Skip to content

Monthly Archives for July 2007

Worship in the key of C minus

First off, I have to admit that my title is not original. In fact, it’s pretty much a rip off from a post over at the Mere Comments blog, entitled Flatter the Emperor, Pander to the Crowd:

This post is dedicated to all you long-suffering parishioners out there who have to endure weekly services interrupted by showboating and shimmying choirs, singing music written in the key of C minus (that is no typo!) to lyrics that Ogden Nash would have been embarrassed to sign his name to.

(I happen to think Ogden Nash was brilliant, by the way.)

In the post, Anthony Esolen lists 6 traits that he sees as common to the great periods of artistic growth, then compares them to what he calls a “decadent age:”

By contrast, you can tell a decadent age by a shift from popular culture to mass entertainment, the loss of a canon of revered and universally understandable art, the decline in standards of education, the decline of crafts and trades, the abolition of separate “laboratories” or their absorption under a single jurisdiction (for instance, the expunging of the local element from all of our public schools), and the curtailing of political freedom, or the loss of material prosperity.

He then points out that the only exception our current liturgical composers (liturgical, I’m assuming, is used very loosely) have with the other decadent ages is the “loss of material prosperity.”

It is, I believe, a point well-made. I’ve said somewhat the same thing, only not nearly as well. Our contemporary pop theology, praxis and hymnody largely ignores both the historical Church and any sense of excellence. (It just makes you want to go to church, doesn’t it?)

Drift on over to Mere Comments and read the balance of the post, and see if you agree.

Written on 14 July 2007 by me under Church with No Comments

A convenient myth

I’ve purposely avoided jumping into the global warming – oh, excuse me, global climate change – issue, as it’s just one more distraction. But, the mentality of the global warming crowd is so similar to that of the non-design evolutionists that it is worth at least mentioning. Note that the phrase “global warming” seems to have fallen into disuse, as not everyplace is warming. But, let’s ignore that for the moment (why be different?) By most accounts, the Live Earth thing was somewhat of a bust. Especially if you’re really an environmentalist. The figures I heard were that a quarter of a million tons of pollutants were created at the events, and that no money was raised. Apparently it wasn’t about money, it was about “raising awareness.” Tell me, is there anyone in the industrialized world who isn’t aware of global warming – ahem, climate change – by now?

Personally, I think the most socially important aspect of the event was the Spinal Tap reunion – “We’re premiering our new song called ‘Warmer than Hell’, which takes the view of the devil coming to Britain and remarking on how warm it is.” I also appreciated Chris Rock’s sentiment, “I pray that this event ends global warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger.”

Bobby Kennedy Jr. apparently came clean with the real point of at least his interest in the event:

Now you’ve heard today a lot of people say that there are many little things that you all can do today to avert climate change on your own. But I will tell you this, it is more important than buying compact flourescent light bulbs or than buying a fuel efficient automobile. The most important thing you can do is to get involved in the political process and get rid of all of these rotten politicians that we have in Washington D.C. — who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company, these villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity. This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors.

So, it is a political issue, after all.

Here’s the deal: no one knows if global warming is happening. Or global cooling, for that matter (It was noted that Sydney, which hosted one of the events, has had the coolest June in 50 years). Or, if it’s unusual, or simply cyclical. The projections we have are based on computer models, that I understand create their own data. And, more recent projections show much less of an impact than originally thought. There’s some indication that the environment may in fact be returning to a more globally beneficial climate, that would bring an end to some chronic drought areas, resulting in more food, less hunger, and so on.

But, it seems that the facts are inconvenient, as Al Gore suggests. Only the real inconvenient truths were the ones left out of Gore’s movie, and were no where to be found at Live Earth.

Don’t get me wrong – I am all in favor of being environmentally responsible. As a Christian, I believe that it is sinful to destroy the planet that God gave us. Let’s clean up the rivers, our food sources, and the air. Let’s continue to require pollution standards, globally. But let’s try to be honest, and quit using issues like this as a mask for other agendas.

Written on 11 July 2007 by me under Politics/Current Events with 1 Comment

SmallVoices update

Some of you are aware of SmallVoices.net, formerly known as the Small Voices Journal. It has unfortunately grown into disuse as I’ve taken to blogging; it was not my intent, but that’s the way it goes. Well, I finally did some updates on the site, adding back some articles that for one reason or another had disappeared. And, I’ve added links to some very old articles dating back to the fall of 2000 when it first launched. Some of the internal links on the old articles are a bit flaky, but I plan to slowly update most of it to fit the more recent css-based design (thanks to my son, Elliot).

Besides many things authored by me, including a few book reviews and some works of fiction, there are also a few articles from friends that are worth checking out. Here are links to a few select pieces:

Adventures in Rediscovering the Point – some thoughts on the emerging church movement

Irreconcilable Differences – The Church in a tolerance-driven society

Thoughts on Organizational Gravity – a different kind of look at the church as organization

Rebuilding the Temple – Challenging the tithe superstition

The New Law: Written on our Hearts – A look at what it means to be a New Covenant Christian

The John White Interview- One of the last interviews with John White, by Julia Loren

Pastor Chuck’s Last Sermon – A fictional sermon by a fictional retiring pastor

Well, that should keep you busy for a while. I’ll possibly highlight a few more as time goes on.

Written on 08 July 2007 by me under Random Thoughts with No Comments

Rethinking Baptism

I like people who think, and I especially like people who rethink. I like Ben Witherington III, and subscribe to his blog. He’s an educated guy who still likes to think (it sounds funny but actually, that seems to be much more rare than you would expect).

Mr. Witherington has written a book entitled Troubled Waters – Rethinking the Theology of Baptism, and provides a short summary of the book today on his blog. What I especially like about Witherington is that he is not afraid to talk about what we don’t know, or about what isn’t specifically spelled out in the Bible. It seems as though he is actually more concerned with truth than with a certain theological position. Again, a quality too rare among theologians and teachers.

Prior to reading about this book today, the only book I had ever found that was in any way reasonable was Geoffrey Bromiley’s Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants (now out of print). Clearly Bromiley was arguing a certain position, but still he remained honest with regard to the Scriptures and treated various positions, I believe, fairly.

Both Bromiley and Witherington, from what I read in today’s post, see baptism as being understood only in the context of covenant and the community which results from covenant. An excerpt to whet your appetite:

I am also stressing that too often both the Baptist and Paedobaptist practices have, for the sake of regularity and control, misunderstood the meaning of baptism. Baptism is neither a Christian dedication ritual nor a Christian equivalent to a bar mitzvah– a rite of passage for a young adult prepared to assume the mantle of his faith consciously and on his own. Baptism in the NT is a rite of initiation, and should be practiced on anyone who is at the point of entering the covenant community or has already done so, whatever their age. Once one has crossed the boundary from the world into Christ one should already have the initiation ritual, the rite of passage into the community. All the baptisms in Acts are missionary baptisms. The book of Acts neither raises nor answers the second generation question– what do we do with children born into and raised in Christian families who know no other way of life? Should we treat them like little heathens, or are they already a provisional part of the covenant community?

When I became a parent I was forced to rethink baptism, and based on what I saw (and didn’t see) in the Bible, I became an infant baptizer. All three of my children were baptized as infants, even though the churches we were attending (Vineyards) were not necessarily of that position. However, we were fortunate in that the 2 pastors we had were honest enough to see that there was nothing unscriptural about it. Witherington hit on the exact issue that I came to: do we raise our children as heathens, outside of the covenant, or raise them according to what most of us believe (that our young children are beneficiaries of grace from birth)? It’s always amazed me how Christians in charismatic churches expect their children to be “filled” with the Holy Spirit, but not have them baptized with water. (Of course, I’ve come to expect Christians not to think logically about many things.)

I encourage anyone who is open to really understanding baptism to grab this book and take a look; and I really, really hope that many of those who have been entrenched in various baptismal ideologies will also dare to pull their heads out of the ground and at least consider what Witherington has to say.

Written on 06 July 2007 by me under Reviews, Theological Musings with No Comments

Heretic’s Guide to Eternity: What was I thinking?

Jossey-Bass Publishers, one of the publishers of the new “emergent” group of authors, used to sent me review copies of some of their books, saying that they liked my thoughtful, honest reviews. That is, until I slammed one of Brian McLaren’s books. Apparently they only appreciate positive honest reviews (or, they simply have a new publicist with a new list of favorites). I’ve nearly given up on the whole emerging church bunch, as they seem to be lost and wandering, looking for mystery, experience and meaning. If the Church had an emo branch, they’d be it. I’m thinking we change the name to “emogent.”

So, what was I thinking, to order a copy of Spencer Burke’s The Heretic’s Guide To Eternity (co-authored by Barry Taylor)? I guess I was hoping against hope that I’d find a thoughtful, theological look at the inclusivist view of grace. Inclusivism is a very broad term, usually seen as more “moderate” views of God’s grace, as opposed to the more “exclusivist” positions held by many conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians but not reaching the other extreme, “universalism.” Again, I was hoping to find a thoughtful, theological look – but I should have known better.

As it turns out, Burke appears to be as emogent as they get. I admit I’ve not reached the mid-way point yet, but it’s pretty clear where he’s going, and other reviews I’ve read, such as the one at Jesus Creed, confirm this. He spends an inordinate amount of time opposing the concept of religion, without ever defining how he is using the term. Basically, he doesn’t like anyone telling him what to do (again, emo). He is rejecting any sort of organized, methodical approach to Christianity, instead proposing a kind of universalist, nebulous “spirituality.” He even redefines grace to suit his own spirituality:

Religion declares that we are separated from God … Grace tells us the opposite; we are already in unless we want to be out.

… grace tells us there is nothing we need to do to find relationship with the divine.

It’s all very pretty and new-agey. But, as much as I am a champion of grace (ask those who know me), you do have to write off Paul, not to mention Jesus himself, to come to a conclusion like this. I do believe that grace is extended further than the fundamentalists tell us, but Burke’s concept of grace is simply not grace. You might as well sit on a mountain somewhere with a pyramid on your head.

Burke is perhaps most well-known as the founder of The Ooze, one of the first post-modernist Christian websites; I think it existed even before everything became emerging (does that make it pre-emergent?). The Ooze is still around, but I don’t go there. It seems to be a fairly mainstream place, but broad enough to include references to people like Steve Sjogren, NT Wright and Brian McLaren.

Now, I’m not known for being a traditionalist, or for being “religious.” In fact, I was postmodern even before I knew it existed. I’ve been challenging church forms and practices for 30 years, and I still do. However, I’ve had the benefit of 20 years of involvement in a creedal church, and being involved in many various church expressions since then. I tend to agree with the postmodernists that modernism has failed; however, to simply dismiss anything known as religion in favor of existentialist, romanticist, individualist or experiential expressions of spirituality is indeed heresy (as well as naive and foolish). Here, I would agree with Burke: He does, so far, seem to be a heretic, and not in the sense of a Martin Luther.

I am afraid that the Emogents, in wanting to strip away modernism, have forgotten that Christianity existed before modernism. And, we also can’t err in thinking that the modernist church didn’t develop some valid theological concepts along the way; all of modernism wasn’t bad. We’ve already moved past the initial wave of post-modernism and are now somewhere else, perhaps post-postmodernism. Post-modernism, in my opinion, brought nothing new into the picture, but only helped to deconstruct some modernist errors.

I will have to say though, I was impressed that Spencer Burke named his son Alden.

I do plan to continue reading the book, and maybe I’ll be surprised along the way. There’s always hope… However, as Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed does a pretty fair review of the book in 4 parts (why didn’t I read this first?), chances are I won’t bother to do another post on this book unless something really strikes me.

Written on 05 July 2007 by me under My Own Personal Religion, Reviews with No Comments

Irreducible foolishness

I’ve finally started reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. From everything I’ve read by Dawkins so far, and from the reviews I’ve read of his book, I really shouldn’t be surprised by the book, but I have to confess that I still am. I am only in Chapter 3, but from what I’ve read so far, I have to conclude that Richard Dawkins is either incredibly foolish, or incredibly dishonest. As I am prone to think the best of people, I will voluntarily toss out the dishonest option. I am, therefore, inclined to think that Dawkins may turn out to be one of the most incredibly foolish people of the 21st Century.

As I’ve mentioned before, I also started reading Victor Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis, but have become too frustrated with him to read any more at the moment. There’s obviously a reason why his book is nearly universally omitted in any of the recent New Atheist or Anti-God books. So, why would I choose Dawkins as “most foolish” rather than Stenger? The reason is simply popularity; he’s pushed himself to the front of the line of New (Angry) Atheists with his arrogant rhetoric, and may be remembered when Stenger won’t.

So far, Dawkins’ book is mainly a rant against all things religious. He lashes out at everyone he can think of, going back and forth between generalized raving and somewhat more specific lambasts. While he tries to argue against any deity of any definition, he seems particularly annoyed with what he characterizes as the God of the Bible. He makes it clear that he actually knows very little about the Bible or theology, and doesn’t seem embarrassed at all about having definite opinions about things he knows nothing about.

He also seems particularly annoyed (or obsessed) with the United States, which I find interesting. What gives the British any frickin’ right to complain about America? It seems to me that any country who maintains a facade of royalty and whose population has seemingly adopted Diana-worship should provide enough ranting material. But, I digress.

A short example of more Dawkins-foolishness is his seeming review of Behe’s latest book, The Edge of Evolution. Dawkins obviously is quite taken with his own rhetoric, and lays it on pretty thick here. He starts with an ad hominem attack, then goes downhill from there, ignoring the real issues of Behe’s book and mis-characterizing what he does discuss. He even has the gall to plead, “Don’t evade the point by protesting that dog breeding is a form of intelligent design. It is (kind of) …” It’s embarrassing, or at least should be. For a good explanation of how Dawkins’ “review” misleads, jump over to Uncommon Descent.

It has been my experience with bullies (whether on the school ground or in the business world) that those who carry on this kind of rhetoric are compensating. Bullies as children are usually covering up a lack of self-confidence. In the business world (especially with attorneys, who often resort to this type of rhetoric), it’s usually a sign that they are arguing from a very weak position. For years, I have hung a small wooden plaque above my desk that says, “In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength.” Those who rely on the facts, truth or sound logic do not need to scream to be heard.

So why is Dawkins screaming? Is it a cover-up (i.e. dishonesty), or just the ranting of the irreducibly foolish?

Written on 03 July 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with 7 Comments

Becket (or the Honour of God)

This past weekend I had an urge to watch the old movie Becket, about Thomas Becket, the former Archbishop of Canterbury who was murdered in 1170 by 4 knights, possibly at the suggestion of King Henry II. The 1964 Paramount film stars Richard Burton as Thomas and Peter O’Toole as whiny King Henry, and is based on the play Becket or the Honour of God by Jean Anouilh.

Becket has been one of my favorite films since I first saw it in the early 70′s. I have a very bad quality videocassette of the movie, which is still watchable enough. I just learned today that it was finally remastered and issued on DVD in May, which I’m putting on my wishlist. Watching the movie this time, however, I was aware that Richard Dawkins must really hate this movie as it seems to represent everything he despises: a highly educated and wise man choosing to die for the honor of God rather than compromise with the King (and to see Henry subject himself to a penance-whipping at Thomas’ tomb to try to regain public support).

The movie, of course, changes history somewhat; apparently the book upon which Anouilh based his play was incredibly inaccurate. Thomas was not a Saxon, he was a fairly well-off Norman. Rather than starting off as Henry’s carousing buddy, Thomas was attached to the Church first; it was actually Archbishop Theobald who recommended him to the King for the Chancellor position. In fact, it seems that the major plot device of the play/movie is totally concocted. But, setting history aside (as we typically do anyway), the movie’s plot is quite nicely done, as we see Thomas changed from a completely emotionless political machine to a martyr when he discovers that the honor of God is something finally worth living and dying for. The movie is also about friendship, and the loss of it. Watching O’Toole act out Henry II’s growing obsession about Thomas reminded me of King Saul’s insanity over David.

It’s such a remarkable story, even if most of it isn’t historically accurate. I’m surprised that it’s taken so long to come to DVD; but then, knowing how Thomas Becket has fallen into disfavor in England, it’s also surprising that the original film wasn’t destroyed as was Becket’s tomb, which was demolished by Henry VIII.

Now, I’m in a mood to watch A Man For All Seasons …

Written on 02 July 2007 by me under Reviews with No Comments

Pride

A little something for your enjoyment:

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=kNmtYf9-TLI]

I hope you feel good about what you accomplish today!

Written on 02 July 2007 by me under Random Thoughts with No Comments