Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin

McCain’s running mate is Alaska’s Governor, Sarah Palin. CNN and CNBC both were speculating that to be the case hours before the official announcement. Both are for drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Both are for gun owning rights. Both are happy to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. Is that what you want?

For more thoughts on politics: see my post on a crucial missing political virtue in the current race, or just sign up for the feed here.

UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that McCain has specifically said he is against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (which is good). I believe this has only been previous to his pick for VP, and in any case he is still both for cooperating with the wishes of the states and expanding domestic oil and natural gas supply, so the point remains. How will the rest of the pristine ANWR and outer shelf remain untouched? not to mention the specter of another Exxon Valdez occuring?

A Political Virtue – Obama Versus McCain

I’ll venture a question here:

For those of you who take a Christian view of the world. If Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, how do we justify killing them, much less also killing innocent bystanders at the same time? (Don’t misunderstand Jesus–he was well aware of what self-defense looks like. Remember the ear that Peter cut off?)

Shouldn’t that be a core political virtue that all Christians insist their leaders embody?

Looks like both our options for POTUS are losers in this regard.

Who Cares Why Gambling is Wrong? Me not so much…

Some people do, but it is not an issue we need to focus on. There are far bigger issues in the church and society.

See this post by John MacArthur and my response to it in the comments if you are interested in the topic. Gets me a little hot under the collar, but it should not. If you agree with my perspective, it would be helpful if you added your own comment.

The truth is that there is a lack of love (for the writer of the post) in my response to the post. It made me angry, but perhaps that is appropriate. I am not sure. I’ll have to think about it. I may even offer a further comment because of it.

Other Thoughts Worth Reading (Part 2)

• David Fitch on: “When Liturgy Goes Bad” or paying attention to inherent Imperial (coercive) influences in liturgy. Perhaps we should all review our liturgical practices for inherent biases we see as detrimental?
• Wikipedia on Courage
• Fernando Gros on: “Zizek on Science and Religion” or seeing some encouragement from attacks of the New Athiests. I think this insight is essentially correct. Pastors of the emerging church should take notice of it.
• HarvardBoston on Bill Maher’s critique of Christians “Wrestling with Faith“. Maher is correct, and we need to do something about it.
• Christine Wicker on Pew’s survey of Evangelicals. Or, why the term “Evangelical” should die…along with much of its cultural baggage.

Dr. David M. Scholer reaches the finish line…

Dr. David M. Scholer, a true giant in Christian scholarship and generosity of spirit has passed away…he will be missed. I wish there were more scholars with his insight, temperament and willingness to teach in this world. I had the honor of taking one class from him during my time at Fuller Theological Seminary. I enjoyed it very much and learned a great deal.

His influence on the future of the church through his teaching is incalculable, especially his empowerment of women in the ministry. Well done!!!

Let me invite you to share a story about how Dr. Scholer positively impacted you here. It is good for students to thank those they learn from! I’ll add my own story tonight (hopefully).

I often speak of beauty, but it would be difficult for me to think of apt example of beauty of spirit than Dr. Scholer.

Tributes and obituaries to Dr. Scholer are popping up all over. Here are a few:

Mark Baker-Wright’s Contribution

1. Mark Baker-Wright’s Contribution
2.Pat McCullough
3. Steve in Pasadena
4. Fuller Seminary’s Tribute
5. Hagar’s Daughters – A Tribute
6. Steve Hickey

and a link to a sermon he preached on living with cancer

There are links to other tributes in these posts…

On Apologetics (Part 5)

Picking on up a comment by Bill Maher on HarvestBoston: I saw the interview where Maher made this comment and it struck me as accurate and important. Not that it is anything new, but its challenge is still unanswerable by The Church as a whole.

Here is what Maher said:

One thing I don’t like about religion is — and ask any of the truly devout — it’s not mainly about doing the right thing or being ethical, it’s mainly about salvation. It’s mainly about getting your butt saved when you die. And that’s why I think they’re less moral than atheists.

This is why ethics, apologetics and evangelism are linked. It is also perhaps THE major reason why most people cite they will not step foot into the structures of traditional churches. This is our challenge. Change this perception of The Church–or die as The Church.

This gets right to the virtues. If a church does not love the virtues, then it is all about salvation–or the punch and coffee, but not much else. If you and your church are not concentrating on doing good–then you aren’t. Leaders of the emerging church take heed, unless you end up being the next generation’s excuse to dismiss faith in Jesus Christ out of hand. (I’ll take my own warning here).

———-

If you enjoyed this post, you might enjoy my previous post called On Apologetics (Part 4)

———

If you are not already reading this blog in a reader, get yours here.

Speaking the Truth in Love

How many of you think the discussion by Halden Doerge, myself and others about Lauren Winner’s book Electing not to Vote at the following link is ‘speaking the truth in love‘? I don’t.

On the Virtue of Restraint

Keith Buhler pens a wonderful post of the virtue of restraint. There is wisdom in the post for those willing to listen.

And wisdom really is the point of his post. Restraint itself is not, in my view, a cardinal virtue, rather it is a part of wisdom. Or is it a part of compassion too? At times, it certainly can be.

Paul’s Misogyny and Some Thoughts on Narrative Theology’s Limits

I think this is an important issue to which we need to pay attention. Narrative theological approaches are helpful. I am glad they exist. They are especially helpful in keeping us focused on what the point of the story being told is.

The Limitations of Narrative Theology

However, narrative approaches have their limitations too. Especially, I think, in regards to what might be called the ‘hardscape’ of narrative. Those things that are referenced in a story which are crucial static components of the story that are not only necessary to its plot, but form the basis for our understanding of its nature. (Paul’s appeals to the created order being one of those things in his letters.)

What the Big Bad Wolf has to do with Narrative Theology

So, for instance, it is not sufficient to say that the Big Bad Wolf in the story of Little Red Riding Hood is evil because he is the antagonist. No, he is evil because of his intent to eat Little Red Riding Hood. These are non-negotiables in the narrative. In the same way, it is not sufficient to dismiss Paul’s misogynist thinking (if that is what it is) based on the fact that it is not the main thrust of the ’stories’ he wants to tell us. They can not be dismissed so easily.

It is the same as saying the Big Bad Wolf was only ‘portrayed’ as having Big Bad Teeth because he needed to do his part as the antagonist in the story, but in reality they were dentures he put in to play his part, or worse yet; that someone made this up about the wolf after the fact to suit their needs. No, the wolf had teeth and would sink them into people (especially Little Red if he could catch her) on occasion.

What I think of Paul’s Misogyny

I am open and even agreeable to lots of arguments that show that Paul’s alleged misogyny is misunderstood/not as harsh as conservatives make it/culturally bound/etc… but making his thought ancillary to a more important narrative is a mistake.

Women’s Role in the Church (or anywhere for that matter)

I’ll state plainly that I think women should be able to take any role in church or society that men do. I even think they should be given priority in the church to make up for their current lack of representation.

Standards for Interpretation

However, we must use a theory of scripture and method for handling the texts that is in line with the heart of God, intellectually rigorous, and sufficiently simple as to not defy logic to implement. Some lines of narrative theology may fail the intellectually rigorous standard.

What I am not Saying (A Disclaimer of Sorts)

Now, I have jumped all over Narrative Theology here as a result of reading this post at Emergent Village and here (where it was apparently originally posted). Don’t take this to mean that I think J R Daniel Kirk or Steve Knight is an illegitimate thinker (or part of the New Age Movement or whatever), or that all narrative theological approaches are bad, or that those who rely on it are going to hell, etc. I don’t. I do disagree with the strength of his reliance on a narrative structure for interpreting the teachings of Paul about women. And that criticism is limited to what I read in the post mentioned above.

On Apologetics (Part 4)

Previously in this space in a post called Apologetics (Part 3) I looked at some reasons why I thought historicity in the gospels was still an important part of my faith, even though I had come to faith primarily through personal experience with God and others with similar experiences. I develop that theme further below:

—–

Historicity beyond the Scriptures

However, it is important to me that the trajectory of the tradition continue to be reliable beyond the primary events noted in those writing having been elevated to ‘scripture’ by that same tradition. After all, there are approximately 2000 years of intervening history between the events of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The basis of my current belief is transmitted through all of the intervening lives and deaths of the saints reaching back to the life of Christ himself, no that is too limited—back to Abraham at least. You see my point. The state of the tradition throughout those 2000 years is important to the current state of the church. A corrupt tradition sincerely believed is still corrupt although perhaps a bit more admirably so. But, those thoughts will get us ahead of ourselves.

The Lives and Deaths of the Apostles after the Life of Christ

This brings me back to considering the lives of the apostles. It makes sense that we would need to continue to find real evidence of the profound effect of the miraculous nature of their relationship to Jesus and God in their lives beyond the death of Christ. Otherwise, it is legitimate to question the miraculous nature of these relationships.

After all, if someone you loved and respected came back from the dead to ask you to do something, you would give such a request somewhat of a more thorough hearing and consideration than if the request were made by a person passing you on the street.

This hypothetical is all the more interesting when the nature of those requests are extraordinary and may contain your suffering in a manner that is unimaginable to most people in this day and age (but obvious to those in first century Judea who would see people hang on a cross on an all-to-often basis).

Worse than that even, if the dead-now-alive again person that asks you to do these things has already caused you a great deal of trouble and grief, but now is truly dead and can offer you no comfort in this world or whatever might lie beyond it—and you know that to be the case—you are going to reject such a request out of hand…because you would know they could not have been made anyway. This is the circumstance of the apostles of Jesus if, in fact, he did not come back to the living from the dead.

You have to be convinced that he is alive to continue his mission.

The apostles of Christ clearly were.

If you enjoyed this post, you might enjoy Apologetics (Part 5)

——-
If you are not yet using a reader to follow this blog: Get yours here.

On Apologetics (Part 3)

Last time I quickly reviewed the importance of historicity to my faith in on Apologetics (Part II). I noted that to some extent the martyrdom of the apostles of Jesus was important to me. It seems that, although there is some need to accommodate the lack of rigor in the representation of historical facts in ancient literature, there still needs to be a reasonable degree of reality represented by such documents for my faith to hold together. This is a point of pressure that has always existed for me.

A Sidenote on the Tradition of Science and the Tradition of Faith

I believe in miracles, the resurrection of Christ, etc, not because I believe science says they are possible (it denies this), but because I believe the traditions which talk about them are reliable.

Thus, I believe that science is, to some degree, not the last word. There are some truth claims about which it can not speak. The miraculous nature of the acts of God in history is one of those things. It is interesting that a paradigm of knowledge based on the foundation of being able to accurately, independently and repeatedly observe and verify cause and effect relationships deems itself sufficient to make pronouncements on events of 2000 years ago which can neither be directly observed, much less repeatedly so. However, to the extent that the current church claims a supernatural basis for any repeatedly observable phenomena in its current day, I believe it is appropriate to subject such claims to scientific analysis (Benny Hynn and others of his ilk, take note).

On the Balance of Evidence

To get at the truth of anything, it is important to remain open to the evidence or force of argument on both sides of any debate, but after weighing the evidence and arguments, you must make a decision as to the likely veracity such things. For me, the balance still convincingly speaks to the truth of the miraculous and supernatural nature of the stories of both the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures.

More on this topic at Apologetics (Part 4)

——-
If you are not yet using a reader to follow this blog: Get yours here.

Reviews of Major Books on the Emerging Church

So, I thought it would be helpful to post some reviews of major books on the Emerging Church from various places and viewpoints. Let me know if you think they are helpful, or if you have your own review to submit.

I will select from among all of those writing on the emerging church, missional church, mosaic church and those theologian engaging postmodern thought in a significant way. I will focus on those books listed at: 100 Books on the Emerging Church

Brian McLaren, Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices (Thomas Nelson, 2008).

Surprisingly, it was difficult to find reviews of this book. Most of the reviews that were listed highly by Google were by people so fundamentalist that some of them accused the Moody Bible Institute of being deeply involved in theological error and that Mr. McLaren was clearly a new age prophet here to mislead the church in the end-times. I included one or two of those above, but mostly for curiosity’s sake. The Amazon reviews seemed to be the most substantive.

Michael Danner, “Michael’s Blog: Book Review: Finding Our Way Again by Brian McLaren,” http://michaeldanner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/07/book-review-fin.html.

Berit and Andy Kjos, “Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices,” Kjos Ministries, 5, 2008, http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/lighthousetrails/08/5-mclaren-finding.htm.

Methodist Mavericks, “Methodist Mavericks: May 2008,” http://methodistmavericks.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html.

Helen Mildenhal, “Conversation at the Edge,” Blog, Conversation at the Edge, http://conversationattheedge.com/2008/07/14/finding-our-way-again-by-brian-mclaren/.

Various, “Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices,” Commercial, Various , http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0849901146/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending.