Rome is burning, or at least the American Baptist version of Rome, and the reaction thus far remains useless, dithering and mad. Recent feeble attempts to reform the organization, assuring the inclusion of the word "transformation" to make the Titanic deck chair movement appear more dramatic, are falling short.
DD's policy on the needed reforms of the ABC are clear, simply, and the only way forward: abolish the Office of General Secretary, abolish the General Board, liberate the societies (AKA the "program boards")--the so-called Michigan plan taken to its logical conclusion. Valley Forge delenda est!
As Dennis McFadden reports:
In a round of e-mails circulating between members of the General Executive Council, industrial strength wordsmithing has been applied to the upcoming press release describing actions of the GEC. At this point, the participants are intent on finding a way to work the word "transformational" into the statement in place of the more pedestrian "helpful," "progressive," or "positive." They want to be seen as advocating truly radical and transformational, rather than merely incremental, changes in the organization supporting ABC life.
The very fact that GEC members are leaking material to Dennis shows the disgust that some in the inner circles have for the VF execs. As Washington was once rocked by the question, "Who lost China?" a question that GEC members must ask now is, "Who lost the PSW?" But Medley and company, just months out from the disaster, seem bored by that question.
Rather the reaction to the loss of the PSW is to find a new partner, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Clearly after mastering the lyrics to "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover," VF is hoping to find a new darling in the CBF.
And in true Greek tragedy fashion, the execution of the messenger is comtemplated. Earlier this Spring, one VF insider darkly said to Dennis McFaddden (via email), "May God have mercy on your soul." (Doesn't that sound like the last words before the lever is thrown on the gallows? It also reveals that salvation is earned by absolute trust in the denomination, a very creative bit of theology. Sounds a bit pre-Reformational, though.)
Now, with another scowl at McFadden. As Dennis was sent insider info from people more concerned about the Gospel than making Medley, Wright-Riggines et al. look visionary, they were excoroiated in this paranoid neo-Stalinist email:
Dear Sisters and Brothers of GEC:
I thought we had an open, positive, ethical spirit among GEC members at the recent meeting. Therefore I am shocked to find this morning a new post on beacon churches blog by Dennis McFadden that cites the email message I sent to all of you on Tuesday concerning the UCC restructure information I accessed for our information as we discern the appropriate structure for this time. You will note that he quotes my message to you when I transmitted the link. Given the destructive blogging behavior of Dennis, it is beyond comprehension that any committed American Baptist regional or national executive would continue to leak him information exchanged among GEC members for the edification of the body. As I have told Dennis recently, he who attributes his convictions to "what Paul wrote" must be aware that Paul wrote frequently on the need to edify the body, not destroy it.
Can we be better than this?
The interesting thing is that it was beyond the comprehension of the writer. It seems that a lot of things are beyond the comprehension of the VF elite.
So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him, and Ahab went to meet Elijah. When he saw Elijah, he said to him, "Is that you, you troubler of Israel?"
"I have not made trouble for Israel," Elijah replied. "But you and your father's family have..."
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
A Whitewash, In the Classic Sense
Beware of taking press releases too seriously. (Joe Biden takes his seriously--see my point?) Glowing press releases can be whitewash in the classic sense: some paint slopped on rotting wood to hide the decay. The PR whitewash emerging from recent ABC meetings are a case in point (as well as what's his name, Sadaam's last press spokesman). Over at His Barking Dog, Dennis the Dog McFadden has dug up some interesting bones:
Today [June 27] the upper management of the ABC, known as the General Executive Council (GEC) gathered for their normal sessions following the General Board meetings of the last five days. What did they accomplish? Early reports are sketchy, but here are a couple of bullets worth thinking about (drawn from both the GB and GEC) that you probably will not read in the American Baptist News Service . . .
* The General Board heard a report from the Budget Review Officer, Lloyd Hamblin, who gave them a very dark picture of the finances of the ABC. After receiving the report, the body moved on to the next agenda item as if they had just heard news of a room change for the next session. One participant commented that either the level of denial was too seductive or they just do not care any longer. (I vote for denial. My experience is that most GB and GEC members care passionately about the ABC).
* The GEC members spent a good bit of their time discussing the various alternatives for restructuring of the denomination. With the assistance of consultant Trisha, a list was constructed with all of the advantages and disadvantages of the varying proposals. Again, you will probably find leaders who speak positively of the experience. However, one member of the GEC told me: "Nothing was accomplished of any substance other than there are more of the execs beginning to think that structure will not fix anything. Some are losing any hope of a magic fix that will save the ABC, more and more talk about how to separate peacefully." Doubtless there will be more information flowing from the meetings in the coming days. These are early reports which are based upon a very partial sampling of those in attendance.
Nice work, Dennis...
VF leaders are trying to picture the post-PSW ABC as having reached a level a stability. Don't believe it for a second. We have a Hindenburg coming down. Major ABC churches are bailing--all so the theo-left leaders can defend a gaggle of false teachers.
Valley Forge delenda est!
Today [June 27] the upper management of the ABC, known as the General Executive Council (GEC) gathered for their normal sessions following the General Board meetings of the last five days. What did they accomplish? Early reports are sketchy, but here are a couple of bullets worth thinking about (drawn from both the GB and GEC) that you probably will not read in the American Baptist News Service . . .
* The General Board heard a report from the Budget Review Officer, Lloyd Hamblin, who gave them a very dark picture of the finances of the ABC. After receiving the report, the body moved on to the next agenda item as if they had just heard news of a room change for the next session. One participant commented that either the level of denial was too seductive or they just do not care any longer. (I vote for denial. My experience is that most GB and GEC members care passionately about the ABC).
* The GEC members spent a good bit of their time discussing the various alternatives for restructuring of the denomination. With the assistance of consultant Trisha, a list was constructed with all of the advantages and disadvantages of the varying proposals. Again, you will probably find leaders who speak positively of the experience. However, one member of the GEC told me: "Nothing was accomplished of any substance other than there are more of the execs beginning to think that structure will not fix anything. Some are losing any hope of a magic fix that will save the ABC, more and more talk about how to separate peacefully." Doubtless there will be more information flowing from the meetings in the coming days. These are early reports which are based upon a very partial sampling of those in attendance.
Nice work, Dennis...
VF leaders are trying to picture the post-PSW ABC as having reached a level a stability. Don't believe it for a second. We have a Hindenburg coming down. Major ABC churches are bailing--all so the theo-left leaders can defend a gaggle of false teachers.
Valley Forge delenda est!
Monday, June 26, 2006
ABC and CBF: A marriage made in...?
Lawdy, this is a target rich environment! The blind leading the blind comes to mind. Clearly, VF is hoping for an infusion ($$, churches, people, business cards, something) of some sort from the CBF. The extent of the nightmare is especially clear in the last paragraph, where we are told in essence that money is more important than theology. Memo to Medley, Abbott et al.: You cannot serve God and Mammon. I read that somewhere in a book you may have heard of.
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship will meet with troubled ABC (USA) in 2007
Jun 26, 2006
By Gregory Tomlin
Baptist Press
ATLANTA (BP)--The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship will gather for its 2007 annual General Assembly in Washington, D.C., and for the first time will hold a joint meeting with the American Baptist Churches (USA), a denomination deflated by the recent departure of hundreds of churches over the issue of homosexuality.
In May, more than 300 churches from the Pacific Southwest region of the ABC (USA) voted to withdraw from their 1.5-million member parent denomination after its leaders refused to address complaints about the membership of “welcoming and affirming” churches, or churches that accept as members unrepentant homosexuals, in the denomination. Several American Baptist associations, such as the Evergreen Association in Washington, Rochester-Genesee region in New York, and others in Wisconsin, Illinois and Massachusetts grant membership to such churches. Prior to the split, ABC (USA) had 5,800 churches.While the ABC (USA) adopted statements on the incompatibility of Christianity and the homosexual lifestyle in 1984 and 1992, the General Board of the denomination in 1993 adopted a resolution calling for “continuing dialogue on human sexuality," an action which, according to conservative American Baptists, opened the door to churches that condone the homosexual lifestyle.
ABC General Secretary Roy Medley repeatedly has stated that the denomination cannot enforce its earlier statements on homosexuality, citing Baptist freedom and local church autonomy as reasons.
The 2007 meeting between the CBF and ABC (USA) signals a strengthening relationship between the groups which partnered closely together in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year, and which have worked closely together to produce a Sunday School curriculum titled “Lessons on Poverty and Racism.” According to CBF Spokesman Ben McDade, leaders of the CBF and American Baptist Churches have been in conversation for a number of years.
“The purpose of our joint meeting simply is to celebrate our commitment to collaboration and cooperation in strengthening the Baptist witness and the cause of Christ,” McDade said in a written statement, outlining multiple partnerships between the two groups, such as Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas and the Ministers and Missionaries Benefits Board. McDade said the organizations will continue to seek partnerships, perhaps even jointly appointing missionaries.
“CBF’s purpose in partnering with ABC (USA) clearly is not to entice ABC churches to join the Fellowship. We have churches that have multiple partnerships, some with ABC, others with the Southern Baptist Convention and other organizations,” McDade said in the statement.
During the general assembly, Alan Abbott, a representative from the ABC (USA), brought greetings to CBF participants. He said American Baptists are “a people of prayer, purpose and practice” who remain on mission “despite some recent pruning.” Abbott was presumably referencing the departure of the Pacific Southwest region, which includes churches in California, Arizona and Hawaii. Recent problems in the ABC (USA) over churches open to homosexuality will not be addressed by CBF leaders, McDade said in his statement. The CBF, he said, “does not concern itself with the internal workings and politics of the ABC or any other religious organization.”
“We are interested in collaborating around our shared commitments to Baptist principles and the cause of Christ,” McDade said in the statement. “The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship welcomes all fellow Baptists who share our commitment to the historic Baptist principles of individual, church, Bible and religious freedom. CBF is a fellowship of churches and individuals."
"No doctrinal or social litmus test is required of individuals or churches who choose to participate in the life of this fellowship. In essence, our bylaws state that if an individual directly or through his or her local church sends CBF a dollar, that person is welcome to attend the general assembly and vote on issues that come before the body.”Abbott said the American Baptists and the CBF need each other. He said the CBF could show American Baptists through their “postmodern methodology” how to meet the world’s needs. “More than any other group CBF can clarify and identify what Baptists believe,” Abbott said.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=23541
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship will meet with troubled ABC (USA) in 2007
Jun 26, 2006
By Gregory Tomlin
Baptist Press
ATLANTA (BP)--The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship will gather for its 2007 annual General Assembly in Washington, D.C., and for the first time will hold a joint meeting with the American Baptist Churches (USA), a denomination deflated by the recent departure of hundreds of churches over the issue of homosexuality.
In May, more than 300 churches from the Pacific Southwest region of the ABC (USA) voted to withdraw from their 1.5-million member parent denomination after its leaders refused to address complaints about the membership of “welcoming and affirming” churches, or churches that accept as members unrepentant homosexuals, in the denomination. Several American Baptist associations, such as the Evergreen Association in Washington, Rochester-Genesee region in New York, and others in Wisconsin, Illinois and Massachusetts grant membership to such churches. Prior to the split, ABC (USA) had 5,800 churches.While the ABC (USA) adopted statements on the incompatibility of Christianity and the homosexual lifestyle in 1984 and 1992, the General Board of the denomination in 1993 adopted a resolution calling for “continuing dialogue on human sexuality," an action which, according to conservative American Baptists, opened the door to churches that condone the homosexual lifestyle.
ABC General Secretary Roy Medley repeatedly has stated that the denomination cannot enforce its earlier statements on homosexuality, citing Baptist freedom and local church autonomy as reasons.
The 2007 meeting between the CBF and ABC (USA) signals a strengthening relationship between the groups which partnered closely together in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year, and which have worked closely together to produce a Sunday School curriculum titled “Lessons on Poverty and Racism.” According to CBF Spokesman Ben McDade, leaders of the CBF and American Baptist Churches have been in conversation for a number of years.
“The purpose of our joint meeting simply is to celebrate our commitment to collaboration and cooperation in strengthening the Baptist witness and the cause of Christ,” McDade said in a written statement, outlining multiple partnerships between the two groups, such as Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas and the Ministers and Missionaries Benefits Board. McDade said the organizations will continue to seek partnerships, perhaps even jointly appointing missionaries.
“CBF’s purpose in partnering with ABC (USA) clearly is not to entice ABC churches to join the Fellowship. We have churches that have multiple partnerships, some with ABC, others with the Southern Baptist Convention and other organizations,” McDade said in the statement.
During the general assembly, Alan Abbott, a representative from the ABC (USA), brought greetings to CBF participants. He said American Baptists are “a people of prayer, purpose and practice” who remain on mission “despite some recent pruning.” Abbott was presumably referencing the departure of the Pacific Southwest region, which includes churches in California, Arizona and Hawaii. Recent problems in the ABC (USA) over churches open to homosexuality will not be addressed by CBF leaders, McDade said in his statement. The CBF, he said, “does not concern itself with the internal workings and politics of the ABC or any other religious organization.”
“We are interested in collaborating around our shared commitments to Baptist principles and the cause of Christ,” McDade said in the statement. “The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship welcomes all fellow Baptists who share our commitment to the historic Baptist principles of individual, church, Bible and religious freedom. CBF is a fellowship of churches and individuals."
"No doctrinal or social litmus test is required of individuals or churches who choose to participate in the life of this fellowship. In essence, our bylaws state that if an individual directly or through his or her local church sends CBF a dollar, that person is welcome to attend the general assembly and vote on issues that come before the body.”Abbott said the American Baptists and the CBF need each other. He said the CBF could show American Baptists through their “postmodern methodology” how to meet the world’s needs. “More than any other group CBF can clarify and identify what Baptists believe,” Abbott said.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=23541
Valley Forge Continues Disinformation Campaign, Plays Pasadena Card
In a news release today, the VF machine continues to distort the way the PSW withdrew from the ABCUSA and also announced that the 2009 Biennial will be in Pasadena, CA. The buzz in the now "old" PSW was that the Biennial would never be in PSW land because of the costs (yes, it costs a lot to do anything here) and because the raving lunatic conservatives that we have here (as opposed to the raving lunatic theo-lefties that run VF). Well, with those nasty nutcases out of the way, let's all go to the home of the Rose Bowl! The fact that FBC Pasadena is (as of this writing) going for a dual alignment (TransMin/ABC) probably didn't hurt. Relevant sections are reproduced below; absurbities and distortions are bolded.
ABCUSA: American Baptists Respond To Region's Withdrawal
Date Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:01:39 -0400
VALLEY FORGE, PA (ABNS)-General Board members of American Baptist Churches USA (ABCUSA) approved Sunday an addition to the denomination's Standing Rules that will accommodate those churches of the former Pacific Southwest (PSW) region that may choose not to follow that region's impending withdrawal from ABCUSA.
The change allows churches in such a situation to maintain "covenanting relationship" with ABCUSA for up to 24 months during a transition to another region or membership in a new organization affiliated with the national body.
The PSW region's board of directors voted May 11 to leave ABCUSA because of a long-standing disagreement focused mainly on implementation of the national body's stance on homosexuality.* Its withdrawal is to become effective November 1, but the region has already changed its name to Transformation Ministries.
ABCUSA General Secretary A. Roy Medley told General Board members that discussions with the region's leaders as recently as two weeks ago have been conducted "in a spirit of not wanting to do each other any harm, in seeking to bless one another even in separation." National and regional officers are engaged in working out details of the separation, including such matters as disposition of property and status of pastors, he said.
"We continue to work for clarity on issues and resolution of them," he said, noting that the American Baptist Churches of Los Angeles (ABCLA) has been helpful in providing "watch care and oversight" for churches that may remain American Baptist.
Associate General Secretary C. Jeff Woods said it is not yet known how many of the former PSW's 272 churches may decide to keep their current national affiliation. Just over half of those churches took part in an April referendum that preceded the May vote by the directors to withdraw.**
Woods said a new Association of American Baptists in the Pacific Southwest (ABPSW) is contemplated, with an informational meeting this fall and a formal organizational meeting next spring.
When the PSW withdrawal was announced, Dr. Medley noted that "though the vote was not unanticipated, we had hoped and had made many efforts to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."***
...The board also:
*...Set the 2009 Biennial convention for June 25-29, 2009, in Pasadena, Calif.
*Wrong. The issue was and is Biblical authority.
**We've covered this distortion before. See May 8, "The Empire Strikes Out..."
***Quoting Scripture doesn't change things. A quote here or there while denying the substance is a grand distortion.
ABCUSA: American Baptists Respond To Region's Withdrawal
Date Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:01:39 -0400
VALLEY FORGE, PA (ABNS)-General Board members of American Baptist Churches USA (ABCUSA) approved Sunday an addition to the denomination's Standing Rules that will accommodate those churches of the former Pacific Southwest (PSW) region that may choose not to follow that region's impending withdrawal from ABCUSA.
The change allows churches in such a situation to maintain "covenanting relationship" with ABCUSA for up to 24 months during a transition to another region or membership in a new organization affiliated with the national body.
The PSW region's board of directors voted May 11 to leave ABCUSA because of a long-standing disagreement focused mainly on implementation of the national body's stance on homosexuality.* Its withdrawal is to become effective November 1, but the region has already changed its name to Transformation Ministries.
ABCUSA General Secretary A. Roy Medley told General Board members that discussions with the region's leaders as recently as two weeks ago have been conducted "in a spirit of not wanting to do each other any harm, in seeking to bless one another even in separation." National and regional officers are engaged in working out details of the separation, including such matters as disposition of property and status of pastors, he said.
"We continue to work for clarity on issues and resolution of them," he said, noting that the American Baptist Churches of Los Angeles (ABCLA) has been helpful in providing "watch care and oversight" for churches that may remain American Baptist.
Associate General Secretary C. Jeff Woods said it is not yet known how many of the former PSW's 272 churches may decide to keep their current national affiliation. Just over half of those churches took part in an April referendum that preceded the May vote by the directors to withdraw.**
Woods said a new Association of American Baptists in the Pacific Southwest (ABPSW) is contemplated, with an informational meeting this fall and a formal organizational meeting next spring.
When the PSW withdrawal was announced, Dr. Medley noted that "though the vote was not unanticipated, we had hoped and had made many efforts to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."***
...The board also:
*...Set the 2009 Biennial convention for June 25-29, 2009, in Pasadena, Calif.
*Wrong. The issue was and is Biblical authority.
**We've covered this distortion before. See May 8, "The Empire Strikes Out..."
***Quoting Scripture doesn't change things. A quote here or there while denying the substance is a grand distortion.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Go Radical. Go Really Radical.
What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount? Some dispensationalists see it as millenial ethics (but why would we need what Jesus teaches here in a millenium?) Non-resistant believers see an ethic of non-violence and peaceful subversion.
Closer to the mark I think is what Dallas Willard and Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw in it: this is Jesus telling us how to live here and now. It is a radical, subversive way. It is radical because it goes to the radix, the root, the heart and who we are before the face of God.
Glen Stassen, retired from Fuller Theological Seminary, shared his insights on the Sermon at a meeting of ABC General Board members in the context of Roy Medley's emphasis on radical discipleship. So far, so good. But I would suggest that Drs. Stassen and Medley don't go far enough in understanding the radical nature of Jesus' teaching. He overturned the status quo much like an Old Testament prophet--by calling people back to God. He also overturns the status quo by calling people forward toward the Kingdom, the Kingdom which is "at hand."
Today, wfn.org reports:
Speaking to leaders of a denomination that has had to deal recently with divisive issues, Stassen said people on both sides of controversies often have a clear solution to them-those on the other side should repent. But, he said, "We've got to repent, all of us. We've all got to learn to be a little more humble."
Stassen suggested there is a three-part plan behind the Sermon on the Mount, rather than simply an antithesis of two positions-evil and perfection. Using anger as an example, he observed that Jesus states an evil, diagnoses the vicious circle involved, and only then gives orders about what to do.
"Jesus never commands us not to be angry-it's about when you're angry, what do you do about it," he said.
With all due respect, I have to separte myself from Dr. Stassen's remarks. His approach seems to semi-Hegelian: to reject a thesis/antithesis approach in favor of a thesis/antithesis/synthesis approach, which undercuts the very to-the-heart radicalism of Jesus.
Far more helpful is the assertion that Jesus is here giving his guide to the true "good life" in the tradition of the great philosophers and religious teachers. That the interpretive hook used by USC professor of philosophy Dallas Willard.
The real Sermon on the Mount is truly uncompromisingly radical. To illustrate: a fellow-blogger and I were talking about the definition of racism. The "standard defintion" of racism is that of a plan policy and attitude of racial superiority buttressed by power. Under that definition, a black American may be a bigot, but could not be a racist.
I told him that I rejected that definition. By basing all things on who holds power as opposed to the condition of the heart, the definition is shaped more by Marxism than by Jesus' ethic as heard in the words of the Sermon on the Mount. (Believe me, I am very well-informed on the origins, philosophy and failure of Marxism. Documentation available upon demand.) Eventually my fellow occupant of Blogistan came around to my perspective.
In his discussion of discipleship in The Cost of Discipleship (Nachfolgung, "following after" is the German title) for Bonhoeffer was not limited to what we can comprehend--it must transcend all comprehension. The Sermon blows up Hegel and Marx as well as the dead Pharisaism of Jesus' time, the equally dead religious legalism of our own as well as all idolatries of left and right--all without becoming what Nietzsche call the "frozen dialetic" of Christianity. It is not frozen: it is "at hand."
Closer to the mark I think is what Dallas Willard and Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw in it: this is Jesus telling us how to live here and now. It is a radical, subversive way. It is radical because it goes to the radix, the root, the heart and who we are before the face of God.
Glen Stassen, retired from Fuller Theological Seminary, shared his insights on the Sermon at a meeting of ABC General Board members in the context of Roy Medley's emphasis on radical discipleship. So far, so good. But I would suggest that Drs. Stassen and Medley don't go far enough in understanding the radical nature of Jesus' teaching. He overturned the status quo much like an Old Testament prophet--by calling people back to God. He also overturns the status quo by calling people forward toward the Kingdom, the Kingdom which is "at hand."
Today, wfn.org reports:
Speaking to leaders of a denomination that has had to deal recently with divisive issues, Stassen said people on both sides of controversies often have a clear solution to them-those on the other side should repent. But, he said, "We've got to repent, all of us. We've all got to learn to be a little more humble."
Stassen suggested there is a three-part plan behind the Sermon on the Mount, rather than simply an antithesis of two positions-evil and perfection. Using anger as an example, he observed that Jesus states an evil, diagnoses the vicious circle involved, and only then gives orders about what to do.
"Jesus never commands us not to be angry-it's about when you're angry, what do you do about it," he said.
With all due respect, I have to separte myself from Dr. Stassen's remarks. His approach seems to semi-Hegelian: to reject a thesis/antithesis approach in favor of a thesis/antithesis/synthesis approach, which undercuts the very to-the-heart radicalism of Jesus.
Far more helpful is the assertion that Jesus is here giving his guide to the true "good life" in the tradition of the great philosophers and religious teachers. That the interpretive hook used by USC professor of philosophy Dallas Willard.
The real Sermon on the Mount is truly uncompromisingly radical. To illustrate: a fellow-blogger and I were talking about the definition of racism. The "standard defintion" of racism is that of a plan policy and attitude of racial superiority buttressed by power. Under that definition, a black American may be a bigot, but could not be a racist.
I told him that I rejected that definition. By basing all things on who holds power as opposed to the condition of the heart, the definition is shaped more by Marxism than by Jesus' ethic as heard in the words of the Sermon on the Mount. (Believe me, I am very well-informed on the origins, philosophy and failure of Marxism. Documentation available upon demand.) Eventually my fellow occupant of Blogistan came around to my perspective.
In his discussion of discipleship in The Cost of Discipleship (Nachfolgung, "following after" is the German title) for Bonhoeffer was not limited to what we can comprehend--it must transcend all comprehension. The Sermon blows up Hegel and Marx as well as the dead Pharisaism of Jesus' time, the equally dead religious legalism of our own as well as all idolatries of left and right--all without becoming what Nietzsche call the "frozen dialetic" of Christianity. It is not frozen: it is "at hand."
Thursday, June 22, 2006
The Greatest Story, the One That Really Matters, and It's Worth Fighting For
Frodo: I can’t do this Sam
Sam: I know. It’s all wrong. By rights, we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Fordo, the ones that really matter. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end because how could the end be happy, how could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you… that meant something… even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going because they were holding on to something...
Frodo: What are we holding on to, Sam?
Sam: That there’s some good in the world, Mr. Frodo, and its worth fighting for.
I just finished reading John Eldridge's little book Epic. Eldredge tells the Big Story, God's story, your story, God's plan, and your role in it. I've never read a line of an Eldridge book, but I've found someone here who thinks like me in the way he links stories like The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Apollo 13 and Braveheart to the ultimate story, the Good News, or as he calls it, "The Story." Eldredge is no theologian--he is a story-teller. We need theologians for the reason J.I. Packer says: to flush out the waste of falsehood, like a garbage collector. We also need story-tellers who can stike the note of truth in story form.
For more on
Epic, click on www.epicreality.com
Medley Continues to Whistle Past the Graveyard
Dr. Medley's continued capacity for denial never ceases to amaze...
ABCUSA: Safeguard "Our Common Life," American Baptists Told
From "Jayne, Andy" <Ajayne@ABC-USA.org>Date Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:29:53 -0400
VALLEY FORGE, PA. (ABNS)-American Baptists were called to safeguard "the stewardship of our common life," in an address by General Secretary A. Roy Medley to the denomination's General Board meeting here this week.
Medley spoke at a time of concern, when one region, the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest (now called Transformation Ministries), has decided to withdraw from the denomination, and local-church contributions to the fund that supports its national structure have been declining.
He noted that "discord and controversy are not new to us," but that American Baptists have surmounted many similar difficulties since the denomination's founding in 1907 as the Northern Baptist Convention.
A March meeting of regional executive ministers, he said, displayed "a deep love for this family and a desire for God to continue to work through ABC in a powerful way." All were agreed, he said, on the power of the focus statement that American Baptist churches should "nurture devoted disciples of Jesus Christ who live their lives in mission and ministry for the healing of the world through the love of God."
Medley also pointed to agreement on the key ministry areas of radical discipleship, healthy missional churches, leadership, youth, church planting, stewardship, and mutual faithfulness.
Baptists, he noted, have always faced "the issue of the proper balance between autonomy and interdependence, between the I and the we, which is under consideration in our discussions of organization. What ought to be evident to everyone is that neither pole of that continuum can be collapsed. Autonomy and interdependence must always be in play with one another for there to be authentic Baptist expression of the larger body of Christ."
Speaking at the opening plenary session of the General Board's five-day meeting, Medley told board members that "to you and to the elected leaders of the various partners in the denomination has been entrusted the stewardship of our common life. That is a precious trust."
Source: http://www.wfn.org/2006/06/msg00502.html
Over at www.hisbarkingdog.blogspot.com, Dennis McFadden exegeted the Book of Medlius. Let's take a peek:
Let's deconstruct the statement made by Dr. Medley regarding areas of agreement across regions. Yes, it is true that we can all embrace the buzz words of the Seek It! process. But, do we mean the same things by them?
Radical Discipleship: in the traditional regions this begins with a call to personal decision, responding to the gift of salvation made possible by the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. It extends to a kingdom commitment to living for Jesus Christ in all areas of life. In progressive areas, this sometimes entails the embrace of social ideologies such as radical feminism, the advocacy of same sex unions, the promotion of a GLBT agenda, etc. In some cases, the idea of evangelism has been interpreted in structural rather than personal categories. "Speaking truth to power" is the way our friends on the left often characterize their discipleship rather than a pilgrimage of faith beginning with personal conversion.
While few, if any, conservatives would want to see salvation from sin’s penalty as the terminus ad quem of radical discipleship, it must certainly count as the terminus a quo. Yet, within the “diversity” celebrated within the ABC, some may focus on a “salvation” viewed socially and structurally rather than involving any kind of personal application of Christ’s atoning work.
Healthy Missional Churches: traditional regions commonly promote ideas of congregational health including expectations of numerical expansion of the Christian movement. Christianity has been flourishing in Africa, Asia, and South America while remaining essentially static in North America. Traditionalists cannot conceive of “healthy missional churches” that are not baptizing significant numbers of people each year.
Yet, the "remnant theology" of the progressive party defines health almost exclusively in qualitative terms. Dr. Medley, for example, has been able even to spin the loss of the PSW as something that need not be viewed as a set back for the denomination! Continued hemorrhaging of members only serves to vindicate the rectitude of the left rather than to chasten them.
Leadership: Traditionalists hold that biblical mandates establish the parameters for godly leadership. The criteria for service in the church established in the Pastoral Epistles speaks of living a life “above reproach,” one that strives to live in repentance and with Godly morality. For the progressives in our fellowship, “leadership” may appropriate currently popular biblical themes such as “servanthood.” However, with no clear sense of boundaries to the faith, one has few stipulations as to who may aspire to lead Christ’s church. The litany of slogans common to the GLBT movement often dominates the rhetoric, or at least militates against firm moral and biblical expectations.
Youth: Traditionalists believe in youth ministry and in continually calling young people to Christ and to his service. In several decades of attending a week of jr. high and another week of senior high camps, I witnessed dozens of young people (including two of my own children) commit to full time vocational Christian service. Believing that youth need to hear God’s call, be firmly grounded in their faith, and taught to embrace Kingdom values, evangelical youth ministry is, frankly, evangelistic. Some of more progressive expressions of ABC life are happy to use the platform of youth ministry to promote a social agenda and ideas anathema to the sensibilities of the traditionalists.
Church planting: Traditionalists take seriously the call to plant new churches. Research shows conclusively that the fastest growing congregations are new ones. For this reason conservative regions such as Transformation Ministries (aka ABCPSW) have been aggressive in planting new fellowships. However, even here, the refusal by the left to distinguish between churches with a GLBT agenda significantly differentiates the mission and goal of “church planting” efforts.
Mutual Faithfulness: If this descriptor is interpreted in terms of the historic Baptist principle of associationalism, traditionalists will quickly agree with the emphasis. The New Testament and our four centuries of Baptist shared experience testify to the need for congregations to join together in covenantal relationships marked by mutual faithfulness. However, if we define our interdependence in terms of radical images of individualistic soul liberty, then traditionalists will strongly object. Without the association having the ability to refuse to associate with churches they do not believe to be within the bounds, mutual faithfulness becomes little more than a slogan evacuated of its biblical and Baptist meaning. The travesty of four congregations placed under discipline by the ABCW being encouraged to find new lodging within other geographically distant regions made a mockery of Baptist polity and notions of “mutual faithfulness.”
ABCUSA: Safeguard "Our Common Life," American Baptists Told
From "Jayne, Andy" <Ajayne@ABC-USA.org>Date Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:29:53 -0400
VALLEY FORGE, PA. (ABNS)-American Baptists were called to safeguard "the stewardship of our common life," in an address by General Secretary A. Roy Medley to the denomination's General Board meeting here this week.
Medley spoke at a time of concern, when one region, the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest (now called Transformation Ministries), has decided to withdraw from the denomination, and local-church contributions to the fund that supports its national structure have been declining.
He noted that "discord and controversy are not new to us," but that American Baptists have surmounted many similar difficulties since the denomination's founding in 1907 as the Northern Baptist Convention.
A March meeting of regional executive ministers, he said, displayed "a deep love for this family and a desire for God to continue to work through ABC in a powerful way." All were agreed, he said, on the power of the focus statement that American Baptist churches should "nurture devoted disciples of Jesus Christ who live their lives in mission and ministry for the healing of the world through the love of God."
Medley also pointed to agreement on the key ministry areas of radical discipleship, healthy missional churches, leadership, youth, church planting, stewardship, and mutual faithfulness.
Baptists, he noted, have always faced "the issue of the proper balance between autonomy and interdependence, between the I and the we, which is under consideration in our discussions of organization. What ought to be evident to everyone is that neither pole of that continuum can be collapsed. Autonomy and interdependence must always be in play with one another for there to be authentic Baptist expression of the larger body of Christ."
Speaking at the opening plenary session of the General Board's five-day meeting, Medley told board members that "to you and to the elected leaders of the various partners in the denomination has been entrusted the stewardship of our common life. That is a precious trust."
Source: http://www.wfn.org/2006/06/msg00502.html
Over at www.hisbarkingdog.blogspot.com, Dennis McFadden exegeted the Book of Medlius. Let's take a peek:
Let's deconstruct the statement made by Dr. Medley regarding areas of agreement across regions. Yes, it is true that we can all embrace the buzz words of the Seek It! process. But, do we mean the same things by them?
Radical Discipleship: in the traditional regions this begins with a call to personal decision, responding to the gift of salvation made possible by the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. It extends to a kingdom commitment to living for Jesus Christ in all areas of life. In progressive areas, this sometimes entails the embrace of social ideologies such as radical feminism, the advocacy of same sex unions, the promotion of a GLBT agenda, etc. In some cases, the idea of evangelism has been interpreted in structural rather than personal categories. "Speaking truth to power" is the way our friends on the left often characterize their discipleship rather than a pilgrimage of faith beginning with personal conversion.
While few, if any, conservatives would want to see salvation from sin’s penalty as the terminus ad quem of radical discipleship, it must certainly count as the terminus a quo. Yet, within the “diversity” celebrated within the ABC, some may focus on a “salvation” viewed socially and structurally rather than involving any kind of personal application of Christ’s atoning work.
Healthy Missional Churches: traditional regions commonly promote ideas of congregational health including expectations of numerical expansion of the Christian movement. Christianity has been flourishing in Africa, Asia, and South America while remaining essentially static in North America. Traditionalists cannot conceive of “healthy missional churches” that are not baptizing significant numbers of people each year.
Yet, the "remnant theology" of the progressive party defines health almost exclusively in qualitative terms. Dr. Medley, for example, has been able even to spin the loss of the PSW as something that need not be viewed as a set back for the denomination! Continued hemorrhaging of members only serves to vindicate the rectitude of the left rather than to chasten them.
Leadership: Traditionalists hold that biblical mandates establish the parameters for godly leadership. The criteria for service in the church established in the Pastoral Epistles speaks of living a life “above reproach,” one that strives to live in repentance and with Godly morality. For the progressives in our fellowship, “leadership” may appropriate currently popular biblical themes such as “servanthood.” However, with no clear sense of boundaries to the faith, one has few stipulations as to who may aspire to lead Christ’s church. The litany of slogans common to the GLBT movement often dominates the rhetoric, or at least militates against firm moral and biblical expectations.
Youth: Traditionalists believe in youth ministry and in continually calling young people to Christ and to his service. In several decades of attending a week of jr. high and another week of senior high camps, I witnessed dozens of young people (including two of my own children) commit to full time vocational Christian service. Believing that youth need to hear God’s call, be firmly grounded in their faith, and taught to embrace Kingdom values, evangelical youth ministry is, frankly, evangelistic. Some of more progressive expressions of ABC life are happy to use the platform of youth ministry to promote a social agenda and ideas anathema to the sensibilities of the traditionalists.
Church planting: Traditionalists take seriously the call to plant new churches. Research shows conclusively that the fastest growing congregations are new ones. For this reason conservative regions such as Transformation Ministries (aka ABCPSW) have been aggressive in planting new fellowships. However, even here, the refusal by the left to distinguish between churches with a GLBT agenda significantly differentiates the mission and goal of “church planting” efforts.
Mutual Faithfulness: If this descriptor is interpreted in terms of the historic Baptist principle of associationalism, traditionalists will quickly agree with the emphasis. The New Testament and our four centuries of Baptist shared experience testify to the need for congregations to join together in covenantal relationships marked by mutual faithfulness. However, if we define our interdependence in terms of radical images of individualistic soul liberty, then traditionalists will strongly object. Without the association having the ability to refuse to associate with churches they do not believe to be within the bounds, mutual faithfulness becomes little more than a slogan evacuated of its biblical and Baptist meaning. The travesty of four congregations placed under discipline by the ABCW being encouraged to find new lodging within other geographically distant regions made a mockery of Baptist polity and notions of “mutual faithfulness.”
High Stakes Gamble in Las Vegas: Is God Allowed at High School Graduation?
School Could Face Suit for Censoring Christian Grad Speech
Jim Brown
(AgapePress) - A constitutional attorney is denouncing a Las Vegas school district for pulling the plug on a Christian student's commencement speech because it referred to her faith in Jesus Christ. At a recent graduation ceremony, Clark County School District (CCSD) officials cut the microphone on Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb after she began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God.
The district officials claim McComb's speech amounted to religious proselytizing and could have been perceived as school-sponsored, thus making it a violation of the so-called separation of church and state. But Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the Florida-based pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel, says the high school valedictorian has every right to take the school district to court over the incident.
"I think this is one of the most outrageous examples of censorship at graduation that I've seen," Staver contends. "For school officials to literally be standing by the switch at the mixing board and cut the microphone on a student, simply because that student mentions God or Jesus, is just unbelievable."
With high school behind her, McComb plans to study journalism at Biola University, a Christian college in Southern California. But during her four years at Foothill, she says, "they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech." However, when the school's 2006 valedictorian tried to apply these lessons in her graduation address, the graduating senior with the 4.7 GPA ran into a problem.
In vetting McComb's speech, school officials stripped it of biblical references and approved an edited version, cutting six mentions of God or Christ and omitting two biblical references. At the graduation exercises, however, the teen commencement speaker felt compelled to deviate from the edited version. "God's the biggest part of my life," she says. "Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my Lord and Savior."
For the Foothill High School graduate, it all boiled down to her faith and her fundamental First Amendment right to free speech. For those reasons , she asserts, she chose in this instance to rebel against authority for the first time in her life. And, according to an Associated Press report, a sympathetic crowd of nearly 400 graduates and their families booed angrily at the school officials for several minutes after they cut McComb's microphone.
An American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada official who read the unedited version of the young woman's speech told the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper the school district did the right thing in cutting the valedictory address short. But Staver disagrees that the district's action was warranted and comments, "In my opinion it's reprehensible, and I also believe it's unconstitutional."
The ACLU spokesperson quoted in the Review-Journal made the argument that graduation speakers like McComb are given a school-sponsored forum and therefore their speech is school-sponsored speech. But Liberty Counsel's chairman insists that student commencement speakers' personal remarks and expressions are free speech under the U.S. Constitution.
"Clearly, the law protects students who are in the graduation podium, on the platform, because they are there for some neutral reason -- in this case, being the valedictorian," Staver says. "That student has the right to be able to give a message of his or her own choice regarding the viewpoint of the particular message that's being delivered."
While the attorney regards the silencing of McComb's speech at the Foothill High School commencement as one of the most egregious acts of graduation censorship he has seen, he notes that it is one among many such incidents that happen to speakers of faith every year -- a problem that has to be stopped. "Schools should not, must not, and must stop censoring these kinds of religious viewpoints simply because they are Christian in nature," he says.
Even now, Staver points out, his organization is involved in a similar case. Liberty Counsel is currently representing a Colorado high school graduate whose diploma was withheld after she shared her faith in Jesus Christ during a commencement speech.
© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved
Source: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1403757.html
Jim Brown
(AgapePress) - A constitutional attorney is denouncing a Las Vegas school district for pulling the plug on a Christian student's commencement speech because it referred to her faith in Jesus Christ. At a recent graduation ceremony, Clark County School District (CCSD) officials cut the microphone on Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb after she began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God.
The district officials claim McComb's speech amounted to religious proselytizing and could have been perceived as school-sponsored, thus making it a violation of the so-called separation of church and state. But Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the Florida-based pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel, says the high school valedictorian has every right to take the school district to court over the incident.
"I think this is one of the most outrageous examples of censorship at graduation that I've seen," Staver contends. "For school officials to literally be standing by the switch at the mixing board and cut the microphone on a student, simply because that student mentions God or Jesus, is just unbelievable."
With high school behind her, McComb plans to study journalism at Biola University, a Christian college in Southern California. But during her four years at Foothill, she says, "they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech." However, when the school's 2006 valedictorian tried to apply these lessons in her graduation address, the graduating senior with the 4.7 GPA ran into a problem.
In vetting McComb's speech, school officials stripped it of biblical references and approved an edited version, cutting six mentions of God or Christ and omitting two biblical references. At the graduation exercises, however, the teen commencement speaker felt compelled to deviate from the edited version. "God's the biggest part of my life," she says. "Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my Lord and Savior."
For the Foothill High School graduate, it all boiled down to her faith and her fundamental First Amendment right to free speech. For those reasons , she asserts, she chose in this instance to rebel against authority for the first time in her life. And, according to an Associated Press report, a sympathetic crowd of nearly 400 graduates and their families booed angrily at the school officials for several minutes after they cut McComb's microphone.
An American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada official who read the unedited version of the young woman's speech told the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper the school district did the right thing in cutting the valedictory address short. But Staver disagrees that the district's action was warranted and comments, "In my opinion it's reprehensible, and I also believe it's unconstitutional."
The ACLU spokesperson quoted in the Review-Journal made the argument that graduation speakers like McComb are given a school-sponsored forum and therefore their speech is school-sponsored speech. But Liberty Counsel's chairman insists that student commencement speakers' personal remarks and expressions are free speech under the U.S. Constitution.
"Clearly, the law protects students who are in the graduation podium, on the platform, because they are there for some neutral reason -- in this case, being the valedictorian," Staver says. "That student has the right to be able to give a message of his or her own choice regarding the viewpoint of the particular message that's being delivered."
While the attorney regards the silencing of McComb's speech at the Foothill High School commencement as one of the most egregious acts of graduation censorship he has seen, he notes that it is one among many such incidents that happen to speakers of faith every year -- a problem that has to be stopped. "Schools should not, must not, and must stop censoring these kinds of religious viewpoints simply because they are Christian in nature," he says.
Even now, Staver points out, his organization is involved in a similar case. Liberty Counsel is currently representing a Colorado high school graduate whose diploma was withheld after she shared her faith in Jesus Christ during a commencement speech.
© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved
Source: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1403757.html
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Mainlines Sideline Biblical Auithority in Quest for Revisionist "Integrity"
Well folks, those jolly Episcopalians (and my Presbyterian buddies) are at it again. Interesting time: worldwide, the Anglican communion is standing with Biblical teaching. However, are American Bishops going to let those Africans tell them what the Bible says? American theo-liberals must be thinking, "Those primitives need to get with the times!" Perish the thought that liberals could be racists! Oops, I let the secret slip...
Episcopalians reject ban on gay bishops
Presbyterian Church approves leeway for ordaining gays
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; Posted: 9:30 p.m. EDT (01:30 GMT)
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Episcopal delegates Tuesday snubbed Anglican leaders' request to temporarily stop electing openly gay bishops, a vote that further frustrated conservatives in the American church and could hasten a break with Anglicans worldwide.
The vote by the Episcopal House of Deputies came just hours before Presbyterians, at a separate meeting, approved a plan to let local congregations hire gay ministers if they wish. In Columbus, wrenching debate over the moratorium on gay bishops stretched over two days in the House of Deputies, a legislative body of more than 800 clergy and lay leaders.
Top Anglican officials had asked the Episcopalians for a temporary ban to calm the outrage among conservatives over the election three years ago of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who lives with his longtime male partner.
In a complex balloting system, a majority of deputies voted against a measure that would have urged dioceses to refrain from electing gay bishops. Conservatives complained that the proposal stopped short of a moratorium, but supporters argued it would have set a moral standard for the church and would have signaled that the American denomination understood the concerns of Anglican leaders.
Outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, the head of the denomination, said he would use his authority to call a special session Wednesday morning to address the issue again. The meeting will include both the deputies and the church's other policymaking body, the House of Bishops.
In an emotional speech on the floor of that house Tuesday night, Robinson said he had been awake since 4 a.m., praying about how to resolve the conflict between his deep commitment to both unity and to full inclusion for gays and lesbians.
"I desperately want to preserve this communion," Robinson said. "But I can't do so at the expense of my own integrity and that of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ." Canon Martyn Minns, a conservative leader and rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia, said the deputies' vote showed the impossibility of reconciling Anglicans with different views about the Bible and homosexuality.
"It's too hard. It's a gap too wide," he said. "Unhappily, this decision seems to show that the Episcopal Church has chosen to walk apart from the rest of the Anglican Communion."
The critical vote in the Episcopal Church happened on a day when another American Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), decided at a session in Birmingham, Alabama, to allow gay clergy, lay elders and deacons to work with local congregations.
A measure approved 298-221 by a national assembly keeps in place a Presbyterian church law that says clergy and lay elders and deacons must limit sexual relations to man-woman marriage.
But the new legislation says local congregations and regional presbyteries can exercise some flexibility when choosing clergy and lay officers of local congregations if sexual orientation or other issues arise.*
Mainline Protestant groups, including the Methodists and the largest U.S. Lutheran branch, have been struggling for decades over the traditional Christian prohibition on gay sex as lesbians and gays push for full inclusion in their churches. The issue has frequently dominated debate at national Protestant assemblies.
The Episcopal Church is the U.S. arm of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, the fellowship of churches with roots that trace back to the Church of England.
While conservatives are a minority within the American denomination, the majority of overseas Anglican leaders oppose actively gay clergy. They have pressured Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the communion's spiritual leader, to take some action against Episcopalians if they fail to adhere to that view.
Many Anglican churches have already broken ties with the U.S. church over Robinson's elevation. And if overseas leaders dislike the outcome of this week's meeting, it greatly increases the chances that the association of 38 national churches will break apart.
Williams has repeatedly expressed concern that the feud over homosexuality would lead to a permanent rift.
"We cannot survive as a communion of churches without some common convictions about what it is to live and to make decisions as the Body of Christ," he wrote in a message to the General Convention when it began last week.
*Medically, we call this schizophrenia.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/protestants.gays.ap/index.html?section=cnn_us
Episcopalians reject ban on gay bishops
Presbyterian Church approves leeway for ordaining gays
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; Posted: 9:30 p.m. EDT (01:30 GMT)
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Episcopal delegates Tuesday snubbed Anglican leaders' request to temporarily stop electing openly gay bishops, a vote that further frustrated conservatives in the American church and could hasten a break with Anglicans worldwide.
The vote by the Episcopal House of Deputies came just hours before Presbyterians, at a separate meeting, approved a plan to let local congregations hire gay ministers if they wish. In Columbus, wrenching debate over the moratorium on gay bishops stretched over two days in the House of Deputies, a legislative body of more than 800 clergy and lay leaders.
Top Anglican officials had asked the Episcopalians for a temporary ban to calm the outrage among conservatives over the election three years ago of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who lives with his longtime male partner.
In a complex balloting system, a majority of deputies voted against a measure that would have urged dioceses to refrain from electing gay bishops. Conservatives complained that the proposal stopped short of a moratorium, but supporters argued it would have set a moral standard for the church and would have signaled that the American denomination understood the concerns of Anglican leaders.
Outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, the head of the denomination, said he would use his authority to call a special session Wednesday morning to address the issue again. The meeting will include both the deputies and the church's other policymaking body, the House of Bishops.
In an emotional speech on the floor of that house Tuesday night, Robinson said he had been awake since 4 a.m., praying about how to resolve the conflict between his deep commitment to both unity and to full inclusion for gays and lesbians.
"I desperately want to preserve this communion," Robinson said. "But I can't do so at the expense of my own integrity and that of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ." Canon Martyn Minns, a conservative leader and rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia, said the deputies' vote showed the impossibility of reconciling Anglicans with different views about the Bible and homosexuality.
"It's too hard. It's a gap too wide," he said. "Unhappily, this decision seems to show that the Episcopal Church has chosen to walk apart from the rest of the Anglican Communion."
The critical vote in the Episcopal Church happened on a day when another American Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), decided at a session in Birmingham, Alabama, to allow gay clergy, lay elders and deacons to work with local congregations.
A measure approved 298-221 by a national assembly keeps in place a Presbyterian church law that says clergy and lay elders and deacons must limit sexual relations to man-woman marriage.
But the new legislation says local congregations and regional presbyteries can exercise some flexibility when choosing clergy and lay officers of local congregations if sexual orientation or other issues arise.*
Mainline Protestant groups, including the Methodists and the largest U.S. Lutheran branch, have been struggling for decades over the traditional Christian prohibition on gay sex as lesbians and gays push for full inclusion in their churches. The issue has frequently dominated debate at national Protestant assemblies.
The Episcopal Church is the U.S. arm of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, the fellowship of churches with roots that trace back to the Church of England.
While conservatives are a minority within the American denomination, the majority of overseas Anglican leaders oppose actively gay clergy. They have pressured Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the communion's spiritual leader, to take some action against Episcopalians if they fail to adhere to that view.
Many Anglican churches have already broken ties with the U.S. church over Robinson's elevation. And if overseas leaders dislike the outcome of this week's meeting, it greatly increases the chances that the association of 38 national churches will break apart.
Williams has repeatedly expressed concern that the feud over homosexuality would lead to a permanent rift.
"We cannot survive as a communion of churches without some common convictions about what it is to live and to make decisions as the Body of Christ," he wrote in a message to the General Convention when it began last week.
*Medically, we call this schizophrenia.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/protestants.gays.ap/index.html?section=cnn_us
Monday, June 19, 2006
Presbyterian Theo-Left Launch Assault on the Trinity (They will lose, by the way)
Oh, how sweet to be a Baptist, yes even an American Baptist, when compared to this nonsense...read carefully how politics, Biblical authority and the sexual revisionism all blend together in this blow-up. Totally nonsense is bolded. My gentle comments are intejected.
Presbyterians 'receive' policy on worship
By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer Mon Jun 19, 3:42 PM ET
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.
Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."
[The Bible? That old book? How quaint!]
Besides "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," proposed Trinity options drawn from biblical material include:
• "Lover, Beloved, Love" [So the Holy Spirit is reduced to amorphous "Love"? Gimme a break--and a copy of the Nicene Creed.]
• "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier" [That's a little better.]
• "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love." [At least the Spirit is a spirit again.]
Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow" that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God.
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."
Hill reminded delegates that the Ten Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
[Yeah! My seminary comes through again!]
The Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other troublesome issues.
On Tuesday, the assembly will vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional "presbyteries" some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval of what they call "local option" would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."
Where have I heard this before?
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_on_re_us/presbyterians
Presbyterians 'receive' policy on worship
By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer Mon Jun 19, 3:42 PM ET
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.
Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."
[The Bible? That old book? How quaint!]
Besides "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," proposed Trinity options drawn from biblical material include:
• "Lover, Beloved, Love" [So the Holy Spirit is reduced to amorphous "Love"? Gimme a break--and a copy of the Nicene Creed.]
• "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier" [That's a little better.]
• "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love." [At least the Spirit is a spirit again.]
Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow" that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God.
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."
Hill reminded delegates that the Ten Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
[Yeah! My seminary comes through again!]
The Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other troublesome issues.
On Tuesday, the assembly will vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional "presbyteries" some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval of what they call "local option" would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."
Where have I heard this before?
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_on_re_us/presbyterians
Saturday, June 17, 2006
The Fourth Reformation Revisted
Last week, I posted a column (SEE BELOW) on what I call the Fourth Reformation. To summarize:
The First Reformation was the one of Calvin and Luther.
The Second Reformation was the pietist/puritan reformation (Baptists orginated out of this Reformation). It also saw the beginnings of the modern missions movement.
The Third Reformation was the early to mid 20th century evangelical/pentacostal resurgance.
The Fourth Reformation is NOW, the post-denominational, post-institutional church.
Well, did I get a cyber ear-full.
First, thanks to Dennis McFadden for posting the whole column on www.hisbarkingdog.blogspot.com. Between the comments he got and the ones emailed to me, here's the reaction:
Either you are a jaded, burned-out dimbulb. Or, you are a prophet, blessed be the name of the Lord.
For the record, I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I am, however, very mindful of the history of renewal (I studied under Richard Lovelace at Gordon-Conwell), and I know that something is up, something big, and something that I may never fully "get" in my limited lifetime.
Let me reccomend two good books: The Present Future by Reggie McNeal and Revolution by George Barna. (Between the two, McNeal's is better. I think the wheels come off some of Barna's observations. But then I may just be a counter-revolutionary.)
The thrust of both (and again, McNeal is better, more biblical and more hopeful) is that North American "church culture" is just about gone. We have to de-church the church to find the real church. (That's my phrase. If you use it, at least give me credit.)
It is much easier to apply adjectives to the Fourth Reformation than nouns: missional, relational, international, post-modern, and post-denominational.
The implosion of the ABCUSA is an early indicator--a canary in the mine--of the scope of the 4th Ref. Our non-connectional polity means we actually have the possibility of catching the wave early on. The era of the big bureaucratic church organization is lurching to an end. Just ask anybody at Valley Forge. Will the last one out please turn off the lights?
The First Reformation was the one of Calvin and Luther.
The Second Reformation was the pietist/puritan reformation (Baptists orginated out of this Reformation). It also saw the beginnings of the modern missions movement.
The Third Reformation was the early to mid 20th century evangelical/pentacostal resurgance.
The Fourth Reformation is NOW, the post-denominational, post-institutional church.
Well, did I get a cyber ear-full.
First, thanks to Dennis McFadden for posting the whole column on www.hisbarkingdog.blogspot.com. Between the comments he got and the ones emailed to me, here's the reaction:
Either you are a jaded, burned-out dimbulb. Or, you are a prophet, blessed be the name of the Lord.
For the record, I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I am, however, very mindful of the history of renewal (I studied under Richard Lovelace at Gordon-Conwell), and I know that something is up, something big, and something that I may never fully "get" in my limited lifetime.
Let me reccomend two good books: The Present Future by Reggie McNeal and Revolution by George Barna. (Between the two, McNeal's is better. I think the wheels come off some of Barna's observations. But then I may just be a counter-revolutionary.)
The thrust of both (and again, McNeal is better, more biblical and more hopeful) is that North American "church culture" is just about gone. We have to de-church the church to find the real church. (That's my phrase. If you use it, at least give me credit.)
It is much easier to apply adjectives to the Fourth Reformation than nouns: missional, relational, international, post-modern, and post-denominational.
The implosion of the ABCUSA is an early indicator--a canary in the mine--of the scope of the 4th Ref. Our non-connectional polity means we actually have the possibility of catching the wave early on. The era of the big bureaucratic church organization is lurching to an end. Just ask anybody at Valley Forge. Will the last one out please turn off the lights?
Saturday, June 10, 2006
The Fourth Reformation
Where are we now? I would suggest that the convulsions in the ABCUSA over the last few years are part of a larger pattern that is indicative of the fact that we are in the Fourth Reformation. Each Reformation was part of a rediscovery of Bibical truth, each overturned the established order and each was associated with a change in technology.
THE FIRST REFORMATION
The First Reformation was the one that we came to revere in seminary--the Reformation of Luther and Calvin, the overturning of the oppressive rule and unbiblical teaching of the Roman church. The technological innovation that helped carry this Reformation forward was the printing press. The First Reformation was Eurocentric.
THE SECOND REFORMATION
The Second Reformation was one of piety and missions. The Pietist movement and its parallels (such as Puritanism) reformed personal devotion while at the same time this era saw the dawn of the world missions movement. The great advance in technology that accompanied this Reformation was long-distance ship travel--especially as the New World (the Western Hemisphere) moved to the center of action. Both Europe and the new European settlements in North America participated in the Second Reformation.
THE THIRD REFORMATION
The Third Reformation occurred in the early and mid-20th century. It consisted of two key developments: the rise of Pentecostalism and the resurgance of essential reformational theological developments (the "solas": only faith, only the Bible, only Christ, etc.). That resurgance can be broadly called Evangelicalism. Both brought the supernatural elements of the faith to the fore. Both added fuel to the world missions movement. The technologies association with the Third Reformation were rapid travel (steamship, rail and auto) as well as the rise of radio and the dawn of television. The Third Reformation was centered in North America, but because of its close connections to world mission has had international impact. For example, in many developing nations varieties of Pentecostal churches dominate at least the Protestant side of church.
THE FOURTH REFORMATION
Now we entered the Fourth Reformation. Historians will probably pin its beginnings to the 1990s. The First Reformation was primarily doctrinal; the Second, devotional; the Third was combined the two with a strong emphasis on missions and evangelism. The Fourth Reformation is building on the first three with an emerging and transforming approach to structure and relationships.
The shape of a new era is always the hardest to see in its earlier stages. This much is clear: the technology of the Fourth Reformation is the Internet. The platform of the Fourth Reformation is both worldwide and in cyberspace. At this stage, it is easier to apply adjectives to the Fourth Reformation than nouns: missional, relational, international, post-modern, and post-denominational.
As at the other Reformations, we can expect some organizations (such as denominations) to be swept away and some new ones to rise, but the new ones will be small, focused and nimble. The era of the big bureaucratic church organization is lurching to an end. We can expect that this will dominate the landscape for the rest of most of our lifetimes.
Your comments on the Fourth Reformation concept are encouraged will form the basis for at least one future posting.
THE FIRST REFORMATION
The First Reformation was the one that we came to revere in seminary--the Reformation of Luther and Calvin, the overturning of the oppressive rule and unbiblical teaching of the Roman church. The technological innovation that helped carry this Reformation forward was the printing press. The First Reformation was Eurocentric.
THE SECOND REFORMATION
The Second Reformation was one of piety and missions. The Pietist movement and its parallels (such as Puritanism) reformed personal devotion while at the same time this era saw the dawn of the world missions movement. The great advance in technology that accompanied this Reformation was long-distance ship travel--especially as the New World (the Western Hemisphere) moved to the center of action. Both Europe and the new European settlements in North America participated in the Second Reformation.
THE THIRD REFORMATION
The Third Reformation occurred in the early and mid-20th century. It consisted of two key developments: the rise of Pentecostalism and the resurgance of essential reformational theological developments (the "solas": only faith, only the Bible, only Christ, etc.). That resurgance can be broadly called Evangelicalism. Both brought the supernatural elements of the faith to the fore. Both added fuel to the world missions movement. The technologies association with the Third Reformation were rapid travel (steamship, rail and auto) as well as the rise of radio and the dawn of television. The Third Reformation was centered in North America, but because of its close connections to world mission has had international impact. For example, in many developing nations varieties of Pentecostal churches dominate at least the Protestant side of church.
THE FOURTH REFORMATION
Now we entered the Fourth Reformation. Historians will probably pin its beginnings to the 1990s. The First Reformation was primarily doctrinal; the Second, devotional; the Third was combined the two with a strong emphasis on missions and evangelism. The Fourth Reformation is building on the first three with an emerging and transforming approach to structure and relationships.
The shape of a new era is always the hardest to see in its earlier stages. This much is clear: the technology of the Fourth Reformation is the Internet. The platform of the Fourth Reformation is both worldwide and in cyberspace. At this stage, it is easier to apply adjectives to the Fourth Reformation than nouns: missional, relational, international, post-modern, and post-denominational.
As at the other Reformations, we can expect some organizations (such as denominations) to be swept away and some new ones to rise, but the new ones will be small, focused and nimble. The era of the big bureaucratic church organization is lurching to an end. We can expect that this will dominate the landscape for the rest of most of our lifetimes.
Your comments on the Fourth Reformation concept are encouraged will form the basis for at least one future posting.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Extreme Makeover: Terrorist Edition
Before...and after! Anyone who is not pleased that this murderous thug is no more among us today lacks a moral compass. Thank God!
Monday, June 05, 2006
Southern Baptist Woes Reflected in Blogospheric Activities
A long article about upcoming conventional controversies facing the Southern Baptist Convention reflect the increasing importance of blogs as a force and a source of information, just as has been experienced by the ABC over the past year.
With the title, "Controversies born from blogs promise stormiest SBC since 1991", Hannah Elliott, Greg Warner and Robert Marus filed a story today on Associated Press (http://www.abpnews.com/1070.article). Here are some excerpts:
Blogs have already revolutionized secular politics, and whether a subset of it has revolutionized Baptist politics will be seen at the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting June 13-14 in North Carolina.
The meeting, in Greensboro, will feature the first seriously contested SBC presidential election in a decade and several other controversial business items. The combination will likely produce the most contentious convention meeting since 1991, when moderates left after an epic struggle with fundamentalists over control of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
But this time, the struggle is between fellow conservatives. Internal tensions have been thrust into the SBC spotlight mainly by bloggers -- the ever-expanding network of ideological entrepreneurs who analyze and pontificate on their own websites...
Many of the bloggers have criticized [Ronnie] Floyd's [candidate for SBC President] weak support of the Cooperative Program, the SBC's unified budget for supporting denominational ministries at the national and state levels. An SBC panel recently called for officers and other convention leaders to come from churches that contribute at least 10 percent of their undesignated receipts to the program. In 2005, Floyd's church gave 0.27 percent of its $12 million in undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program.
Floyd's candidacy was announced shortly after another prominent SBC pastor with less-than-stellar Cooperative Program credentials pulled out of the running. Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Ga., had initially said he would run, but later withdrew.
One of Floyd's opponents, meanwhile, appears to have the support of many bloggers and other SBC reformers. Frank Page initially declined to allow himself to be nominated, saying he "didn't have a peace about it." But he reversed course shortly afterward, saying "an overall malaise among many people" in the convention prompted him to accept the nomination.
Page, who is the pastor of First Baptist Church of Taylors, S.C., was courted as a candidate by prominent SBC blogger Wade Burleson and other reform-minded conservatives. Last year, Page's church gave 12.1 percent of its $4.4 million in undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program...
The advent of the SBC blogosphere has brought pre-existing internal tensions in the denomination to the surface. Many of the bloggers are under 50 years of age -- "younger" by the standards of Baptist leadership -- and there is a generational aspect to the conflict in the denomination.
In recent years, SBC officials have worked to cultivate younger pastors and other leaders, and bring them into service on denominational boards and offices. But the plan may have backfired to some extent, since some of the new recruits are leading the revolution against the old-guard establishment.
The small but influential group -- Burleson's blog (www.wadeburleson.com), for instance, has had nearly 200,000 visitors as of the afternoon of June 5 -- has attacked everything from controversial new restrictions on missionaries to perceived cronyism among trustees.
Burleson is probably the most widely read of the new SBC bloggers, whose ranks also include Georgia pastor Marty Duren (www.sbcoutpost.blogspot.com) and Texas pastor Benjamin Cole (www.baptistblogger.blogspot.com). His blog got started as a way to criticize actions taken by a majority of his fellow trustees at the International Mission Board. Trustees attempted to remove the Enid, Okla., pastor after he refused to stop discussing controversial new board policies online.
My purpose in bringing this article to the attention of DD readers is not to draw them into the byzantine world of SBC eccclesial politics, but to illustrate the fact that Blog Power is here to stay. Any information-based movement would be wise to take that into account. News is checked and filtered and opinion shaped and critiqued here as never before. Behold, the power of the Blog!
With the title, "Controversies born from blogs promise stormiest SBC since 1991", Hannah Elliott, Greg Warner and Robert Marus filed a story today on Associated Press (http://www.abpnews.com/1070.article). Here are some excerpts:
Blogs have already revolutionized secular politics, and whether a subset of it has revolutionized Baptist politics will be seen at the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting June 13-14 in North Carolina.
The meeting, in Greensboro, will feature the first seriously contested SBC presidential election in a decade and several other controversial business items. The combination will likely produce the most contentious convention meeting since 1991, when moderates left after an epic struggle with fundamentalists over control of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
But this time, the struggle is between fellow conservatives. Internal tensions have been thrust into the SBC spotlight mainly by bloggers -- the ever-expanding network of ideological entrepreneurs who analyze and pontificate on their own websites...
Many of the bloggers have criticized [Ronnie] Floyd's [candidate for SBC President] weak support of the Cooperative Program, the SBC's unified budget for supporting denominational ministries at the national and state levels. An SBC panel recently called for officers and other convention leaders to come from churches that contribute at least 10 percent of their undesignated receipts to the program. In 2005, Floyd's church gave 0.27 percent of its $12 million in undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program.
Floyd's candidacy was announced shortly after another prominent SBC pastor with less-than-stellar Cooperative Program credentials pulled out of the running. Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Ga., had initially said he would run, but later withdrew.
One of Floyd's opponents, meanwhile, appears to have the support of many bloggers and other SBC reformers. Frank Page initially declined to allow himself to be nominated, saying he "didn't have a peace about it." But he reversed course shortly afterward, saying "an overall malaise among many people" in the convention prompted him to accept the nomination.
Page, who is the pastor of First Baptist Church of Taylors, S.C., was courted as a candidate by prominent SBC blogger Wade Burleson and other reform-minded conservatives. Last year, Page's church gave 12.1 percent of its $4.4 million in undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program...
The advent of the SBC blogosphere has brought pre-existing internal tensions in the denomination to the surface. Many of the bloggers are under 50 years of age -- "younger" by the standards of Baptist leadership -- and there is a generational aspect to the conflict in the denomination.
In recent years, SBC officials have worked to cultivate younger pastors and other leaders, and bring them into service on denominational boards and offices. But the plan may have backfired to some extent, since some of the new recruits are leading the revolution against the old-guard establishment.
The small but influential group -- Burleson's blog (www.wadeburleson.com), for instance, has had nearly 200,000 visitors as of the afternoon of June 5 -- has attacked everything from controversial new restrictions on missionaries to perceived cronyism among trustees.
Burleson is probably the most widely read of the new SBC bloggers, whose ranks also include Georgia pastor Marty Duren (www.sbcoutpost.blogspot.com) and Texas pastor Benjamin Cole (www.baptistblogger.blogspot.com). His blog got started as a way to criticize actions taken by a majority of his fellow trustees at the International Mission Board. Trustees attempted to remove the Enid, Okla., pastor after he refused to stop discussing controversial new board policies online.
My purpose in bringing this article to the attention of DD readers is not to draw them into the byzantine world of SBC eccclesial politics, but to illustrate the fact that Blog Power is here to stay. Any information-based movement would be wise to take that into account. News is checked and filtered and opinion shaped and critiqued here as never before. Behold, the power of the Blog!
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Fer Cryin' Out Loud...
This little item cross my cyber-desk. Please note the bolds. By the way, the 50% myth persists despite a lack of real evidence. Note the author's connections to ABCUSA and Unity: how did that happen--and how can it be that that's tolerated?
A Therapist’s Personal Guide To Making Divorce a Positive Experience
Therapist Jim Remington shares professional insights and personal experiences with divorce to help others heal, in his manual, Divorce!From Blasting to Blessing: From Love…to Hate…to Love.
Kalamazoo, Michigan (PRWEB) June 4, 2006 -- When therapist Jim Remington got divorced, he discovered a recovery process that could lead to increased insight, sensitivity and confidence. Now he shares it with others in From Blasting Divorce to Blessing: From Love… to Hate… to Love.
Today, over 50% of all marriages fail. While marriage is meant to bring out the best in us, divorce can often show us the worse. Therapist Jim Remington spent 47 years counseling people on their marriage and divorces, but he was shocked to discover the pain, anger and depression that he experienced during his own divorce. To his surprise, as he moved through the divorce process, he began to realize how adversity had strengthened and empowered him. To help others, he created the workbook, From Blasting Divorce to Blessing: From Love… to Hate….to Love.
In this caring and compassionate guidebook, Remington shares and explores his own person story of divorce, offering the benefit of his experience to help readers come through the difficult divorce process stronger than ever. Divorce need not be the end of happiness, he suggests. Instead, divorce can make you more sensitive and more open to all the other positive aspects of life, including contentment, fulfillment and spiritual realizations. For more information or to request a free review copy, please contact the author at e-mail protected from spam bots.
Divorce! From Blasting to Blessing: From Love… to Hate…to Love is available for sale online at Amazon.com, Borders.com, BookSurge.com, and through additional wholesale and retail channels worldwide.
About the Author
Jim Remington has been a therapist for over 47 years. A Ph.D., a Licensed Psychologist and a Certified Pastoral Counselor, Dr. Remington is also an ordained minister with American Baptist Churches since 1959. A Licensed Unity teacher through the Association of Unity Churches, this co-author of two other books, Machu Picchu (Peru): Spiritual Archaeology, and Avioanxiety Becoming Controlled: Now Fly Without Fear, lives in his hometown of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/6/prweb393984.htm
A Therapist’s Personal Guide To Making Divorce a Positive Experience
Therapist Jim Remington shares professional insights and personal experiences with divorce to help others heal, in his manual, Divorce!From Blasting to Blessing: From Love…to Hate…to Love.
Kalamazoo, Michigan (PRWEB) June 4, 2006 -- When therapist Jim Remington got divorced, he discovered a recovery process that could lead to increased insight, sensitivity and confidence. Now he shares it with others in From Blasting Divorce to Blessing: From Love… to Hate… to Love.
Today, over 50% of all marriages fail. While marriage is meant to bring out the best in us, divorce can often show us the worse. Therapist Jim Remington spent 47 years counseling people on their marriage and divorces, but he was shocked to discover the pain, anger and depression that he experienced during his own divorce. To his surprise, as he moved through the divorce process, he began to realize how adversity had strengthened and empowered him. To help others, he created the workbook, From Blasting Divorce to Blessing: From Love… to Hate….to Love.
In this caring and compassionate guidebook, Remington shares and explores his own person story of divorce, offering the benefit of his experience to help readers come through the difficult divorce process stronger than ever. Divorce need not be the end of happiness, he suggests. Instead, divorce can make you more sensitive and more open to all the other positive aspects of life, including contentment, fulfillment and spiritual realizations. For more information or to request a free review copy, please contact the author at e-mail protected from spam bots.
Divorce! From Blasting to Blessing: From Love… to Hate…to Love is available for sale online at Amazon.com, Borders.com, BookSurge.com, and through additional wholesale and retail channels worldwide.
About the Author
Jim Remington has been a therapist for over 47 years. A Ph.D., a Licensed Psychologist and a Certified Pastoral Counselor, Dr. Remington is also an ordained minister with American Baptist Churches since 1959. A Licensed Unity teacher through the Association of Unity Churches, this co-author of two other books, Machu Picchu (Peru): Spiritual Archaeology, and Avioanxiety Becoming Controlled: Now Fly Without Fear, lives in his hometown of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/6/prweb393984.htm
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Back to Basics on Same-Sex "Marriage"
As debate on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage heads to the US Senate, a well-written reminder on the basics and the problems with such a cultural innovation:
Thursday, June 1, 2006
What's Wrong with Gay 'Marriage'?
By Regis Nicoll
Late last month a Georgia judge struck down an amendment banning same-sex marriage. The ruling turned on a technicality which limits amendments to one topic. The constitutional change, approved by three-fourths of the State electorate, defined marriage as between one man and one woman, while also banning gay civil unions. But, according to Judge Constance C. Russell, that was a disservice to voters "who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society [and] also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place, although not marriage."
While I believe the judge was wrong to overrule the will of the people by the power of the bench, I believe his assessment of popular sentiment is sadly right. According to a 2004 poll, whilethere is nearly a 2-to-1 opposition to same-sex marriage, popular support of civil unions is 54 percent--up from a 43 percent in July 2003.
Consequently, as the U. S. Senate prepares to vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment in the next couple of weeks, the question on many people's minds is "Why shouldn't gays be given the benefits of marriage?"
Threat, what threat?
One of those is Karl Giberson, editor of Science & Theology News and a self-described conservative who values marriage. In an editorial last year, Giberson shared his hopes for his eldest daughter to: find the "right person"; have a long, happy marriage; and provide grandchildren. At the same time, Giberson said he didn't understand why gay "marriage" was a threat to those hopes: "I don't understand how heterosexual marriage is 'protected' by denying gays the right to marry."
Giberson is not alone. One of my life-long friends, who is a practicing physician with a traditional Catholic upbringing, believes that since "gays can't help it, we should let them marry...it's the right thing, the compassionate thing. Any way, what harm could come of it?"
My friend and Giberson are like others I've talked with who can't understand how gay inclusion would adversely affect heterosexual marriage or the common good. A few even consider gay "marriage" a good thing for society.
For instance, before leaving the "lifestyle," one friend of mine became troubled over the morality of his long-term partnership, only to be told by more than one pastor that a committed relationship was a gift from God to be received with thanksgiving, not guilt. On another occasion, a pastor advised a gay man to seek a committed homosexual partner in order to avoid the hazards of single gay life. One wonders how the pastor would have counseled a pedophile.
Sympathizers for gay "marriage" generally offer one of several arguments: Jesus never proscribed homosexuality, so neither should we; since homosexuality is "how some people are born" it would be unfair and heartless to deny them the benefits of marriage; marriage is about love and commitment, not sexual orientation; and finally, as Giberson implies in his editorial, allowing committed gays to marry wouldn't hurt society, but likely improve an institution marred by heterosexual divorce and infidelity.
First things first
Before we examine the societal effects of gay "marriage", we need to set the record straight about the moral teachings of Jesus. While it's true that Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexuality, it's also true he never mentioned the evils of bestiality, incest, pedophilia, rape, slavery, wife-beating, or substance abuse, to name a few. In fact, the New Testament records very few things that Jesus specifically condemned. It would be reckless, therefore, to assume that anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. What the scriptures do record, however, is Jesus's shift from old covenant particulars to core moral principles.
The shift begins with the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus expands the reach of the Decalogue. It continues with his summation of the Law to love God and to love neighbor. And it culminates with his ultimate standard to love as he loved--an infinitely comprehensive principle that encompasses every aspect of life.
Above all things, Christ-love means valuing others as his image-bearers. In contrast with the cultural "accommodators" who take the low view of man as a powerless victim of base instincts, the Christian view of man is as a moral being blessed with a conscience and free exercise to act against his carnal pull.
Consider Jesus's conversation with adulterous woman. Jesus didn't treat her as a poor creature helplessly controlled by her earthly desires. He treated her as a free moral agent capable of choosing a different way to live. Consequently, he didn't give her the false compassion of tolerance toward her lifestyle. Out of true compassion, he showed her the way out of her broken condition by challenging her to "go now and leave your life of sin."
This is a helpful pattern for us. The disproportionate incidence of substance abuse, mental health problems, disease, mortality, and suicide among homosexuals reveals the truth behind the gay lifestyle: it is anything but gay. By following the example of Jesus, our compassion should involve encouraging those with homosexual urgings to live chastely, rather than affirming and enabling them in a destructive lifestyle.
Genetic robots?
Next is the claim that homosexuality is an inherited trait. I've had more than one Christian tell me they believe same-sex orientation is no different than a physical or mental defect brought on by a genetic mutation. They reason that since God "made them" that way, and since "God don't make junk," individuals with same-sex inclinations can't be held morally accountable for homosexual behavior. That logic is flawed on several points.
First of all, despite the frenetic search for the "gay gene" by gay rights advocates, there is no demonstrated genetic link to same-sex orientation. In fact, study after study confirms what several ex-gays have personally told me: same-sex preferences come from backgrounds of sexual abuse or from families with an abusive, absent, or emotionally distant father and an overly-controlling mother.
Even if we accept that sexual preferences are genetically determined, sexual behaviors are not; unless, that is, we take the low view of man as a genetic robot. For example, although a Down's child cannot, by strength of will, choose to have an IQ of 130, a person with homosexual inclinations can choose to be celibate. Is it an easy road? No. But neither is it for the person who struggles against addictive behaviors like pornography, overeating, and alcohol. To deny their power of choice is to consider them no better than brute animals fatally controlled by instinct.
But the real question for the Christian is whether a genetic link really matters. The doctrine of the Fall tells us that all of creation is groaning from the pervasive effects of sin. So while it's true "God don't make junk," what he made has been deformed from its original state.
It would not be surprising, then, if some day researchers discovered genetic links to proclivities like anger, violence, alcoholism, and even same-sex orientation. At the same time, a genetic proclivity does not justify behavior. We should no more condone homosexual behavior for those with an inherited predisposition, than we should condone spousal abuse for those genetically-inclined toward violence.
All ya need is love
Gay advocates and sympathizers also believe that marriage should be the legal right of any two people who love each other. After all, marriage is all about love and commitment, right? True, but commitment for gays holds a very different meaning. For instance, a 2003 study of gay men in the Netherlands indicated that the average gay man in a committed relationship has eight extra-marital partners per year.
That would seem to be the norm according to gay activist, M. Sinorile, who writes, "Monogamy simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity...[but] a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex, or share partners."
But to the larger issue: if marriage is primarily about love and commitment, why should it be limited to two people? Why not three, five, or twenty? Why not allow a brother to marry his sister, a father marry his daughter? For that matter, why should marriage be limited to the human species? Why not have cross-species marriages for a woman and her dog, a man and his goat, or three women and a horse?
If you think that's a stretch, consider that earlier this year a British woman married a dolphin! No, it wasn't an impromptu college prank after a night of binge-drinking, it was a planned ceremony conducted fifteen years after a love-at-first-sight encounter between 41-year old millionairess, Sharon Tendler, and Cindy, the dolphin. (The slope is indeed slippery, and we are well on our way down.)
What's the harm?
At the same time, gay advocates are right to point out the failures of the heterosexual marriage. Beginning in 1969, no-fault divorce made it easier to get out of a 25 year marriage than to get out of one's cell phone contract. Within 15 years, the divorce rate soared to 250% of its 1960 value with the majority of divorces involving minor children headed by a single-parent woman.
Prior to that time, the strong marriage ethos of our society meant that most pregnant women were either married or got married. But by 1992 the number of children born outside of marriage jumped from 11% to 30%. Tragically, those children are more often victims of abuse, domestic violence, anti-social behavior, depression, substance abuse, and poverty than children brought up by both biological parents.
To answer Mr. Giberson on how gay "marriage" will affect this trend, we need look no further than Scandinavia. According to Stanley Kurtz in the Weekly Standard, Scandinavia has had gay "marriage" for over a decade. During that time it experienced a 25 percent increase in co-habitation and unmarried parenthood, resulting in a 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate in some Scandinavian countries.
In addition, studies compiled by Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey show that children raised by gay couples risk a 50 times higher incidence of incest, a two times incidence of domestic violence, and perform worst in nine out of twelve social and academic areas, as compared to children in other family types.
Thus, the results for the gay "marriage" experiment are in: By further elevating the desires of adults over the needs of children, gay "marriage" widens the gap between marriage and the stable nurture of the next generation.
Has the blight of heterosexual divorce undermined the welfare of families and children? Sadly, yes. But that is no justification to redefine marriage, or sanction other family configurations that deepen the problems of fatherless homes, single-parent moms, and at-risk children.
"[T]he lives of millions of adults and children will judge us harshly for not learning the marriage redefinition lesson the first time. People get hurt deeply when you tinker with the essential nature of marriage..." -- Glenn T. Stanton
(This article originally appeared on Breakpoint.org)
Source: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/rnicoll/?adate=06/01/2006#1400261
Thursday, June 1, 2006
What's Wrong with Gay 'Marriage'?
By Regis Nicoll
Late last month a Georgia judge struck down an amendment banning same-sex marriage. The ruling turned on a technicality which limits amendments to one topic. The constitutional change, approved by three-fourths of the State electorate, defined marriage as between one man and one woman, while also banning gay civil unions. But, according to Judge Constance C. Russell, that was a disservice to voters "who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society [and] also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place, although not marriage."
While I believe the judge was wrong to overrule the will of the people by the power of the bench, I believe his assessment of popular sentiment is sadly right. According to a 2004 poll, whilethere is nearly a 2-to-1 opposition to same-sex marriage, popular support of civil unions is 54 percent--up from a 43 percent in July 2003.
Consequently, as the U. S. Senate prepares to vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment in the next couple of weeks, the question on many people's minds is "Why shouldn't gays be given the benefits of marriage?"
Threat, what threat?
One of those is Karl Giberson, editor of Science & Theology News and a self-described conservative who values marriage. In an editorial last year, Giberson shared his hopes for his eldest daughter to: find the "right person"; have a long, happy marriage; and provide grandchildren. At the same time, Giberson said he didn't understand why gay "marriage" was a threat to those hopes: "I don't understand how heterosexual marriage is 'protected' by denying gays the right to marry."
Giberson is not alone. One of my life-long friends, who is a practicing physician with a traditional Catholic upbringing, believes that since "gays can't help it, we should let them marry...it's the right thing, the compassionate thing. Any way, what harm could come of it?"
My friend and Giberson are like others I've talked with who can't understand how gay inclusion would adversely affect heterosexual marriage or the common good. A few even consider gay "marriage" a good thing for society.
For instance, before leaving the "lifestyle," one friend of mine became troubled over the morality of his long-term partnership, only to be told by more than one pastor that a committed relationship was a gift from God to be received with thanksgiving, not guilt. On another occasion, a pastor advised a gay man to seek a committed homosexual partner in order to avoid the hazards of single gay life. One wonders how the pastor would have counseled a pedophile.
Sympathizers for gay "marriage" generally offer one of several arguments: Jesus never proscribed homosexuality, so neither should we; since homosexuality is "how some people are born" it would be unfair and heartless to deny them the benefits of marriage; marriage is about love and commitment, not sexual orientation; and finally, as Giberson implies in his editorial, allowing committed gays to marry wouldn't hurt society, but likely improve an institution marred by heterosexual divorce and infidelity.
First things first
Before we examine the societal effects of gay "marriage", we need to set the record straight about the moral teachings of Jesus. While it's true that Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexuality, it's also true he never mentioned the evils of bestiality, incest, pedophilia, rape, slavery, wife-beating, or substance abuse, to name a few. In fact, the New Testament records very few things that Jesus specifically condemned. It would be reckless, therefore, to assume that anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. What the scriptures do record, however, is Jesus's shift from old covenant particulars to core moral principles.
The shift begins with the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus expands the reach of the Decalogue. It continues with his summation of the Law to love God and to love neighbor. And it culminates with his ultimate standard to love as he loved--an infinitely comprehensive principle that encompasses every aspect of life.
Above all things, Christ-love means valuing others as his image-bearers. In contrast with the cultural "accommodators" who take the low view of man as a powerless victim of base instincts, the Christian view of man is as a moral being blessed with a conscience and free exercise to act against his carnal pull.
Consider Jesus's conversation with adulterous woman. Jesus didn't treat her as a poor creature helplessly controlled by her earthly desires. He treated her as a free moral agent capable of choosing a different way to live. Consequently, he didn't give her the false compassion of tolerance toward her lifestyle. Out of true compassion, he showed her the way out of her broken condition by challenging her to "go now and leave your life of sin."
This is a helpful pattern for us. The disproportionate incidence of substance abuse, mental health problems, disease, mortality, and suicide among homosexuals reveals the truth behind the gay lifestyle: it is anything but gay. By following the example of Jesus, our compassion should involve encouraging those with homosexual urgings to live chastely, rather than affirming and enabling them in a destructive lifestyle.
Genetic robots?
Next is the claim that homosexuality is an inherited trait. I've had more than one Christian tell me they believe same-sex orientation is no different than a physical or mental defect brought on by a genetic mutation. They reason that since God "made them" that way, and since "God don't make junk," individuals with same-sex inclinations can't be held morally accountable for homosexual behavior. That logic is flawed on several points.
First of all, despite the frenetic search for the "gay gene" by gay rights advocates, there is no demonstrated genetic link to same-sex orientation. In fact, study after study confirms what several ex-gays have personally told me: same-sex preferences come from backgrounds of sexual abuse or from families with an abusive, absent, or emotionally distant father and an overly-controlling mother.
Even if we accept that sexual preferences are genetically determined, sexual behaviors are not; unless, that is, we take the low view of man as a genetic robot. For example, although a Down's child cannot, by strength of will, choose to have an IQ of 130, a person with homosexual inclinations can choose to be celibate. Is it an easy road? No. But neither is it for the person who struggles against addictive behaviors like pornography, overeating, and alcohol. To deny their power of choice is to consider them no better than brute animals fatally controlled by instinct.
But the real question for the Christian is whether a genetic link really matters. The doctrine of the Fall tells us that all of creation is groaning from the pervasive effects of sin. So while it's true "God don't make junk," what he made has been deformed from its original state.
It would not be surprising, then, if some day researchers discovered genetic links to proclivities like anger, violence, alcoholism, and even same-sex orientation. At the same time, a genetic proclivity does not justify behavior. We should no more condone homosexual behavior for those with an inherited predisposition, than we should condone spousal abuse for those genetically-inclined toward violence.
All ya need is love
Gay advocates and sympathizers also believe that marriage should be the legal right of any two people who love each other. After all, marriage is all about love and commitment, right? True, but commitment for gays holds a very different meaning. For instance, a 2003 study of gay men in the Netherlands indicated that the average gay man in a committed relationship has eight extra-marital partners per year.
That would seem to be the norm according to gay activist, M. Sinorile, who writes, "Monogamy simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity...[but] a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex, or share partners."
But to the larger issue: if marriage is primarily about love and commitment, why should it be limited to two people? Why not three, five, or twenty? Why not allow a brother to marry his sister, a father marry his daughter? For that matter, why should marriage be limited to the human species? Why not have cross-species marriages for a woman and her dog, a man and his goat, or three women and a horse?
If you think that's a stretch, consider that earlier this year a British woman married a dolphin! No, it wasn't an impromptu college prank after a night of binge-drinking, it was a planned ceremony conducted fifteen years after a love-at-first-sight encounter between 41-year old millionairess, Sharon Tendler, and Cindy, the dolphin. (The slope is indeed slippery, and we are well on our way down.)
What's the harm?
At the same time, gay advocates are right to point out the failures of the heterosexual marriage. Beginning in 1969, no-fault divorce made it easier to get out of a 25 year marriage than to get out of one's cell phone contract. Within 15 years, the divorce rate soared to 250% of its 1960 value with the majority of divorces involving minor children headed by a single-parent woman.
Prior to that time, the strong marriage ethos of our society meant that most pregnant women were either married or got married. But by 1992 the number of children born outside of marriage jumped from 11% to 30%. Tragically, those children are more often victims of abuse, domestic violence, anti-social behavior, depression, substance abuse, and poverty than children brought up by both biological parents.
To answer Mr. Giberson on how gay "marriage" will affect this trend, we need look no further than Scandinavia. According to Stanley Kurtz in the Weekly Standard, Scandinavia has had gay "marriage" for over a decade. During that time it experienced a 25 percent increase in co-habitation and unmarried parenthood, resulting in a 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate in some Scandinavian countries.
In addition, studies compiled by Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey show that children raised by gay couples risk a 50 times higher incidence of incest, a two times incidence of domestic violence, and perform worst in nine out of twelve social and academic areas, as compared to children in other family types.
Thus, the results for the gay "marriage" experiment are in: By further elevating the desires of adults over the needs of children, gay "marriage" widens the gap between marriage and the stable nurture of the next generation.
Has the blight of heterosexual divorce undermined the welfare of families and children? Sadly, yes. But that is no justification to redefine marriage, or sanction other family configurations that deepen the problems of fatherless homes, single-parent moms, and at-risk children.
"[T]he lives of millions of adults and children will judge us harshly for not learning the marriage redefinition lesson the first time. People get hurt deeply when you tinker with the essential nature of marriage..." -- Glenn T. Stanton
(This article originally appeared on Breakpoint.org)
Source: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/rnicoll/?adate=06/01/2006#1400261
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Truthiness: Christian Century Gets This One Right
I often skewer the leftward slant of Christian Century. But when you're right, you're right, and they nail the mindset which has allowed The da Vinci Code to thrive. By the way, The Colbert Report (that last word is pronounced "repor") is far funnier than Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. And that's the truthy.
May 16, 2006
Dan Brown's truthiness: The appeal of The Da Vinci Code
by Rodney Clapp
The word truthiness was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society. It was also recognized by the New York Times as one of nine words defining the spirit of the age. But in fact (Is there still such a thing as "fact"? Do we care?), truthiness has been around since the 19th century. It was not, as some might think, invented last year by television comedian Stephen Colbert. Colbert, host of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, did re-coin the term to spoof the way politicians and TV pundits insist that what they feel and want to be true must be treated as true, all contrary evidence be damned.
It is the zeitgeist of truthiness that best accounts for the extraordinary success of The Da Vinci Code. Many clever thrillers are best sellers, but the success of Dan Brown's novel—a 43-million-copy best seller about to debut as a motion picture—is so phenomenal that it bears some reflection.
In a culture supersaturated with information, overwrought with shrill grabs at our attention, overstimulated by media of many kinds, none of us is immune to the allure of truthiness. Besides receiving the usual torrent of books, movies, radio voices, television shows, magazines and newspapers, modern searchers for truth must now take into account the World Wide Web, 24/7 news shows, 200-channel cable TV systems, videogaming, DVDs and iPods. It's tiring to keep up with even a few of these media. Our attention is stretched thin and largely confined to the surface. As we shoot the thundering, ever-rolling tube of hypermedia, we are often forced back on our intuition, on some reflexive sense of what "feels true."
Enter Brown's novel in March 2003. With the benefit of hindsight we can say that The Da Vinci Code got noticed not only because of able marketing by the publisher, Doubleday, but because the book profoundly played into the manic milieu of truthiness.
Two of Brown's previous best sellers were technothrillers that also delved into arcane worlds—computer encryption in one instance, space science in the other. The books were praised for Brown's apparently thorough research into realms that very few readers knew but that were of some importance to their everyday lives. All laptop-using readers of Digital Fortress could relate to concerns about the security of computer transmissions. And readers of Deception Point had seen televised NASA rocket launches and knew about the search for life on other planets. Whether or not the books were accurate, they seemed plausible and "truthy" to nonexperts.
If science gave Brown's books a reader-magnetizing air of real-world gravity, he soon discovered that religion would serve that end even more dramatically. Built into the plot of The Da Vinci Code is the thesis that the founder of the world's most populous and arguably most powerful religion did not actually die on a cross, but survived, married Mary Magdalene and sired children. Controversy was guaranteed.
The book was assured more attention amid the ambiance of a fresh round in the culture wars. In the oversimplified binaries of that confrontation, some conservative Christians felt that their country had been taken away from them and that their faith was under attack, while some secularists felt under their feet the rumble of Inquisitorial dungeons and feared full-blown theocracy whenever Christianity assumed a public presence or influence. The anxiety and urgency of a post-9/11 world made it all the easier to tap into the desperate fears and hopes of these warring parties. Nerves were kept frayed with the controversy over Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, released in Lent a year after The Da Vinci Code hit bookshelves.
Pastors say that the parishioners most drawn to The Da Vinci Code tend to be ex-Catholics or people who otherwise think they have reason to be suspicious of the Roman Catholic Church. As a Connecticut pastor put it, Brown's depiction of conniving bishops and assassin monks rings true to those who "always knew the church was lying to us." A pastor in Ohio commented that the novel appeals to those "who feel the Catholic Church harbors something shady in its depths."
A scan of the 3,068 (!) customer reviews of the novel at Amazon.com substantiates this impression. Perhaps most poignantly, one reader who read the book in light of the pedophilia scandals and the church's early secrecy about them says, tentatively but tellingly: "With all that is going on in the Catholic Church today, it makes you wonder if some of the fiction is actually true." Of course, it is a real leap from sex scandals and bureaucratic mismanagement to the argument that the Catholic Church will go to murderous lengths to stifle evidence that contradicts its teaching, and that the church's highest officials do this cynically, knowing that the faith is a fraud. (In the end, the novel cops out on this point anyway. The scholar-detective hero, Robert Langdon, never locates the proof that is dangled like a carrot throughout the book.)
But in a culture of truthiness, actual evidence or contrary details are readily ignored. And for most readers, the world of faith and the academic study of Christianity is as exotic as that of South Sea Islanders. They aren't struck by the fact that Harvard employs no "symbologists" like Langdon and that no such discipline exists. Readers may well be impressed by Brown's claim that he relied on 39 books. His research is hardly adequate by academic standards, but repeatedly readers and reviewers have commented on Brown's thorough research.
The Da Vinci Code covers a lot of ground, not only in theology and Christian history but in the specialized worlds of art history, cryptography, architecture and police procedure. For many readers, it is sufficient that it covers this ground engagingly, and in a manner that seems plausible. "Remember that novels are supposed to tell stories that just might be true, not stories that are 100 percent certainly true," exhorts one Amazon customer reviewer. "Whether the description of the art in this book is accurate . . . does not matter," avers another. "What matters is that Brown managed to take something that coulda, mighta, maybe happened, and made sense." A third exults, "I loved this book because it makes history (false or not) very VERY interesting. . . . It's about history and the church, but it's actually interesting." (Who would have imagined it—the church, actually interesting?)
Many readers of the novel have noted how much it seems made for the movies. Truthiness, as already observed, dwells on the surface of things, and film does so as well, often marvelously and enrichingly. The Da Vinci Code is highly cinematic and suited to surfaces in a number of ways. It is plot-driven, propelled by external events and visible action. The entire hyperventilating story occurs within the span of a single day. This compressed time span lends an air of great urgency, as in television shows such as 24.
Other than exercising memory, which is displayed in the highly cinematic form of flashbacks, the novel's characters exhibit practically no interior dimensions. In addition, the chapters are exceedingly short—often three pages or fewer. They resemble the rapid, short scenes and cuts popularized by MTV and prevalent in many Hollywood movies. The chapters, like the old movie serials, almost always end with cliffhangers, propelling the reader forward—especially when each chapter is so brief. You may be busy, but it'll only take a few minutes to read to the next revelation.
There's also a tourism angle. The action occurs in photogenic locations such as Paris, and the plot hinges on visual clues to be ferreted out of famous paintings and statues. Readers now carry the book along on their visits to the Louvre and Westminster Abbey. A special edition of the novel with color art and photography has been produced. Those who spend much more time with film and television than with books have found The Da Vinci Code exceedingly congenial.
To introduce a final cinematic aspect of the novel, consider this observation by film critic David Thomson: "If books are about the possibility or potential of meaning, films are about disclosure, revelation, appearance." Film "is a medium most acute when fixed on what happens next; whereas literature, sooner or later, is about the meaning behind events."
What is key here is not just Thomson's note that the cinematic fixes on "what happens next," but his emphasis that its attraction abides in disclosure, on revelation of what was secret and hidden. In its parts and as a whole, The Da Vinci Code is all about the striptease of truthiness, the seductive (apparent) solving of puzzles in a world that otherwise is frustratingly obscure and opaque. In this regard, the novel resembles another literary phenomenon of our times, the Left Behind series, which rests on the thrill of decoding the Bible by way of dispensational theology.
Dan Brown's novel has played perfectly into a culture that stays close to the surface, to the cinematic, to the allure of truthiness. However much it consumes our attention at the moment, The Da Vinci Code is a sand castle on the beach, one that will soon erode and melt from view, subjected to the waves of information and stimulation that ceaselessly beat the shores of our hypermediated culture. The far more pressing challenge, and the one that will not soon go away, is how the church can faithfully serve its mission of witnessing to enduring truth in a world more and more susceptible to truthiness.
Rodney Clapp is editor of Brazos Press.
Source: http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=2058
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)