The United Methodist Church has finally wronged a right they did (-- inadvertently?) last year.
I'd mentioned in The United Methodist Church reluctantly lops one leaf off the weed that the UMC had clearly very reluctantly defrocked a person, not because she was a woman, but because she was a woman who'd given herself over to immoral sexual practices.
(For those keeping score at home, that's actually two reasons for a good defrocking.)
Well, now they've re-frocked her.
It is true that a broken analog clock is right twice every day.
But it is also true that it's only right for a minute each time.
Then it goes back to being wrong, all the time.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Ooh... MORE "Christian Gospels"?
National Geographic reports that Papyrus Reveals New Clues to Ancient World. It's funny enough to read the august publication referring to "fragments showing third- and fourth-century versions of the Book of Revelations" -- which any half-awake Sunday School student would politely correct to "Revelation." But the larger contents are more interesting.
It is about new readings from the Oxyrhynchus papyri being brought to light by the use of multi-spectral imaging. Researchers have found parts of a lost tragedy by 5th-century BC writer Sophocles, sections of a novel by Lucian, the second-century Greek writer, and a poem about pre-Trojan War happenings, by Archilochos.
Of interest to me is this: "Researchers hope to rediscover examples of lost Christian gospels which didn't make it into the New Testament...." They also "valuable new material to emerge as some gospels that weren't included in the New Testament didn't survive. 'The texts that are in the Bible were selected out of a much larger body of work that once circulated,' [research director Dirk] Obbink said. 'We have samples of that material here.'"
There has been this swell of excitement about Gnostic "gospels," to the point where some of the fringe extremists who dominate "the Jesus Seminar" use them in trying to make their very own Jesus. It's this "Jesus" that Jane Fonda seems to like so much (see below) — certainly not the Jesus who affirms the absolute divine authority of the OT retrospectively, and of the NT prospectively. Not the Jesus, specifically, who affirms wifely submission, or the inviolable value of unborn human life. Not the Jesus whose actual Lordship threatens and cancels out our imagined lordship. Not the Jesus who saves.
In other words, not the actual, historical Jesus.
Of course, this notion of previously-unknown "Christian gospels" that will change everything is a tinfoil-hat myth. There are no such gospels. Christianity has already been defined.
God moved Christ's apostles and their attendants to record and to finish His word (John 16:12-13; 1 Corinthians 13:8-10; Hebrews 1:1-2; 2:1-4). The church very carefully and deliberately received and acknowledged that Word. The objective basis of the religion centered on the real Jesus is now an established fact, not a work in progress.
If the apostles didn't author or sponsor a document, and the church didn't acknowledge it, at best it may be a peripheral and helpful writing such as Augustine's Confessions, or Calvin's Institutes. But it isn't a "Christian gospel" -- as if it's fundamentally going to change the image of Jesus we have from the existing, abundantly-attested records.
I suspect that more and other than historical interest is at work here. Many of these folks have not dealt with the Jesus we already have, the real Jesus. He's too big. He's too intrusive. He acts like He thinks He's God, or something. We don't like that, because we prefer -- not usually in so many words, but functionally -- to be our own. "You shall be as gods" was the sales line, and we bought it hook, line, and sinker.
And so no doubt folks will continue to prefer scraps found in an old Egyptian trash dump to the meticulously analyzed and verified histories in the four Gospels. But it won't be scholarship that drives this preference.
It will be sinnership.
It is about new readings from the Oxyrhynchus papyri being brought to light by the use of multi-spectral imaging. Researchers have found parts of a lost tragedy by 5th-century BC writer Sophocles, sections of a novel by Lucian, the second-century Greek writer, and a poem about pre-Trojan War happenings, by Archilochos.
Of interest to me is this: "Researchers hope to rediscover examples of lost Christian gospels which didn't make it into the New Testament...." They also "valuable new material to emerge as some gospels that weren't included in the New Testament didn't survive. 'The texts that are in the Bible were selected out of a much larger body of work that once circulated,' [research director Dirk] Obbink said. 'We have samples of that material here.'"
There has been this swell of excitement about Gnostic "gospels," to the point where some of the fringe extremists who dominate "the Jesus Seminar" use them in trying to make their very own Jesus. It's this "Jesus" that Jane Fonda seems to like so much (see below) — certainly not the Jesus who affirms the absolute divine authority of the OT retrospectively, and of the NT prospectively. Not the Jesus, specifically, who affirms wifely submission, or the inviolable value of unborn human life. Not the Jesus whose actual Lordship threatens and cancels out our imagined lordship. Not the Jesus who saves.
In other words, not the actual, historical Jesus.
Of course, this notion of previously-unknown "Christian gospels" that will change everything is a tinfoil-hat myth. There are no such gospels. Christianity has already been defined.
God moved Christ's apostles and their attendants to record and to finish His word (John 16:12-13; 1 Corinthians 13:8-10; Hebrews 1:1-2; 2:1-4). The church very carefully and deliberately received and acknowledged that Word. The objective basis of the religion centered on the real Jesus is now an established fact, not a work in progress.
If the apostles didn't author or sponsor a document, and the church didn't acknowledge it, at best it may be a peripheral and helpful writing such as Augustine's Confessions, or Calvin's Institutes. But it isn't a "Christian gospel" -- as if it's fundamentally going to change the image of Jesus we have from the existing, abundantly-attested records.
I suspect that more and other than historical interest is at work here. Many of these folks have not dealt with the Jesus we already have, the real Jesus. He's too big. He's too intrusive. He acts like He thinks He's God, or something. We don't like that, because we prefer -- not usually in so many words, but functionally -- to be our own. "You shall be as gods" was the sales line, and we bought it hook, line, and sinker.
And so no doubt folks will continue to prefer scraps found in an old Egyptian trash dump to the meticulously analyzed and verified histories in the four Gospels. But it won't be scholarship that drives this preference.
It will be sinnership.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
How Jane Fonda came to "Jesus"
I reserve comment at the moment... it pretty much comments on itself.
But here is Beliefnet's interview with Jane Fonda, Christianity Is My Spiritual Home. (The header is "How I Was Saved -- Beliefnet interviews Jane Fonda.")
But here is Beliefnet's interview with Jane Fonda, Christianity Is My Spiritual Home. (The header is "How I Was Saved -- Beliefnet interviews Jane Fonda.")
Saturday, April 23, 2005
ESV blog (yayy....)
When I read an English translation, nowadays I usually use the English Standard Version first, though I also have been reading the Holman Christian Standard Bible. (You can read some of my thoughts about translations here.)
I'd earlier noted a site blogging the many shortcomings and absurdities of the TNIV mistake; now I'm glad to be able to point to an ESV blog (hat-tip to Blogs4God). They feature articles, discussions, questions and answers, and news.
I'd earlier noted a site blogging the many shortcomings and absurdities of the TNIV mistake; now I'm glad to be able to point to an ESV blog (hat-tip to Blogs4God). They feature articles, discussions, questions and answers, and news.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
"...he is gay and has known it since he was a teenager"
The Star Tribune did an article on State Sen. Paul Koering. Koering is a conservative Republican from Brainerd county, and there is something he wants us all to know: he has decided to "come out." That is, he is telling everyone that he openly embraces and indulges immoral sexual desires for other men.
Well, of course, that isn't what he says, and it isn't what the article says. And that -- not the sad case of Mr. Koering himself -- will be the point of this reflection.
The article itself approaches this disclosure as a bit of an oddity, since Koering is a conservative Republican and has favored letting the state decided on "gay" (i.e. homosexual) "marriage," which is not usually preceived to be the "gay" position. The reporting uncritically accepts Koering's stance that this revelation concerns the embrace and disclosure of a fact of nature, of an "orientation," with no moral dimensions or overtones.
Now, if he had told the world that he was a rapist, and has known it since he was a teenager; or that he was a child molestor, or given to bestiality, or to theft, or to sado-masochism, or to wife abuse, one hopes that the article's tone might have been different. It is hard to conceive of a mainstream media (MSM) publication saying colorlessly, "he is sexually attracted to goats, and has known it since he was a teenager," or "he is sexually excited by hurting women, and has known it since he was a teenager." Maybe the tone would have been different. This, however, is not a certainty.
(Now, if he had "come out" with one of these personal revelations, and if he attempted to make the case that he was driven to it by Puritanical Christian parents, a typical MSM article still might have been sympathetic in tone. Being a Christian is held, at best, to be an oddity. To be a Puritanical Christian, however, is unforgivable.)
Now, there is of course no moral ground for this differentiation among practices. I have no more authority to call murder, rape, child abuse, nor theft "wrong" than I do homosexuality. That one's accomplice in homosexuality may be complicit is immaterial to the morality of the action. A drug dealer is not a moral person, nor is a prostitute nor a dominatrix, simply because his or her clients seek out his services.
An act is not right or wrong because it harms another human being. If one is an evolutionist, for instance, one must believe that the various extant species got where they are today by hurting all sorts of weaker beings, including those of their own species. There is no charitable imperative to be found in the bloody tooth or claw of "Nature."
An act is right or wrong if God says it is right or wrong. He says that murder, theft and adultery are wrong (Romans 13:9). He also says that homosexuality is wrong (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, among others).
The media still usually frown on murder and theft; they're not so sure about adultery. Homosexuailty, however, is currently exempt from all criticism in the MSM because it enjoys a favored status not shared by the other practices mentioned above. Not share yet, at any rate.
And this is where it matters in a public official. It reveals that person's moral and spiritual matrix. If a man cannot figure out that homosexuality is contrary to nature (Romans 1:26-27), and if he does not care that it is contrary to God's will (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), then we know from the outset that his moral compass is tragically out of whack. He's unreliable. Like any broken analog clock, he'll be right every so often -- but it will be a happy coincidence, nothing more.
We want our elected officials, our legislators, to understand justice. But Proverbs 28:5a tells us that "Evil men do not understand justice." What defines a man as "evil"? Opposition to the perrson and word of God.
Now sadly, in our fallen world and in our apostate culture, our choices are often far from ideal. I would not argue that a Christian should never vote for a homosexual. He might very well vote for Mr. Koering as the best of his electable choices -- while at the same time praying that God would give him repentance and saving faith in Christ, that he might be reconciled to God and know His cleansing mercy. Then Mr. Koering could speak of his bondage to perverse desires in the past tense (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), as all Christians are learning to do. And he could exercise his office from a morally consistent base.
It is unlikely that a financier would "come out" as believing that 1 + 1 = 3. He knows he'd be ruined. But folks boldly proclaim to the world (and the church) that their moral calculator is hopelessly broken... and there is, as they expect, hardly a yawn.
But one good thing has come from Mr. Koering's revelation. I have no idea whether a Christian has ever prayed for his conversion before. Now I know for a fact that one has.
Perhaps you'll multiply that number?
Well, of course, that isn't what he says, and it isn't what the article says. And that -- not the sad case of Mr. Koering himself -- will be the point of this reflection.
The article itself approaches this disclosure as a bit of an oddity, since Koering is a conservative Republican and has favored letting the state decided on "gay" (i.e. homosexual) "marriage," which is not usually preceived to be the "gay" position. The reporting uncritically accepts Koering's stance that this revelation concerns the embrace and disclosure of a fact of nature, of an "orientation," with no moral dimensions or overtones.
Now, if he had told the world that he was a rapist, and has known it since he was a teenager; or that he was a child molestor, or given to bestiality, or to theft, or to sado-masochism, or to wife abuse, one hopes that the article's tone might have been different. It is hard to conceive of a mainstream media (MSM) publication saying colorlessly, "he is sexually attracted to goats, and has known it since he was a teenager," or "he is sexually excited by hurting women, and has known it since he was a teenager." Maybe the tone would have been different. This, however, is not a certainty.
(Now, if he had "come out" with one of these personal revelations, and if he attempted to make the case that he was driven to it by Puritanical Christian parents, a typical MSM article still might have been sympathetic in tone. Being a Christian is held, at best, to be an oddity. To be a Puritanical Christian, however, is unforgivable.)
Now, there is of course no moral ground for this differentiation among practices. I have no more authority to call murder, rape, child abuse, nor theft "wrong" than I do homosexuality. That one's accomplice in homosexuality may be complicit is immaterial to the morality of the action. A drug dealer is not a moral person, nor is a prostitute nor a dominatrix, simply because his or her clients seek out his services.
An act is not right or wrong because it harms another human being. If one is an evolutionist, for instance, one must believe that the various extant species got where they are today by hurting all sorts of weaker beings, including those of their own species. There is no charitable imperative to be found in the bloody tooth or claw of "Nature."
An act is right or wrong if God says it is right or wrong. He says that murder, theft and adultery are wrong (Romans 13:9). He also says that homosexuality is wrong (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, among others).
The media still usually frown on murder and theft; they're not so sure about adultery. Homosexuailty, however, is currently exempt from all criticism in the MSM because it enjoys a favored status not shared by the other practices mentioned above. Not share yet, at any rate.
And this is where it matters in a public official. It reveals that person's moral and spiritual matrix. If a man cannot figure out that homosexuality is contrary to nature (Romans 1:26-27), and if he does not care that it is contrary to God's will (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), then we know from the outset that his moral compass is tragically out of whack. He's unreliable. Like any broken analog clock, he'll be right every so often -- but it will be a happy coincidence, nothing more.
We want our elected officials, our legislators, to understand justice. But Proverbs 28:5a tells us that "Evil men do not understand justice." What defines a man as "evil"? Opposition to the perrson and word of God.
Now sadly, in our fallen world and in our apostate culture, our choices are often far from ideal. I would not argue that a Christian should never vote for a homosexual. He might very well vote for Mr. Koering as the best of his electable choices -- while at the same time praying that God would give him repentance and saving faith in Christ, that he might be reconciled to God and know His cleansing mercy. Then Mr. Koering could speak of his bondage to perverse desires in the past tense (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), as all Christians are learning to do. And he could exercise his office from a morally consistent base.
It is unlikely that a financier would "come out" as believing that 1 + 1 = 3. He knows he'd be ruined. But folks boldly proclaim to the world (and the church) that their moral calculator is hopelessly broken... and there is, as they expect, hardly a yawn.
But one good thing has come from Mr. Koering's revelation. I have no idea whether a Christian has ever prayed for his conversion before. Now I know for a fact that one has.
Perhaps you'll multiply that number?
Friday, April 08, 2005
The passing of the Pope: thirty-three questions
Such universal adoration and admiration is being expressed for the late John Paul II (see below), that one is reluctant to seem as not following the pack. How can one raise even a mildly critical note, without seeming to be picking on this kindly, benevolent old man who suffered so much and did so much good?
I have heard much lately of the Pope's opposition to Communism, to liberation theology, to post-modernism, and to the culture of death. He was a commendably one-note champion of the value of human life, leaving no ambiguity to his position, nor that of the religion he represented. Committed Roman Catholics clearly loved this man dearly, and he brought many young people to Roman Catholicism.
A Biblical Christian can be glad for the man's opposition of Communism and his championing of the value of the lives of the unborn and the handicapped. But can a Biblical Christian be glad for the Pope's championing of Roman Catholicism? Does charity require him to wave aside "theological differences," and embrace the Pope and his mourners as brothers and sisters in Christ?
Take for example Fred Barnes. I've liked Fred and enjoyed his observations for years, and often heard him referred to as an "evangelical." Imagine my surprise when I read his outpouring of unqualified praise for the late Pope as A Great Christian. Barnes does not stick to his usual political/cultural commentary, but specifically praises the Pope in the most extravagant religious terms. My jaw dropped when I read, at the start of the essay, the Pope described as "world's greatest defender of orthodox, Bible-based Christianity." Not of Roman Catholicism, which might arguably be a truthful statement; but specifically of "orthodox, Bible-based Christianity." This is followed by the claim that "John Paul was bold and unswerving in proclaiming salvation through belief in Jesus Christ" (at least Barnes does not add "alone"). No wonder, by Barnes' lights, that he concludes with the assertion that evangelicals "have lost a great and wonderful leader."
Then, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Christianity Today subjects us to the mind-boggling He Was My Pope, Too, written by Uwe Siemon-Netto who, we are told, is a Lutheran theologian and religion editor. (As if Luther has not suffered enough at the hands of his nominal spiritual descendants!)
I'm late on this post because I've been thinking about how to approach this event myself. Out of countless dialogues with Roman Catholics, I know how it goes. Object to Roman Catholic dogma on Biblical grounds, and you're immediately a "Roman Catholic basher," or an "anti-Roman Catholic bigot," or of course a "hater." Even when one directly quotes Roman Catholic authorities, if one is compelled Biblically to disagree, one is invariably told he just does not understand Rome's position.
In other words, it exactly parallels the response of homosexuals to Christians who affirm the Bible's stance on that issue -- just with different specifics.
Over the years I have searched fruitlessly for a way to open closed minds, and have concluded that the Bible is right: it can't be done, except by God. And God does do it (Acts 16:14; Ephesians 2:1-3). But that is far from a counsel of despar, for our word of testimony may well be the means God uses to do His supernatural work (2 Timothy 2:24-26). After all, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ passed along by a human herald (Romans 10:14-17).
It is in that spirit that I pose these questions, provoked not solely by the Pope's death, but by the response of so many professedly evangelical Christians to that death:
They can again, today.
UPDATE: a Christian pastor was fired from his job as a radio talk show host simply for entertaining the question as to whether the Pope went to Heaven or not -- which, as James White points out, is a question which itself could be debated wthin the circle of Roman Catholic dogma.
I have heard much lately of the Pope's opposition to Communism, to liberation theology, to post-modernism, and to the culture of death. He was a commendably one-note champion of the value of human life, leaving no ambiguity to his position, nor that of the religion he represented. Committed Roman Catholics clearly loved this man dearly, and he brought many young people to Roman Catholicism.
A Biblical Christian can be glad for the man's opposition of Communism and his championing of the value of the lives of the unborn and the handicapped. But can a Biblical Christian be glad for the Pope's championing of Roman Catholicism? Does charity require him to wave aside "theological differences," and embrace the Pope and his mourners as brothers and sisters in Christ?
Take for example Fred Barnes. I've liked Fred and enjoyed his observations for years, and often heard him referred to as an "evangelical." Imagine my surprise when I read his outpouring of unqualified praise for the late Pope as A Great Christian. Barnes does not stick to his usual political/cultural commentary, but specifically praises the Pope in the most extravagant religious terms. My jaw dropped when I read, at the start of the essay, the Pope described as "world's greatest defender of orthodox, Bible-based Christianity." Not of Roman Catholicism, which might arguably be a truthful statement; but specifically of "orthodox, Bible-based Christianity." This is followed by the claim that "John Paul was bold and unswerving in proclaiming salvation through belief in Jesus Christ" (at least Barnes does not add "alone"). No wonder, by Barnes' lights, that he concludes with the assertion that evangelicals "have lost a great and wonderful leader."
Then, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Christianity Today subjects us to the mind-boggling He Was My Pope, Too, written by Uwe Siemon-Netto who, we are told, is a Lutheran theologian and religion editor. (As if Luther has not suffered enough at the hands of his nominal spiritual descendants!)
I'm late on this post because I've been thinking about how to approach this event myself. Out of countless dialogues with Roman Catholics, I know how it goes. Object to Roman Catholic dogma on Biblical grounds, and you're immediately a "Roman Catholic basher," or an "anti-Roman Catholic bigot," or of course a "hater." Even when one directly quotes Roman Catholic authorities, if one is compelled Biblically to disagree, one is invariably told he just does not understand Rome's position.
In other words, it exactly parallels the response of homosexuals to Christians who affirm the Bible's stance on that issue -- just with different specifics.
Over the years I have searched fruitlessly for a way to open closed minds, and have concluded that the Bible is right: it can't be done, except by God. And God does do it (Acts 16:14; Ephesians 2:1-3). But that is far from a counsel of despar, for our word of testimony may well be the means God uses to do His supernatural work (2 Timothy 2:24-26). After all, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ passed along by a human herald (Romans 10:14-17).
It is in that spirit that I pose these questions, provoked not solely by the Pope's death, but by the response of so many professedly evangelical Christians to that death:
- Shouldn't a self-identified "evangelical" be concerned about the "evangel" (i.e. good news, Gospel), if he is concerned about anything at all (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-2)?
- Is it not still true that one is still saved if, and only if, he holds fast to the apostolic evangel (1 Corinthians 15:1-2)?
- Is it not still true that one is damned to Hell if he fundamentally alters that evangel, so that he indeed preaches a "different" Gospel (Galatians 1:6-9)?
- Is it not still true that this condemnation applies to absolutely everyone without distinction, whether he be an apostle, "an angel from heaven," or "anyone" (Galatians 1:6-9)?
- Given the previous four propositions, is the Gospel a peripheral consideration, or a central, watershed issue?
- If the Gospel is not a central, watershed issue, then what is?
- Is it not still true that Satan himself preaches "gospel" and "Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 14-15)?
- Is it not still true that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, and his workers disguise themselves as workers of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)?
- Is it not still true that anyone can confess Jesus as "Lord," utter prophecies and work miracles, and still be damned by Jesus at the Last Day with the words "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:21-23)?
- Is it still true that would-be teachers are properly subjected to greater judgment (James 3:1)?
- Given the truth of the previous propositions, are we not obligated to judge ourselves and all purported teachers -- which would certainly include the Pope -- by conformity of both life and doctrine to the Word of God?
- Does a person become exempt from the previous consideration if he does other good deeds, is popular, or dies?
- Is there any rational possibility that a Biblical Gospel of salvation by the grace of God alone, in Jesus Christ alone, on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, received by faith alone and causally unrelated to human works (Romans 4:2-9; Ephesians 2:8-9), can be reconciled with the official Roman Catholic "gospel" of salvation partly by what God does and partly by what man does?
- Is it rationally possible that these two gospels can both be true?
- Is it not certain that the one that is not the Biblical gospel -- along with those who preach it -- falls under the condemnation of Galatians 1:6-9?
- Does it not necessarily follow that the Roman Catholic Church, which explicitly rejects that Biblical Gospel, and those who affirm the position of the Roman Catholic Church, fall under that condemnation?
- Can anyone who is fuzzy on the nature of the Gospel rationally call himself an "evangelical"?
- Did Pope John Paul II ever openly and unambiguously disown the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church on the Gospel?
- Is an institution exempt from these questions because it is old?
- If so, why would not Buddhism, Hinduism, polytheism, and animism be so exempt?
- Also, how long was it before the first false teaching entered the apostolic church (hint: see 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Peter, the epistles of John, and Jude)?
- Is an institution exempt from these questions because it is large?
- If so, how large was Baalism as contrasted with Yahwism in the 15th century BC?
- Was Baalism unassailably true at that time, due to the size of the cult?
- Is an informal, de facto contradiction of the Gospel less damnable than a formal, de jure perversion of it?
- Does not the Gospel mean affirming Jesus' word from the cross, Tetelestai -- "It has been finished" (John 19:30)?
- Does not the Gospel mean affirming Paul's word that we are filled full in Christ (Colossians 2:10), and that we stand abidingly saved by grace through faith as a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9)?
- Does not the Gospel mean affirming the writer to the Hebrews' repeated and emphatic teaching that Christ's sacrifice is perfect and will never be repeated, because its one act accomplished all that is necessary for our salvation (Hebrews 10)?
- Whatever it may say formally, when an institution which re-sacrifices Christ on a regular basis, claiming to offer up (again and again, hundreds of millions of times across the world) the very flesh and blood of Jesus as a spiritually effective act, does it not pervert and contradict those Biblical statements of the Gospel?
- Can any man or woman who affirms such a contradiction of the Gospel be accurately described as a great Christian, an orthodox Christian, a Biblically-based Christian -- or a Christian at all?
- Is it still true that "no one can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24)?
- If one formally claims to belong to Christ (as does every Christian: Romans 6, etc.), yet at the same time embraces as his distinctive motto the worshipful vow to Mary Totus tuus ("Totally yours"), and refer to her as "Coredemptrix" (as did the Pope), does not one loyalty necessarily cancel out the other?
- If a Biblically literate Christian is not permitted to ask these questions, then who is?
They can again, today.
UPDATE: a Christian pastor was fired from his job as a radio talk show host simply for entertaining the question as to whether the Pope went to Heaven or not -- which, as James White points out, is a question which itself could be debated wthin the circle of Roman Catholic dogma.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Unpopular (un-pope-ular?) truth
As I ponder, ponderously, what to write on the event of John Paul II's passing, I direct your attention to James White's blog. White is providing his essential function of saying the indispensible "Yeah, but --" and, as usual, is catching very Heck for it. Particularly worth a read are his interaction with a letter from a Roman Catholic, and his observations on Dr. Dobson's remarks embracing Roman Catholics as Christian brothers ("How to Remove the Gospel from the Center").
By stark contrast, we have Hugh Hewitt (who I enjoy greatly, listen to and blogread daily, and am forced to see as Biblically...um... how to say this...maybe not as well-schooled as he is in law?). With no apparent regard for Roman Catholic doctrine (to say nothing of the Bible), Hugh has pronounced it as a "lock" that the Pope is currently in Heaven, has been hosting festivals of adulation for the Pope, and has been dwelling approvingly on Roman Catholic mysticism and hagiolatry. The only callers I've heard him be dismissive of are whacko extremists (i.e. callers to Hugh's right), who dare not to share his boundless enthusiasm for this departed Pope and the Roman church -- an enthusiasm he maintains in spite of unspecified, but evidently nonessential "doctrinal differences."
And, no surprise, Christianity Today managed to find "a Lutheran theologian and religion editor for UPI" named Uwe Siemon-Netto, willing to give vent to the lavishly adoring essay, He Was My Pope, Too. In this almost unintelligible threnody, the hyphenated writer embraces the late JP2 as the spokesman for all Christian believers throughout the globe, and speaks of him as preaching the gospel tirelessly. (Any reader who can link me to any occasion in which the Pope preached the Biblical Gospel of salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone -- ever! -- please email me.)
NOTE: immediately after I posted this, I saw a misspelling in the title. But at that moment, Blogger.com chose to have an "issue" (Geekspeak for "brain-exploding problem"). Only now have I been able to edit this post. If you have a blog here, clear your www.blogger.com cookie and try again.
UPDATE: James White points out that musician Steve Camp has broken from the pack to write Waking Up in Perdition, a somber reflection from one who didn't set his Bible aside to be caught up in the popular well of sheer emotion. Another sobering and truthful note is sounded by Marcus Sheffield, who fears that The Protestant Reformation Is Dead.
By stark contrast, we have Hugh Hewitt (who I enjoy greatly, listen to and blogread daily, and am forced to see as Biblically...um... how to say this...maybe not as well-schooled as he is in law?). With no apparent regard for Roman Catholic doctrine (to say nothing of the Bible), Hugh has pronounced it as a "lock" that the Pope is currently in Heaven, has been hosting festivals of adulation for the Pope, and has been dwelling approvingly on Roman Catholic mysticism and hagiolatry. The only callers I've heard him be dismissive of are whacko extremists (i.e. callers to Hugh's right), who dare not to share his boundless enthusiasm for this departed Pope and the Roman church -- an enthusiasm he maintains in spite of unspecified, but evidently nonessential "doctrinal differences."
And, no surprise, Christianity Today managed to find "a Lutheran theologian and religion editor for UPI" named Uwe Siemon-Netto, willing to give vent to the lavishly adoring essay, He Was My Pope, Too. In this almost unintelligible threnody, the hyphenated writer embraces the late JP2 as the spokesman for all Christian believers throughout the globe, and speaks of him as preaching the gospel tirelessly. (Any reader who can link me to any occasion in which the Pope preached the Biblical Gospel of salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone -- ever! -- please email me.)
NOTE: immediately after I posted this, I saw a misspelling in the title. But at that moment, Blogger.com chose to have an "issue" (Geekspeak for "brain-exploding problem"). Only now have I been able to edit this post. If you have a blog here, clear your www.blogger.com cookie and try again.
UPDATE: James White points out that musician Steve Camp has broken from the pack to write Waking Up in Perdition, a somber reflection from one who didn't set his Bible aside to be caught up in the popular well of sheer emotion. Another sobering and truthful note is sounded by Marcus Sheffield, who fears that The Protestant Reformation Is Dead.
Monday, April 04, 2005
A confession (subtitle: pray for Eleanor Clift)
I have a confession to make.
Actually, I have many confessions to make. The one I am going to make here has to do with Eleanor Clift.
I've observed Ms. Clift for decades. I probably saw her first on The McLaughlin Group. Then I've endured... er, read various of her statements, jabs, and essays.
Eleanor Clift could always be counted on to be on the wrong side of any given issue. I can't remember ever agreeing with her about anything, or thinking she contributed anything useful to any subject under discussion. Ever! Let me put it this way: if she said she thought there was nothing wrong with the ice cream in my mouth, I'd consider spitting it out and having a lab analyze it.
And not only is she always wrong, she's always wrong in the smuggest, smarmiest, most condescending and sneery way possible. She oozes contempt and appallment — which, if it isn't a word, should be — at any differing opinion. Or at any rate, at any opinion with differs from hers rightward, or Christianward, or in any way Bibleward.
Having said that....
I just read her very touching essay, Dying with Courage. It is about her husband's death by cancer (hat-tip to Michelle Malkin). This passage put tears in my eyes:
...which brings us to the confession part: I can't remember ever praying for Eleanor Clift.
Now, I can't blame Eleanor Clift for not thinking, acting, writing, nor talking like a Christian, simply because as far as I know she does not claim to be one. But I can surely blame myself for such a failure, because I do make that claim.
And I generally do pray for my enemies, or try to. I've prayed for Osama bin Ladin, Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussein, and a host of others. But I can't recall ever praying for Eleanor Clift.
Obviously I can't claim that it is because I've never noticed her, because clearly I have. Again and again. Nor can I hide behind the excuse that I wasn't aware that she had any spiritual needs, because I am keenly aware that she does.
I think it was just because she comes off so smug, so hostile, so self-assured, and so hard.
But then, I had been no different. The Lord saved me when I was seventeen, but I had already done my best to head people away from Christ for all I was worth. I hated Christianity and Christians. If anyone had seemed to be heading towards Jesus, I did my best to stand in the way. And if anyone was already there, I worked to raise doubts and questions, or at least to shut him up.
Apart from God's convicting, shattering, converting grace, thirty years later, I'd have been harder, more hostile, more arrogant, more smug.
Christians who knew me doubtless saw me as just as hopeless and pointless as I saw Eleanor Clift. Some prayed for me regardless; probably others didn't.
But now I've walked with Christ for over thirty years, gotten theological degrees. pastored, preached... and I certainly know better on every level than to decide that there is no point praying for someone.
So what is my excuse?
I have none. Just this confession of my lame, indefensible sin.
This essay showed me that maybe she isn't quite so tough, anyway. Or maybe she is. It doesn't really matter, as to whether or not I should pray for her. The essay reminded me that inside Eleanor Clift is still a human being. A sinner, true; a hardened sinner, perhaps. But I read that Jesus came into the world for the express purpose of saving sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). Not certain kinds of sinners, and certainly not sinners I deem savable. Just sinners. And if He did that, then I should pray for sinners.
And so I ask God's forgiveness, and I pray for Eleanor Clift.
Join me, won't you? Pray that God will touch her in this dark time, that He will not let her be satisfied with platitudes or denial or whistling past the graveyard. Pray that He will show her her deep need, His glory, and Christ's supreme excellence. Pray that He will draw her to saving faith in Jesus Christ.
God does save hardened, smarmy, smug, Christ-hating unbelievers.
I'm proof.
UPDATE: just about the same things, with adjustments to the particulars, could be said about Peter Jennings, who is now diagnosed with lung cancer. We Christians should pray similarly for him as well.
Actually, I have many confessions to make. The one I am going to make here has to do with Eleanor Clift.
I've observed Ms. Clift for decades. I probably saw her first on The McLaughlin Group. Then I've endured... er, read various of her statements, jabs, and essays.
Eleanor Clift could always be counted on to be on the wrong side of any given issue. I can't remember ever agreeing with her about anything, or thinking she contributed anything useful to any subject under discussion. Ever! Let me put it this way: if she said she thought there was nothing wrong with the ice cream in my mouth, I'd consider spitting it out and having a lab analyze it.
And not only is she always wrong, she's always wrong in the smuggest, smarmiest, most condescending and sneery way possible. She oozes contempt and appallment — which, if it isn't a word, should be — at any differing opinion. Or at any rate, at any opinion with differs from hers rightward, or Christianward, or in any way Bibleward.
Having said that....
I just read her very touching essay, Dying with Courage. It is about her husband's death by cancer (hat-tip to Michelle Malkin). This passage put tears in my eyes:
On a Sunday morning in March as his condition worsened and the morphine dose was doubled, he asked me clearly, “What do you want to do this summer?” I said, “Take a trip with you,” and then I went into the kitchen to fix his cream of rice cereal, and fight back tears.
...which brings us to the confession part: I can't remember ever praying for Eleanor Clift.
Now, I can't blame Eleanor Clift for not thinking, acting, writing, nor talking like a Christian, simply because as far as I know she does not claim to be one. But I can surely blame myself for such a failure, because I do make that claim.
And I generally do pray for my enemies, or try to. I've prayed for Osama bin Ladin, Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussein, and a host of others. But I can't recall ever praying for Eleanor Clift.
Obviously I can't claim that it is because I've never noticed her, because clearly I have. Again and again. Nor can I hide behind the excuse that I wasn't aware that she had any spiritual needs, because I am keenly aware that she does.
I think it was just because she comes off so smug, so hostile, so self-assured, and so hard.
But then, I had been no different. The Lord saved me when I was seventeen, but I had already done my best to head people away from Christ for all I was worth. I hated Christianity and Christians. If anyone had seemed to be heading towards Jesus, I did my best to stand in the way. And if anyone was already there, I worked to raise doubts and questions, or at least to shut him up.
Apart from God's convicting, shattering, converting grace, thirty years later, I'd have been harder, more hostile, more arrogant, more smug.
Christians who knew me doubtless saw me as just as hopeless and pointless as I saw Eleanor Clift. Some prayed for me regardless; probably others didn't.
But now I've walked with Christ for over thirty years, gotten theological degrees. pastored, preached... and I certainly know better on every level than to decide that there is no point praying for someone.
So what is my excuse?
I have none. Just this confession of my lame, indefensible sin.
This essay showed me that maybe she isn't quite so tough, anyway. Or maybe she is. It doesn't really matter, as to whether or not I should pray for her. The essay reminded me that inside Eleanor Clift is still a human being. A sinner, true; a hardened sinner, perhaps. But I read that Jesus came into the world for the express purpose of saving sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). Not certain kinds of sinners, and certainly not sinners I deem savable. Just sinners. And if He did that, then I should pray for sinners.
And so I ask God's forgiveness, and I pray for Eleanor Clift.
Join me, won't you? Pray that God will touch her in this dark time, that He will not let her be satisfied with platitudes or denial or whistling past the graveyard. Pray that He will show her her deep need, His glory, and Christ's supreme excellence. Pray that He will draw her to saving faith in Jesus Christ.
God does save hardened, smarmy, smug, Christ-hating unbelievers.
I'm proof.
UPDATE: just about the same things, with adjustments to the particulars, could be said about Peter Jennings, who is now diagnosed with lung cancer. We Christians should pray similarly for him as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
