I am not writing a book about Jesus because he is a great man who changed history. I am not tempted to write about Julius Caesar or the Chinese emperor who built the great wall. I am drawn to Jesus, irresistibly, because he has positioned himself at the dividing point of life-my life. Philip Yancey link
On Sunday through Tuesday, Barbara Roberts, from Australia, will be staying with us link.
Barbara Roberts has been raising awareness of domestic abuse within the conservative evangelical church since 1999. She is a survivor of domestic abuse, a conservative Christian who holds to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and is widely read in the secular field of domestic abuse, trauma and recovery. At the blog A Cry For Justice, she works with Ps Jeff Crippen and others who are seeking to awaken the evangelical church to the evils of domestic violence and abuse in its midst, and are supporting Christian survivors worldwide.
I will also be involved in hosting a Christian medical retreat at a nearby lake for through the weekend. So, both the post today and Wednesday are pre-written. I will not be commenting as much. Deb will continue to discuss Bill Gothard on Thursday and Friday.
I was deeply disturbed when one discernment blogger plunked a big, old "not recommend" on a couple of Philip Yancey's books along with books by others awesome writers such as Dallas Willard and Max Lucado Actually, I was boiling mad about the critique of Yancey for a very personal reason. I want to share that reason with our readers along with my philosophy on recommending books.
Why I Love Philip Yancey link
I met Yancey a number of years ago at a medical retreat on Cape Cod. His thinking was deeply challenging to all of us and I remember wishing that more pastors could express things in such an intelligent and inspiring way. He thought very differently than many pastors I had met in my short, Christian experience.
Fast forward to 10 years later. I still remember that night which changed the entire path of our family's life. The sounds of the fire trucks, ambulance and neighbors gathering outside our home are burned in my conscience. Before I continue, some background is in order.
I was about 7 months pregnant with our third child and newly relocated to Dallas for what we thought would be a 2-3 year stint. My husband was presented with the opportunity to work with some world class investigators at University of Texas, Southwest Medical Center. It was our goal to enjoy living in Cowboy country for a few years with the plan to return to our beloved North Carolina. We were about to find out that our goal would be delayed for a long time.
I was grocery shopping at the local Tom Thumb and discovered that they had a rack of popular Christian books. I spied Phillip Yancey's Disappointment With God link which I knew had received a "best book of the decade" award from Christianity Today. I immediately began to read it and found that I couldn't put the book down. Two points of the book would stick with me in the years to come. There were many other great insights but, to this day, I remember the following two, vividly.
Miracles do not routinely cause people to follow and worship God.
Yancey stressed that God provided miracle after miracle for His chosen people in the Old Testament. He particularly focused on the Exodus and desert wanderings. God would provide water, manna, the commandments, etc. The people would fall on their faces to worship Him and, within short order, return to building their idols. It was a never-ending, wearying cycle of sin, miracles and deliverance, and repentance. Then, second verse, same as the first.
The greatest miracle of all was the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God through Jesus.
Jesus did not come to do what we like to think of as miracles such as walking on water or turning water into wine. Those miracles served as proof that He could do something far more incredible. Paul, rarely, if ever pointed, to Jesus' miracles such as healing the blind. Instead, he kept focusing on the Cross and Resurrection. He stressed that Jesus came to forgive us, which was the biggest miracle of all. Mark 2:1-12 NIV Bible Gateway spells this out. Please note the section that I highlighted.
A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
The entire history of God's chosen people proved that a show of miracles would not lead to lasting repentance. They, along with us, were simply a fallen people in need of grace. This hit me hard one night and I remember vowing to God that I would always remember that the miracle of forgiveness was the most magnificent miracle of all. I promised that I would not allow my faith to be predicated on Him doing some sort of outward miracle of physical healing, etc. Even now I can recall the feelings I had that night as I talked to God. God would take me up on my promises about 6 weeks later.
Back to the ambulance and fire trucks. My life changed when, during dinner, my 3 year old daughter, out of the blue, had a 45 minute seizure which resulted in an ambulance ride to Dallas Children's Hospital. Jesus walked into that hospital with us. While in the Emergency Room, we asked that our dear friend, the head of the epilepsy service, be consulted prior to a spinal tap. He delayed that tap, ordered a CT scan which revealed a huge tumor (I promise that I am not exaggerating.) Had she been tapped first, she could have experienced a stroke due to the shift in the pressure in the brain. Being medical professionals, we immediately knew that our daughter's life was in serious danger.
That night, as I laid in a hospital bed, with my arms wrapped around my frightened daughter, I immediately recalled the book. God and I did business in that hospital room. I told Him that I would not allow my faith in Him be dependent on the outcome of this battle. I thanked Him for the salvation of my family and commended my little daughter into His capable hands, knowing, with all my heart, that this life was only the prelude to eternity. Yancey's words made a difference right from the start.
As time would pass, I would pray for the physical healing of my daughter but it was always tempered with thankfulness for the hope of eternity. I had many people give me advice on how to pray, what to pray, and how to believe in such a way that my prayers would be answered, etc. Instead, I would encourage them to pray for her physical healing but add thanks to God that the biggest miracle had been achieved at Calvary.
If truth be told, I, along with my husband, did not hold out much hope for her survival. We had been around patients who had serious diseases and knew that most of them died from their illness. Why should we be any different? I still remember a now amusing conversation with her neurosurgeon about 3 years into the battle. He said that he would often have to force "evangelical" parents to prepare for the worst because many would insist that God would definitely heal their child. He knew I was pessimistic about her outcome. He had to tell me that it was now time for me to hope for her cure because she was doing so much better than was expected.
Through the ensuing years, we believe that God guided us in making difficult decisions. One was our choice not to radiate her. We knew that radiation at that age would result in profound mental limitation since the nerves are not fully myelinated. We felt that her prognosis was so bad that such a treatment would only add discomfort to her days left on this earth. That controversial decision (only 2 out of the gazillion doctors agreed with our decision) would prove to be significant.
You see, my daughter survived and is now a nurse in a surgical trauma unit at a major medical center. She is enrolled in a long term study being conducted by St Judes Childrens Hospital to investigate the ins and outs of adult survivors of what was thought to be a terminal childhood illness. She is enrolled in a similar study at Duke University Medical Center. They collect blood samples and DNA to try to find reasons for her survival, hoping to find some clues as to why kids, like her, survived their illnesses.
Through the years of pain and fear, time and time again, I would recall Yancey's book and find such strength in the miracle of our salvation. I would often think about heaven and how my daughter would be released from the pain of surgeries and interminable tests and studies. Yet God blessed us by allowing us the joy of her presence, even today.
So, when someone goes after Yancey for not toeing an exacting doctrinal line, I say said reviewer doesn't get it. I have gone on to read almost all of Yancey's books and enjoy them, particularly The Jesus I Never Knew link. Yancey's books have encouraged me more than any of the "perfect" books written by theological Pharisees. Both CS Lewis and Philip Yancey are the two authors, outside of the Bible, who helped me to go deeper in my faith.
Max Lucado
Around my house I have prints by Ron DiCianni. If you haven't seen any, you can see some of them here. While in Dallas, I volunteered in the Office of International Affairs. I would often have the spouses of the diplomats and businessmen visit my house to see a typical American household. They would ask me questions about these prints and I was able to share my faith in a non-threatening and interesting way. I still correspond with some of them to this day. Max Lucado wrote a book with DiCianni called Tell Me the Secrets link. These prints, combined with Lucado's words, were a part of our family's life and witness.
Read all sorts of books
I recommend that you read Richard Dawkins, Rob Bell, and the Book of Mormon instead of books about Richard Dawkins, Rob Bell and the Book of Mormon. Ten years ago, I met with a leader in the Mormon church for over a year. Early on, he challenged me to read only Mormon literature as I talked with him. So, I took him up on it. By reading their own words, I learned so much more than was covered in the typical "How to Talk to Mormons" books. Believe it or not, I found their own words to be more intriguing which made for some challenging discussion.
Here is the prime case in point. Brigham Young University had an "ask the professors" section on their website. Well, lo and behold, someone brought up a statement by Young who claimed that there were people, who looked Amish, living on the moon. The professor said, I kid you not, something to the effect that we haven't seen all of the moon yet so we can't make a judgment on Young's thoughts! I presented this to my friend who was a graduate of one of the military academies and very intelligent. He immediately said that I had found this in one of those anti-Mormon books. I gave him the printout from Brigham Young University and told him that I was doing as he asked. He admitted that the prophets could make mistakes but seemed a bit rattled. Here is one site that discusses this interesting point link.
The same goes for Richard Dawkins. Our small group read The God Delusion and discussed it for several weeks. I am of the opinion that, if the average Christian cannot contend with Dawkins' claims, then (s)he needs to get smarter. After I read his book, I went on to read Alister McGrath's response in The Dawkins' Delusion? I am not a proponent of the health and wealth gospel but I have read Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer to understand their words, not what someone else claims are their words.
I read all 12 of the Left Behind series(stop laughing) so I could understand what the hoopla was about. Even though I do not subscribe to either the theology or the presentation of those books, they helped me to clarify why I disagree and what I really believe. Last night at a Bible study, studying Matthew 24, I even brought up some of the images in the book and we discussed why we think the theology in the books do not make sense in the context of this passage.
Even the controversy on The Shack is an example of bias within the Christian community. In spite of the flak surrounding the book, I read and enjoyed it. Then people like Al Mohler and others began pushing the "H" word (heresy). Suddenly, the doctrinal sages began to wag their tongues, repeating concerns about denial of all sorts of doctrines. However, there are plenty of other folks, including Wade Burleson and Intervarsity Press who have posted positive reviews of the book and neither of them are into promoting heresy. Please read the book for yourself. You may like it or you may not but base it on the words of the book instead of the words of the pundits.
In the end, I believe in more reading rather than less reading. Visit lots of blogs and websites of ministries and leaders. Think about it and pray. When something concerns you, study it for yourself. Do not limit yourself to those books recommended by a narrow subset of leaders with exacting viewpoints. They, along with me and everyone else, have agendas and biases. Be a Berean.
Be a rebel! Read what they do not want you to read and figure out if you agree with them.
And if this post ever makes its way to Phillip Yancey, I send my sincerest thanks. Your words helped this frightened, heart- sick woman navigate the hardest journey of my life and maintain a strong faith in our Lord during that time. May God bless you always!
Lydia's Corner: 1 Samuel 12:1-13:23 John 7:1-30 Psalm 108:1-13 Proverbs 15:4
Let me be the first to say – love this! 100% agreement here!
Say “Hi” to Barbara for me- looking foward to her stop here on her US tour! :p
I am a HUGE fan of reading stuff I don’t necessarily agree with- as much as I can tell you that I don’t like “Atlas Shrugged”, the influence on my thinking and the amount of time I’ve spent discussing it has been huge (but not the way Rand would have liked).
I am far more likely to read something that will present a different persepective to me than I am something I already agree with. The reason is simple: I’ve been there done that- I want to learn something new, and it turns out just because I read something doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. I can learn a lot even when it isn’t what the author intends for me to learn.
I’ve read Mahaney, Donald Miller, Rob Bell, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Stott, Brian Maclaren, Mark Dever, John Piper, Al Mohler, the Apostolic fathers, Phillip Yancey, etc. all in the last couple of years. Read them and anyone really through the lens of scripture, take the nuggets, reject what you find is unbiblical. I would not personally recommend some of these books for one reason or another, but I wouldn’t discourage anyone from reading any theological/philosophical work. To be honest, I disagree theologically with much what I find here, but I keep coming back because I respect other’s opinions, and I want to understand their point of view. If you don’t agree with Yancey, fine. Yet reading him, you just might find something from his experience and knowledge that is helpful. I enjoyed “what’s so amazing about grace.” It was helpful for me in a time of suffering. I almost walked away from the faith a few years ago, and it was a Mahaney book that was helpful for me. of course, no author will ever replace God’s Word. It was the Spirit by his Word that was instrumental in my perseverance. I know I’m kind of all over the place here, but those are my initial thoughts
I’ve got a couple of Philip Yancey’s books, but I’ve struggled to get into them.
I have enjoyed the work of a few other heretics though… when the heretics are talking about love and grace, and the hardcore holy are talking about wrath and judgement and how everything is bad about everything, I know who I gravitate to…
Even if I can’t quite connect :/
Jeff S wrote:
I agree with you. i have discussed that book on more occasions than I can remember. It provides a stark contrast between purist capitalism and Jesus’ admonitions to care for the poor.
@ Just Sayin’:
I’m with Just Sayin’ — this was absolutely fantastic! I’m so glad you shared this. Then again, I’m always blessed by the posts on this site.
I, too, have been very blessed by Philip Yancey, Max Lucado, Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, David deSilva, Henri Nouwen, Scot McKnight, N.T. Wright, Thomas Merton and so many others who would not make certain people’s approval list (I won’t name any particular groups, but they, typically, like John Calvin).
Then again, about a year ago, I had a great awakening and entirely stopped caring about what certain groups approve and disapprove. Walking in freedom is wonderful.
William Birch wrote:
I knew I liked you. Some of these guys think Foster is a heretic. I don’t. The same goes for Nouwen. His life inspired me to work with those with special needs.
BTW, I read you excellent post on Piper. I am thinking about using it as a basis for a post in the near future. Well stated!
Dee, if you get a chance to read this, please say hi to Barb for me. I greatly appreciate what she, Jeff Crippen, Jeff S, Megan, (who did I miss?) and others are doing at Cry for Justice giving hope to women in very troubled marriages. It is a much-needed resource and haven.
William Birch wrote:
I am working toward this goal myself. It has been a slow walk for me, but I’m getting there. Posts like this one help me keep trudging on…
@ dee:
Thanks, Dee. That’s quite the compliment!
Foster a heretic: wow. Just when I think I’ve heard it all.
Nouwen’s works have ministered to me immensely, given that we both have wrestled with same-sex attraction. Every few months I read “Can You Drink the Cup?” Each time I read it I discover new aspects.
The Lord bless you all.
@ Just Sayin’:
It was a process for me as well. Give yourself time.
Dee, I am sad to say that for years I have listened to and embraced the "advice" of the RBD's (especially Mahaney as I am a former SGMer). I avoided books that were panned and read books that were praised. After having my eyes opened to the RBD book and conference promoting machine, the lack of integrity, and hypocrisy, I have begun to go back and read some of those books or types of books that would be discredited. I have been so blessed. I am especially enjoying books by Donald Miller, such as Blue Like Jazz and Looking for God Knows What. I would never have picked up those books while in the deep end of the SGM pool. So glad to be free to think for myself!
When I got out of ex church ten years ago, I opened books by authors that would have been on the banned reading list: Henri Nouwen, Brennan Manning, Brian McLaren, Anne Lamott, Kathleen Norris, and one book by Robert Farra Capon, yikes, I know he is controversial, o well.
I read Disappointment with God after I had left AOG church. I was so confused because the main teaching focused on healing. But, I wasn’t healed internally from growing up in a abusive environment, and my husband wasn’t healed of his devastating diagnoses of Ankylosing spondylitis. Phillip Yancy’s book truly impacted my heart. I wrote him a letter expressing my gratitude. About a month later I opened my mail to find a compassionate response from him. Who does that? Methinks a man who takes the time to write back is kind & full of compassion. I can only imagine how much mail he receives.
Our next church stop was fourteen years of being whipped into shape. Glad I got out when I did.
@ Lost in (Cyber) Space:Good for you!
@ Gail:I am not surprised that he wrote you. He seems like that sort of guy.
dee wrote:
From the few quotes I’ve seen from Nouwen, I know I need to read some of his writings. I think I’d identify with him, albeit for other reasons. The question is, where to start?
@ William Birch:
Thank you for the encouragement. I really do appreciate it. 🙂
@ PP:
“Read them and anyone really through the lens of scripture, take the nuggets, reject what you find is unbiblical.”
**************
Seems to me that the “biblical”/”unbiblical” litmus test is a box of big, chunky crayons– red yellow blue. sometimes with green, sometimes with green and purple, sometimes with green, purple, and orange. Depending on who grades the test.
Perhaps truth is expressed in many shades (at least 64!), and delicately etched. A fistful of chunky crayons can only reach so far in hues & fine corners and curves.
Just about a week after I walked out of my SGM church (Fairfax) for the last time, I collapsed while out at lunch in DC with a colleague. I spent a long weekend at Georgetown Hospital being tested from my scalp to my toenails and the diagnosis was that I had a syncopal episode (faint) with seizure symptoms. As a result, I couldn’t drive for six months. I spent that six months reading Anne Lamott, Marcus Borg, Brian McLaren, Jack Miles, Karen Armstrong, Kathleen Norris, Thomas Moore, Francis Collins, NT Wright. There were others — I have a list somewhere — about 60 books in all. In general, anything that caught my eye in the “Christian” section of Borders that I wouldn’t have found in the Fairfax bookstore. It was like an extended personal reading retreat and it changed my life. Read, read, read! And don’t let anyone tell you what not to read!
Josh wrote:
My favorite is The Prodigal Son.
From Amazon: “A chance encounter with a reproduction of Rembrandt’s The Return of the Prodigal Son catapulted Henri Nouwen on a long spiritual adventure. Here he shares the deeply personal and resonant meditation that led him to discover the place within where God has chosen to dwell.
In seizing the inspiration that came to him through Rembrandt’s depiction of the powerful Gospel story, Henri Nouwen probes the several movements of the parable: the younger son’s return, the father’s restoration of sonship, the elder son’s vengefulness, and the father’s compassion. In his reflection on Rembrandt in light of his own life journey, the author evokes a powerful drama of the parable in a rich, capativating way that is sure to reverberate in the hearts of readers. The themes of homecoming, affirmation, and reconciliation will be newly discovered by all who have known loneliness, dejection, jealousy, or anger. The challenge to love as the father and be loved as the son will be seen as the ultimate revelation of the parable known to Christians throughout time, and here represented with a vigor and power fresh for our times”
Like you, Dee, I love Phillip Yancey. A good friend of mine, John, turned me on to him years ago. Last year, I downloaded “Disappointment With God”. I was struggling with my sister’s cancer and the “why” question and all that comes with it. This book helped me so much. I have since read it again. He is honest and real. He does not pretend to have all the answers, nor does he use the typical cliches to address issues. I love him. I have yet to read a book of his that John gave me, “What’s so Amazing about Grace”. But it is on my list to do.
After the Book of John, number 2 on my ATF list is Yancey’s, “What’s So Amazing About Grace”, and number 3 on that list is Lucado’s, “God Came Near”, an oldy but a greaty. The Ed Young books do not appear on that list. Shocking.
@ Gail: Robert Farrar Capon is pretty amazing – his books on the parables are really, really good. (Among others.)
Josh wrote:
Here are two suggestions. The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming and In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership.
The Leadership book explores what he learned in his years of living amongst the mentally challenged. The Prodigal is a reflection on the Biblical story which changed his life.
@ elastigirl: These days, unbiblical often means “does not adhere to my standards” in secondary issues.
@ Phoenix: Are you doing OK? I am sorry to hear of that incident but I am so glad it brought the time to read.
Scooter’s Mom wrote:
I liked that as well. It is relevant today, more than ever, since so many downplay grace and focus on sin.
You waded through 12 volumes of that hackwork? You should get a medal for that.
Want to take on the remaining 10 volumes (prequel trilogy/Antichrist’s Baby Pictures, sequel, and the two shared-universe trilogies by other authors)? I am NOT making that up.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I am truly frightened by the idea.
I have not read Yancey but now want to so thanks all. I am not a fan of Max Lucado and that is not because of his writing but because I saw how much he got for speaking gigs. That sort of information is enough to put you off these guys real quick. Most middle class folks don't make that kind of money for a few hours in a months time.
I’m currently reading Soul Survivor: How Thirteen Unlikely Mentors Helped My Faith Survive the Church by Yancey. I haven’t got far enough into it to say one way or another how it will impact me, but I will say Yancey is an engaging writer and I’m really enjoying his presentation.
Interestingly, Henri Nouwen is one of his thirteen mentors.
I don’t think “What’s So Amazing About Grace” deserved the flak that it seemed to attract from certain quarters. I don’t remember finding anything to quibble about in it.
Jeff S, did you ever read “Judgement Day” by Nathaniel Brandon? That was an interesting account of a life involved with Ayn Rand and her followers.
Rand was one of those strange thinkers who in my opinion was half right and yet in some ways completely wrong. Ironically by extending her views to cover the metaphysical she fell into the same trap that her Marxist opponents did.
anonymous wrote:
Certain Calvinistas consider him a heretic. So what’s new?
Kolya wrote:
I read it and her little group started to look like a swinging cult of sorts.
Kolya wrote:
Exactly!
Josh, I also recommend Clowning in Rome. @ Gail:
They think the same of N.T. Wright. @ dee:
Dee, how lovely that your daughter made it through and that she is healthy AND participating so beautifully. Grace top to bottom!
I recognize your understanding, although I came to it a long way around. It’s a kind of owning-up and giving-up. Owning-up, in that you fully understood that the greatest work was already done by Christ and it was for you. Giving-up, in that you recognized that whether your daughter lived or died, it was going to be ok between you, her, and God. Norwich’s “All will be well…”
Of which TS Eliot:
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
By the purification of the motive
In the ground of our beseeching.
And when that becomes true, then we are in the heart of Christ and free to read anything, to think anything, to do anything. Because we live in the flow of love-already-accomplished, nothing from outside that place can harm us (so why not go to source material?) and everything is seen through love. And when we slip away, as sometimes happens, it will be experienced as awry and for the love of God, we bound back into His/Her heart. Whoop!
I’ve gotten to the point now where if ‘they’ like it, I won’t read it…Oooooh, I’m so contrary.
@ Patrice: Just wondering if you’re familiar with Julian of Norwich? I read the Eliot for an undergrad class and only tangentially discovered, years later, that he was quoting Julian (in the quote you posted).
You might like her stuff…
@ Beakerj: In their world, you’re “contrary”; in the rest of the world, you’re quite normal, beaks!
btw, I’m in on the girl gang. 😉
@ Patrice: D’oh!
apologies for not reading your post carefully enough!
Patricia Hanlon wrote:
Not that I agree with Wright on everything but he can out-think those guys in spades.
Plus, he is irenic in disagreement and they could take a lesson from that.
@ Eagle:
Eagle! I was wondering where you were! I always look forward to your comments and noticed there weren’t any from you lately.
@ Eagle: Nice to see you, Eagle!
Off topic but a good one:
http://www.zhoag.com/2013/04/22/smokin-hot-wives/
Kolya wrote:
To me, Rand is just a mainstream version of a phenomenon I’ve seen in a lot of fanboys; the one-eighty flip from Total Blind Adoration of something into Total Blind Hatred, retaining the same intensity and zeal and “fundamentalist” thinking. Rand fled the First Russian Revolution and flipped into a polar opposite of the Bolsheviki she had fled — from the forced insect-hive collective into Utter Selfishness, from the group trumping the individual to the individual trumping all.
To me, Rand and Stalin are funhouse-mirror reflections of each other; if Rand had been given the same absolute power over a country as Comrade Stalin had over Russia, I have no doubt her Objectivist Regime would have been every bit as bloody and terrible as Stalins’ Communist Regime. She sure had the same Cult of Personality going where The Cult Leader IS The Only Absolute Truth.
Communism begets Objectivism.
dee wrote:
I can tell you what’s even scarier: The Left Behind fanboys with little comprehension of Fiction who read it as Fact — “History Written in Advance (It’s Prophesied, It’s Prophesied…)”
Kolya wrote:
I haven’t read it, but I can say my opinion of Rand aligns with your own. For example. John Galt’s story of the factory and why that system broken down is such an excellent deconstruction of Marxism. But she overcorrects the other direction and shows why the church should be very careful about getting too cozy with Capitalism. Capitalism is not the Gospel and it is not a part of our mission to the world.
In Rand’s world your value is based on your ability to produce, and not just produce, but produce what is in demand. Jesus puts no such restriction on how he views the worth of his followers. And buying too much into Capitalism as inherintly moral will lead the church into valuing people not as Jesus does, but as Rand does.
Capitalism does work (with modifications), but that doesn’t make it moral as Rand thinks of it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Exactly.
Is this the fruit of restorationism or a leadership cult? Brent Detwiler’s post yesterday raises more questions then sor me. The amazing thing about this church movement is that all all seems to congeal the major issues inherent within the charsmatic/restorationist /NAR/3rd wave in one crazy pot. So, is there a middle way? Do we squint at the air vents for gold dust and cherubim feathers or choke on the library dust of Neo-Calvinism?
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2013/4/21/restoration-of-the-church-are-you-a-pioneer-or-a-settler.html
Brennan Manning, Richard Rohr, Byron Katie, Tom Wright and Anthony de Mello – heretics who have not led me into the hopelessness of the Jesus seminar or a new age comatosis -my faith still stands strong – and more alive
Dee, it’s kind of you to ask. Yes, I’m fine. That was some years ago and I’ve never had a recurrence. It’s also a bit ironic that after 12 years in the Fairfax SGM church no one from the church (except dear Noel and her husband) came near me or called during that time. It was during that time that I went back to the church building (the only time) for an exit meeting with Mark Mullery. I paid for a cab both ways. Sigh.
And I agree with HUG about the Left Behind books. You’re a better woman than I — I couldn’t even make it all the way through the first one!
Dee, I too was moved by The Jesus I Never Knew. In fact, I can say it was a life defining book for me.
As an author, I think it’s important for anyone to read any book with discernment. I know I’m not perfect and my books have errors despite my best attempts otherwise. I hope those who read my books test what I say against Scripture. And I then also test what I read of others, be it book or blog post. I’m perfectly comfortable agreeing with a writer on some things and disagreeing on others.
@ Jeff S.:
“In Rand’s world your value is based on your ability to produce, and not just produce, but produce what is in demand. Jesus puts no such restriction on how he views the worth of his followers. And buying too much into Capitalism as inherintly moral will lead the church into valuing people not as Jesus does, but as Rand does. Capitalism does work (with modifications), but that doesn’t make it moral as Rand thinks of it.”
Thank you for this. I know so many Christians who think that just because something is entrepreneurial, it is automatically good. I’m all for entrepreneurship and capitalism, but if they’re divorced from morality they can become just as dangerous as anything else.
@ HUG:
Antichrist’s Baby Pictures?
My list of “life changing” (point of view changing) books include:
What’s So Amazing About Grace?, Philip Yancey
Traveling Mercies: Some Thoughts on Faith, Anne Lamott
Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller
The Irresistible Revolution, Shane Claiborne
The Blue Parakeet, Scot McKnight
Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, Frank Viola
I would assume that some of these make the “do not approve” list.
With you on Yancey – have been reading him forever. Couldn't finish "The Shack" on account of the terrible writing.
Barbara Roberts and “Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion” are highly recommended. Shortly after reading her book, a woman who is a pastor at a Pentecostal church started to attend the DivorceCare group my wife and I lead. She told a story of years of physical, emotional and financial abuse by her husband. She felt that she no grounds to divorce him because he had not been adulterous or abandonded her. I just handed her Barbara’s book and told her to read it. Her eyes were opened to a proper interpretation and application of scripture in regards to divorce. It was a huge step in her restoration. She is now leading DivorceCare groups at her own church.
Barbara and others at A Cry for Justice are doing great work in opening the eyes of the church to shameful way victims of abusive marriages are treated. I am very glad to see WW and A Cry for Justice in league.
Hester wrote:
Snarky term for the Left Behind prequel trilogy.
@ HUG:
Good. I was afraid that wasn’t sarcastic.
Tyrants and tyrannical religions have always feared ideas. When your ideas can only be sustained with fear and repression, they’re probably not very good ideas to begin with. Yes? No?
@ numo:
I love Julian of Norwich.
Anon 1 wrote:
Really good article!
I liked “And maybe, just maybe, the sacredness of sexy compliments shared in secret would be like water to both of your souls.”
I’m reminded of the poem JP published, written by JP’s Dad about smokin hot Mom — just creepy! Then there’s the flip side, where tweeters like JW feel free to make “sport” of women’s appearance.
Good plug in the article for the missio alliance conference. My ( male ) pastor went and his favorite talks were by Cherith Fee Nordling and Jo Saxton. Dallas Wiilard was supposed to have been there but couldn’t make it. Anyone read a good book by him? I’m not familiar with him.
The Sacred Romance by John Eldredge and Brent Curtis was on the SGM no-no list. I loved it. 🙂
Loren Haas wrote:
I’ve only read reviews and not the book itself, but a similar one is “Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities” by David Instone-Brewer. He also wrote a book called “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context”
From what I do know, the author argues that Jesus was not limiting divorce only to adultery, as is the commonly accepted understanding by most Christians today.
He’s also written some articles about divorce that have been published on Christian sites.
@ Eagle.
Certain words trigger your posts going into moderation on this blog. I don’t know what all of them are, but one rhymes with the word “Tex” -but remove the “T” and put an “S” in its place. That word seems to throw a wrench into the works.
@ Patrice: That makes two of us.
Slightly off topic, but thanks guys for your remarks on Rand. I’m a free market person myself, but I would hesitate at saying that the Bible unequivocally throws its weight behind any human system of economics. My view tends to be that everything needs to be qualified by non-political, non-economic Biblical values such as honesty, compassion, etc. I hate seeing neo-Cals throwing their entire weight behind captalism and theoloogical liberals throwing their weight behind sociaalism – I feel they’re reading their own likes, even prejdices, into the situaiontr.
DISCLAIRMER: any tuypos in this post caused by small cat sitting in front of monitor when I’m trying to write.
A church of which we were members had a weekly book study. In one year we did both a Philip Yancey and a Dallas Willard. Both were chosen for the group, which was mostly people with at least a master’s, so the pastor chose the heavier ones by those authors. We also did a summer evenings study on the Screwtape Letters!
When we lived in San Antonio, we attended Lucado’s church a couple of times. Enjoyed the preaching, which was biblical to say the least. His books are not in parallel with the latest evangelical or reformed trendiness, and contain a wealth of examples of practical application. But I disagree with this theology!!
I forget who said they were the rebel, but when I was at CLC, if C.J. recommended a book, that was a guarantee that I WOULDN’T read it! Such a rebel am I. I do remember reading Disappointment with God and thoroughly enjoying it. I also read a lot of books by the New Life Clinic authors at that time (Changes that Heal, Boundaries, Safe People, etc.) that SO helped me heal my psyche and my spiritual life.
Ironically, yesterday I attended a huge used booksale that’s held yearly here at a Catholic school. There’s three large rooms filled with tables of books – feels kind of like heaven for me. I purused a lot of books, and thought about buying things like the Book of Mormon and other books from an opposing perspective to Christianity. I have so little time in my life, however, that I just bought the books that struck my fancy right now. Maybe next year I’ll have more time and stamina to do that. I like the way you think about this, Dee! You’re challenging me to stretch myself.
Also, so Glad that you and your husband made some great choices and your daughter is o.k.
What about Tony Campolo “The Kingdom of God is a Party”?
@ Kolya:
There is no such thing as a free market. Without strong regulation of human behavior by prosecutors and police, there would be no wealthy people in a truly free market — the mob would alleviate the rich of their money, freely accessing it and distributing it. So government regulation protects the wealthy!!!! And only as a side effect does it protect the poor. People who advocate against all regulation are advocating for mob rule and the destruction of the very government that allows for their wealth.
The real question is, to what extent can the system keep the thumb on the scale against the people and in favor of wealth, so that they can continue to buy out the brighter ones and put them into doctors offices, law offices, ceo and board seats, professorships, etc., and leave the less brilliant population to suffer relative privation.
Anon 1 wrote:
It’s no different than High School, where the Varsity Quarterback parades his Smokin Hawt Cheerleader before all the rest of us losers. The Alpha Male parading his Alpha Female before all the Beta-to-Omega Males — “SHE’S MINE! NOT YOURS! HAW! HAW! HAW!”
Some thoughts on Phillip Yancey:
About 8 months ago I heard Yancey in an interview (more like a conversation) on a local NPR station in CT. The woman who he was speaking with was not a Christian. I really enjoyed the conversation. He did not try to bully her with his points, nor did he back down o his beliefs. It was a conversation, a discussion and very refreshing.
A little known fact was that Yancey came to Connecticut after the Newtown shootings. He spoke at my church. His theme was based on his book “Where is God When It Hurts?” Here’s a link
http://www.walnuthillcc.org/home/news/0000/00-00/missed-philip-yancey
I can understand why he isn’t appreciated in certain circles. He doesn’t claim to know that God allowed hurt and pain because of some sins that our society may have committed.
FormerCLC’er wrote:
My favorite Campolo story is the one that he tells about giving a prostitute a birthday party in a diner. Absolutely great example of what the Kingdom of God is like.
Kolya wrote:
Good point Kolya. Next time you get into an exchange with a neo-Cal who waxes nostalgic about going back to the 50s with Ward & June Cleaver, ask him or her if they’d also sign on to the tax rates that prevailed upon corporations and wealthy individuals back then.
Muff and Attorney, good points. Re Muff’s point first, I agree that people do seem to think that the 50s (esp in North America) were a golden age of free markets and don’t realise how much government subsidy and tax was going on then – the very sort of govt paternalism/care that the fringe neo-Cals hate.
Re Attorney’s point, even Ayn Rand presupposed that in a completely free market system government would still exist to run the armed forces and uphold laws. Brandon did relate an interesting episode in his book where one of the more extreme libertarians was arguing in favour of privatisation of the army (!).
Probably my own experiences have been coloured by growing up during a certain period of UK history and my trip to the USSR.
As C S Lewis said, for a political party to elevate its beliefs to the role of a metaphysic rather than simply a suggested programme for running the country is generally a bad thing.
Patricia Hanlon wrote:
I missed that one! Will check it out.
numo wrote:
Off to Amazon… Thanks for the heads up.
Eagle wrote:
Well just have to make it like the SP@M that I get.
Kolya wrote:
I totally agree as did Tocqueville in many ways.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
“When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2
But in my experience here, many of the YRR are not really Capitalistic at all. They are too authoritarian and hate equality. I have also been shocked at how many bragged about not voting at all the last Presidential election.
An Attorney wrote:
That is strange. Around here, the government workers are retiring at 55 with 100,000 year pensions from mid management jobs and full health care. Wonder how long we can keep that up?
Never mind me. Just trying to get past your spam filter.
@ Eagle:
It the word that rhymes with “TEX” that does it, which I keep forgetting, and I sometimes use that word but in a “G-rated” manner to discuss other topics (not just Driscoll), so my posts go into moderation.
Hence forward, I will use “TEX” to refer to ‘you know,’ *wink wink nudge nudge*.
If I ever use “Tex” to refer to a Texan, I hope everyone is bright enough to figure out the meaning by the context. 🙂
I can maybe go into euphemism mode, such as, “horizontal rhubma,” or “the nasty,” or “wild monkey dance of love.”
@ Eagle:
The filter must be hyper sensitive. I just left you a post (all very cleanly worded, no naughty words) that did NOT use that word, and it went to mod queue any way.
Tex
Anon 1 wrote:
How many years did they work to get that pension. As a government worker, I put in a percentage of my pay towards my retirement in a pension. The money is invested and depending on my retirement age I will get benefits. My benefits are also tied to my social security. So, getting $100,00/year in pension when you’ve worked for say 35 years and were being paid $125,000 your last few years is totally possible.
@ Kolya:
“Brandon did relate an interesting episode in his book where one of the more extreme libertarians was arguing in favour of privatisation of the army (!).”
Privatization of the army? Would that basically equal abolishing the standing army and replacing it with a militia?
Steve, usually 25-30 years. They take last 3 year wages and average them and that will be your pension amount. But it is state funded pension as in no way they paid in that amount to be paid out over 25 years if one lives to 80. It was matched at about 4%/20%. Full health benefits, too. Thing is, this won’t last forever. Many states are going broke.
Eagle wrote:
🙂 Give us another week or two. We are refining the list as time goes on. We started with a master list that others have used but there are limitations. It really will be fine shortly.
@ Steve D: Thank you for that comment. I heard about him going to Newtown. He is a decent man with great kindness and is not a “culture warrior” masquerading as a pastor. Neither was Jesus.
@ FormerCLC’er:Thank you so much.
Hester wrote:
War is and always has been one of the most profitable enterprises an investor can be into. The Crusades made vast fortunes for the Venetian shipping magnates who provided logistical support for the military effort in the Levant. Bell helicopter made out handsomely from the Vietnam conflict. What makes you think that U.S. military forces have not already been privatized on a grand scale from the cold war to present day?
communism begets objectivism with a little help from a bitter mother who tells you she’s only raising you out of duty.
and maybe a “little” benzedrine. 🙂
@ Daisy:
Barbara’s book is specifically related to abuse situations and she takes a slightly different view from Instone-Brewer. The core of her argument is that 1 Cor 7 releases an abused spouse from the bondage of marriage. She makes an excellent case that when Paul talks about an unbeliever be willing to live with a believer, the clear implication is living together in peace. It is not consistent with Paul’s teaching that “willing to live with” means “desiring to abuse”.
She disagrees with IB on a few points, but he endorsed her book so they can’t be that far off. Personally, IB’s view resonates a little stronger with me, but Barbara’s book only bolsters his case, and on top of that she discusses aspects of abuse that are outside of IB’s scope.
I highly recommend her book- it is very well written and to a lot of people will be more accessible than IB’s work.
@ Hester: I think it would mean that we’d have warlords, as on the TV show “Revolution” (and as in mainland China for many decades during the 20th c.).
Which would be an absolutely ,b>terrible thing. Pray God it never comes to pass! [shudders]
I’m almost finished my second reading of “Soul Survivor” and have been inspired by it. I love how he’s learned lesson from a number of people in his life and it makes me more mindful of those who have touched my life, Yancey included. @ anonymous:
@ numo:
True.
@ Muff Potter:
And true.
Blah!
Anon 1 wrote:
What should be happening is that the money put in by the state and the worker is invested. However, many states haven’t been fully funding their retirement accounts. Also, investments aren’t doing as well as they had planned. The problem is that as a society, we never look to the future. We look short term instead of long term. We have discovered that the future is now. We generally do the same with things like road/bridge maintenance, building maintenance. Well you get the idea.
@ Phoenix: Loved your comment! So glad you're doing better. 🙂
I believe Mr Piper was not happy with the Instone-Brewer book? Evangelicals Now over here though (if I remember correctly) were more nuanced in their review of it. I haven’t read either book, so can’t comment.
Hester and Muff, the extreme libertarian view I mentioned was that armies should be provided by private contractors, including the soldiers – not just the weapons, which in any case normally are the property of government once purchased from a defence contractor. So yes, in that sense they really would be private armies. Numo’s right, it would look a bit like China in the 1920s – or indeed England in the War of the Roses! (Theoretically of course they would be subject to government control, but in practice it would be a recipe for dangerous instability. Plus I am not sure that even the biggest company in the world could finance a standing army capable of taking on any other large and modern nation’s armed forces).
Re early retirement (off-topic again, sorry!), we have the same problem in parts of Europe, though less so in the UK (retirement age is increasing over here in order to be able to pay the pensions given people’s increased life expectancy). Certainly in some Mediterranean countries some people get to retire at 55, which was probably OK a few decades ago but isn’t really feasible now, I fear, esp. as some of these countries have got economic problems of their own.
And let us not forget amazing Madeleine L’Engle,1918 to 2007, whose A Wrinkle in Time is one of my all-time favorites. She was a devout believer in Jesus (Anglican, I think) and a very prolific writer. Lovely retellings of Old Testament stories among many other things. She was also roundly criticized and accused of heresy, blasphemy, promoting witchcraft, yada, yada, because of certain elements in her stories. (Like JK Rowling, another devout Anglican and perceptive writer about good and evil.)
Muff Potter wrote:
This is why Obama can say we are more-or-less out of Iraq, winding down Afghanistan and “not in” Pakistan–we’ve hired bunches of private businesses some of whom are better described as mercenary groups. Bah
Richard Foster?
Funny how things change…
I went to NOBTS (new orleans baptist theological seminary) in the 90’s. His books were one of our required readings….not b/c there was criticism of him either!
@ Kolya:
Piper called Instone-Brewer’s view that divorce was acceptable in cases of neglect or abuse “tragic”.
I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to read both Piper’s position paper and IB’s book “Divorce and Remarriage In The Bible” and come to their own conclusions about which one has done the legwork to really understand the scriptures.
IB is a scholar- his work is VERY credible. Piper makes a lot of conjecture to bolster his ideas- finding a way of interpreting “Pornea” that makes divorce not actually divorce (but rather a breaking off of an engagement in the betrothal period). IB shows clear examples of how Jesus’ contemporaries would have understood what he was saying- the most compelling example is an almost identicial word for word argument to what Jesus said made by a religious group at the same period who we know allowed for divorce for neglect/abuse. For Jesus to mean something different means he would have used the same words with the same audience but meant something different. That’s pretty hard to swallow.
numo wrote:
Three words: GAME. OF. THRONES.
Or Late Roman Empire, where every General marched their Legion to Rome to become the next Emperor, resulting in near-continuous civil war. AVE, CAESAR!
Hester wrote:
No, Mercenaries. Or after the Cold War, “Private Contractors”.
And with Mercenaries, you get the following:
1) Switching sides when someone else makes a higher bid.
2) Going on strike for more.
3) More than one employer, welcome to Game of Thrones.
4) We’ve got all the guns, they’ve got all the cash and are too lazy/cowardly to fight themselves (otherwise why would they be paying us), why don’t we just take over ourselves. AVE, CAESAR!
@ Jen: I have heard the heretic word applied to him by some of the theological Pharisees.
Anon 1 wrote:
Especially when the Public Employee Unions(TM) own the legislature like here in CA. Bought and Paid For. All candidates get 90% of their campaign financing from the Public Employee Unions(TM). Whatever they want, they get. Period. And the retirement bennies and perqs just keep going up and up and up and up and up, to the point that it now consumes between half and 2/3 of the state budget.
We now have the highest state taxes in the country, not counting the additional “fees” that keep getting piled on. If I hadn’t been stupid, I’d have been a gummint bureaucrat — punch my ticket, don’t make waves, follow every rule, smile when the union dues (for campaign contribution funds) take 10-20% of my paycheck, always vote Democrat, and by now I’d be retired on full salary plus free medical care for life. No matter what the inflation rate — Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, the pension automatically rises to match. Gummint Gravy Train all the way.
And with the exodus from CA of anyone with two coins to rub together, it’s said that in another generation there will only be three types of people in CA — Government officials, Government bureaucrats, and illegal aliens from Mexico, i.e. Inner Party, Outer Party, and Proles.
And all the Government Employees sing along:
“I GOT MINE,
I GOT MINE,
I DON’T WANT A THING TO CHANGE
NOW THAT I GOT MINE!!!!!!!”
Anon 1 wrote:
Why vote when you’re looking forward to the Coup?
“GOD WILLS IT!”
Muff Potter wrote:
And I’ll lay you odds the neo-Cal Nifty Fifties Fanboy is WHITE. The 50s were also the era of the Third Klan, Jim Crow, and lynchings.
“SEGREGATION NOW, SEGREGATION FOREVER!!!!!” — George C Wallace
White Supremacy was as basic a Law of Nature as Gravity well into the 20th Century.
Anon 1 wrote:
It kind of depends what one means by “capitalistic” (if you’ll excuse that rather bland statement of the obvious…). The platform ministry model operated by and large by the “YRR” has at least two things in common with long-standing traditional capitalism.
Firstly, there’s the belief – which has been discussed here and elsewhere already – that visible success and profile only comes through, and is a reliable sign of, God’s blessing and approval. Thus, they attach significant moral and “spiritual” authority to organisational size. If I can attract a large number of followers, and say they’ve “come to know Jesus” through my ministry (whether they know him enough to follow him outwith my control is another matter), then you should not criticise or question me.
Secondly, there’s the belief that there’s something profoundly and pleasingly right about the weak serving the strong. Weakness and strength in this context are, of course, determined by one’s ability to achieve fame and influence. Thus, “unity” means you abandon your personal opinions and aspirations and unite under mine.
Both of these assume that there is no King in the church and that the Holy Spirit, in whatever way he can still be experienced after the closure of the Canon rendered him obsolete, is given only to an elite few.
patrice, a detail noted by people I know who served in Afghanistan is those mercenary groups don’t have to or deign to make any pretense to following any Geneve convention anything. In theory, at least, American soldiers who violate Geneva convention codes “can” get court-martialed. Not the mercenaries.
@ Speakword:
Speakword, I choose your definition leadership cult. CJ’ first paragraphs about his ideas give it away from the get go. I’ve always heard how much SGM was originally good, now I know the problem was there from the start. Alleged paragraph:
““Although Jim’s church contained godly people, it lacked prophetic leadership and Christians committed to obeying God regardless of the cost…. They need a prophet. A man who can bring revelation of the person of Christ and the radical church he desires, and who exposes sinful attitudes that hamper its coming forth.”
Seriously? They need…a MAN… ? And of course not just an ordinary man but a special man. The pride was there from the start. This makes me want to investigate more the writings of all denominational and ‘movement’ founders.
Um..do you know who ‘Jim’ is? Unless he is talking about someone in his circle I assume he means Jim Jones?
If so, wow…
Patti wrote:
Patti – no, but my guess is that the original article referred to a generic small and static church led by an equally generic “Pastor Jim”, or else attended by an equally generic “brother Jim” who just wasn’t satisfied with things the way they were.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote: And I’ll lay you odds the neo-Cal Nifty Fifties Fanboy is WHITE. The 50s were also the era of the Third Klan, Jim Crow, and lynchings.
“SEGREGATION NOW, SEGREGATION FOREVER!!!!!” — George C Wallace
White Supremacy was as basic a Law of Nature as Gravity well into the 20th Century.
HUG – Whenever someone says things were better in the 50s, I respond with, “for white people.” The contemporary church has identified sexual sin (which is pretty broadly defined to include such horrors as wearing a top with spaghetti straps!) as the most grievous thing to God, conveniently forgetting that treating people like dirt is high on his list.
Hi Jeff S, I believe I did read Piper’s thing on divorce and was rather gobsmacked about his restriction of remarriage. As I understood it the traditional Protestant view was that divorce could be allowed for adultery or desertion.
Nobody is suggesting within the Church that divorce is A Good Thing – but I would have thought the wronged party would at least have that right.
HUG, I have read of California’s travails. It seems astonishing in the light of how it is/was one of the richest states, and has Silicon Valley to boot!
Re the debate about YRRs and capitalism, given the emphasis in some circles on not taking on any debts, I imagine this would make it hard to take on any loans or start-up money? I agree with Nick Bulbeck that there may be a sort of fatalism which suggests that people are born into certain strata of society and just have to get on with it – although it ignores the paradox that Jesus was born into a carpenter family, not the upper echelons of Judah. And what about “good news preached to the poor”?
Re military contractors, actually I don’t think that is such a bad idea in some ways. If foreign governments want to hire private soldiers it may be better than a regular Western army getting involved – British-run contractors have been involved in Africa, for example. However the question of transparency does come up. In the West such companies can be held up to scrutiny, but in other countries it is probably more difficult. Also whether an army is regular or private may not make any difference to the underlying problems or issues that caused the conflict in the first place.
And incidentally, reading a bit more of Brent Detweiler’s post and thus a bit more of the original article, the phrase that rings the bell for me is
It’s a tricky one, because I think there are significant, specific and prevalent issues with the professing church today, that can’t be lightly dismissed with the tired old lie about there being no perfect churches. (I’m only aware of Jesus building one church, and you’ll have to work hard to convince me he’s doing a half-arsed job of it.) But I’ve learned that you can’t build a better denomination by despising the existing ones.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: Have you watched “Revolution”? It’s about the fragmented US in a very-near (in time) dystopian future. There’s no electricity, and the country has been parceled up by various warlords, one of whom is trying to take over the entire country (or at least, the country from East Coast to Great Plains).
It’s not a great show, but it does have a lot of fakey, flashy swordplay…
Good post Dee. Thank you for sharing your experience with your daughter. I’m reading Disappointment with God and Mere Christianity right now, enjoying them very much.
@Steve D. – I LOVE that story about throwing the prostitute a birthday party. Such a great picture of what the kingdom of God should be.
As we’re talking about books, when I was at the used book sale the other day, I saw several books by Josh Harris, and even one of the “Girl Talk” books by two of C.J.’s daughters. Needless to say, I did not buy them!
Former CLC’er wrote:
Hmmm, I kind of feel like we should be buying these books and wormecuting them. I could market a wormery for this : ‘Turning BS into WS’. Whaddya think?
@ Through a glass darkly:For white MEN, things were better in the 1950s. I saw the movie 42, it’s a good picture of what things were like then. A very good movie.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, we are totally differing in definition of traditional capaitalism so I don’t really want to hijack the thread with it. I will just say that traditional capitalism does not really exist anymore. A YRR cannot have anything in common with it until you show me one that mortgages his home to start a church. :o)
@ Beakerj:
Great idea! I’d buy your product.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is happening here on a smaller scale. The problem with the government employees is that even though they paid in a small portion they are guaranteed the full pension with tax dollars even if market does horrible. All those with 401k’s and other sorts of retirement accounts do not have a guarantee but their kids are responsible for the public employees. I do not think the situation is tenable for much longer.
And besides everyone wants to work for the government now. It is seen as the only security out there.
Anon 1 wrote:
Yeah, probably; fair point. Perhaps if, instead of “traditional capitalism”, I’d said “Thatcherism”, it would’ve been clearer.
@ Former CLC’er:
I love that Campolo story as well. My favourite bit is the comment by the owner of the cafe. I believe the conversation went something along the lines of:
Owner: A pastor? What kind of church are you pastoring?
Campolo: The kind of church that throws birthday parties for prostitutes.
Owner: There’s no such church. If there was, I’d join it.
It seems to me that the cafe owner was a decent fellow who met God where he was at (as the saying goes) that evening. Frankly he could probably start it, never mind join it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That was also what ended the republics BC. They the generals would have a small civil war, usually off the penusula, then the winner would get elected to lead the republic. 🙂
Patrice wrote:
Let’s not venture into current politics of the US government in terms of how it conducts wars. Not really on topic and not conducive to civil discussion in many situations.
And I’m not singling out Patrice. Everyone let’s steer clear of this topic unless Dee/Deb brings it up.
@ Kolya:
“Re the debate about YRRs and capitalism, given the emphasis in some circles on not taking on any debts, I imagine this would make it hard to take on any loans or start-up money?”
I don’t know about that side of the pond but over here there’s a lot of people who seem to believe (at least on some level) that no one used credit until the founding of the Federal Reserve and/or the New Deal. I can only assume they’ve never read The Merchant of Venice.
Addendum @ Kolya:
And yes, the military privatization thing did remind me quite strongly of the stuff I just finished reading about in The Civilization of the Middle Ages…
Moderation
There’s a long word list we added a few weeks ago. Nearly 500 entries. We’ve been adjusting it since then to remove words that don’t matter in our context. But there are many that will trip the moderation flag. And most of those comments we free up quickly. But if your comment is held then it is likely HOW you used the word(s), not the word itself.
Think about the audience here before you type. Not everyone here grew up / live around as rough a crowd as some of us. 🙂
Hester wrote:
Interesting. I wonder how they would describe Columbus asking the Queen for funds for his trip. To be paid back with interest (gold, silver, spices, and such from India) upon his return.
@ Lynn:
Oh, wait. That was NOT a loan. It was an investment. Whew. That was close.
NT Wright tells a funny Campoloism about his baldness.
Campolo says that if some men want to use up their hormones growing hair, that is fine.
Dee,
You’ve posted the story of your daughter and her good fortune here before, and I agree, it truly is a moving account of God’s providence in an imperfect world.
I’m struck also by the fact that not all stories such as the one in your life have good endings. More often than not, things go bad no matter how hard one prays or invokes the name of Jesus as a magic genie to alter the outcome.
And shame on those who try to make cancer a “gift”, or those who say that you weren’t able to cast a mountain into the sea because your faith wavered and/or you have unresolved “sin” in your life. They have made a caricature of the Almighty, one who is both a cruel and capricious despot.
Good point Nick Bulbeck. It seems to me that now and then bright sparks come along who decide that the whole denominational system is so corrupt that the answer is to start a new church (usually led by themselves, hope that doesn’t sound too cynical!). The problem as I see it is that often they fail to learn from the past and repeat the same mistakes as the “corrupt denominational system”, but on a worse scale, especially if they are accountable to nobody themselves.
It’s worth pointing out in this context that none of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Wesley (to cite four examples) ever set out with the original aim of breaking away from the existing church.
@ GuyBehindtheCurtain: Gotcha. Wise.
@ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
The tangent into war and politics was my fault. It won’t happen again (on this thread anyway). Honest Injun!
Kolya wrote:
No. Martha from Ireland coined the term “Reverend Apostle Joe Soap” for such One True Church Founders. I call them “Reverend Apostle Billy-Bob’s One True New Testament Church (Founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD)”. They’re usually personality cults on a par with Scientology or Objectivism, with the Founding Head Apostle taking the place of Elron or Ayn Rand.
Muff
Do not worry. You are n awesome commenter!
I just read that Brennan Manning died a few weeks ago. He has authored some great books.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/june/22.42.html?paging=off
Muff Potter at 3:39pm
Thanks Muff for those words. Although they were directed to Dee, I found comfort in them also.
@ Beakerj:
‘Turning BS into WS’. Whaddya think?
Hahaha…. Brilliant!
TW
I agree with you. He is another one of the rejects by the theological Pharisees. I will try to do story on him one day. This stuff really makes me irritated. Decent people get rejected and CJ Mahaney continues to be pushed. What is wrong with this picture? Is it a lack of discernment?
Muff Potter wrote:
True words, Muff. The pain that we walked through had an unexpectedly good ending. For most, the story does not end this way. The pain I experienced watching my daughter suffer is magnified by 100 for those parents whose child dies. I think of the parents of the poor little boy killed in the Boston bombing.
The pain I experienced allows me to walk with understanding into hospital rooms to visit others who are going through such a trial. But that only came years after the experience. One day, the parents of that little boy (the mom and sister are still in the hospital) will be able to comfort others. But, they, and I, wish that the pain never happened.
So, good can sometimes come out of these situations but the terrible tragedy is not the way this world was meant to be. I do not, and cannot, believe that God is purposely causing little children to suffer. Period.
@ dee:And some theological Pharisees will say that I am a heretic for saying that. It must be nice to be so sure of what consitututes proper and salvific theology.
@ dee:
When one has their Bible tucked safely in their armpit they feel safe to claim all forms of rightness. Knowledge has a way of puffing up . . . life has a way of begging for the words that bring Life to be written on our hearts. I’ve never been good at memorizing, but that doesn’t stop me from asking God to imprint Himself on my heart. From what I understand, this has been His desire from long ago.
@ dee:
Dee: I will call it what I think it is for those that are so sure of what constitutes proper and salvific theology–ARROGANCE!!
dee wrote:
In Marxspeak, it’s called Purity of Ideology.
And the dynamics are identical.
Ask any survivor of the Gulag or Chairman Mao’s Red Guard or Cambodia’s Killing Fields about Purity of Ideology.
Dee:
One of the purposes I have been told of the 2000 BF&M is to help clarify what it is to be a doctrinally pure Southern Baptist. Once again at least for me this reeks of arrogance.
@ mot: Yeah, especially since it resulted in the recall of some missionaries who use a private prayer language or who were in authority over men while being female.
@ Dee:
“I do not, and cannot, believe that God is purposely causing little children to suffer. Period. And some theological Pharisees will say that I am a heretic for saying that.”
Even when I self-described as Calvinist I would not have called you a heretic for believing that. But then the whole sovereignty-free will-predestination-election-determinism-libertarianism debate has never been my thing…
Some random thoughts:
Shame on me if I say your tragedy was a gift. Shame on you if you try to tell me I cannot see my own tragedy as a gift.
Add to the list of forbidden authors: yup, I love Yancey. Not too fond of Foster. Absolutely adore Mother Angelica.
Oh man–that last one can send me to Baptist purgatory. Even if there isn’t one:)
HUG
I hate the word purity. I will need to write about this someday. Purity does not exist even though some believe it does. I especially despise it in the setting of abstinence. “They were pure before they got married.” Poppycock! They may not have had sex but they were not pure. They are sinners just like the rest of us. We are all in need of grace and it is time that theological Pharisees stop setting themselves up as the “pure” theologians.
@ Joy Huff:
Joy, I thought about that after I posted, and almost replied to my comment to the effect that things in the 50s were better for white *men* than for white women. But things were definitely better for white women than for black women. So I let my comment stand as is.
@ Through a glass darkly:
… better for white women than for black women AND men.
Purity per se is a good thing in the technical definition of the word. However I agree that it has acquired certain connotations in Christian usage, usually to do with sexual conduct. Personally I think “continence” is a better word in that area, but unfortunately that too has connotations (mainly to do with bladder disorders). Sigh….
@ Kolya:
D’accord, mon ami. For centuries, sexuality of any kind has been shrouded in ignorance, fear and suspicion in the church. (The church’s being led by a celibate elite doesn’t really help on that score.) Thus a perfectly good word, describing a perfectly biblical quality, is beset with baggage that produces guilt and shame that do not come from God.
“Continence”… hmm. To me, continence will always be things that sit on tectonic plates overlaid by continental crust. Apart from reminding me of Biggus Dickus’s wife.
Self-control?
Obviously Jesus did not think “Pure of heart” meant sinless perfection in any way. I hate conceeding a concept Jesus seemed to think existed in humans.
@ Through a glass darkly: And anyone else – man or woman – who is not Anglo.
@ dee: Not only that: those who don’t meet the “purity” standard are subject to intense guilt and shame – and, often, public and private (at-home) shaming by others.
Nobody needs that kind of pain and abuse in their lives – and it’s such a distortion of the love and goodness of God.
@ numo: Re. the “purity standard,” I was specifically referring to sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, etc.
If the pure in heart really do see God, well then, Jesus was saying that anyone can, no matter what wrongs they’ve done. I think that involves the reality of our humanness – that we are always bearers of God image, and always loved, and that we can make good choices.
Call me an idealist if you wish, but I am sold on it. (And not just for Christians by any means!)
@ Dee:
“They were pure before they got married.”
Of course, this could also be read to mean that sex of any kind “sullies” a person morally (as in, marriage in this sentence is the thing that destroyed the couple’s purity). Which is just flat out wrong. And leads to satirical articles like this one:
http://www.larknews.com/archives/217
“For us, true love waits, and waits, and waits.” Tee hee.
@ Through a glass darkly:
Yes, you are right about that. My mother was a young white woman in the 1950sworld and she had it pretty good. She worked part time at at school library and she was a member of a large baptist church (sbc) and wasn’t degraded because of being female. Now all that is changing. I really hope it can’t be done.
@ Anon 1: I look at the term “purity” as I look at the term “biblical” and “Gospel.” All have their place but some are overused.
@ numo:Going back to my gospel roots, we are only pure because of the righteousness of Jesus.
@ dee:
Amen to that, Dee!
Hester, thanks for your link to LarkNews. Forgot how humorous it was!
Gail wrote:
I agree! This was the first book I read by Nouwen. He’s a really thoughtful, compassionate writer. Loved this book and will read him, Anne Lamott, and N.T.Wright any day – no matter if they’re on any “unapproved” list of reading (it makes me sort of like them even more 🙂
Yancey’s “What’s so Amazing about Grace” was a life changer for me as well.
CAT
Welcome to TWW. You sound alot like me!