Book burning seldom ends well, it seems to me.
A North Carolina Church plans to burn modern bible translations on Halloween - only the KJV is inspired it seems, and that is, moreover, both inerrant and infalible, at least for the English-speaking world. They're going to burn books by other authors, too. The words of well-known heretics like Billy Graham and Rick Warren will be surrendered to the flames (barbeque to follow). And even, it seems, Mark Driskol (sic) comes under a firey sentence. Aw, c'mon: Confessions of a Reformission Rev wasn't that bad.
2009/10/16
2009/10/13
signs and ...
I feel as if I need to say more about belief ... but meanwhile, the Telegraph has a long-running collection of amusing signs. This 
week they have a special religous collection. Enjoy.
week they have a special religous collection. Enjoy.
2009/10/07
belief
Peter Rollins writes some pretty challenging stuff: challenging to understand, and then more, too.
His recent post One day I hope to believe in God… is no exception. He reports that a BBC interviewer asked whether he believed in God, and his response is/was to deconstruct the question. The deconstruction is challenging to follow, for those of us not well-versed in philosophical linguistics (and a goodly proportion of the blog commenters are all at sea, it seems).
And I'm torn: on the one hand, I have much sympathy with the approach: 'I believe in God' is a hugely nuanced statement, and not one against which I simply want to put a tick. I believe in a great many things. And the extent to which those beliefs has an effect varies hugely.
But on the other hand, this feels like splitting hairs: Bill Clinton attempted to make an argument based on a question about what the meaning of 'is' is: and everyone laughed. Most people imagine they understand what 'Do you believe in God?' means: and would expect it to allow a yes/no answer. Is it arrogant, elitist, or gnostic, to suggest otherwise? Is doing so a sign of great insight, or a sign of philosophical study having disappeared up its own rear end?
His recent post One day I hope to believe in God… is no exception. He reports that a BBC interviewer asked whether he believed in God, and his response is/was to deconstruct the question. The deconstruction is challenging to follow, for those of us not well-versed in philosophical linguistics (and a goodly proportion of the blog commenters are all at sea, it seems).
And I'm torn: on the one hand, I have much sympathy with the approach: 'I believe in God' is a hugely nuanced statement, and not one against which I simply want to put a tick. I believe in a great many things. And the extent to which those beliefs has an effect varies hugely.
But on the other hand, this feels like splitting hairs: Bill Clinton attempted to make an argument based on a question about what the meaning of 'is' is: and everyone laughed. Most people imagine they understand what 'Do you believe in God?' means: and would expect it to allow a yes/no answer. Is it arrogant, elitist, or gnostic, to suggest otherwise? Is doing so a sign of great insight, or a sign of philosophical study having disappeared up its own rear end?
cognitive dissonance
2 Timothy 3:16,17 TNIV
Judges 21:20-23
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God’s people a may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Judges 21:20-23
So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, then rush from the vineyards and each of you seize a wife from the young women of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin. When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us a kindness by helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war, and you are innocent, since you did not give your daughters to them.’ ”
So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.
2009/09/23
The Condomization of the Church
Fulcrum is a curious confection. It arose, as I recall, when Anglicans were at their most bitterly divisive over the proposed episcopal ordination of Jeffrey John. It's not the home of the most strident conservative evangelical Anglicans; but its evangelical-ness is quite strong. There is some thoughtful and rigorous thinking there - typified by writings of Andrew Goddard: his review of Andrew Marin's, Love is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community is by turns careful, sensitive, and wise. I probably agree with Andrew (Goddard) less than when we were both students, but his contributions are excellent.
I reproduced the title of a recent article as my title here. It's not a term you expect to find in an Evangelical journal, especially not with the article complaining at some length about a phenomeon the author calls "floaters". The thesis of the article, I think, is that people are not committed any more, like they once were. Just as condoms promote apparently consequence-free sex, so consumerism has infected our perception of the norms of doing church, leading to a self-centred attitude to church as a mere supplier of religious services.
The thing is, despite the arresting title, that doesn't seem a very startling or striking conclusion. Isn't this the whole "Generation X" story? It's a problem if you are running an institution. He says it's a problem because it denies the gospel:
The jury still seems to be out (and probably will be for the rest of my life) on how big a sea-change we are seeing in the western church right now: if we overlook the argument that no decent English word should have more than four syllables, who's to say whether or not condomization is a good thing - or maybe we have just to look at a bigger picture.
I reproduced the title of a recent article as my title here. It's not a term you expect to find in an Evangelical journal, especially not with the article complaining at some length about a phenomeon the author calls "floaters". The thesis of the article, I think, is that people are not committed any more, like they once were. Just as condoms promote apparently consequence-free sex, so consumerism has infected our perception of the norms of doing church, leading to a self-centred attitude to church as a mere supplier of religious services.
The thing is, despite the arresting title, that doesn't seem a very startling or striking conclusion. Isn't this the whole "Generation X" story? It's a problem if you are running an institution. He says it's a problem because it denies the gospel:
I can't help thinking that he just has a mind-set-mismatch. Despite having an exceptionally conventional career path (two plus years on the other side of the world notwithstanding), and being typically a stable and static individual, the GenX thing speaks to me: life just isn't so fixed any more. Things are different. People are different. This is both good and bad: but hand-wringing and saying we wish people would behave a little more like they used to, really isn't going to get us anywhere.Our condomized culture has learned to think of its relationships and commitments to core values as disposable. Of course, it’s impossible to reconcile such a value system with the demands of the gospel. So, while I appreciate my friend’s worry about the Church’s ability to satisfy the demands of the floating generation, I am confident that the solution does not consist of the Church adapting to the culture in areas where it is the culture itself that is sick.
Rather, the vocation of the Church is to be that alternative community that embodies Christ in its common life, even when that life may seem archaic, exclusive, and unloving to the world.
The jury still seems to be out (and probably will be for the rest of my life) on how big a sea-change we are seeing in the western church right now: if we overlook the argument that no decent English word should have more than four syllables, who's to say whether or not condomization is a good thing - or maybe we have just to look at a bigger picture.
2009/09/20
faithfulness
So, we're studying Judges, as I mentioned.
One of its recurring themes is that the Israelites kept forgetting God and being unfaithful - and he kept sending leaders to bring them back to the truth. The "obvious" application is that we too must beware being unfaithful to the truth. I made that conclusion dissolve in my Powerpoint, replaced by a caption saying "we are not Bronze-age hill-fort dwellers". But it deserves attention.
And yet, what does faithfulness entail? Behaving with 50s morality? Holding Victorian attitudes? Is faithfulness all about condemning stuff? The Israelites were condemned for adopting the lifestyle - including the worship - of those around them. And elsewhere we read that
But that's simplistic. Where's the Christlike-ness in condemning people whom you haven't tried to understand? In which ways should we be distinctive? With poor poetry and worse music? With an isolationist stance which spreads neither salt nor light in our communities? By ignoring research in history, archeology, biology, psychology? By saying that the old ways were better?
No, of course not. The Israelites' failure to be faithful was expressed in the fact that they did evil in the sight of God. How do we tell good from evil? By its fruit, perhaps? What kind of fruit does God look for? Good news for the poor? Freedom for the prisoners? Recovery of sight for the blind? Release for the oppressed? The proclamation of the Lord's favour? The idea of putting this into practice seems alarmingly alien to Christian ears, if I'm honest.
God is faithful: how are we doing with the faithfulness thing?
One of its recurring themes is that the Israelites kept forgetting God and being unfaithful - and he kept sending leaders to bring them back to the truth. The "obvious" application is that we too must beware being unfaithful to the truth. I made that conclusion dissolve in my Powerpoint, replaced by a caption saying "we are not Bronze-age hill-fort dwellers". But it deserves attention.
And yet, what does faithfulness entail? Behaving with 50s morality? Holding Victorian attitudes? Is faithfulness all about condemning stuff? The Israelites were condemned for adopting the lifestyle - including the worship - of those around them. And elsewhere we read that
friendship with the world means enmity against GodThe call to faithfulness is a call to distinctiveness.
But that's simplistic. Where's the Christlike-ness in condemning people whom you haven't tried to understand? In which ways should we be distinctive? With poor poetry and worse music? With an isolationist stance which spreads neither salt nor light in our communities? By ignoring research in history, archeology, biology, psychology? By saying that the old ways were better?
No, of course not. The Israelites' failure to be faithful was expressed in the fact that they did evil in the sight of God. How do we tell good from evil? By its fruit, perhaps? What kind of fruit does God look for? Good news for the poor? Freedom for the prisoners? Recovery of sight for the blind? Release for the oppressed? The proclamation of the Lord's favour? The idea of putting this into practice seems alarmingly alien to Christian ears, if I'm honest.
God is faithful: how are we doing with the faithfulness thing?
2009/09/14
RYT: Bart Campolo
I've been really impressed with the short videos at Recycle Your Faith (h/t: Nick). In production values, they are reminiscent of Nooma: contemporary, sharp, and high quality. They're much shorter than Rob Bell's insights - and without quite the range of visuals or music.
Today's video is by Bert Campolo. It's well worth a look: it's not quite as radical (to evangelical ears) as it first appears, but is certainly right on the edge. I'm not sure I'd put my name to every word he says in the clip ... but I think I'm starting to come close.
Today's video is by Bert Campolo. It's well worth a look: it's not quite as radical (to evangelical ears) as it first appears, but is certainly right on the edge. I'm not sure I'd put my name to every word he says in the clip ... but I think I'm starting to come close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)