Now."  Now, after examining the other nine ideas, scratching my head thinking, "Is that really changing the world?" I suppose "the New Calvinism" isn't too far of a stretch.  But there it is. . . number 3 on the list. . . "The New Calvinism."  Time is referring to the recent popularity of "Reformed" gurus John Piper and Mark Driscoll, and the churches emerging (no pun intended) from their ministries.

So this introduces 3 big questions for me with regard to this article.  First, by who's definition is the theology espoused by Driscoll and Piper new?  Calvinist?  Yes.  New?  I don't see it.  If somebody can, I'd be more than willing to listen, but as far as I can tell, Driscoll's and Piper's theology is the same Calvinism we've been hearing since Jonathan Edwards.  The only thing different is the music and the dress code.

Second question . . . Other than Mars Hill and Bethlehem Baptist, which pastors, churches, writers, or thinkers, are elevating this "New Calvinism" to such rock star status?  The largest and most popular church in America is still (by far) Lakewood church in Houston - a church that is about as far removed from John Calvin as one could get.  And even beyond Osteen, it appears to me that some of the largest and most influential churches within Evangelicalism include churches like Mars Hill Seattle, but Mars Hill Grand Rapids seems to be having just as wide of an impact with a different set of Doctrines.  The point is, they're doing great stuff. but I don't see any basis for believing that this theology has suddenly rocketed to an exclusively influential position within Evangelical thought. 

Third question. . . Who decided that "New Calvinism" is "changing the world?"  I could be convinced that evangelicalism is changing the world (with lots of numbers and pie charts).  I could be convinced that certain movements within evangelicalism are changing the world (movements toward global concerns, social justice, etc.).  But Neo-Calvinism?  Somebody enlighten me please.  

Mark Driscoll On CNN

Just saw this interview on CNN tonight.  D.L. Hughley (how he got a show on CNN, I have no idea), interviewed Mark with respect to Valentines Day and how Mark talks about sex at Mars Hill so openly and freely.  Driscoll does an amazing job.  I know he's a guy most people either love or hate, but in this interview he rocked.  The guy's so cool in these kinds of situations, I'm sick with envy, and next to D.L. Hughley, he looked like the most articulate, logical, and educated guy on the planet.

Historically Inaccurate Christmas Carols

Not to be too much of a Scrooge, but it is interesting to look at the Christmas Carols many of us can sing from memory and compare the details of those early songs to the Biblical and Theological history from which they derive.  I thought this was an interesting article looking at the "Top Eight Historically Incorrect Christmas Songs."

The Cockney Bible

I was just reading a BBC article about new Bible versions and translations that are being marketed to reach new crowds.  There's a coffee-table book version of the Bible, a Manga Bible (that's Japanese animation for those who don't know), but I discovered a new Bible translation that was produced in 2001 that got me really, really excited-- The Bible in Cockney.

If you're unfamiliar with the term "cockney," it's an east London dialect that was made famous in movies such as "Oliver Twist."  You know . . . "Why, 'ello guvna."  They actually made a Bible translation written in Cockney dialect.  In it, Jesus feeds "five thousand geezers" with "five loaves of Uncle Fred and two Lillian Gish."  Needless to say, I went to Amazon.com immediately and ordered it. 

On Being a Progressive Thinker in a Traditional Church

There's an interesting blog discussion going on today on Scot McKnight's blog.  Scot McKnight is a New Testament professor from the area, an accomplished author and an academic advocate in the Emerging Church movement.  A young pastor wrote him a letter asking his advice on what to do if you're a progressive thinking, emerging, youth pastor in a more traditional church that tends to frown on thinking that colors outside of the lines.

I don't know that I would classify myself or ever will classify myself as "emergent" but I certainly know the feeling of being at odds with certain streams within the church in which I'm employed.  I've been there, and it's tough.  There's a continual awkward tension of trying to teach with conviction and honesty, always knowing that if you stray too far from the party line, you could get shot for mutiny.  But there was one comment on this blog post that I found to be especially profound concerning this topic.  Here was the comment:

"When I started to feel emerging leanings, it became so enticing to become cocky and let everyone know anytime I disagreed with a conservative pastor about something. It’s easy and sexy to do, but somewhere along the way, I quickly forgot the importance of submitting to Spiritual authority. Preach with conviction, but submit to authority- if you can’t do both, then it may be time to move on."

Simple, humble, and wise. 

Sarah Palin and Complimentarian America

There is an interesting discussion currently going on in some Christian blogging circles concerning the candidacy of Sarah Palin for Vice President of the United States.  Of course, Palin is Republican, and she holds opinions that represent the more conservative, traditional platform of the Republicans . . . a platform to which conservative evangelicals have flocked in droves over the past 30 years.  But, she is also a woman.

Why might that be a problem for some evangelicals Christians?  Well, here's the theological breakdown. 

Defining The Emerging Church

I stumbled across this pdf from C. Michael Patton's blog on the emerging church.  I like this guy.  I think he's pretty fair and level-headed, even if you don't completely agree with him on everything.  Anyway, this is his take on the emerging church for better or worse.  I think he does a pretty good job.

Download Would_the_Real_Emerger_Please_Stand_Up.pdf

Bishop N.T. Wright & Stephen Colbert

One of my favorite theologians, N.T. Wright (does the fact that I have a favorite theologian make me akin to a person who spends his weekends playing World of Warcraft?) went on Stephen Colbert's show on Comedy Central a few days ago.  If you don't know either of those people this might not be so interesting to you, but Wright was promoting his latest and much acclaimed book Surprised By Hope where he discusses the subject of the afterlife.  It's interesting that Wright was given a venue to discuss such subject-matter on the Colbert Report, a fairly sarcastic, but pretty funny show (click here for a link to the interview).

Wright has, for some reason, become the unofficial theologian of the young, hip, Evangelical Pastor . . . the kind of pastor that wears thick-framed glasses, owns a mac, drives a hybrid, and drinks herbal tea. 

10 Reasons Men Should Not Be Allowed In Ministry

For those of you familiar with the debate on women in ministry, you might find this top 10 list pretty funny.  I found it on another blog.  Enjoy!

10. A man’s place is in the army.

9. The pastoral duties of men who have children might distract them from the responsibility of being a parent.

8. The physique of men indicates that they are more suited to such tasks as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do ministerial tasks.

7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football and basketball games demonstrates this.

5. Some men are handsome, and this will distract women worshipers.

4. Pastors need to nurture their congregations. But this is not a traditional male role. Throughout history, women have been recognized as not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are prone to violence. No really masculine man wants to settle disputes except by fighting about them. Thus they would be poor role models as well as dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was betrayed by a man. His lack of faith and ensuing punishment remind us of the subordinated position that all men should take.

1. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep sidewalks, repair the church roof, and perhaps even lead the song service on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the church.

Bibles Are Like Dynamite

I was talking to someone last night who is relatively new in her faith.  She just read through the book of Matthew, the first time she's ever done anything like that.  I said "That's great.  What's the biggest thing you learned from it."  She said, "Jesus wasn't like I expected him to be.  Like, he was kind of mean to people."  She was talking about the times when he seemingly berates the disciples, and calls people hypocrites, and broods of vipers, etc., which truthfully is not a small part of the Gospels.  I thought about it, and I said something like, "Yeah, the Jesus of the Bible isn't exactly the placid, Dalai Lama-type Jesus we're sometimes told he is.  He's loving, but he also had alittle bit of an edge to him."

Now I think that this person is mature enough to move on and keep reading her Bible 'cause that's kinda how she is.  But I was wondering today about how I could better prepare people for the Bible.  Really.  We always say to people, "You need to start reading your Bible," and tell them you need to do that in order to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, but how much of the Bible is the least bit understandable to the average person with no background in Ancient Near Eastern Culture? 

People can probably get through most of Genesis, although there are some pretty difficult stories to understand there too (The rape of Dinah, Lot's incestuous rendevous with his daughters).  Exodus through Deuteronomy has plenty of examples of God laying the smackdown on the Israelites, which seem pretty archaic and malicious to modern ears, not to mention the pages and pages of ancient laws concerning how to sacrifice your goat, and what to do if you have a skin disease.  You've got the genocides in Joshua, the gruesome stories of Judges (like the levite and the concubine), Ecclesiastes, Job, the prophets-- these aren't easy books to read.  Then consider the difficult and pointed statements of Jesus in the synoptics, the pseudo-chauvinistic language of Paul, and let's not forget Revelation.  In the end, I wonder how many of us, when we say, "You should read your Bibles," really mean, "You should read the book of John and maybe 4 or 5 epistles."  Everyone always says, "When you start reading your Bible don't start with the Old Testament."  It's like we know that people aren't prepared to read it.  And let's be honest, one read through the New Testament isn't going to give you much help when you're knee deep in Leviticus.

The point is, I'm not sure modern evangelical churches are doing a good enough job preparing people to read their Bibles to do the typical evangelical guilt-trip that everyone should be reading their Bibles every single day.  On the flip side, we don't want to revert to the old pre-protestant "only the holy or select few get to read and interpret the Bible," but it may be wise to change our approach too.  I wonder if we need to start treating the Bible more like dynamite.  It can do alot of good and can be very powerful, but you need at least alittle instruction to handle it well.  The Bible can do alot of good but it can do alot of damage too, and we need to teach people how to handle it with care.  Just thinking and blogging at the same time.  What do you think?

               

Why did Jesus fold the Napkin?

Saturday night, I was talking with Tim Sutherland (the Teaching Team Leader at CCC) after the service in Romeoville when a woman walked over and asked him a question about Jesus' "head napkin."  She'd recieved one of those mass emails someone wrote about the head napkin placed on Jesus' head at his burial, and the account from John that the disciples had found it neatly folded (John 20:7).  I only heard part of the question then, so I didn't totally follow, but I got that email from someone this morning, so I thought I'd check it out.

The writer of this email says that the fact that Jesus nicely folded the "napkin" (or the head covering) when he was resurrected holds special significance relating back to an ancient Hebrew dinner tradition.  Apparently, if a master bundled up his "napkin" at the dinner table and throws it on the table, he's finished with this meal, and the servant can take his plate.  If he folds it neatly, and places it on the table before getting up from the table, the servant knows the master isn't done and that (here's the important part) "he's coming back."  Soooo. . . The idea is that Jesus was sending a message to his disciples through the folded napkin of his future second coming.

Good interpretation or bad?  This is the first time I've heard of this one, so I'm not totally sure about the whole napkin folding at the dinner table thing.  Maybe it's a Hebrew tradition, maybe not.  I think Chrysostom (an early church father) had the better explanation. though  He thought John made mention of the fact that the napkin was folded to demonstrate that the tomb had not been robbed of the body by bandits.  Robbers wouldn't have taken the time to strip the body of it's linens and remove the face cloth and then nicely roll it up in a corner.  This was done by Jesus to demonstrate the fact that he was no longer bound by the grave.  Compare the Lazarus account when Lazarus walked out of his tomb with his grave clothes still on and the face cloth wrapped around his head.  Jesus had to say, "Unbind him and let him go." (jn. 11:44).  Jesus, on the other hand walked out of the grave unbound.  That, to me, seems to be the point-- not the second coming.