Sites we watch

Following are quotes from the last wills and testaments of several of our country’s founders. Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence: Principally and first of all, I recommend my soul to that Almighty Being who gave it and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon [...]

Today is July 4th, the day the USA celebrates Independence Day and the concept of socio-political freedom. Today’s post contains a prayer and the Declaration of Independence. My own political views about justice and freedom have appeared here and there on this blog, and your own views may differ from mine, but on this day I hope we can join hands and celebrate the value of socio-political freedom and commit ourselves to working for such freedom for all. And pray for peace in the world. (FYI: No gun comments today, please.)

A Prayer for our Country from the BCP:

Almighty God, who has given us this good land for our heritage: We humbly beseech you that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of your favor and glad to do your will. Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion us into one united people. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those to whom in your Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that, through obedience to your law, we may show forth your praise among the nations of the earth. In the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in you to fail; all which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation upon such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are long accustomed. But [our grievances are neither light nor transient, and a list of them follows….]

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

As I begin to focus some attention toward the next school year and addressing 1st year students in our survey of the Bible class, where we inevitably have some good conversations about “vocation,” I realize that John Stackhouse’s 7th chp, on Vocation, has some stuff I have to mull over some more … and more. (See his Making the Best of It.)

He divides Vocation into three big sections: Human, Christian, and Time. I want today to see what you think of Vocation and our responsibilities as Humans. He divides this up — hey, he’s a philosopher and they analyze their analyses — into “all” and “some groups” and “individuals.”

But first, there are three options for us on work and vocation: to say work is vocation, and this has tended toward the “religious” being the singular vocation, to say work is not vocation, that only what is demonstrably Christian is vocation, and into part of our vocation is work. He’s with the 3d view, and I agree.

His big category is that all vocation has one big measure: does it produce and contribute to Shalom, the Hebrew word for “peace in this world” but he means peace with God, self, others, and the world.

We are to be in the vanguard as Christians in contributing toward peace. Work is part of how God blesses us — of how God wants us to bless the world.

We all organize ourselves into groups and groups are part of the Shalom work of God. One of the elements of Stackhouse I like is his curmudgeonly approach to ideas that everyone llikes to repeat. Here’s one of his points:

“One of the great useless emphases of our time … is the championing of community over individualism, as if the former is good and the latter bad…. Instead, we should conclude simply that individuality and community are both basic to human life, and in our present era, which follows the Fall and precedes the Second Coming, they display both benign and malign characteristics” (228). Well and good … but we’ve got a Western world and church run amok with individualism. Do you agree?

And a really good point he makes is that there is a species-specific nature of groups and they should pursue Shalom the way that group should: “It is a mark of ethical confusion in our time … that hospitals are being run as businesses, universities are being run as businesses, governments are being run as businesses, and even churches are being run as businesses” (230). They should, he contends, do the work they are designed to do. Any thoughts?

And Individuals: “We each therefore should seek to understand ourselves as thoroughly as possible in order to become the best version of ourselves that we can and make the best contribution we can” (233).

Saturday, 28 June, 2008

Tonight was just your average Saturday night, not a lot happened. Just the same old routine of sharing the gospel and dealing with hecklers. It was a good clear night, and it wasn’t as cold as it has been, so that created some good witnessing weather.

We set up in the Queen Street Mall at around 9:00pm, and we all knew that the first preacher up will have to deal with Alex, as he is a “Preacher Seeking Missile” and since he wasn’t present last week we expected him to be as fiery as ever. We weren’t disappointed!

The first preacher up for the night was Ralph, he opened up the Scripture and began to share the gospel of Christ. Not long into his message Alex opened fire upon him and began to heckle hard. Ralph did a fairly decent job handling Alex. Ralph is a fairly new preacher so he did well. Alex was heckling and walking back and forth waving his arms about. After awhile Ralph tagged Ryan in. Ryan began instantly by engaging Alex on an academic level. The amazing thing is that Alex seems to move the goal posts every time someone answers his arguments. But, it is growing tiresome with dealing with Alex as he uses mostly the same arguments week in and week out. So each week we have to answer his same objections week in and week out. Although, this week he did have a print out from an atheist website which gave him a few new arguments that we had to look at.

Alex argued with Ryan for sometime, then came over and spoke to me behind the preacher. We had a discussion in regards to the meaning of the word ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic’. I maintain based on the meanings of the words, and also based on the root words used, that you cannot be an atheist and agnostic at the same time. However, Alex believes that you can be an atheistic agnostic. We discussed that issue for awhile, and it seems to be that Alex is prepared to admit that there is possibly a god, but his pride won’t allow him to let go of his ‘atheist’ title, and become an agnostic.

During this time Ryan got to preach the full gospel, a few people were standing around listening, so they all got a solid message. Ryan preached for well over 90 minutes, and he dealt with a variety of hecklers like Alex and Riley right down to drunks who would just scream something random.

While Ryan was preaching a man who had been listening walked up to me and said “I need to be saved, can you lead in a prayer so that I can become a Christian.” My reply was “Do you believe that God should save you?” His reply, “Yes!”, “Do you think you are worthy of Heaven?” I asked, again he replied “Yes!”. I looked at him and said “Sir, you don’t seem to understand the fact that you are a sinner and that you don’t deserve Heaven. You aren’t ready to receive Christ yet as you still think God should do as you want Him to do.” The man became angry and stormed off saying “Well, when I am in hell it will be you who gets blamed!”

After Ryan finished preaching, Andre got up and had a preach. He is very new at preaching, and he did a decent job in fending off Alex who decided to open fire. Andre preached for a bit, and then tagged me to preach. Instantly I was under fire from Alex, so I did my best to engage and answer his questions, but also to preach the gospel. It never ceases to amaze me, that Alex has stated that it is his goal to stop us spreading the gospel, but each week when he heckles he gathers a bigger crowd for us to preach to! His efforts to stop the gospel proclamation has actually increased the number of tracts going out, and also the number of people hearing the gospel via one to ones and open air. If Alex really wanted to slow down the gospel proclamation it would be far better for him to remain silent, and not gather a crowd for us by heckling!

Praise God for a good evening!

Soli Deo Gloria!

Full report with pictures: http://www.operation513.com

While there why don’t you sign up for our newsletter, it is an easy way for you to stay in loop in regards to what God is doing through Operation 513 worldwide!

Also check out the latest Operation 513 - “The Appointed Time” broadcast: http://www.operation513.com/theappointedtime.php

Some Information about a Philosophy Class

This is a class in philosophy, attempting to introduce the subject to students. Very often people enter a philosophy class thinking of it as strange and forbidding territory. I can understand these concerns on the part of students. Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify what, at least to my mind, a philosophy class is supposed to be about.

The textbook emphasizes that philosophy has to do with developing and articulating a world-view. Based on many years of teaching philosophy, I find this concern well-placed.

I am myself a Christian and my philosophical career has been centered around thinking things through from a Christian perspective. I have taught in both a Christian setting and a non-Christian setting, but most of my student career and my teaching career has been in secular institutions. I often find that in a non-Christian setting students seem unaware of the fact that they have a world-view, or else they haven’t really thought very clearly about what their world-view is and how to make it a consistent one. So you find people drawing from one source here and one source there whenever it suits them. In a Christian setting you will still find some of that as well. But the main issue that I believe I should try to come to terms with in dealing with Christian students is the fact that they have learned certain ways of talking about what they believe which are common in churches but have little meaning to anyone outside of four walls of the institutional church. One church outsider came to a church and was asked “Are you under the blood?” which prompted him to look up at the ceiling to see if there was some red liquid coming down. Consider even a phrase like “Christ paid the penalty for our sins.” What penalty? What sins? And how could Christ pay it, if we incurred the penalty?

Missionaries often spend years studying the peoples of the countries in which they minister, hoping to understand the thought-forms of those peoples, so that they can learn to present the Christian message in a way that is meaningful to the people of that culture. Yet, I think, a lot of Christians have no idea how their world-view differs from the world-views of others, or how to ask the questions a non-believer would ask.

While I am myself a Christian, the goal of this class is not to make Christians of everyone. I might personally hope for that result, but it isn’t my job. My job is enable people to discover what their own world-view is, so that they know what they believe, know why they believe it, and know how to explain the difference between their own views and those of others. The should be able to understand the reasons supporting their own world-view, and the reasons that could be used to criticize their world-view.

I did. I grew up with a father who hunted, with uncles who hunted, with friends who hunted, and in a community where hunting was common. Then when I was in seminary I came to more pacifist conclusions and to some “green” conclusions. So, I sold my gun to someone who loved to hunt. But, in part because I no longer had a place to hunt, I sold my gun and in part because I simply didn’t want a gun around, I got rid of it.

It runs deeper. My grandma on my father’s side kept a pistol under her mattress. She was a tough Southern Illinois woman. Once she told Kris and me that the way she dealt with snakes, not a few of whom showed up regularly, was to stare ‘em down because, if you looked ‘em in the eyes, they’d turn and run. When we visited Southern Illinois in the summer, my cousins and I often packed a pistol and shot at things — like trees and birds and old dump cars and signs and wild animals if we saw something. One of my cousins accidentally shot his brother. So, I grew up in a be-gunned culture.

Guns are made to kill things. Sure, some use for target practice. Fine. I’ve used a shotgun to shoot clay pigeons; it was fun. But, guns are made to shoot live things and deal the death blow. And gun laws and crime are still being studied.

I think the 2d Amendment primarily concerned military issues like needing a weapon in the case the Brits want our money, or in case the Canadians decide to invade. The new decision knows that but thinks it gives individuals the right to own a gun and to possess such for safety. I suppose that is fair enough for legal interpretation. Some legal historians are now weighing in against Scalia. But, as I said the other day, that doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make it right for Christians.

As I write this today, there was a rash of killings by guns last night in Chicago. One death was a veteran policeman who was killed by a woman with his own gun.

I came to this conclusion long ago: that God doesn’t want Christians killing others. So, I sold my gun. Do I think owning and using a gun for hunting is fine? Sure. But, I think such guns ought to be stored in some safe, governmentally-based location. No one is following my idea, that I know.

But, that doesn’t mean I won’t speak up for what I think is right.

What about you? Do you own a gun? Why do you have it? Can you imagine that you would ever pick it up and shoot someone, an Eikon of God?

This series is by RJS

Orthodox Christianity as affirmed in the historic creeds is at its heart Trinitarian -there is one God existing in three persons. But what does this mean — and why is it important? Certainly the Trinity is a tough concept to grasp – it overloads our mental circuits to use Keller’s phrase. We say the right words – but don’t really know what we mean or what we are supposed to mean. The difficulty of the concept has led some to conclude that three persons means three Gods, others that there are three different modes or aspects of one God as perceived from human perspective, still others that there is only one person in God. Does any of this really matter?

The final chapter of Tim Keller’s book The Reason for God describes his view of the intrinsic beauty and importance of the Trinity - The Dance of God.

Question: Why has traditional evangelical been so non-Trinitarian in focus but has always been so quick to defend the orthodoxy of believing in the Trinity? How significant is Trinity to Christian living?

Wow — Scot should be writing this post. According to Keller the importance of the Trinity is community. God is love but without another there is no love. The Trinity means that God is, in essence, relational. (p. 214)

And Keller expands upon this theme: The Trinity is described as perichoresis – to dance or flow around, mutual movement, mutual indwelling. Each of the divine persons centers upon the others. None demands that the others revolve around him. Each voluntarily circles the other two, pouring love, delight, and adoration into them. Each person of the Trinity loves, adores, defers to, and rejoices in the others. That creates a dynamic, pulsating dance of joy and love. (p. 215)

Creation is a dance with the inner life of the Trinity written all through it.

We lost the dance in the refusal to serve God and participate in his community – Adam onward.

We return to the dance through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

The future of the dance is recreation: How, then, will the story of human history end? … We do not see the illusion of the world melt away, nor do we see spiritual souls escaping the physical world into heaven. Rather we see heaven descending into our world to unite with it and purify it of all its brokenness and imperfection. (p. 222)

As God is in perpetual relationship so we are intrinsically relational. The Christian gospel is not so much individuals becoming right with God as it is establishment of God’s community. We work for justice, we live for service, we honor the dignity of our fellow human beings created in the image of God, we strengthen our human communities, we become stewards of the material world, and we create through science and gardening and art.

OK – Keller casts a fantastic vision, but is he right? Is the Trinity an essential element of Christian doctrine? And if so, is its importance in fact the essence of relationship? This is after all, somewhat different from the common understanding of God as the head, the Son in subordination, and the Spirit as helper or comforter.

Is Keller’s vision Biblical?

Here are some texts from Mark 13 that muddy the clear waters of tradition when it comes to the meaning of “heaven.”

Mark 13:25: the stars will fall from the sky [heaven], and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.

Mark 13:27: And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

Here’s a very interesting statement:

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Mark 13:32 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

First, heaven here refers to what is up, the sky.
Second, heaven is in contrast to earth.
Third, skipping to 13:32, heaven is where the angels are.

Fourth, this statement, taken literally, means “heaven” is not eternal. It is no more eternal than earth. The word of Jesus is eternal but heaven is not.

This could be the discovery of a gold nugget. Does this text teach that heaven is not eternal, that it is a “temporary” abiding place of God and the angels? Or, is this simply a trope, a figure of speech? But quite odd for someone like Jesus even to say that heaven is not eternal if it really is. I suggest, the former — heaven is the temporary abiding place of God and the angels, a place to which some go, but it is not the eternal resting place.

I personally don’t like so-called “Discernment Ministries” because many articles they write employ ad hominem and slippery slope fallacies galore. On the other hand, Christians are called to discern the actions of those who claim to represent Christ. I like what Dr. Sam Storms has to say on the topic:

The Christian world is all abuzz about leadership these days. Take a look at any list of best-selling books and you’ll find at least three or four of the top ten that are concerned with some aspect of leadership, whether in identifying the essence of the good and successful sort or in warning of the bad. It’s the latter that I’d like to briefly address in this meditation.

I’m sickened, as I’m sure you are, by the almost daily barrage of news concerning either the self-serving, authoritarian practices of some professed Christian leader or the moral scandal that has befallen yet another. Where do these people come from? How do they manage to attain such lofty heights of praise and power? Why do people grant them such unqualified allegiance? What accounts for their ability to amass so much wealth and fame and authority over the lives of their followers?

Don’t be misled. I’m not talking about the obvious and notorious cult figures such as David Koresh or Jim Jones or the leaders of certain polygamous groups who have been much in the news of late. I have in mind local church pastors and leaders of para-church ministries as well as those who have risen to fame and fortune on the waves of “revival” movements and other sensational and supernatural spiritual happenings.

Countless theological and sociological studies have examined such folk in an effort to understand the source of their power and the secret to their allure. I’ve read a few of them myself and they’ve often been spot on target. Amidst the variety of explanations for their success, one is common to all, which brings us to our text in 2 Corinthians 10.

However, before noting Paul’s comments, let me differentiate between the sort of authoritative and self-aggrandizing “shearer of the sheep” that the apostle confronted in the church at Corinth and the truly gifted and godly pastor of today’s mega-church. My words that follow are not intended to indict those who, through faithful and diligent service, have built large churches and gathered zealous disciples. Not all forms of success are bad! Quite a few prominent leaders whose ministries have drawn thousands of devoted followers are to be honored and emulated. They are not the focus of my concern or the target of my criticism.

I have in mind the aggressive, self-righteous, supremely self-confident person whose alleged authority borders on legalistic control. This is the person whose flamboyant style, charismatic personality, and sheer energy of will seduce his followers into suspending their critical faculties and throwing discernment to the wind. This sort of “leader” does not humbly serve and sacrifice for the flock but expects them (without necessarily saying so) to supply him with financial blessings and a wide array of other perks and privileges. This individual is typically unaccountable and not held to the same standard that he requires of his ardent devotees.

So what explains this remarkable mystique? Why do so many fall prey to such claims? To what does this sort of “leader” appeal as the reason why he should be treated with such extraordinary respect and devotion? Look at Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 10:7 for at least one answer to our question:

“Look at what is before your eyes. If anyone is confident that he is Christ’s, let him remind himself that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we” (v. 7).

The NASB renders the opening words of v. 7 as a statement of fact: “You are looking at things as they are outwardly.” More likely this is a command: “Look at what is before your eyes.”

What they are to look at and from which they are to draw appropriate conclusions would include such things as the fact that they are themselves the fruit of Paul’s labors, bearing witness to the authenticity of his calling as an apostle (see 1 Cor. 9:1-2; 2 Cor. 3:1-3); that Paul “belongs” to Christ (as do his co-workers and all believers) no less than the intruders; that his authority came from Christ and was always exercised for the building up of the Corinthians; and that his actions and words were not incompatible, as some alleged, but were always aimed at the same goals, being prompted by the same motives.

The “anyone” of v. 7 likely “points to a particular individual, the ringleader of the Judaizing intruders who expressed the viewpoint of them all” (Harris, 688). But what precisely is it that this representative figure is claiming, on the basis of which he and like-minded others are challenging Paul’s authority?

This man is claiming, literally, to be “of Christ”. The genitive is certainly possessive, thus suggesting that he promoted himself as one who belonged to the Lord in some unique and special way. Several suggestions have been made concerning the precise nature of this statement.

Some contend that they were claiming to be Christians and insisting Paul was not. But this is highly unlikely. As radically opposed to him as they were, there’s no indication in the letter that they questioned his salvation.

Some say these opponents claimed to belong to the “Christ party” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:12 (where some said, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ”). But would Paul have responded to such a claim by saying he is of the Christ party no less than they? Given his strong denunciations of the schismatic spirit in Corinth, he would hardly now have endorsed it!

Others suggest they were appealing to an earthly relationship with Jesus. They knew him during the time of his sojourn but Paul didn’t, thus putting them at an advantage to him. But in v. 7b Paul claims to have no less a relation to Jesus, and we know he had no personal contact with the Lord until after the ascension, most likely on the road to Damascus.

Might it be a claim to have received a special commission from Jesus? But that is an assertion made only by the “super apostles” (cf. 11:5) whom Paul does not address until the next chapter. Here he is dealing with “insiders” who are critical of him because of his feeble previous visit and his frightening (”Severe”) follow-up letter (cf. 10:9-11).

The most likely interpretation is that they were asserting some special, ongoing relationship with Christ, making their point with an obviously feigned humility. One can almost see a slight tilt of the head together with just the right inflection of voice: “I am Christ’s man. I belong to Jesus in a way you don’t. He has a higher interest in me than in you. He has a deeper affection for me than for you. I have access to his mind and heart in a way that transcends whatever claims you might make. Therefore, I and a few others have been given an authority and power and place above you and your co-workers.”

In many such cases the person who stands center stage doesn’t explicitly assert that he or she is the recipient of special divine favor or revelatory insights worthy of only a chosen few. They would never commit the tactical error of publicly promoting themselves as uniquely “anointed”. They simply do nothing to disabuse their followers of such false perceptions. Their calculated silence is mistaken for humility and their power base grows.

Is this not precisely the grounds on which so many today build their reputations and undergird their authority? False and self-serving leadership that ultimately works to enhance the person’s fame and fortune is almost always the result of allowing people to think one has a unique and privileged relationship with God, one that is unavailable to ordinary believers. It is frequently, if not most times, grounded in the claim to supernatural experiences, whether angelic visitations or third heaven translations or having heard the voice of God with a clarity and force beyond what any average Christian might experience.

Let me say it as forcefully as I can: Beware of all such claims to a superior or “super” spirituality! Beware of any suggestion that one has special knowledge or insights unavailable to others! Beware of those whose only credentials are the visions they have allegedly seen or the angels with whom they have allegedly conversed (cf. Col. 2:18)! [I say this as one who believes in the gift of prophecy, visions, and angelic encounters.]

On the other hand, genuine, godly leadership that warrants your allegiance is built on character, not charisma. It is grounded in virtue, not visions. Its appeal is the centrality of Christ, not displays of power or heightened states of ecstasy. And at the heart of such authentic authority is the faithful proclamation of a cross-centered, Christ-exalting gospel, which is to say, a preaching of “Jesus Christ as Lord” and “ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4:5).

All of us, at some point or other, will have to “look at what is before our eyes” (v. 7a) and pass judgment on the legitimacy of claims to spiritual authority. What criteria shall we employ? Upon reading the following words of Charles Spurgeon, I think I now know:

“I have not the slightest desire to suppose that I have advanced in the spiritual life many stages beyond my brethren. As long as I trust simply to the blood and righteousness of Christ, and think nothing of myself, I believe that I shall continue to be pleasing to the Lord Jesus Christ, that this joy will be in me, and that my joy will be full” (cited by Carson, 65).

Is God no more probable than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I don't think so.

This is a well-known essay by Bill Hasker.

1 Cosmological fine tuning is the virtually undisputed scientific observation that the ability of the universe to produce galaxies, stars, heavy elements, and rocky planets rests on something of a razor’s edge.

2 This is the often misapplied analogy from Douglas Adams that, in effect, any sentient creature would, through chauvinism, declare his environment to be “just right.” It’s applicability rests on a large number argument. If there are many places where life could arise, then those places where is does will consider themselves privileged and fortunate when in fact they are mundane. However, if there is but one universe then it is foolishness to apply the puddle analogy to the existence of life. That doesn't stop people from trying, and with misplaced smugness to boot. The puddle analogy may be applicable to the existence of earth-like planets, but that relies not just on the fact that there are many planets, but also that the probability of a habitable planet does not compensate via its minuteness. In fact, nobody knows.

I’ve clipped a little from a New York Times article. An interview with McCain in 2004 that flows into McCain’s description of a sermon he gave in Hanoi. What’s your response? (I begin with the NYT statement and then McCain’s own evaluation.)

White evangelical and born-again Christians provided their kindred spirit, George W. Bush, with a whopping 78 percent of their votes in 2004. But Mr. McCain just doesn’t speak their language, a point that hit home when I recently reviewed transcripts and notes of interviews I did with Mr. McCain in 1996 at his home in Sedona over July 4th weekend. Twelve years is a long time in politics, but Mr. McCain seems largely the same character now as then, despite some political repositioning. I was intrigued by a passage in which he described leading religious services in Hanoi for fellow prisoners of war. “Not because of my particular excess of religious zeal,” he explained, “but because I’d gone to that boarding school and, of course, to the [Naval] Academy, where you had to go to chapel. So I knew all the words to the service.”

Here’s Mr. McCain’s description of a sermon he delivered :

One day I talked about the parable of when they asked Christ whether they should pay taxes and he held up a coin and said, “Render unto Caesar, etc.” My point was and still is that when we were flying in combat, we weren’t doing God’s work. We were doing Caesar’s work. So for us to go to prison and then ask God to get us out was not fair to God, to our religion, to our beliefs and to ourselves. It wasn’t a miracle that sent a SAM [surface-to-air missile] to hit my airplane. It was a guy, a technician at a SAM site.

I think it was important, a little bit for the stability factor, that it wasn’t God who was going to perform a miracle, end the war and bring us home. It was men. It was Caesar. I think the majority of those guys felt the way I did but we just had some, just as people turn to faith healing and that kind of stuff, we had some of that. A lot of times I would pray for strength and I think sometimes I got it. Pray for patience to get through the next minute when things were bad. I just don’t think it’s fair to expect too much out of what is basically not the Lord’s business.

From NYT

As you may know, the Civil War was a battle of theology at times — some thought the hand of God was with the North; others with the South. Even when it was over, some in the South still thought God was on their side; some trumpeted that winning the war meant God was on their side. Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural (if I’ve got my facts straight here), was less confident: we don’t always know the providential ways of God in this world.

When Willow Creek last summer released its Reveal study, lots of folks took Bill Hybels and the seeker movement to task. Most were waiting for something to criticize; some took the time to read it; some really did study it enough to say intelligent things. Well, I was asked by Christian Century to write about Reveal and so I did, but they didn’t like my piece. I guessed that it wasn’t critical enough. I think Reveal said some important things, but I thought more needed to be said and now it has been said …

Every pastor and every church deserves and needs a copy of this new study by Willow Creek called Follow Me. The subtitle is “What’s Next for You?” It is the measurable results of thousands and thousands of Christians, and this is what it does:

It reveals what the catalysts are that provoke four moves in the spiritual journey:

From exploring Christ to crossing the threshold to grow in Christ;
from growing in Christ to becoming close to Christ;
from being close to Christ to becoming Christ-centered.

You’ll have to read this study to see the nuances of definition and, more importantly, to see what it is that precipitates and catalyzes movement from one level to the next.

It’s open ended enough to be adaptable; it’s empirically-based enough to convince most that they are onto something here.

Four texts from Mark 11 and 12 bring us back to the big idea of what heaven refers to. Here they are:

Mark 11:25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

Mark 11:30 John’s baptism–was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!” 31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘From men’….” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) 33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

Mark 12:25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

First, heaven is where God is.
Second, heaven is the source of John the Baptist’s prophetic ministry. That is, it is from God.
Third, it is where the angels are, since they are in God’s presence.

Thus, heaven is where God is, where God’s authority is, the place from which God’s power comes to earth.

The latest edition of Truth & Consequences, a product of Summit Ministries, is a piece by Chuck Edwards encouraging Christians to engage the culture. After discussing the impact of popular culture on society, Edwards turns to the mandate Christians have to shape that culture. He does so by appealing to Genesis 1:28 in [...]

Notes from a Sunday School that began on May 25.

Comments, corrections, and routine editing: absolutely welcomed!

An index of all posts is on the right frame.

A blog with only the Sunday School Posts is here.

Location: Grace Baptist Chapel
805 Todd's Lane
Hampton, VA 23666
Time: 10:00-10:45 am

3. Blind Faith—Does the Bible present it as a virtue?There are two quite vocal groups who do not seek reconciliation between science and faith. On the contrary, their agenda is to foil any such rapprochement. One group is a more-militant subset of atheistic scientists and their supporters. The other group is a certain type of Christian fundamentalist. Strange bedfellows, these two communities make. Their reasons are oddly similar—an intense dislike of the other group. They are not unlike two groups of racists of different ethnicity, both of whom agree that interracial marriage is bad.

The argument they make is this: any desire to see God in science, or to claim physical evidence for God, is bad theology. Why? Because they argue (identically and from convenience) science is the opposite of faith. Faith is a virtue which, they will say, science undermines. According to this line of reasoning, any search for the glory of God in science is a lose-lose scenario. If successful, it renders faith obsolete, and if unsuccessful, it creates an unnecessary and unpleasant challenge to faith.

For example, in an article for the San Antonio Express-News, Susan Ives wrote:32

Intelligent design disrespects faith, discounts faith, destroys faith.

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith falls into the realm of metaphysics — literally, "beyond physics," the branch of philosophy that seeks to explain the nature of reality and the origin and structure of the world.

When we try to prove and promote the metaphysical through the physical — when we muddle faith and science — we are, in effect, saying that faith is not enough, that faith, like science, requires proof. Faith that requires proof is no faith at all.

In my Protestant tradition we recite a creed that declares our faith: "I believe in God the father almighty, maker of heaven and Earth."

There are no footnotes in this creed that refer to William Dembski's "The Design Inference" or references to "The Black Box" by Michael Behe, two of the seminal books in the intelligent design movement.

But is Ms. Ives presenting a false dichotomy? Are our choices limited to “faith only” and “demanding scientific proof of God”? Of course they are not. Any Christian who has gazed at a sunset or marveled at the birth of their child knows that the observable world can glorify God and bolster faith while still falling far short of proving God. For a believer, science is the same “creation gazing” writ large. We see God’s amazing handiwork not just in the easily accessible everyday phenomena, but most microscopic and most distant events that require great effort to observe and understand.

Now in fact, it is blind faith that, according to both these groups, is the ultimate Christian virtue. Blind faith truly is the opposite of science, and if blind faith is what the bible calls for then these groups have a point. That is why we take time to look at the question of faith. Superficially it is opposed to science—but only if we permit these two groups to define the essence of biblical faith.

From fundamentalists, the canonization of blind faith stems from an anti-science position: Science is evil, it promotes evil ideas (e.g., an old earth) therefore the senses are not to be trusted--just believe in the interpretation of scripture we promote.

I have often written something that I know people tend to dispute: fundamentalism is a form of liberalism. That's right: Bob Jones University is liberal--because liberal, in terms of theology, means man-centered as opposed to Sola Scriptura. Liberalism means taking liberties with the Bible. Fundamentalism both adds to scripture (in the form of legalism) and takes away from scripture (mostly resulting from its overly-simplistic hyper-literal hermeneutic.) Well here is something else that may surprise you about fundamentalism: it leans toward the Gnostic. Like Gnosticism it demonizes the physical realm and emphasizes "special knowledge." The special knowledge of fundamentalism goes by the name: blind faith.

So this is what we seek to explore. Is blind faith the hallmark of the Christian walk? We shall examine this question by taking a look at the eleventh chapter of the magnificent book of Hebrews. That is the so-called faith Hall of Fame. It should prove particularly relevant.

3.1. Hebrews 11 seems to say yes, until, oddly enough…

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

This passage is one of two (the other being the "Doubting Thomas" passage) that are used to support the idea that "blind faith" is not just your garden-variety virtue, it's the ultimate virtue that a Christian can and should posses. In fact, many would agree that what defines a Christian is (1) blind faith and (2) the appropriate target of that blind faith.

There is no question that the writer of Hebrews is praising faith. And the faith he is praising is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. The relevant questions would seem to be:

1. Who is the target of this praise? Is it all believers, or some particular group?



2. Is the faith being praised specific? To put it another way, what are the things hoped for and what are the things not seen? Is this broadly referring to “God”?

The key is in the verses that follow:

2For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. 4By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. (Heb 11:2-4)

These subsequent verses are omitted when someone wants to uses the first verse as bludgeon. When they want verse one to mean that saving faith derives only from things not seen—lest it somehow be tainted. When they want it to mean that any sign of God in the physical realm can only weaken rather than strengthen faith.

Verse two tells us who the writer is talking about: the people of old, the Old Testament saints. If verse one were a blanket statement, it would apply to all believers. But here we have an indication that the faith being praised is for the BC generations. (Verse three is a quasi-scientific verse. We just note that Old Earth Creations have no problem here. We believe God created the universe via the Big Bang, and it is indeed the case that it was made of things that are not visible. In fact, nothing was visible until 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when light was no longer trapped.)

In verse four we see another important clue. The faiths of Cain and Abel are contrasted. Is Abel’s faith more acceptable because it is blind? No—both Cain and Abel had, we can be sure, personal exposure to God. No, Abel’s faith is praiseworthy not because he believed in God without seeing him—both Abel and Cain “saw” God—but because Abel trusted in God while Cain did not. In particular Abel, it seems reasonable to assume, trusted in God’s promises.

This is important, does faith mean “believe without seeing” or is it something closer to trust? In fact if you use a Greek Lexicon, you'll find that faith (pistis) is indeed related to trust and is never described as "believing in things for which there is no evidence."

Now is an opportune time to present a glorious list: the Cooperstown of faith. The Hall of Famers—all the believers who receive praise, by name, in Hebrews 11, for their great faith. A biblical who’s who. They are:

Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David and Samuel.

(Barak but not Deborah??—now that’s a hot potato.)

The writer could have mentioned the faith of some of the early Christians. He could have mentioned the apostles. He could have mentioned the woman at the well. Or the various people who desperately reached out to Christ and were healed. He could have, but he didn’t. As implied by verse two, Hebrews 11 is a testimony to the believers of old.

We need to make another point about this list. If you wanted to draw up a list of people who were poster children for blind faith the way it is usually meant (believing in God in spite of no evidence) this would not be it. Everyone on this list either saw and spoke with God, or witnessed some great deed of God’s. None of these people had any need for “blind faith.”

So what are they being praised for? What was unseen? The writer tells us. In fact he tells us twice:

13These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

39And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. (Heb 11: 13,39-40)

These verses further confirm it is the faith of the Old Testament saints, because we, in the New Testament era, are contrasted as having something better.

What do we have that they didn’t? It’s fairly obvious. We have seen the promise of the Messiah fulfilled. They could only hope in the promise. The blindness of their faith was not a lack of evidence in creation for God—many of them talked to God. Their blindness, as it were, is that they lived and died without seeing the completed work of Christ, but they kept their faith in the promise.

Let us end this section by recalling the two questions asked earlier:

1. Who is the target of this praise? Is it all believers, or some particular group?



2. Is the faith being praised specific? To put it another way, what are the things hoped for and what are the things not seen? Is this broadly referring to “God”?

The answers we have found are:

1. The target of this praise is the saints of the Old Testament.



2. The things hoped for and not seen are the finished works of Jesus Christ.

We emphasize, again, that none of the saints singled out by name had any need of “blind faith” as that term is traditionally used.

3.2. Hebrews 11 seems to prove otherwise.As stated in the previous section, if you use a Greek Lexicon, you'll find that faith (pistis) is in fact related to trust and is never described as "believing in things for which there is no evidence."

In the bible, faith goes way beyond believing (even the demons believe.) Faith means: I don't just try to obey God because I know I should, but I obey because I believe His plan is good.

When a Christian is told to live by faith, it is not intended that he should abandon his intellect and distrust his senses, but rather that, given God's law has been written on his heart, he should live as if he trusts that obeying that law is not just the correct but also the wise thing to do. That is what biblical "faith" is.

To get a little more academic, it is generally accepted that there are three major components of a saving faith.

1. Notitia refers to the fact that we have the correct knowledge or content. When we say we have faith, we obviously have faith in something. Notitia is the knowledge of that something. Today people often claim that sincerity in one’s faith is the most important aspect. Sincerity may be important, but it is not all important. What you believe has to be right. You may sincerely believe in reincarnation, but that is not part of a saving faith, but rather part of a damning faith. Being sincerely wrong is no virtue.

It does not mean you need a comprehensive knowledge (if so, we all would be lost), but there is some (undefined) minimum set of correct beliefs you must hold, such as the fact the God exists.

When the apostles proclaimed Christ, they provided content: Christ’s biography. They taught of Jesus’ life and his works, and how He fulfilled prophesy with His crucifixion and resurrection. They taught that men are sinners. This teaching is vital: before I can reach out for a savior I need to know that I need to be saved. With notitia I have the “theory” of Christianity; I have the content.

2. Assensus means that you not only have the notitia (content) but you also give intellectual assent to the content. This is a non-volitional agreement; you cannot will yourself or make a decision to believe. There may be a process by which you can ultimately reach a point where you can honestly affirm a proposition, either through education or divine intervention, but you cannot simply tell yourself: I will believe.

If I tell you that George Washington was the first president, that is notitia. It’s data. You may believe it, you may not. If you believe it, it is then assensus.

Many mistake assensus as the level of faith that produces salvation. This is not so; salvation comes at the third level. Assensus is belief, and belief is not enough for salvation. James teaches this when he famously refers to demons in his epistle:

You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. (James 2:19)

The demons have both notitia (correct content) and assensus (intellectual assent), but their faith was/is not a saving faith. It lacks the third component: fiducia. (Although even if they had it, it is not clear they would be saved. Nowhere is it mentioned that there exists a redemptive plan for fallen angels.)

As for real people, we have the example of Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8.

Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. (Acts 8:13)

Yet Simon was cast away by Peter for not having a heart that was right with God (Acts 8:21), and went on (legend says) to launch a heresy that still exists in the form of new-age mysticism. Simon the Sorcerer believed; he had both notitia and assensus, but he did not have a saving faith. Christ’s explanation of the parable of the sower (Matt. 13) also teaches of those who believe but fall away.

We must not conflate belief and faith.

3. Fiducia is the complex “of the heart” faith, as opposed to the cerebral notitia and assensus. This relates to our conviction and passion. This is our conscience, our personal trust and reliance. This is the part of faith that goes beyond knowing that the bible teaches us not to steal, and acknowledging that stealing is a sin, to being convicted by the Holy Spirit that stealing is wrong.

With fiducia, we not only know the content of the gospel and believe it to be true, we also believe it to be good. This is clearly, in its entirety, a gift of God. Before regeneration, we are dead in sin and cannot seek or please God. After the gift of faith, we are radically violated; our heart is transplanted. We now (imperfectly) seek God. Our biblical knowledge is buttressed by conviction that God is good, and the things of God are greatly to be desired. This is in stark contrast to atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who argue that God is evil.

Apologetics, it can be said, is in the business of spreading notitia and fighting for assensus. Fiducia is out of the purview of apologetics; Fiducia is a gift from God.

When the Jews of the Exodus got in trouble for their failure of faith, it was not because they stopped believing in God. It was because they stopped believing that God's plan was good for them. When Peter's faith failed (on two well-known occasions) he didn't stop believing in Christ, he stopped trusting him.

What was the points of all this, and what does it have to do with science? The point is this: the faith contrasted with science is blind faith. But blind faith is not what the bible calls for. The bible calls for faith as described above, a much richer concept than “believing in the invisible.” This faith has no conflict with science, and if the beauty and wonder of creation can enhance faith in the promises of God, then all the better.

Let’s emphasize this a bit more, looking again at Hebrews 11. We’ll start with one of the more interesting characters in the Hall Of Fame: Gideon.

We can never discuss Gideon without bringing up two of the more humorous passages in scripture. One is when the angel of the Lord (which is a theophany, see v.23) first appears:

And the angel of the LORD appeared to him [Gideon] and said to him, "The LORD is with you, O mighty man of valor." (Judges 6:12)

Now our complete picture of Gideon tells us that in all likelihood the last thing he considered himself, at least at that time, was a man of valor. You can easily imagine him replying: "Are you talking to me?"

But an even funnier exchange occurs just a bit later:

And he [Gideon] said to him [the Lord], "If now I have found favor in your eyes, then show me a sign that it is you who speaks with me. Please do not depart from here until I come to you and bring out my present and set it before you." And he [the Lord] said, "I will stay till you return." (Judges 6:17-18)

Here Gideon asks God to stick around while he runs inside to get something, God answers. "Go on, take your time. I'll wait." You just have to love it.

Gideon returns and God displays his pleasure with Gideon’s gift by, um, burning it to ashes.

Later Gideon famously puts God to some additional testing:

Then Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said, behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said." And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. Then Gideon said to God, "Let not your anger burn against me; let me speak just once more. Please let me test just once more with the fleece. Please let it be dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground let there be dew." And God did so that night; and it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew. (Judges 6:36-40)

This is what gets Gideon in trouble—not with God or with the writer of Hebrews, but with Sunday School teachers teachers who say: "don’t be like Gideon." Well, to them I say: I'd very much love to be like Gideon. You will note that God does not rebuke Gideon for asking for proof. Our premium on blind faith and the view that proof somehow is demeaning to God is darn near 180 degrees off. Blind faith is never called for, and in fact the elevation of blind faith to a virtue is, in my opinion, demeaning to God. Made in his image, we are rational beings, and every indication in scripture tells me that God is quite pleased when we seek evidence (even through science), and when he is visibly present among us, he readily provides it.

So if God, or an angel of God, appears to me and says that he will send me to defeat the army of Iran with nothing more than a Ronco VegoMatic, I am going to behave just like Gideon.

Let’s look at some more examples that demonstrate that God is not demanding blind faith:

• In the book of Judges, Gideon asks for multiple physical proofs that God was God. The proofs were given. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “and Gideon, after serving his military purpose, was cursed for demanding proof.”



• When Moses asked to see God’s glory, God complied with the request. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “And Moses’ inability to rely solely on blind faith is the real reason he wasn’t allowed into the Promised Land.”



• Psalm 19 teaches that the heavens declares God’s glory. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “but only as a crutch for the weak-minded.”



• When Jesus forgave the sins of a lame man, he then healed the man. Instead of containing a footnote that reads: “and for those who required the latter, let them be anathema,” my bible reads that Jesus said it was so we may know the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins.



• When Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, they thought they were seeing a ghost. He showed them he was flesh and blood, and that he could even eat. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “and their rewards in heaven were diminished because they relied on physical proof.”



• Paul writes, in the letter to the Romans, that since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. My bible doesn’t have a footnote that reads: “but pay attention to that evidence at your own peril.” Instead, Paul adds that the reason for this (scientific data) is so that men are without excuse.



• Even in the case of “doubting” Thomas, where Jesus allows Thomas to examine His wounds, and even though Jesus blesses those who believe without seeing, my bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “and Thomas was cast out for his reliance on proof.”

We conclude that saving faith is more complex than blind faith, and in fact blind faith is not called for. It is blind faith that us incompatible with science. Biblical faith is not.
32See here for the complete article.

I'm redating the post on Larmer's essay on God of the Gaps.

I conclude that there is nothing wrong with the reasoning typically involved in “God of the gaps” arguments. The widespread dismissal of such arguments as unworthy of serious consideration is, therefore, unjustified.--Philosopher Robert Larmer.

I am a tad surprised that people haven't picked up on this, since it's a direct attack on one of most often-used arguments in the atheist playbook. I do note that Tom Gilson has picked up on it, however.

This series is by RJS

One of the biggest hurdles to orthodox Christian belief in our world today is affirmation of the bodily resurrection of Jesus as historical reality. After all we know better than this. Isn’t it a much more reasonable and enlightened approach to realize that the empty tomb is a myth – and the resurrection appearances hallucination, or even theologically true metaphor? Acknowledgment of the existence of God and the power of the Christian story does not necessitate belief in bodily resurrection from the dead. — Or does it?

The reality of the resurrection is the topic of the penultimate chapter of Tim Keller’s book The Reason for God.

Keller bases his arguments for the reality of The Resurrection of the Son of God on NT Wright’s book of this name. For those who are interested in condensed versions (Wright’s book after all is 740 rather dense pages), the arguments are outlined in a lecture “Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection” available in audio, video, or text form here or here. Another lecture by Bishop Wright at Emory University in 2008 “Why Does Jesus’ Resurrection Matter?” can be found here with Q&A here.

So what are the principal arguments for the reality of the resurrection as advanced by Wright and Keller?

1. The resurrection is attested to early in Christian literature – 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 6 are excellent examples of this, written within a few decades of the crucifixion. In addition Paul refers to multiple witnesses, still alive at the time of his writing, to make his case on the reality of the resurrection. It is difficult to defend the premise that resurrection was a late addition - only refined when distance in time and place made credulity feasible.

2. The gospel variation and presence of women as earliest witness attest to true testimony provided in these accounts. Scripted story and collusion would provide better uniformity of detail.

3. The bodily resurrection was a foreign concept in Greek, Roman, and Jewish thought – thus the claim was without precedent, a powerful argument for historicity. Consider in particular the Jewish context. As Keller points out: It was absolute blasphemy to propose that any human should be worshipped. Yet hundreds of Jews began worshipping Jesus literally overnight. The hymn to Christ as God that Paul quotes in Philippians 2 is generally recognized to have been written just a few years after the crucifixion. What enormous event broke through all Jewish resistance? p.209-210. The testimony of early devotion to Jesus as divine or bordering on divine is overwhelming - something powerful happened to the disciples of Jesus and changed their world view. The hymn in Philippians 2 is a compelling passage:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

4. The explosion of Christianity on the scene and the rapid, unstoppable growth despite persecution over the first several centuries. These people believed what they said and put their lives on the line because of it. Virtually all the apostles and early Christian leaders died for their faith, and it is hard to believe that this kind of powerful self-sacrifice would be done to support a hoax. p. 210

5. The resurrection is the victory in the Christian story; it is the linchpin. — The resurrection tells us that what we do here today matters. We die with Christ and are raised with Christ to new life and a new ethic. The battle is won, the kingdom will come. It matters that we care deeply about justice for the poor, alleviate hunger and disease, care for the environment — because the world is not an accident that will eventually die in the passing of the sun.

Without the victory - without the resurrection - don’t we ultimately, if we are honest with ourselves, stand with Nietzche?

Once upon a time, on a little star in a distant corner of the universe, clever little animals invented for themselves proud words, like truth and goodness. But soon enough the little star cooled, and the little animals had to die and with them their proud words. But the universe, never missing a step, drew another breath and moved on, dancing its cosmic dance across endless skies (as quoted by Sparks in God’s Word in Human Words)

OK, so much for Keller and Wright, with a bit of my own editorializing thrown in for good measure.

What do you think? Is the affirmation of the bodily resurrection of Jesus as historical reality essential to Christian orthodoxy? Why? Or alternatively is orthodoxy as historically defined an idea whose time has passed?

What do you find to be the most convincing evidence for the resurrection of the Son of God?

Robert Webber’s books keep coming out, almost like testaments of his commitment to educate the church on worship. I thought they were done and yet, here it is, another final one: Ancient-Future Worship. If you are trying to resurrect the idea of “story” or if you are trying to be more calendrical in your worship style, this book will do it for you. Here’s what Webber teaches us about worship:

Worship does God’s story.
Worship remembers the past.
Worship anticipates the future.

And he discusses how the fullness of God’s story got lost. This part of the book reminds me of the new IVP book by John (not Tom) Wright, called Telling God’s Story. Wright’s book is a profoundly innovative new book on how to learn to preach narratively so that Christians are formed, and Robert Webber was dedicated to the same theme.

Then Webber shifts to applying God’s story to worship by examining how worship is transformed by remembrance and anticipation, how the Word is transformed by the narrative nature of Scripture, how the eucharist is transformed by the presence of God at the table, and how prayer is transformed by recovering the style of ancient worship.