Benjamin Zander: Classical music with shining eyes

This is a remarkable video, not just in terms of gaining an appreciation for classical information, but for the leadership lessons the artist teaches. It's long, but worth it. Someone shared it with me on Facebook, and I wanted to share it with others.

Would you like fries with your Hallelujah Chorus?

This has been around for a while, but for those who haven't seen it, you should. A "flash mob" breaks out in a sterling rendition of the Hallelujah Chorus in a mall food court last month.

Watching it makes me wish that those of us who know the Messiah would be as bold as those who are singing "The Messiah" in this clip.

Enjoy.

Carson's "The God Who is There" Audio/Video Available for Free

This is a great book, by a wonderful teacher, and now we get to see the 14 part series done at Bethlehem Baptist Church in 2009 upon which the book is based.  Here is the first episode, and if you follow the links at the bottom, you can find the next 13 episodes as well as links to supporting materials for use in small group study.  I highly recommend this to you.


The God Who Is There - Part 1. The God Who Made Everything from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

55 Years Ago Today: Rosa Parks Refuses to Move and Sparks a Movement – Justin Taylor

Read this wonderful tribute from Justin Taylor at his "Between Two Worlds" Blog.

Click here.

Happy Thanksgiving to Anyone Checking This Long Silent Blog!

Keeping 2 blogs, Twitter, and Facebook going hasn't worked too well for me--this is the site that has suffered, even though it's much easier to edit than my other blog, The Village Pastor (my official blog for my church family).  

But if you are here, which may mean you have a very boring Thanksgiving Day going, I do want to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving Day.  I have so much for which I am thankful!

1. I can never be thankful enough for the mercy and grace of God, given to me freely through Jesus Christ, and experienced more and more through the work of the Holy Spirit.  As I set my affections on things above, I am immeasurably blessed and changed.  So much could be said, but I'll move into preaching unless I stop.
2. My wife and best friend, Kathy, has blessed me throughout the years in so many ways.  Her love and support give me the confidence to seek to be the man she sees in me.   I never want to take for granted such a great wife.
3. My family teaches me so much, from the power (and sometimes pain) of love, to the marvel of God's work in each of us, to discovering the wisdom we never know our parents had, to having our siblings become more to us than we would have known, to the miracle of watching children become "people" (you know what I mean).  I love you all.
4. The body of Christ amazes me.  My local fellowship, Grace in Cedarville, loves me so well.  I love you back.  Dear brothers and sisters who serve with me here, and serve for us around the world have enriched my life even as they model selfless service to the Lord; you are in my heart and prayers, and I think about you with gratitude.
5. I have some very incredible friends, whose impact on my life far exceeds the time we sometimes get to spend together.  Just hearing your voices on the phone, or getting a random email, gives me so much joy.
6. I don't want to be trapped by what I have, but I also want to express great thankfulness for the ways in which God has blessed us with a bounty!  We will eat some of that bounty today!

So thankful!

Blog Entering the Cone of Silence

As I am traveling to southern Africa for two and half weeks, and will not have steady access or time to blog, I'm letting anyone who cares know that the blog will be pretty much limited to the thingys in the sidebar.  Enjoy, and Lord willing I'll be back here in early October!

Joel Rosenberg's latest report from Israel

Click on the title above or the link below to read Joel Rosenberg's insightful take on the situation currently in the Middle East. I usually find myself nodding in agreement with most of his points. This article is no exception.

Click here to go to the article.

Why A Pastor and Church Burning the Quran is a Sin

I am appalled by the plans of the Florida church and minister to burn Qurans on September 11th. But it is not just the stupidity of the action and the callous disregard of a myriad of unintended consequences that may occur (from danger to Americans overseas to inciting greater Muslim fanaticism around the world) that bothers me.

I believe this action is sin. By doing what they are doing this pastor and congregation are offending the very people they would teach Jesus died for. The pastor has forfeited his calling as a testimony to God's grace and his leading his people to live out the gospel toward others. The people have joined in the evil that their leader plans to do. This is not loving one's neighbor, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, giving no offense, or making the gospel an aroma of life. Not only would Jesus NOT do this, but it flies in the face of living as gospel witnesses. But then, I am not convinced that the gospel matters very much in this case, at least in the interviews I hear from the pastor. He complains about Muslim extremists and their actions, and actually said, "What are we supposed to do, sit back and take it?"

Yes, sir, we are, if we are ambassadors for Christ.

If this man were acting as a private citizen as a part of a secular fringe group, I would still be appalled and in opposition. But he is doing this while calling himself a pastor--a shepherd of God's flock. And this church is calling itself a manifestation of the body of Christ. By their words and actions, neither could be judged to be true.

They bring reproach not just on Americans, but on Jesus Christ and the gospel, just as Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church has done for years during their protests at military funerals and their anti-homosexual protests calling for the deaths of "queers."

We cannot stop people from using titles or callling themselves churches. But we ought to make clear that they are at the very best deluded and deceived, and very possibly they are false teachers and false witnesses used by Satan himself to undermine the gospel of Jesus.

Here is a recent news story on the event: Fla. minister: Sept. 11 Quran burn still planned - Yahoo! News

Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com; God: Yes I did - Bible

The faith expressed by Stephen Hawking is breathtaking: "spontaneous creation" as the reason everything exists. The "existence of gravity" as evidence that the universe "can and will (note the future tense)" create itself from nothing.

How can "nothing" create itself?

I have great respect for this man's courage and discipline to overcome incredible disabilities. Yet, if he does not qualify as an example of "professing [himself] to be wise, [he] became fool[ish]" in Romans 1, I would be hard pressed to be able to cite anyone as such an example.

Read: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com

Why Hope is Missing for Today's Israel/Palestine Negotiations

Last night the President hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for dinner.  Today they start what is supposed to be a year's worth of negotiations to finalize peace between these peoples.

Can I suggest one very big reason that there is little reason to hope here?  There is no leader of "Palestine" to negotiate with.  Abbas and what is left of the PLO governs the West Bank, shakily.  Hamas has held Gaza for years and no "government" presence exists there.  Quite simply, Abbas can't implement anything he agrees to.  And even in the West Bank, Hamas operates, as they proved in an attack on Israeli settlers that killed four.  Abbas' government has received billions from Europe and the U.S. to prop it up, and relies (as does Gaza) on Israel to continue to supply power and water (the fact that Israel keeps the power on in Gaza while rockets continue to be launched from there against her is one of the most underreported stories of our age). 

Unless and until Palestinians have a functioning leadership that actually has control within its territory, the only negotiating "option" for Israel is to make concessions and hope that this time everyone else will "play nice."  Yasser Arafat was the last such leader, and he turned down offers more generous than those recently discussed.  Abbas says more concessions from Israel must be made, but he can not offer any guarantee that Hamas will abide by his agreements--in fact, they have said they will not. 

I pray for the peace of Jerusalem, knowing that ultimately it will only come with the return of her Messiah.  Until then, I pray for the peoples of the land, even in the midst of the continuing loss of political hope.  May they discover the hope that brings true peace--the gospel of peace.

When a Plan Fails, Is the Solution to Do it Again?

A departing Obama administration economic advisor who helped craft the stimulus package announced in her last speech that the plan failed to generate growth and jobs. Her suggested solution is to do it again. In fact, it is to "tax less and spend more."

Now, if government deficits and debt are bad and drag down our economic performance and confidence, it would seem that we should spend less or tax more, but not the other way around. And if, as has been shown from the time of Kennedy onward, tax rates are reduced, then government revenues actually increase because people have more to invest and spend, then taxing more should be off the table. Therefore, the solution is to spend less--much less.

I know, I don't have advanced degrees in economics. But I did read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson and listened well to Dr. Allen Monroe in Foundations of Social Science class. Why, if uncontrolled debt is bad for me and spending more than I take in is devastating, should I believe it is good for a society?

Read the speech and commentary here: Romer: My Plan Failed FrumForum

"Back To School" from Walter Russell Mead's Blog

This link takes you to the thoughts of a brilliant scholar and writer who is returning to the classroom and has some powerful advice for students. It's a thought-provoking read.

Do We Have To Say "in Jesus' name" to Pray Right?

In a recent sermon I mentioned that repeating words as if they make our prayers effective is a practice similar to the Ephesians' attempts to use words of power as charms or curses.  Some dear friends pointed me to John 14:14 where Jesus encourages us to pray "in my name" as warrant for saying this is necessary.  I spent some time composing an answer, and here is what I shared with them.

Thank you for your comment and response last Sunday.  I hope that you will believe me when I say that I appreciate your concern for honoring the name of Jesus in prayer, which I referenced a few weeks ago in the sermon.  I’d like to try to explain what I was referring to, and hope it will help you to understand my thinking on this matter.  I know that it may seem that I am moving outside of what Scripture directs, such as John 14:13-14, 15:16, or 16:23-26.  As you say, the Savior clearly teaches us to ask the Father “in my name.”  I believe that is what we are to do.  But I do not believe that what this means is simply to say the phrase at the end of, or sometime in the middle of, any given prayer.  The point I was trying to make is that simply saying, “…in Jesus’ name” is not what praying in Jesus’ name means, and can become similar to what the Ephesians thought of as using words of power to get what they wanted if we reduce it to saying the right phrase at the end of a prayer.

As I examine the prayers prayed from the time of Jesus onward in the New Testament, I do not find any particular formula at the end of a prayer.  If you look through the New Testament, you do have prayers that have “Amen” at the end by various apostles and writers.  You have prayers that simply end with the final petition or praise to God. But you never find an example of a prayer that ends with the phrase, “in Jesus’ name.”

In Matthew 18:20, Jesus speaks of gathering “in my name” which means he is the focus or reason for the gathering.  Matthew 24:5 tells of false prophets coming “in my name”—claiming the authority and commission of Jesus.  In Mark 9:37 it speaks of receiving a child in Jesus’ name and receiving Jesus himself by doing so.  In Mark 9:39 it speaks of doing a mighty work in his name.  This means claiming to act in the authority and power of Jesus or on behalf of Jesus. In John 5:43, Jesus speaks of coming in “his Father’s name”—which means on behalf of or in the authority of the Father.  He says that people didn’t receive him this way, but that if someone comes in his own name, the listeners would receive such a witness.  Then there are the passages in John about prayer that I mentioned above.  In each case, it does not mean to say the words, “in Jesus’ name.”  I don’t, for example, say “I receive this child in Jesus’ name,” or “I do this good work in Jesus’ name,” and so on.  I do these things in the attitude of doing what Jesus would do or have me do in the given situation.

Based on all these usages of the phrase, and the absence of the words themselves in actual New Testament prayers, it seems that asking or praying “in Jesus’ name” cannot mean I am to say those words, any more than receiving a child in Jesus’ name means I have to say those words then.  I pray in Jesus’ name whenever I pray in under his authority, or pray what he would have me to pray.  When he teaches us to pray in the Lord’s prayer, he does not tell us to say “in Jesus’ name” at the end, but he teaches to pray exactly what he prayed for in other prayers and would have us pray for—the glory of God, the will of God to be done, the provision of God for our needs, the protection of God from evil.  Such prayers carry his authority because they are what he wants us to pray—so that when I pray such things I pray in his name.  This would hold true for all the prayers I find written in the New Testament.  I believe that Paul’s prayers in his epistles were certainly prayed in the power and authority of Jesus, but he didn’t say or write, “in Jesus’ name” at the end.  He didn’t need to because the whole of the prayer was what Jesus wanted him to pray.

Now, it is certainly not wrong to say “in Jesus’ name,” and if it is a meaningful reminder of the authority in which we pray, it is a very good thing.  I often speak of Jesus’ name and authority as I pray to the Father, during the course of different prayers.  However, it seems to me that many times the use of “in Jesus’ name” has become an empty form to us, much like the word “Amen.”  We treat these phrases as our way to say either “goodbye” or “I’m finished now,” in a prayer.  But Jesus’ name is his authority and his reputation, and “Amen” is the word for “true,” as in “truly, truly I say to you.”  It means you can believe what is said.

Worse, there are some who actually believe and teach that unless we say these words, our prayers are substandard and not likely to be heard.  I have had people here tell me that this is what they had been taught.  That is not only wrong, but dangerous, because it makes a particular word or phrase the key to powerful praying.  And of course we all know that there are prayers for things offered with the “in Jesus’ name, Amen” ending that are not according to the will of God—sometimes out of ignorance, but sometimes out of wrong motives.

I grieve over the lack of powerful, consistent prayer that marks so many Christians and churches.  I long to see prayer revitalized in a way not seen in decades among American Christians, and we will be talking about prayer in a few weeks for a number of Sundays.  One of the problems I encounter is believers who have lost faith in the power of prayer, and one of the main reasons I hear from them is “well, I prayed with all my heart, and prayed in Jesus’ name, but it didn’t happen.  Jesus said if I ask for anything in his name that it would happen.  So he is either not really able to do it, or praying in his name doesn’t work.”  I think a wrong understanding of what praying in Jesus’ name means needs to be corrected for many.  It isn’t saying the words, it is praying as Jesus wants us to pray—for the right things, with the right motivation, for the appropriate length of time.  It is not to inform him of what we need—for he knows, but to demonstrate faith and dependence on him alone.

I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on this, and if you can offer any help to my understanding, I would gladly receive it.  I love you and appreciate your fellowship in the gospel here.  You have been a great encouragement to me as your pastor.  Keep praying for me.

So do you have any thoughts to share on this?

A Great Resource for Audiobooks!

I have been enjoying the benefits of registration with ChristianAudio.com, a site that boasts "the largest collection of Christian audio books" on the internet.  They indeed have a large catalog, and their prices are reasonable.

But even better, they offer a free audiobook each month, and sometimes more than one.  I am currently listening to one I got a few months ago, The Cost of Discipleship by Bonhoeffer.  I've also obtained both of Francis Chan's books on audio, Religion Saves: And Nine Other Misconceptions by Mark Driscoll, The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, a biography of E.M. Bounds, and others.

Just click on the link above and register if you would like to begin to share the bounty of books on your IPod or mp3 player.

What do Francis Chan, Jim Belcher, and N.T. Wright all have in common?

Answer: They have all resigned a pastoral role in order to pursue a new direction in ministry, AND, I read a book by all three this year and found it helpful!


Francis Chan's book was Crazy Love.  An excellent and convicting call to a life that is sold out for Jesus.  Actually I've read two books by Chan, the other great one being Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect of the Holy Spirit. Neither is ponderous, and both are challenging reading.  Chan has left his teaching pastor position at Cornerstone Church of Simi Valley, CA, to serve a ministry in Thailand with his family for the remainder of the year, and then find a new ministry in a major urban area in the U.S.

From Jim Belcher, Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional.  Most books that try to come up with a "third way" tend to get lost, but this one strikes a very good balance.  I'd say that the middle that is described wouldn't bother too many of us.  Belcher has left the PCA church he planted in southern California to study abroad for a year.

Finally, N.T. Wright's "Paul for Everyone" commentary series has a wonderful volume on The Prison Epistles that has been particularly helpful in my preaching through the book.  I also read his tome on The Resurrection and the Son of God and, while huge and hugely technical, found it very helpful nonetheless.  Wright is stepping down from his role as a Bishop in the Anglican Church to take up teaching in a university.

Follow the links if you are interested.

Getting Back on the Blogging Bus

Well, I don't know if any one has missed me, but the summer has been one of lots of activities and travel, and not one for sitting and writing.  At least, that's my story. I'm working on a few posts right now, and hope to get back to this soon.

We'll see!

Update on Caner post from 5/3

Ergun Caner, dean of Liberty University, has been demoted from that position, and will serve only as a professor at the graduate school he has led for four years.  The action was taken following an investigation prompted in large part by bloggers who saw discrepancies between his public statements concerning his background as a former Muslim.

You can read a report on the action and the reasons here.

This whole situation was originally referenced and continues to be a good warning to those of us who speak publicly to keep our tendency toward embellishment and self-promotion firmly under the guard of the Holy Spirit.

Does Israel Deserve the World's Condemnation?

The world seems ready once again to condemn Israel for the force used to stop a flotilla of activists seeking to break the blockade of the Gaza strip.  This blockade, imposed by both Israel and Egypt, is meant to stop the supply of weapons and other war-making material to Hamas, the de facto rulers of this small, densely populated strip of land along the Mediterranean.  Over 10,000 tons of relief aid is shipped through Israel to Gaza each week, so the aid on the ships was a pretext for the attempt to break the blockade.  People on the ship were prepared to use violence to repel Israeli forces that sought to board the main ship, with a result of at least nine of the activists dying in the clash.

Video has been released showing the soldiers being attacked by the ship's passengers, and both Egypt and Israel offered to let the ships dock and then transport the aid to Gaza.  These offers were refused.  The only conclusion to draw is that the flotilla wanted a confrontation.  One woman on the ship was quoted saying that they had two good alternatives ahead--landing in Gaza or martyrdom.

In a clear and blunt video message in response to worldwide criticism, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to apologize for actions he says are defending the safety of Israelis.  He warns that Israel will continue to maintain this blockade, and asks other world leaders, "what would you do" if your people were under missile attacks.

Some press in the U.S. is reporting Israel's responses, but most of the world's reporting is calling the action a massacre and calling for condemnation of Israel.  While I don't believe that all of Israel's actions in relation to Palestinians are always just; in this case I have no doubt that Israel's actions should be seen as justifiable, and in fact would be the actions of any country that considered itself at risk.  When America blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis in the early 60s, there was no thought that any ship would be let through, no matter how "peace loving" they may have been.

Israel is under siege in world opinion, and is still bordered by nations and peoples that desire and seek its destruction.  I've been in Israel during tense times, and in cities that have been the target of missiles from Lebanon and from Gaza.  Their treatment of Gaza is far more humane than that of their neighbors dealing with political rivals or ethnic groups.  How much humanitarian aid would be making its way to a surrounded Jewish enclave that was surrounded by a superior Arab power?  There is no doubt that the amount would be zero--if such an enclave were even to be allowed to exist.

Israel's future holds some very difficult days ahead, until the day they welcome their Messiah's return to earth. Her friends will be few in those days, but God does not forget those who bless his chosen people, even in their unbelief.  Being a friend to Israel may sometimes mean expressing disapproval when the state acts unjustly.  More often, it will mean enduring the opposition of most of the rest of the world.

Alcohol, Liberty, and Legalism – Justin Taylor

I had just had a discussion with someone about a pet peeve of mine--dealing with the twin problems of some Christians trying to insist that alcohol is a sin, and having to listen to other Christians who have discovered their freedom to enjoy alcohol--and have to talk about it in every conversation  (or tweet, or FB post, or blog).  And then I came across this post by Justin Taylor at his Between Two Worlds  blog, and not only found him talking about the same thing, but writing a post that captured my thinking, and encouraged me as well.  I highly commend it to all.
For the article, click on the post title above, or follow this link.

Posted using ShareThis

A Story I Want to Remember

Today was the funeral of a man in my church that many people would not know--Carl's years of more visible involvement were before my tenure.  Even so, many knew him, and those who had known him well over the 20 plus years he was in our village knew he was special.  We heard the story of Carl's conversion today, and stories about the change that faith brought into his life.  He became passionate to let people know about Jesus, and he loved to find ways to help and give to others.  He welcomed me to town when I moved here with one of his favorite passions and gifts--good coffee beans!  One story, though, stands out in my mind.

One of our missionaries returned home for a year of furlough.  Reporting to the church, the missionary shared a prayer request that the Lord might provide a vehicle for the family to use for the year.  Carl responded after the service, telling the missionary that because he recently purchased a new car and had two vehicles, he could give the missionary one to use.  Indeed Carl had a brand new Chrysler that was to replace an old clunker he had driven for years.  The next day, the missionary came to Carl's home to get the car, and was surprised when Carl handed him the keys--to the new Chrysler.  Carl kept driving the old car for the year.  As I spoke to people, I discovered that this was not out of character for him--it was normal.  The few who knew about this at the time were profoundly affected by his example.  I was today.

FOXNews.com - Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop?

My friend Taylor Minor told me about this story last week, but I haven't commented on it yet. It is quite interesting, and I'm intrigued.This link takes you there.

Bloggers Target Seminary President--Christianity Today reports

I take this story to heart as a possible warning against embellishing my own story for the sake of "the bigger story." I have personally appreciated a number of times that I have heard Ergun Caner speak. I also can appreciate how one's remarks could either a) be embellished in the retelling, or b) be easily taken by others out of context as embellishment. Follow this link for the story.

Posted using ShareThis

OT Scholar's Views on Evolution Cost Him His Job

USA TODAY reports that Bruce Waltke, one of the best known evangelical OT scholars of our day, resigned his position at Reformed Theological Seminary, following a controversy begun by his statements, recorded on a website video, affirming that one could believe in evolution and also hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. His comments caused a furor at the Seminary, which allows diversity in views of creation, but doesn't allow faculty to hold a Darwinian position.

The report linked above doesn't explicitly state that Waltke believes in evolution, but he did say that if the church resists established scientific data, it is denying truth, which is God's truth.  The report also quotes Scot McKnight expressing dismay over RTS's actions and affirming the need to wrestle with the questions Waltke raised.  The interim president of RTS responded that the confessional nature of the institution must provide a boundary within which faculty must function.

I have benefited greatly from Dr. Waltke's ministry--both preaching (he is an excellent speaker) and writing.  At the same time, I am puzzled at this development in his thinking--he has been such a stalwart for treating the content of the OT with such integrity.  If he has embraced a theistic evolutionary view instead of some form of direct creation, I am disappointed.  I can understand thinking that looks at the framework of Genesis 1-2 as other than a literal 24 hour day structure--my own view.  The old earth of Hugh Ross and the "day-age" views that are similar are full of problems, from my perspective, but still affirm direct creation by God.  But Waltke seems to be allowing for (if not endorsing) a position I see as inconsistent with the high view of Scripture he has always defended.

Waltke's remarks were in a video posted by an organization called BioLogos, that seeks to promote what they call the harmonization of science and faith, which for them seems to be the acceptance of evolution within Christian thinking.  Waltke was speaking to a seminar they hosted.  Once the controversy began, Waltke asked the video to be removed, but the damage was done.  I am not only bothered by Waltke's position, but that as a professor at RTS, he would publicly advocate a position that was out of line with the institution that employed him.  If his views had changed, he should have left before creating such an uncomfortable situation for RTS.  He should have known better, and done better for a school that had good to him. 

In other "creation news"  I found out that R. C. Sproul, who did not believe in recent creation, changed his views after hearing Douglas Kelly's presentation, now in the book Creation and Change.  It is primarily a theological approach, with reference to science.  I've gone through it myself and recommend it if you are interested.

Posted using ShareThis

Ambivalence About the Evangelical Left

I do not like having biblical faith linked to a political agenda, and believe that much damage has been done over the years by having evangelical leaders play too prominent a role in political settings and debates that go beyond their biblical moorings.  Having Christian groups talk about the "Christian position" on the issue of tax rates, or gun ownership, or drilling for oil on Federal lands, for example, seems a stretch.  There certainly are Christian principles that apply in all decision-making, but whether we have an income tax or national sales tax isn't a matter of moral absolutes (as I understand it).

That said, I have grown increasingly troubled by a number of trends among those who are broadly identified with the "evangelical left"--left being liberal politically and, to some extent, theologically.  Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and Ron Sider have been recognized leaders of the politically active evangelical left for years, and some of the famous "emergent" names have been the theological anchors of the movement more recently--Brian McLaren, for example.  I have personally heard the first three speak on more than one occasion, and have appreciated their presentations.  I've read McLaren and found his early works thought-provoking, but his newer ones disturbing. 

While my own political views have been developed out of what I hope is biblical thinking, I confess that my conclusions tend toward a more conservative/"libertarian with Christian restraints" approach to the tasks of governments, placing the role of social improvement clearly on the shoulders of the Church--recognizing our failures, but pointing to our history of successes at least as bright as government efforts have been.  Nevertheless, I recognize that my own thinking is not infallible, and seek to see the wisdom in thinking different from my own, and allow it to help me grow in my understanding and perspective.

I readily grant that Wallis, Sider, et.al., love the Lord Jesus Christ and do what they do from pure motives.  However, statements they make and positions they take, coupled with their silence and lack of action on other issues, lead me to my current sense of unease with their movement.  I run the risk of overstatement, but let me give you some examples of why I have problems with their thinking.

1. They seek to broaden the "gospel" to include more than the term means.  I hear calls for us to include envirnomental stewardship, racial reconciliation, alleviating poverty, and ending wars as "the gospel" and I cringe.  These may all be fruits of the gospel, but they are not the gospel.  I read an essay on racial reconciliation that said that it was "the heart of the gospel" and spoke disparagingly of any thought that could conceive of the gospel in other terms.  I am passionate about racial reconciliation as a necessary product of the embrace of the gospel, but it is not the gospel or its heart.  The heart of the gospel is "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3;16.  The content of the gospel is "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and he was buried; and he rose again according to the Scriptures, and he was seen..." (1 Cor. 15:3-4).  The call of the gospel is "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).

The gospel is preached to the poor, but it is not about being poor.  It is not, "God has designed government to provide you with what you need."  It is not even, "A nation where Christians shape policy must take care of you."  It is the message of transforming grace experienced through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.  The resulting changed life may change a person to the point that circumstances change.  It brings the power of God to bear in the believer's circumstances.  And it brings the believer into the family of God, where he should (and often will) find the support structures that have been missing in his life through the incarnational ministry of the church. 

The gospel has a context (creation and the history of redemption).  The gospel has fruit (community, stewardships exercised, grace and mercy modeled, and yes, justice sought for the oppressed, in the name of Jesus).  But the gospel is a message that is succinct and clear and defined in the Bible.

2. The Evangelical Left will make strong pronouncements on the necessity of dealing with poverty, opposing war, improving housing standards, mandating diversity, etc., while refusing to speak with equal force and time against abortion, against homosexual practice, against attempts to expand the definition of marriage beyond a heterosexual, monogamous, union, and other at least equally important biblical issues that have an impact on the culture.  Why choose one set of biblical values at the expense of another?  Isn't that what they accuse the Evangelical Right of doing? 

I have a confession.  I've voted for a liberal Democrat before.  While in California, I was faced with voting for a pro-choice conservative Republican, and a lifelong, committed pro-life liberal Democrat.  The Democrat would raise my taxes.  He would favor more government regulations on things I don't think need to be regulated.  But every time the issue of abortion came up, he did everything he could to oppose funding, or limit abortion availability.  He made his own party mad on the issue repeatedly.  It wasn't even hard to choose.  My tax rate isn't a matter of biblical absolute.  Killing infants in their mother's wombs is sin, and should be considered immoral as well as being illegal. 

If I felt that the Evangelical Left was as concerned on the issue of abortion as they are housing policy, I would be much more at ease with their passion.  I'm not convinced, though.

3.  Why does their theological pursuit always seem to lead them away from clear commitment to a biblical gospel, scriptural authority, and historic orthodoxy?  A couple of examples:

• Shane Claiborne has an amazing testimony of commitment to the poor and to living out his faith in community.  I admire his faith.  He is my brother.  Yet in his book, The Irreisistible Revolution, he cites his mentor, Tony Campolo, for challenging him as to whether, if there were no heaven or hell, he would follow Jesus for the joy he brings now.  Claiborne says he has reached that point and is happy about it (p. 117).  I read that and wondered how he could be more spiritual than the apostle Paul, who said that if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are the most pitiful fools on the planet (1 Cor. 15:19).  We can only have hope now in Christ because he has changed us by his grace through his death and resurrection, which is all about a life beyond this one.  It includes this one, but points toward the next.
• Brian McLaren was on NPR last week and said that he was taught a view that God was in Heaven wanting blood and Jesus had to die to satisfy that desire.  Now, he understands that Jesus's death on the cross was orchestrated to have God identify with victims instead of the powerful who persecute them.  This rejection of atonement is a further step away from orthodox Christian belief and teaching from the Scripture.  If "it pleased the LORD to bruise him" (Isa. 53:10) it would seem that God the Father orchestrates the death of his Son.  If there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22), it would follow that God, in fact, did desire the blood of Jesus to be an atoning sacrifice for sin and a propitiation for sinners. 
• Traditional evangelicals are accused by some on of the Evangelical Left of being so focused on getting people to Heaven we forget to care about them now.  May I ask some of my "EL" friends, do they believe any of their neighbors are in danger of going to Hell?  Do they ever preach on the dangers of eternal punishment to be avoided.  Do they call the poor to repentance, or just the rich?  Why is gospel proclamation in the historic sense missing from their efforts, their manifestos, and their campaigns?  Wasn't it traditional evangelicals who founded rescue missions as well as foreign missionary societies?  General William Booth and the Salvation Army would not fit any left/emergent model.  What efforts are being undertaken systematically by those of the Evangelical Left to see people go to Heaven and not go to Hell?  Or have they given up on Hell as a reality?  Is Hell only bad housing here?  Is it being too poor to buy health insurance?   As Jesus said to the Pharisees in their neglect of the weightier matters of the Law while keeping secondary matters, perhaps we all should have done both.  It is a false dichotomy to say we must choose one over the other, but if the choice must be made between a homeless person being offered an eternal home and forgiveness or a comfortable temporal home without God, I know what must prevail.

I believe that most on the Evangelical Left are sincere, and have genuine faith in Christ.  Many seem to be those who have done a pendulum swing away from conservative, orthodox roots due to the failings they have seen in that end of the evangelical spectrum.  But their "gospel" seems distant from the message of Jesus--not the whole and holistic ministry of Jesus, but the message of Jesus.  Their priorities seem as "this-worldly" as they accuse the Evangelical Right of being "other-worldly."  Their political alliances are at least as compromising of their foundational values as those on the Right.  And their theological shifts don't always seem to stop on this side of orthodox faith--the faith once delivered for the saints.

Inside Jokes for Believers: Review of "Stuff Christians Like"

Jonathan Acuff is a church insider--a pastor's kid who saw all the good, the bad, and the truly strange aspects of conservative Christian culture growing up, and continues to observe it today from the vantage point of a believer who hasn't let Christian weirdness drive him away from the faith.  He has blogged about these various evangelical practices, behaviors, and idiosyncracies at Stuff Christians Like and now has collected some of his essays into a book by the same name.  You can read it, or listen to a free download availalble at ChristianAudio.com.

I read the book, and found many of Acuff's stories amusing, and not a few of them just a bit painful, as his observations prove both true and embarrassing in terms of how the evangelical subculture functions.  From repetitive words in prayer to singles praying Jesus doesn't come until they get married and have sex, most everything he writes rings true.

Acuff uses his insights to make points, and he does so without lots of anger or vitriol--using well placed sarcasm instead.  He isn't heavyhanded in his applications when he makes them, either.  He clearly loves the church in all her weirdness.

As with any such book, there is unevenness to the quality of the essays and insights.  While some demanded I read them carefully to enjoy them fully, others, seemed like "skim quick" material.  The book, and the website, are lighthearted and good relaxation material. 

Great Insight from Tim Keller on Proverbs

This post from Tim Keller, Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC, was an encouragement to my heart this morning because of its fresh insights from an old favorite--Proverbs 3.

Posted using ShareThis

Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall - Yahoo! News

This story (link from title or below) has been out for a few days, but I waited to post on it because I wanted to see if anyone came out contradicting it. I didn't expect so, since Eilat Mazar, the archaeologist heading this work, is very well respected.
Of course, we who believe the Bible aren't surprised to find evidence that Solomon really lived, built up and expanded city walls in Jerusalem, and did so in the time frame of Scripture. But it's nice for those who have less faith to be reminded of this history.

There is, as the article notes, a "minimalist" school in Israeli archaeology that late dates all Hebrew history and thinks anything before the divided kingdom period is pretty much myth. This group has spent years arguing against the reliability of the biblical record for the first half of Jewish history, but this is another significant argument against their view.

Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall - Yahoo! News

Some thoughts on "Deep Church"

Deep Church is Jim Belcher's engaging contribution to the seemingly endless attempt to understand what emergent and emerging churches are about, the differences and conflicts that exist between that stream and "traditional" churches, and the quest to find a middle way that takes the best of the two. I listened to the audiobook, and now will get the written version so that I can mark it more carefully, but I was impressed by a number of points that I would share.

• Belcher writes out of experience and personal quest. His own frustrations with some of the limitations experienced in his traditional church experience led to rethinking of the nature and ministry of the church, and in the process he was able to engage key thinkers in what was then a new, emerging movement. He also had opportunity to dialog with key leaders and observers in evangelicalism who helped him along the way. Thus the book flows well out of his own journey.
• He also writes out of personal concern as a church planting pastor to get it right. As a former church planter, I know firsthand the joys and challenges of trying to make sure that that church becomes what God wants it to be, not what I've experienced in the past--sometimes those are very different birds!
• He gives some of the best insights into the nature of what he identifies as three streams of "emerging" churches, values their thinking, and takes seriously their concerns. He also presents traditional counter-arguments to emerging thinking. At a few points I felt that there were better spokesmen and thinking for "traditionalists" than were cited, but overall his portrayal was fair.
• His idea of the "deep church" as a middle way was intriguing and inviting. I think all of us pastors believe we are doing "deep church," but his concept was different than most--a scripturally anchored fellowship that also draws on the "great tradition" of the ecumenical councils as a helpful (though not equally authoritative) source for keeping the church focused on the most important elements of faith.
• I appreciated his emphasis on the need for a thorough going ecclesiology--a doctrine of the church that is robust and has confessional, community, and missional elements in balance. His praise of denominations as a means of accountability and support for churches may be surprising to some, but not to those of us who have experienced good denominational support in the past.
• I'm not sure that his middle way is truly "middle." He clearly presents the questions of the emerging church movement, but the postmodern strength of questioning does not possess an equal basis for answering. His own position seems to be a blend of traditional theology and thinking with the most conservative stream of emerging church "retooling." It would be hard to be "non-traditional" in the larger sense when you are in a confessional denomination, value ecumenical creeds, practice church discipline, and so on, as Belcher does. So, while I greatly appreciate the book and the concept, it isn't in the middle, but still closer to one side than the other of the spectrum.

Read, or listen, to Deep Church, and you will hear a good story, receive an excellent primer on emergent vs. traditional thinking, and gain a well-reasoned vision for what the church can and should strive to be.