The idea of Christianity crossing cultural boundaries fascinates me. We’ve seen it since the beginning of course, with Jewish, Middle Eastern, Greek, Latin, and Germanic Christians all coming into the fold within the first four centuries of the church’s existence. And all of these catergories are certainly too broad. The most interesting issues for me are how Christian teachings are interepreted by each group. How does Christianity change the cultures that it enters? What do converts keep from their pre-Christian traditions? What effects do these changes have on the culture and the church?
So the story that I related in the last post raised some interesting issues for me.
First, I was struck that the belief in a spirit world by the Sudanese Christians seems to mirror their traditional beliefs before conversion and probably puts them closer to the mindset of early Christians on this issue than many Western Christians today. A sermon last Sunday pointed to the idea of darkness in the world that appears in the Gospel of John, and Peter Brownand the Western Civ textbook that I use also point out that early Christians believed in a world full of hostile spirits.
Second, some quicksearching seems to confirm that Nhialic is the Dinka word for a supreme God. Lamin Sanneh said in Whose Religion is Christianity?that using African words for God, rather than trying to import European words, has helped Christianity to spread. From some of my reading, it seems that African religions tend to have one creator god over all the other gods.
Third, this strikes me as a different approach than the early Christians took. Peter Brown writes that the early Christians viewed the pagan gods as devils rather than nonexistent. One illustration of this is in St. Ambrose’s letter to Emperor Valentinian II, arguing that a pagan altar should not be rebuilt: “the gods of the heathen,” as Scripture says, “are devils.” It seems (and I could be wrong) that Christians used the general words for deity, deus (Latin) and theos(Greek), rather than promoting a specific connection between God and a creator god like Uranus. I don’t have the theological or missiological background to defend or criticize either approach. I just thought that it was interesting.
Finally, the idea of the cross as possessing spiritual power is an interesting parallel to the protective properties of sacred symbols and objects that has a long history in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.
Sometimes, I’m struck by how naturalistic and secular my training in history is. It gave me the tools to explain and compare but not to comment authoritatively on differing Christian beliefs and practices. What are your reactions to the descriptions of the cross in Bor Dinka Christianity and the way that the Gospel crosses cultural boundaries?
I have been teaching an introductory course on the history of Christianity using Mark Noll’s Turning Points as our textbook. This Sunday’s lesson focuses on the modern-day reality of global Christianity, brought about both by missions and the “indigenization” (or adaptation to local cultures) of the Gospel. Noll agrees with what I usually hear that missionary activity is the necessary first step that needs to be built on with the appropriation of the Christian message by the converts themselves.
Noll provides an example of this from the Bor Dinka people of southern Sudan (who were deeply affected by the recent civil war in Sudan), for whom the cross is an ever-present symbol, which “represents a Christianization of existing cultural forms, for the Dinka had historically put to use a wide variety of carved walking sticks, staffs, and clubs. Among Dinka converts, the Christian symbol has filled a form provided by traditional culture.” He continues:
In the second instance, however, the Dinka appropriation of the cross has also become a powerful expression of pastoral theology. As revealed in a flourishing of fresh, indigenous hymnody, the cross is now a comprehensive reality of great power. The cross provides protection against hostile spirits, or jak; the cross figures larges in the baptisms that mark conversions; in hymns the corss becomes an ensign or banner raised high for praise and protection; the cross brings the great God, Nhialic, close to the Dinka in the person of Christ, whose suffering is appropriated with striking subjectivity; the cross is spoken of as the mën, or the solid central post that supports the Dinka’s large, thatched cattle sheds; and the cross becomes a symbol of the potent Spirit who replaces the ancentral jak ([singular] jok), whose protective powers have so obviously failed in recent years. A song composed by Mary Nyanluaak Lem Bol illustrates the depth to which the cross has entered Dinka culture in desparate times:
We will carry the cross. We will carry the cross.
The cross is the gun for the evil jok.
Let us chase the evil jok away with the cross.
Note: Noll’s source for his information on the Bor Dinka is Marc R. Nikkel’s “The Cross of Bor Dinka Christians” in Studies in World Christianity 1 (1995): pp. 160-185.
There’s certainly been a lot of discussion about younger evangelicals and their differences with their parents’ generation. Matthew Lee Anderson, a “young evangelical” himself, tries to unpack the cultural trends of this group, focusing on their criticisms of their parents’ generation as well as the blind spots of this new generation. One particular trend that he discussed resonated with my own observations:
Beneath each of these shifts [including the search for "authenticity", less affiliation with political parties, and criticism of evangelical culture] in the young evangelical ethos is a tacit, yet devout, commitment to a kind of libertarianism—even while holding more paternal instincts on political issues like poverty and race. The libertarianism of my peers is less political and more cultural. It is grounded in the notion that we have—and hence, we ought to have—control over ourselves, and responsibility for ourselves, regardless of circumstance. This conflicts, of course, with many of the communitarian ideas these same young evangelicals support in regards to governmental assistance in society—but few would accuse my generation of being intellectually consistent or coherent.
For most young evangelicals, the flash points where our libertarianism comes out are traditional sources of conflict with parents: tattoos, alcohol, music, movies, language and sexuality. In each area, younger evangelicals have rejected the perceived prudishness symbolized by our parents (yes, ironically, the children of the sixties and seventies) in favor of engaging the culture around us. Often this reflects a new internalization—one might characterize it as a gnosticization—of the Gospel. Social rules, such as those which once governed alcohol consumption among evangelicals, language, and sexual behavior, are now a sign of a Puritanical legalism that has forgotten that Jesus really cares about the heart and our intentions, not our behaviors and, as such, are to be discarded.
This principle of self-control and self-realization undergirds young evangelicals’ consumption of media. The new mantra of cultural engagement provides young evangelicals an effective cover to consume the same media as their peers. They are deeply convinced that such media has no effect on their lives—remaining confident they are carefully protected from the bad effects of consumerism by their flawless decision-making abilities.
This is one of the deep ironies of the young evangelical ethos. While vehemently rejecting the consumerism of 20th century evangelicalism, young evangelicals have adopted a new consumerist mindset under the guise of engagement with culture—a mindset that earns them access into the social standing they desire. The consumerism that has infected the core of evangelicalism has not been eradicated in the younger generations—it has simply been subsumed under a new teaching. Young evangelicals aspire to be urbane, sophisticated, and not appear judgmental or harsh—they want to be cool. And being cool means tossing aside the social mores that many of them grew up in, and transforming themselves into faith-soaked libertines.
Here young evangelicals’ approach to marriage and sexuality is instructive. The social institutions governing mating processes among young Christians continue to erode. While isolated pockets of evangelicals have attempted to buttress them against the impending tide of libertarianism, in reality couples decides for themselves how they want to approach marriage and sexuality. The slow but inevitable relaxing of codes of conduct at evangelical institutions is indicative of this trend—and it is a welcome trend to students who have to deal with being “weird” for attending a school with arcane rules. The new consumerism and the new libertarianism go hand in hand.
I know it’s a long quote, but I’ve noticed (and often succumbed to) this as well. People don’t want to be the “weird” kind of Christian, and so while wanting community they also want to have their own lives unregulated. I thought that Anderson’s explanation was the best I’ve seen of this mindset.
Well, I obviously missed this when it was posted in January, so perhaps linking to it now is kind of lame. But if you want to read a bracing assessment of the current state of evangelicalism, check out the Internet Monk’s posts: reasons for the collapse, what will remain, and the effects. Here are his first two reasons for the collapse:
1) Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This was a mistake that will have brutal consequences. They are not only going to suffer in losing causes, they will be blamed as the primary movers of those causes. Evangelicals will become synonymous with those who oppose the direction of the culture in the next several decades. That opposition will be increasingly viewed as a threat, and there will be increasing pressure to consider evangelicals bad for America, bad for education, bad for children and bad for society.
The investment of evangelicals in the culture war will prove out to be one of the most costly mistakes in our history. The coming evangelical collapse will come about, largely, because our investment in moral, social and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. We’re going to find out that being against gay marriage and rhetorically pro-life (yes, that’s what I said) will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of evangelicals can’t articulate the Gospel with any coherence and are believing in a cause more than a faith.
2) Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people the evangelical Christian faith in an orthodox form that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. In what must be the most ironic of all possible factors, an evangelical culture that has spent billions of youth ministers, Christian music, Christian publishing and Christian media has produced an entire burgeoning culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures that they will endure.
Do not be deceived by conferences or movements that are theological in nature. These are a tiny minority of evangelicalism. A strong core of evangelical beliefs is not present in most of our young people, and will be less present in the future. This loss of “the core” has been at work for some time, and the fruit of this vacancy is about to become obvious.
If this whets your appetite, check out all three parts (and check out his disclaimer at the top of the first part).
Yesterday, I took a bus tour through some different neighborhoods of Chicago: Austin and Garfield Park on the West Side, the Gold Coast closer to downtown, the Prairie Avenue area that boasted the homes of some of the richest Chicagoans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Bridgeport (the home of the Daley dynasty), and the former site of the Robert Taylor Homes, a public housing complex massive in both size and in its failure to meet its stated goal of decent housing for the poor.
(Actually, the Chicago machine’s goal with the Robert Taylor Homes and the other projects along State Street seems to have been to find a place to put poor blacks and perhaps even to build a wall of huge projects right along the boundary of white and black Chicago, strengthening the dividing line. So perhaps they really succeeded.)
We were guided in our tour by Glen Kehrein, head of Circle Urban Ministries, and Abraham L. Washington, the pastor of Rock of Our Salvation Church. They are partners in the Austin neighborhood, which flipped from white, Catholic, and middle-class to what Glen called a “throwaway community” (one on which society at large places no value) as poor black migration from the South triggered white flight in the 1960s. This was a pattern that played out all over the West Side in the 1960s, as unscrupulous dealers in real estate used white fears of black neighbors to profit from white flight and those who profit from poverty ran the real estate down. Personal responsibility of the residents of poor neighborhoods of course must be addressed, but too often the big forces that helped to create the conditions that we see today aren’t understood.
But as John Piper noted in the article that I referred to in the last post, knowing the truth is incomplete if we don’t use it in God’s service. And Glen and Abraham have made it their business to understand their community in order to serve it. They focus on both evangelism and the improvement of the neighborhood, unabashedly sharing the gospel with their neighbors inside and outside of church, connecting them to a supportive community of believers to help them to deal with the temptations so prevalent in the community, and offering the neighborhood education and other services. Here’s how the website describes it:
Circle Urban Ministries and the Rock of our Salvation Church have been joined in a faith-and-works partnership since the Rock Church began in 1983. While the Rock proclaims our faith in Jesus Christ, Circle reaches out with practical acts of service to show our faith is real.
Pretty simple, I suppose, but hearing from the leaders was inspiring. I hope to learn more about their ministry.
By the way, here are two great books about urban issues:
American Pharaoh, about Chicago under Mayor Richard J. Daley, the current mayor’s father.
I think that I first encountered the saying “All truth is God’s truth” when reading Mark D. Roberts’ Can We Trust the Gospels?. He explained that he felt nervous about studying the Bible from a secular perspective in a Harvard course, but that John Stott gave him this phrase to ease his fears. I believe that Roberts said that Augustine was the originator of the phrase. This attitude is a helpful one in learning about almost anything.
The history of Western Civilization, the United States, and even Christianity are often marred with things that we wish we could erase. Especially over the last 50 years, it seems, critics of Western culture, Christianity, or both have highlighted these errors, and honest people have to sadly acknowledge legitimate criticisms.
The attitude that “All truth is God’s truth” has provided a guideline for me in navigating criticisms of Western culture (which are sometimes extremely necessary) and Christianity (which are much more troubling to me). In other words, God and the gospel are not threatened by Christians facing up to the murderous violence during the Crusades, the dispossession of Native Americans by many Americans who claimed Christ as their savior, and a host of other sins. Talking honestly about these tragedies requires us to provide context (the Muslims had conquered the Holy Land themselves, of course, and Native American tribes certainly waged war against each other), but we can feel confident that dealing with the past isn’t a threat to the core of our faith.
But then along comes John Piper, challenging us to elevate our understanding of this idea to the highest possible plane:
Alongside “All truth is God’s truth,” we need to say, “All truth exists to display more of God and awaken more love for God.” This means that knowing truth and knowing it as God’s truth is not a virtue until it awakens desire and delight in us for the God of truth. And that desire and delight are not complete until they give rise to words or actions that display the worth of God. That is, we exist to glorify God (1 Corinthians 10:31), and merely knowing a truth to be God’s truth does not glorify him any more than the devil does.
And so there is a new challenge: when we learn, are we using it to increase our understanding and love of God? Do we see all learning as ultimately in his service and for his glory? I pray that I might, with God’s help, see how the truths that I learn ultimately show his glory and display more reasons that I should love him.
Okay, so I watched this flick with the kids the other day and thought I’d share some thoughts on it. It’s a short animated film for children. The plotline basically centers on two brothers, Skeeter and Sinclair, who are very different in makeup, with Skeeter feeling inferior to his adventurous brother Sir Sinclair. Without giving away the entire story, I will summarize by stating that these two brothers need to find a treasure and realize that they need one another. They realize that their unique gifts actually complement one another.
Though the story is an advertised reinfircement of Psalm 139, where we are told that God uniquely makes each person, it is also a basic reminder of 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul likens the Church to a body with various parts. The Corinthian Church struggled with various issues, one of which was a galvanizing superiority among some who were rich or endowed with certain Spiritual gifts. Paul essentially says that God is sovereign in the distribution of Spiritual gifts and that none should boast over whatever gifts they have. We need each other in the Body of Christ and I can personally attest to how I have been most edified at times from certain saints in the Church who had what some would consider insignificant gifts. This story reminded me of the beauty of seeing two people complement each other in a common goal. I commend the story for kids and pray that all kids would realize that they are all uniquely gifted and I pray that those tempted toward bullying would refrain in light of the fact that God made us as we are.
In 1994, a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old tried dropped a boy of just 5 to his death out of a 14th-floor window in a housing project. Prosecutors said it was because the younger boy had refused to steal candy for the older boys, although one of them now says it was purely an act of bullying.
The perpetrators were sentenced to prison after the Illinois legislature lowered the minimum age for prison-sentencing from 13 to 10. The Chicago Tribune ran a story today that followed up on the two boys now that they have grown up. They’ve both been back in prison since getting out the first time. Even more disheartening is the fact that the victim’s brother is now on trial for murder.
Reading these two stories and watching the video interview embedded in the first story gives a survey of some of the problems of our inner cities today: family breakdown, the dismal failure of the Chicago housing projects, lack of education, and the difficulties that convicts have in reentering society. Of course, none of these things cancels out the responsibility of the individuals to act morally, but they do provide the context for this awful crime.
How can Christians address the systemic problems that provide the context for the individual choices? I don’t know. I think that part of the answer has to do with getting to know our inner cities better and supporting those who are doing good work there. It may involve more intense and intentional involvement by those who God calls to minister in the cities.
I know that one of the first reactions to reading stories like this and watching one of the murderers interviewed can be contempt. Sometimes the victims perpetrators in this story seemed to feel sorry for themselves, and perhaps the journalist allows them to do that too much. I can envision people reading this story and saying that the murders murderers are “trash.”
But I hope that our last reaction as Christians isn’t contempt, no matter what our initial, gut-level response is. If John Piper is right that “All truth exists to display more of God and awaken more love for God,” then we can remember that Christ died for people just like these murderers. I pray that they will come to a knowledge of Christ, in whom all of their sins can be washed away. It’s their, and our, only hope.
UPDATE (6/5/09): I realized that there were a couple of mistakes in my original post. I have fixed them while striking through my original text.
A straightforward reading of the Book of Mormon appears to endorse eternal punishment in hell for many people. A random example of this is found in 2 Nephi 28.15:
O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!
Passages like that from the Book of Mormon (BOM) could be multiplied, but you get the picture. Now, if the BOM was allowed to stand alone as a text and govern the LDS church, things would look very different. But in essence, the book simply establishes the authority of Joseph Smith: “for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation” (2 Nephi 3.15). Once Smith was established in his role of authority by the book he produced, he started improvising new theological viewpoints almost immediately.
In fact, a vision given to the false prophet in March, 1830 said that “Endless” is one of God’s names, therefore ‘endless’ punishment simply means ‘God’s punishment’ or punishment from God (Doctrine and Covenants 19). Mormon doctrine developed away from the Book of Mormon on many points and, by extension, away from the Bible. Mormon Professor James McLachlan writes:
With respect to life after death, the LDS church is a universalist religion. All beings have immortality through the atonement of Christ. Joseph Smith claimed that not only humans but animals and plants have eternal spirits (Moses 3:5, 19; 7:48-49; Abraham 3:18-19). Every creature is immortal, having everlasting life, but “eternal life” is interpreted as deification…all will attain immortality, but only those who learn to love perfectly will attain godhood, eternal life” (Musser and Paulsen, 2007).
Essentially almost everyone is ‘safe’ in the Mormon scheme of things – we’ll all end up in one of the three kingdoms. Craig Hazen has summarized things accurately:
Everyone in the next life (except for the small handful of “sons of perdition”) would ultimately enter (perhaps after a limited time in a purgatorial setting) one of the “three degrees of glory” of which even the lowest level (the telestial) has a glory that “surpasses all understanding” (D&C 76:89). [this revelation]…provided the answer to another important question that was probably being asked by early seekers: Why must I join the church if in the end all are going to be saved anyway? Answer: to have a shot at the highest state of glory” (Beckwith, Mosser, Owen 2002).
There is only one category of people in the LDS scheme of things that are in trouble: the sons of perdition. Who are the sons of perdition? Basically they are apostate Mormons: “Those in this life who gain a perfect knowledge of the divinity of the gospel cause, a knowledge that comes only by revelation from the Holy Ghost, and who then link themselves with Lucifer and come out in open rebellion, also become sons of perdition” (McConkie 1966).
The bottom line seems to be that you are better off living any way you choose than in joining the LDS church and then leaving it. All of mankind will experience some sort of enjoyable eternal life with the exception of those who betray the LDS church.
How’s that for acronyms? The English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible has a fantastic tool for performing the daily office of the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). The ESV compiles the daily Bible readings: Psalms, OT, NT, Gospel – click this link. Not only that, if you use an RSS reader of some kind (I use Google Reader), you can subscribe to the RSS feed for this service and have it automatically show up every day! And that’s still not all! In Google Reader, the audio for the feed also shows up automatically, so I can click play and listen to the all of the day’s readings. I think this is way cool and I suggest it to you as a tool. The ESV site also has other reading plans if you’re not down with the BCP.
The logic of the Roman Catholic Church is that you are better off not ever hearing the gospel or knowing about the Church than you are in knowingly refusing to enter her. In other words, pagans who have not heard are better off than those who hear and do not join the Church. Current Catholic theology bumps up against universalism while at the same time magnifying the necessity of Rome for salvation, [as an aside, this is also the position of the Latter Day Saints, something I hope to write about soon].
The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this astounding statement:
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (§841)
Also, if someone ‘through no fault of their own’ does not know of Christ and the Church, he is good to go. “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (§847)
But if you have the misfortune of having heard about Christ and the Church and you stay outside, you’re in trouble:
“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (§846)
Writing in the February, 2008 edition of First Things, the late Avery Cardinal Dulles confirms this line of thought:
“Piux IX and the Second Vatican Council taught that all who followed their conscience, with the help of the grace given to them, would be led to that faith that was necessary for them to be saved. During and after the council, Karl Rahner maintained that saving faith could be had without any definite belief in Christ or even in God…[but] In Christ’s Church, therefore, we have many aids to salvation and sanctification that are not available elsewhere.”
I take this view to be a dangerous delusion that provides false comfort to people in contradiction to what God has told us in the Scriptures. The Bible tells us, “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” We are told by Jesus that, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” Saint Peter says that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Hopefully, the living Word of God will work its way in the Catholic Church and in time she will revert to her more ancient views on this subject.
Just got back from our elder’s retreat and had a great time. One of my personal highlights was firing a rifle and shotgun for the first time. My elders were actually somewhat impressed at my skills, calling me a natural as I was consistently hitting the tiny targets.
I had to shoot the rifle as part of my assimilation into the Idaho way of life. I am now a baptized Idahoan.
As my fellow Idahoan, Napoleon Dynamite, would say, “Yesssssssssssss”
Tying together the economic crisis, imperial presidency, fiscal insanity in our government, and far-flung military commitments, Andrew Bacevich makes a compelling case that our system is worn out. If you’ve talked with me at any point since late September, I’ve probably mentioned something about this interview to you. Check it out and see if you found it as perceptive as I did. The added bonus is that if I bother you about watching it, you’ll be able to hush me up.
A true story to echo his dismissal of the modern Congress as an independent institution: A friend of my mom’s knows Steve Sauerberg, who ran for the Senate against Dick Durbin in Illinois in 2008. When Sauerberg asked a current Senator about the position, he was told that if he won he should expect a 6-year vacation because Senators don’t do anything.
I am about to head out to an Elder retreat for my Church, Sovereign Grace Fellowship. We will be spedning some quality time together and pray for God’s leading and guidance upon His body. I love the Body of Christ and am most excited when praying and planning according to His will. Jesus is the head!!! May He bless His Body and guide us, His elders of this Church.
I saw Clinton interviewed the other night, and even he was concerned about the openness in Obama’s position which permits the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research. Clinton supported embryonic research for embryos that were created “in vitro” and were going to be discarded. He did not support the creation of embryos for the purpose of research on ethical grounds.
Bush essentially approved funding on existing stem cell lines, but prohibited the funding for future embryos, even if created in vitro and to be discarded.
Obama has decided to take us beyond not only Bush, but even Clinton. Scary Stuff!!!
In Time’s article highlighting the “New Calvinism”, it is interesting to note that all such folks mentioned in the modern ”Calvinistic” scene are all “credo-baptists” (those who believe in baptizing only those who actually profess Christ as Lord). Those mentioned were:
John Piper
Al Mohler
Mark Driscoll
Justin Taylor’s “Between Two Worlds” Blog
I’m not trying to drive a stake between paedo-baptists and credo-baptists, and was shocked to see that R.C. Sproul and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals weren’t included. I know that some of my Calvinistic friends would actually protest affirming this new breed of pastors and theologians as “Reformed” or “Calvinistic” because they don’t subscribe to one of the older confessions and differ on the mode and administration of baptism.
What else is also intersting to note is that Piper, Driscoll, and I believe Taylor, not sure about Mohler, are all theological continuationists regarding Spiritual Gifts. The departure from paedo-baptism and a hard line cessationist theology of these leaders attest to the evolution of Calvinism.
I am personally very similar to a John Piper and Mark Driscoll in theology, but have avoided the “Calvinist” label because I want to respect the Confessional heritage and distinctives of historic Calvinism that differ from where I am at. I love the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Standards, etc, and only disagree with about 1% of the statements in the collective whole. I also don’t think that such confessions explicitly prohibit a Charismatic theology…I would argue that some of the Westminster divines were actually Charismatic. Anyhow, I am a “Neo-Calvinist”. Perhaps the title of Time’s article, “The NEW Calvinism”, was intentional to include this new wave of folks who subscribe to probably 90% of what Calvin wrote and should still be classified as “Calvinists” with such differences. Perhaps David Van Biema has no idea that Piper, Driscoll, etc vary from historic Calvinism. I don’t know.
Anyhow, I am grateful for the growth of “Biblical Theology”. I think that the system of theology found in Calvin’s Institutes best accords with the witness of Scripture than that in the Wesleyan/Arminian camp, with all due respect. I align myself with the Calvinistic stream of historic Reformational-Evangelical Christianity and really don’t care what people want to call me. For some people, I am too Calvinistic…to others, I fall short of the Calvinist label…and to others yet, they say that what I preach makes sense and they haven’t even heard of Calvinism. It is this third group that I most enjoy ministering to and fellowshipping with. I could care less what they think of my “Calvinistic” cred. I think the same can be said of Al Mohler, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll. It is for this reason that I think “Calvinism” is growing…that our theology is enumerated from Scripture rather than weekly citations of a historic confession. When folks later find out that what they have been taught and have been believing is “Calvinism”, the response is “Okay, whatever”. They would rather quote Scripture than a confession of creed and this is perfectly acceptable with me. While I am encouraging a greater appreciation for the creeds and confessions of the church, it is vain unless they see it in Scripture.
This “New Calvinism” changed me when I was 19, not from reading Calvin or the confessions, but from submitting myself to Scripture. At the same time, I feel indebted to Calvin and his commitment to the Scriptures. I am currently reading through his Institutes to commemorate his 500th birthday.
In closing, some of my confessional friends can call me a “weird Ana-Baptist”…I don’t care.
My Calvary Chapel friends can say that my Calvinism is evil…I don’t care.
My Charismatic friends are frankly unimpressed about theological labels and simply want to know if I am following the Lord…I like it.
The saints of Sovereign Grace Fellowship come up to me after a sermon from time to time and simply say, “Thank you for preaching the Bible”. When I preach texts that emphasize God’s providence and grace, I sometimes hear, “Your sermon sustained me through the trials I faced in the week”, “I am praying for God to awaken my child’s heart”, etc. Those are the greatest compliments…that I am teaching the Word of God. Whether they call it Calvinism or even understand Calvinism is the furthest thing from my mind in such moments. They have seen God as their Sovereign, they realize that our every breath is governed by His wise counsel, they know that He works ALL things for the good of those whom He loves, they know that Jesus went to the cross to die for them by name, they know that they are sinners saved by amazing grace, they know that God is the author and perfecter of their faith, they know that they are in the hands of an Omnipotent and Loving God…and such truths are precious to them. They won’t recognize Calvin in glory and I doubt that Calvin will really care. That is the Calvin I know, the Calvin I emulate, and apparently the “New Calvinism” that is “changing the world” according to TIME Magazine…to which Calvin and I would say
Time Magazine just released the 10 ideas that are most changing the WORLD right now. #3 on the list was…ummm prepare yourself, we’re talking about the World, not just the Church, not just America, but the third most important idea changing the world….okay I have been redundant. It is….drum roll…
ILLUSTRATION BY LORENZO PETRANTONI FOR TIME; CALVIN: POPPERFOTO / GETTY
If you really want to follow the development of conservative Christianity, track its musical hits. In the early 1900s you might have heard “The Old Rugged Cross,” a celebration of the atonement. By the 1980s you could have shared the Jesus-is-my-buddy intimacy of “Shine, Jesus, Shine.” And today, more and more top songs feature a God who is very big, while we are…well, hark the David Crowder Band: “I am full of earth/ You are heaven’s worth/ I am stained with dirt/ Prone to depravity.”
Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin’s 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism’s buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism’s latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination’s logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time’s dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision. (Read about the re-emergence of Catholic indulgences.)
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation’s other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don’t have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by “glorifying” him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism’s loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don’t operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, “everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world” — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle’s pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom’s hottest links.
Like the Calvinists, more moderate Evangelicals are exploring cures for the movement’s doctrinal drift, but can’t offer the same blanket assurance. “A lot of young people grew up in a culture of brokenness, divorce, drugs or sexual temptation,” says Collin Hansen, author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. “They have plenty of friends: what they need is a God.” Mohler says, “The moment someone begins to define God’s [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist.” Of course, that presumption of inevitability has drawn accusations of arrogance and divisiveness since Calvin’s time. Indeed, some of today’s enthusiasts imply that non-Calvinists may actually not be Christians. Skirmishes among the Southern Baptists (who have a competing non-Calvinist camp) and online “flame wars” bode badly.
Calvin’s 500th birthday will be this July. It will be interesting to see whether Calvin’s latest legacy will be classic Protestant backbiting or whether, during these hard times, more Christians searching for security will submit their wills to the austerely demanding God of their country’s infancy.
I love all the artists at Reach Records. This video is about seeking truth and abiding by it. There is even a dig at Arius and false doctrine. I just love this theologically driven urban hip-hop.
I know this a little late but I had it drafted during the elections but just forgot about it but still wanted to post anyway b/c this problem didn’t stop just b/c this election is over.
Why were black conservatives who voted for McCain being ostracized for their conservative beliefs? People want to claim that only white people are racists or prejudice. I’m not even white. There are people among their own races are prejudice against another just because they believe or think differently. There’s a difference between not liking a person’s idea or philosophy but to hate them or threat or accuse them of being traitors, isn’t that just the very thing black people are supposedly fighting against? I’m not prejudice or anything but black people think they have the right to live by this double standard where they can call other people of any race, names or stereotypes and it be ok, but all hell breaks lose if it’s the other way around?! Why can a black person joke about and say the “voodoo” words or labels and it be funny but if other races do it, the ACLU is quick on their tail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A&feature=related Here’s a guy expressing his conservative views and you can read some of the negative comments he received as a result. Why isn’t he “black enough” just because he shares conservative views? Ridiculous.
I watched a segment on DL Hugley’s show where he was interviewing Michael Steele and saying how the republican party is just a bunch of white old folk. Hello? Do you not see just as much white old folk in the democratic party? At least Mr. Steele was quick to point that out leaving DL staring into space.
I looked on the blogosphere to check this kind of prejudice and saw the hate comments directed towards anyone black that was voting for McCain, especially that radio show host that stood up at one of McCain’s rallies. It really angers me to see this stuff. What a shame that he would have to endure that kind of treatment just because he’s black & he’s conservative.
Ok, was it just me or did anyone else notice the plethora of pens that Obama used to sign the spending bill?? I mean really, how many pens does a guy need to sign those documents? Are there special powers to each pen? Are they all different colors? Did one not have enough ink? Were they like new cars, went out of style and dropped dramatically in value as soon as it left the lot, or in this instance, it’s place in the pen case?
They were likely overpriced pens, like $500-$1000 or something, like every other overpriced government buys. I wonder if the government buys anything “made in china” for it’s quality and top dollar pricing or maybe it’s all from China with a deal under the table in exchange for more power over America? Has our government been bought out?
I found it so hilarious that Obama signed that bill with all those pens. I searched the web a little about this and saw others say it was 10 pens. I didn’t count when I saw it nor do I want to see that sad day again either. But this was good for a laugh! hahahahahahahaha LOLOLOLOLOL
I have set up a free fantasy baseball league through Fox Sports and looking to fill the 12 team max I have set. As of now, we have 4 teams and are ready to go. A live draft will take place on Sunday, March 15th at 10:30pm (Eastern Time Zone). Let me know if you are interested and I will send you an email invite to our league.
In a recent article in the LA Times, it is noted that the Angels have been emphasizing plate discipline and pitch recognition throughout the organization.The OC Register also ran a similar article noting this new emphasis in the Angels’ organization.
I am very encouraged at this new-found emphasis. It seemed that their former philosophy was to swing at the first good pitch because you may not see another one. They are now emphasizing taking a strike in leadoff situations, lay off offspeed pitches when ahead in the count, etc.
If the Angels’ increase their On Base Percentage by even .10 points, it will translate into more runs and a slight increase in net win totals. Even more importantly, they will force the opposition to throw more pitches and work through the bullpen in a 3 game series.
Anyhow, just my ramblings for baseball fans out there…a sport, whose outcome over a 162 game season is most determined on objective stats and measures for success. A 4 game win streak in the NFL can land you in the Superbowl, whereas such a winstreak would only reflect just over 2% of the baseball season. I do admit that the baseball playoff system does not allow for great margin of error, especially in a 5 game series when you can’t afford a single bad outing from one of your frontline starters. Just more rambling….but I believe in a 7 game playoff round and a reduction of the 162 game schedule to 156-160 games to account for the added playoff games.
I want to thank the elders of my church for granting me a sabbatical leave to attend the following conference in Spokane, WA. I’m really looking forward to it. I have heard great things about this church from a missionary family that we support which attended this church while living in Spokane. Actually, you should check out the Underhill’s website here.
I am also looking forward to meeting Kent Hughes (former pastor of College Church in Wheaton, IL), who is like the Godfather to Expository preaching. Coincidentally, I am also preaching through the Minor Prophets, which is the theme of the conference. Now tell me how many conferences in the entire world are focusing on the Minor Prophets? Probably just this one.
Looking forward to some good times, good fellowship with fellow pastors, etc. Information is pasted below FYI. What a deal for $99!!!
Christ the Redeemer Church in Spokane, Washington
March 17-19, 2009
Barry Webb is a research fellow in Old Testament at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia where he has also served as Lecturer, Senior Lecturer since 1978 and held the post of Head of Old Testament Studies during 1991-2005. He has several academic degrees and credentials including a BA from Queensland, B.Div from London and Ph.D from Sheffield University. He also serves as an assistant editor for the Reformed Theological Review. He has written or edited numerous books and articles including the Bibles Speaks Today commentaries on Isaiah and Zechariah as well as Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther.
$99 USD includes lunch and
refreshment breaks each day.
$25 nonrefundable deposit
Kent Hughes is retired Senior Pastor of College Churchin Wheaton. He received his Master of Divinity degree from Talbot Seminary as well as advanced degrees in ministry and divinity from Biola University and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has authored numerous books including Disciplines of a Godly Man and many volumes of the Preaching the Word commentary series of which he is the editor.
Paul Rees is Senior Pastor of Christ the Redeemer Church in Spokane, Washington. He was raised in Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, and spent time studying in London before transitioning into full-time ministry. He graduated with a Master of Divinity degree from Moore Theological Seminary in Sydney, Australia.
Carey Hughes is Assistant Pastor of Christ the Redeemer Church in Spokane, Washington. He studied secondary education (with an emphasis in Bible) at Columbia International University in Columbia, South Carolina. After three years as the Jr. High Director at College Church in Wheaton, Carey completed a Masters of Theology at Moore College in Sydney, Australia. He has been at Christ the Redeemer Church for 10 years.
Okay, I know that some are about to stone me for even mentioning Geerhardus Vos and charismatic in the same sentence. It was intended to be provocative, but I must say that Vos’ pnuematological insights align well with a Redemptive-Charismatic hermeneutic. He quotes:
The position of Jesus in the development of pneumatology as between the Old Testament and Paul can be broadly defined as follows: In the Old Testament the Spirit is the Spirit of theocratic charismata, who qualifies prophets, priests and kings for their office, but is not communicable from one to the other. Of this charismatic Spirit Jesus has received the fullness, and, having the fullness, dispenses of it to His followers, first partially and by means of promise, then in greater fullness by way of fulfillment at Pentecost (Vos:387).
This “theocratic” work of the Spirit did manifest itself by possessing prophets, priests, and kings. Each office complements one another and requires a special empowering that only God can provide through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Old Testament pneumatology is therefore mostly confined to this “theocratic” nature. The Spirit’s work was specific and specifically given only to those who occupied each of the offices. Joel’s promise of the Spirit (2:28-32) ascends from this backdrop of “theocratic charismata” and declares that such phenomenon will not only accompany the three offices, but rather all of Israel. Though the outpouring of the Spirit contains within it a soteriological nature, the emphasis for Joel was on its charismatic nature in the life of Israel.
Vos understands Jesus as the climatic bearer of the Spirit as He possessed all three offices within the theocratic strata. The Spirit is therefore understood as a vocational empowering upon Jesus to fully execute His offices of prophet, priest, and king. Lukan Christology and Pneumatology converge in Jesus baptism, where He receives the Holy Spirit. For Luke, this Spirit is what ushers in Jesus’ Messianic ministry. He is full of the Spirit and led by the Spirit into the wilderness (Lk. 4:1), returns from the wilderness to Galilee “in the power of the Spirit” (Lk. 4:14), and proceeds to quote Isaiah 61 on the Sabbath in Nazareth,
“And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”” (Lk 4:17-19, ESV)
Shortly after Jesus’ reading, he proceeds to heal a demon possessed man in Capernaum, Simon’smother in law, and then all who were brought to him (Lk. 4:31-41). This is no small thing in Luke’s account. Jesus is clearly being portrayed as the great theocrat, endued with power. It is this very same paradigm that Luke unpacks in Acts as the disciples are told by Jesus to wait in Jerusalem for “power” from on high. This was not a soteriological or sanctifying work of the Spirit, but clearly a “theocratic” vocational endowment of the Spirit for the disciples.
Lukan pneumatology should therefore be understood less in a soteric/regenerative aspect and instead in an empowering/theocratic aspect. I think Vos was onto something, although he didn’t enumerate his points in an apologetic for what is now understood as “charismatic” theology. The foundations he lays, however, align better with “charismatic” theology than his “cessationist” grandchildren.
Rick Hogaboam
Chad
mimi
Brian Andrews
joelmartin
Scott Kistler
Okay, so I watched this flick with the kids the other day and thought I’d share some thoughts on it. It’s a short animated film for children. The plotline basically centers on two brothers, Skeeter and Sinclair, who are very different in makeup, with Skeeter feeling inferior to his adventurous brother Sir Sinclair. Without giving away the entire story, I will summarize by stating that these two brothers need to find a treasure and realize that they need one another. They realize that their unique gifts actually complement one another.
