My Photo

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 02/2004

« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »

New Magazine Not Published By Strang, Inc.

Go here. I got a direct mail piece from them that looks promising. They're calling it The Progressive Christian. The site makes references to Zion's Herald, which I've never heard of. Anyone know anything about them? I've signed up for a trial subscription. Why not? I'm not renewing Christianity Today, even though they did have an article about Wendell Berry in their current issue (hey, welcome to the club, CT, you're only several years behind Orion), so I have an opening in my subscription list (which now totals about 15 periodicals).

John "Peter" Piper Picked a Penal Proxy (Substitute)

A friend came back from the latest Emergent Gathering last week. I'll spare you most of the details. He learned about Tony Jones's conversation with John Piper while at the gathering. (Gathering? Is this like Highlander 6? Was Sean Connery there? Tony, there can be only one, so you and Seay are going to have to decide what Emergent thinks about women. Sorry. Tangent.)

Anyway, Tall Skinny Kiwi does a good job of relating the history of the conversation including the Piper and Jones UFC match. A few people have asked me questions about Piper lately, especially after Dever's horrific article about the necessity of holding to penal substitution in a recent CT article and a follow-up (seemingly) article about the rise of Calvinism in the U.S. Piper got a ton of ink in that article. Fittingly, the cover photo showed Piper talking to a roomful of men. Sorry, ladies, Calvin hated vaginas, so you're out. This new fangled Calvinism, as typified by Seay and Driscoll and Mohler (Yes, I just lumped the Triplets of Bellevue together.), is a combination of a fundamentalist read of Scripture and five-point obstinance. Piper, again, fittingly, is the pied piper of this sort of Calvinism in his awful books about Christian hedonism, as well as in his conferences. "Hey, everyone, come get easy answers to difficult questions! Never mind logic. It's all internal logic around here. It works as long as you agree to a few stipulations, five to be exact."

So, yes, I'm in a mood tonight. (It's the three glasses of Hunchback blogger! BTW, if you have a chance to try any of the Victor Hugo reds, especially the Petite Syrah, the Cab, or the Hunchback, pick them up! You won't be sorry. You'll be out about $20, and you'll be happy about it.)

What my friend told me was that Tony Jones related to everyone at the Gathering (There can be only one!) that Piper essentially equates the Gospel, or at least salvation, with penal substitution. Tall Skinny Kiwi has the same statement on his blog. Dever makes a similar claim in the CT article. There are sane voices, such as Scott McKnight, calling for an appreciation of all the atonement theories. While I appreciate McKnight's work and his ecumenical spirit, I'm going to have to disagree. Let's say that we can appreciate many things about atonement theory, but to appreciate penal subsitution means that we have to adopt a view of God that seems antithetical to God revealed in Jesus. We can talk about substitution all day, but penal substitution...there's just not enough wine or weed in the world to make it make sense.

It's one thing to say that penal substitution is in Scripture (you can make the argument, although I'll say you're wrong), but to say that it is the Gospel seems to fall into that special category of Gospel-twisting that Paul is concerned with in his letter to the Galatians. Oh, foolish Calvinists, who has bewitched you... You get the point.

Mother of God, and The Omen on DVD

I need some song help. I'm looking for a list of songs about Mary, the mother of Jesus. I already have Patty Griffin's "Mother of God" and Over the Rhine's "Long Lost Brother." I don't want to hear suggestions about "Mary, Did You Know?" or "Breath of Heaven." All other serious suggestions accepted, and thanks.

By the way, we watched The Omen last night. Julia Stiles is the worst actress of her generation. The whole thing was a stinker, but she stood out as the worst part of a slow, plodding, boring, silly movie. Did anyone tell the filmmakers that Catholics aren't dispensationalists?

Christianity Today Unsure of Definition of Evangelical

Christianity Today's e-newsletter included a link to a story titled: The Top 50 Books That Have Shaped Evangelicals. Subtitled: Landmark titles that changed the way we think, talk, witness, worship, and live. There are some nice surprises on the list, like Leslie Newbigin and Mark Noll. There are also some real shockers, like Left Behind.

I'm not sure how to define "shaped" in CT's title. I mean, I guess Left Behind has shaped me, if by shaped you mean made me more cynical and skeptical about dispensationalism, Christian fiction, and the publishing industry, as well as the aggregate intelligence of mainstream Christians (those who actually purchased and read all the books). However, if by shaped you mean made me a better Christian/person, I fail to understand how Left Behind shapes anyone. And Left Behind isn't the only strange title on the list.

I think I want to say that Hal Lindsey doesn't qualify as an evangelical. I'm not sure what to call him. He's some sort of wacky fundamentalist, but he's closer to a caricature of a Christian than a real Christian. It's kinda like calling Jack Van Impe a philosopher. And Henry Morris? The Genesis Flood? Yes, the rantings of Ellen G. White, prophet of Adventism, filtered through the fundy pseudo-science of Henry Morris has certainly shaped evangelicalism.

So does this mean that CT is admitting that my theory is correct: evangelicalism has been so completely colonized by fundamentalists that there is no longer any difference between the two? Now we're using the textbooks of fundamentalist nonsense to talk about shaping evangelicals? You'd think the flagship publication for evangelicals would know the difference between fundamentalist and evangelicas, unless there is no difference.

Party Like It's October 9, 2006

Sometime yesterday, October 9, 2006, total page views for the blog exceeded a quarter of a million (that's 250,000 for those of you that don't do fractions). Thanks to all who read, as well as all who read and respond. I couldn't get it done without you lurkers out there. Tonight, after class, I shall have a drink in honor of all of you. I might even break out the hookah.

Sin, Part Two (for Dino, et al)

Evangelical theology asserts that the forgiveness of sins (especially individual ones) is predicated on the crucifixion. Jesus dies on the cross so that we can be forgiven. I grew up with Bible teachers who told me that people in the OT were justified by looking forward to the cross and we are justified by looking back to the cross. The cross becomes the means whereby sin is finally and completely forgiven. In part one of this post I defined sin as any behavior that militates against the formation of Christian community (by Christian community I don't mean to say that people must be Christian to participate in the grammar of the kingdom). I prefer to discuss sin as a systemic issue, what Berkhof and Yoder and Wink call participation in fallen powers, but fundangelicals are obsessed with the notion of sin as an individual problem.

The method adopted by most evangelicals is to read Paul's characterization of atonement using legal analogies as if the analogies are somehow entirely referential and comprehensive. They tend not to understand the metaphorical quality of these reflections from Paul, wherein words are used within the context of the metaphor and aren't meant to reflect a reality outside the metaphor. Adoption therefore describes an understanding of the atonement that has to do with family. Ransom is freedom from slavery, not the notion that Jesus pays a price for us so that we can be freed from the hold of the devil or hell. Substitution speaks of Jesus doing something for us that we cannot do for ourselves: reveal and overcome the powers. (I'd like to thank Scott Jones for this line of thinking. Not sure who he got it from, but it's good stuff.) We've ignored the contextual nature of the metaphors in favor of a descriptive understanding of what actually happened on the cross. The question is what the Gospels say about the forgiveness of sin. Paul has to be read through the Gospels, not vice versa. This seems to be the best way to do hermeneutics, particularly if one wants to assert the authority of Scripture. Within that framework, the words of Jesus would seem to have more authority than anyone else's words.

There is a fascinating passage in Matthew 9 about the paralytic brought to Jesus for healing. Jesus first tells him to take heart because his sins are forgiven. When the "blasphemy" is questioned by some onlookers--only God can forgive sins, after all--Jesus replies, "Which is easier, to say to this man your sins or forgiven, or to say take up your bed and walk?" Jesus then says, "So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth..." He then heals the man as a means of demonstrating the wholistic nature of salvation within the kingdom. He does all of this prior to the cross. The authority to forgive is prior to the crucifixion. You can argue that the forgiveness was only possible because of the upcoming crucifixion, but you'll look long and hard for a passage to affirm that belief. The power of God to forgive sins is prior to the crucifixion. The crucifixion is the result of human sinfulness, but it is not the sole means to forgiveness. The locus of authority is within God's character, not in an external act that testifies to the sinfulness of humanity. Sin is finally dealt with at the cross because the powers are overcome, but the forgiveness offered by God was always prior to that event.

Fe y la familia

I have the cover story of the Oklahoma Gazette this week, thanks to Brenda Hernandez and an undocumented alien named Maria. You can't read the whole article online, so if you live in the City, pick it up. I'll post the whole article after the issue is off the newstand.

To Stay or Not? (An anonymous guest blogger.)

A friend sent me this. I asked his permissions to use it anonymously. He agreed. I made clear the church affiliation and edited one expletive. Without editorial comments, here it is...

I understand fundamentalists (not in the doctrinal sense, but the authoritarian--the ones that are about control rather than belief) the way I understand Daleks from Doctor Who. Daleks are alien mutants who drive around cybernetic battle-machines with a death ray, and the way they find fulfillment in life is by exterminating non-Daleks. If a Dalek doesn't kill you, it's because it needs your help killing another of its non-Dalek enemies, or else because it needs slave labor for a while; regardless, you'll be in front of the gun sooner or later.

It's not a perfect analogy, because you can tell a Dalek from a non-Dalek immediately by whether or not they're a seven-foot-tall pepper-pot with a manipulator arm and a ray gun. You need to spend a bit more time observing social networks to distinguish between authoritarian fundamentalists and those who aren't. But it's fairly easy; their beliefs aren't about doctrine or truth, they're about authority--this is one reason you can never pin an inerrantist down on what any piece of scripture actually says or means, but they'll defend to the death the notion that you're serving the devil by questioning whether or not it's perfectly true. True statements mean something everywhere but in the fundamentalist world, where their only function is to bind people deeper into the authority structure. "Affirm, don't understand" is the order of the day.

Something that's been coming up at work lately for some reason is the argument over whether to stay in a flawed faith tradition, or leave it. In my neck of the woods, that's Church of Christ (CofC), but I know there've been similar discussions about SBC and evangelicalism in general in my blog-circles. Everyone in my department agrees that if you don't believe any of it, there's no point in staying, except maybe social self-preservation if there isn't any community available for non-Christians. The dispute is over whether, if you believe the "fundamentals" (nobody can agree on what specific things are fundamental, which is a discussion I try to avoid, but they at least agree to the idea that some things are more fundamental than others--even if there's not one principle they all agree on), whether you should stay in that tradition to try and redeem it, or leave it to put God's gifts to use someplace where they will do qualitatively and quantitatively more good.

My feeling is, if you're on your own or in the company of another consenting adult, do what you want (which is an imprecise way of saying "It's none of my business"). If you have kids--now there's the rub. If you have kids, there's a chance it might come to be my business years down the line when they come over to someplace like Leaving Fundamentalism or SecWeb's support forum asking for help, being alone and scared and having nobody they trust to turn to when they need to get out of a theologically abusive situation.

I'm tired, so tired, of helping to counsel men who grew up in authoritarian, theologically mainstream (in America) churches, and trying to convince them that there's some point to living life with--and then without--a vengeful God staring over their shoulder. (I'm not the Bible or their church authorities, so nothing I say is "rationally grounded". That's not modernism, which admittedly has its own set of flaws; it's a sick perversion of modernism in which "reason" means "what The Authorities say".) I'm tired of helping to counsel women who display all the symptoms of having been raped as children without actually having been touched. I'm tired of helping to shoulder the fallout when teenagers leave the faith for their own survival and their parents kick them out of the house at fifteen or sixteen. (It's a lot easier now that I have a job that pays too much and I can actually give some material assistance, but the emotional fallout doesn't get any easier to deal with.) Some days I think the universe might be a better place if we all went extinct, and I spend too much time fantasizing about ways to blow up the world.

My stance on staying with a tradition is this. If the problem is that people are saying and doing stupid things, things that make your tradition look bad to people on the outside, congratulations--you're part of a group of stupid humans. You never get away from that, not ever, unless you're cleverer than I am and find a way to kill everyone that you can actually implement. On the other hand, if the problem is that the group is authoritarian and controlling, toxic to the lives of its membership, and a lot of the attrition rate of your kids is coming from suicide rather than their simply growing up and moving on, you can't belong to that group anymore and still call yourself a moral human being--just a coward who's afraid to contradict an authority that's horribly, desperately wrong, and for no better reason than that it tells you it's above you and you're blind or stupid enough to believe it and follow. And it's not an either-or thing, of course; this is all part of a spectrum. But having spoken with people who are glad they stayed in CofC after all their grief, and people whose deepest regret was that they should have left CofC decades ago before it destroyed their children, it comes down to a judgment call: how likely is it that by staying, you're damning your kids to repeat your mistakes or worse, wasting ten or twenty or forty years in the dark, serving the wrong causes, being afraid for their souls, bound up inside cybernetic combat armor screaming "Exterminate!", totally alone?

If you can save the church but lose your children, f*** the church. Let it burn. Let it fall back into darkness where it belongs. No organization, no matter whom or Whom it was founded by, is worth a sacrifice of innocents who have no choice in the matter. Or help it from a distance, if you must, and can spare the time and energy and resources; but don't let it touch your children.

Or create or join a peaceful separatist community. I like that option. I've liked and trusted everyone I've met who's come from that background. There are so many options that don't involve years of rationalizing sticking with the status quo. I'm not saying everyone who stays with the SBC or CofC is dishonest or evil, but I have yet to encounter one whom I'm convinced lives in the same world as I do.

Too often, kindness and indulgence toward the elderly who are rigid and deeply intolerant, but lonely and frightened of change leads to more elderly, ten and twenty and thirty and fifty years later, who are just as intolerant and just as frightened of precisely the same things changing, when the rest of the world has long since moved on. We'll never get anywhere if we don't put our foot down *somewhere*. I don't know a way to fix that, other than to say that it stops with me. No more. I'm done.