Hooray for Wheaton

I came across the following article and must say that I am happy to see what Wheaton is doing. As the article points out, Wheaton is used to doing things different from what society thinks should be done and I join the author in applauding them for sticking by their beliefs and convictions. It's nice to finally see an institution not give way to society and try to placate them in the process.
__________________

What's So Odd About Religious Colleges?
May 13, 2008; Page A15

It's tough to run a college these days. It's tougher still when you set high standards. And it's toughest of all when those standards reflect an Ozzie and Harriet morality in a Sarah Jessica Parker world.
Just ask the folks at Wheaton College.
Wheaton is a Christian college that takes its beliefs seriously. These beliefs are embodied in a "Community Covenant" that all must sign and live by if they hope to teach or study there. The provisions include a biblically based view of marriage, and the understanding that the only acceptable grounds for divorce in this community are those found in Scripture – namely, adultery or abandonment.
Which brings us to two unhappy events. The first is the failed marriage of Kent Gramm, a popular English professor who has taught at Wheaton for two decades. The Gramms recently filed for divorce after 30 years together.
The second unhappy development flows from that filing. Mr. Gramm chose to resign from the school rather than discuss the reasons for his breakup with the requisite members of the Wheaton community. Because he has told his story to the media, his plight has received national attention. And because of that attention, a small evangelical school outside Chicago now finds itself derided as a group of pinched old authoritarians out of touch with the realities of 21st century America.
Then again, you might say that being out of touch is the point. Or at least the point of Wheaton. Back in H.L. Mencken's day, a Midwestern Christian college that frowned upon alcohol and tobacco and dancing might have thought itself as reflecting the conventional morality of middle class America. That day has long passed. Today Wheaton is the counterculture. And the men and women who teach and study there know it.
Being different is nothing new for Wheaton. The most famous building on campus was once a way station on the Underground Railroad. That was a time when abolitionist evangelicals were out of touch with the reality of slavery in a nation whose claim to liberty rested on God-given truths about human dignity. Today Wheaton advances a proposition that may be equally radical, at least in the groves of modern academe: That character is as important as chemistry – and that teachers have some obligations as role models for their students.
This commitment can make for awkward headlines when people stray outside the boundaries, as people inevitably do. Several years back, for example, one Wheaton faculty member was forced to leave the school after he converted to Roman Catholicism. The professor argued that even as a Catholic, he could assent to the school's statement of faith in good conscience. Wheaton took a different view. Its officials argued, not unreasonably, that as an evangelical Protestant school, maintaining the integrity of their mission required professors who shared their interpretation. So they gave him a year to find another job.
That was the same offer given to Mr. Gramm. Wheaton does not impose its beliefs on anyone. Its president says that the school works hard at making sure that its principles are "clear, explicit and public." Mr. Gramm freely signed that covenant when he came to Wheaton. And it does not appear from the public record that he ever found it limiting or unfair until it was applied to him.
Now, whenever an institution or community applies its standards, it will likely be the heavy in the public eye. This is true whether the institution is a church, a school, a local government or even the Boy Scouts. Mostly this is because an institution is by nature more impersonal and hence less sympathetic than a human being. Partly it is because the rest of us, conscious of our own weaknesses, will tend to empathize with good people who come up short. And when the institution in question is an evangelical college, the champions of diversity go silent, and ridicule and caricature become the rule.
Wheaton understands this, and in point of fact, it makes room on its faculty for several members who are divorced. At the same time, it proposes that people who freely join a community that is honest and upfront about its beliefs can reasonably be asked to abide by them. Wheaton's ways are not my ways. Yet there is something refreshing about an institution willing to stand up for its convictions rather than trim its sails to the prevailing winds.
I wish Mr. Gramm and his wife only the best, and hope that they find good jobs and can get on with their lives. But I also find myself wondering how much richer our nation's university life would be with a few more Wheatons willing to be out of touch for the sake of their deepest beliefs.

You Might Be Emerging If...

Here is a great quote from Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). Read it and have a good chuckle.

After reading nearly five thousand pages of emerging-church literature, I have no doubt that the emerging church, while loosely defined and far from uniform, can be described and critiqued as a diverse, but recognizable, movement. You might be an emergent Christian: if you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash’s Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from The Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists primarily of Stanley Hauerwas, Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner, David Bosch, John Howard Yoder, Wendell Berry, Nancy Murphy, John Franke, Walter Winks and Lesslie Newbigin (not to mention McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, etc.) and your sparring partners include D. A. Carson, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Wayne Grudem; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Desmond Tutu; if you don’t like George W. Bush or institutions or big business or capitalism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression and not so much abortion and gay marriage; if you are into bohemian, goth, rave, or indie; if you talk about the myth of redemptive violence and the myth of certainty; if you lie awake at night having nightmares about all the ways modernism has ruined your life; if you love the Bible as a beautiful, inspiring collection of works that lead us into the mystery of God but is not inerrant; if you search for truth but aren’t sure it can be found; if you’ve ever been to a church with prayer labyrinths, candles, Play-Doh, chalk-drawings, couches, or beanbags (your youth group doesn’t count); if you loathe words like linear, propositional, rational, machine, and hierarchy and use words like ancient-future, jazz, mosaic, matrix, missional, vintage, and dance; if you grew up in a very conservative Christian home that in retrospect seems legalistic, naive, and rigid; if you support women in all levels of ministry, prioritize urban over suburban, and like your theology narrative instead of systematic; if you disbelieve in any sacred-secular divide; if you want to be the church and not just go to church; if you long for a community that is relational, tribal, and primal like a river or a garden; if you believe doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus; if you believe who goes to hell is no one’s business and no one may be there anyway; if you believe salvation has a little to do with atoning for guilt and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with its Maker; if you believe following Jesus is not believing the right things but living the right way; if it really bugs you when people talk about going to heaven instead of heaven coming to us; if you disdain monological, didactic preaching; if you use the word “story” in all your propositions about postmodernism—if all or most of this tortuously long sentence describes you, then you might be an emergent Christian.

Book Review: Why We're Not Emergent

For anyone who is attuned to contemporary Christian culture, the new movement known as, "Emergent" or "Emerging", has been seen, heard, or read. If Christians have not heard of the movement, they have definitely heard of the leading players, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Donald Miller, etc. However, the fact that most Christians are not familiar with their teachings or what they are really saying is truly the dangerous part of it. I am pretty attuned to this movement and the articles, books, conferences, and various things that come out of it. Unlike many people who simply hear things at second or third hand, I actually have read their material myself and know not only what they are saying, but the context in which they say it. One of the most disturbing things about western Christianity is the fact that most Christians have no ability (or do not exercise their ability if they possess it) of spiritual discernment. Our churches aren't doing enough to equip believers in the pews with the tools to read something, watch something, or listen to something without being able to discern whether it lines up with the Scriptures. If one were to merely walk into a Christian bookstore and look at what passes as "Christian", it would certainly disturb and frighten anyone who is concerned. Of course, most believers think because it is simply in the Christian bookstore that it must be ok. This assessment applies to the Emergent Church and the plethora of material they produce.

Despite the negatives that pass as "Christian" these days, there is some really good material out there, as well. Ironically, while I was browsing through an advertisement from a local Christian bookstore, I came across the book, Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). Of course, my interest in this topic drew me to the book so I decided to check it out. After researching, I came to their website and eventually, bought the book and finished it in two days. My overall assessment of this book is extremely positive. Written by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, they do a thorough job of examining various aspects about the movements, especially the theology and teachings from the writers themselves. After reading about 5,000 pages of Emergent material, they examine the basic teachings and beliefs posited by the main leaders within the "conversation". The authors alternate writing the chapters with Kevin DeYoung doing the longer, more theological examination behind their beliefs and comparing it to orthodox Christianity. His chapters are the "meat" here. Ted Kluck writes more "experiential" chapters which are light and add some nice humor into them.

There is not enough space to delve into a specific outline of all that the book entails, but it is definitely worth the read if you are concerned about where the Western church is heading and the dangers posed by those in the Emergent movement. You don't have to agree with everything they say, but read it and consider what they say. If nothing else, at least they are adding to the "conversation". I would highly recommend you get this book!

I've Heard of Contextualizing, but.....

I read this article today here on the pastor who is replacing Rev. Jeremiah Wright at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and I can't stop laughing. I put it away for awhile and then came back to it and found myself laughing outloud again. I don't remember reading this is in any of my Bible translations or in my hermeneutics class. Does anything good come out of this church? Enjoy!

Barack Obama has finally distanced himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright after a 20-year relationship, but the pastor who is replacing Wright at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ is likely to be just as controversial.
New Trinity pastor Otis Moss has called Biblical patriarch Abraham a “pimp” and made other statements many would consider offensive.
After Obama called Wright’s comments “divisive and destructive,” a questioner noted that Rev. Moss has defended Wright and asked if Obama would continue attending the church.
“Well, the new pastor, the young pastor, Reverend Otis Moss, is a wonderful young pastor,” Obama responded. “And as I said, I still very much value the Trinity community.”
Moss, the 37-year-old “hip-hop pastor,” as he’s called by congregants, will become head of Trinity in June, after serving as an assistant pastor there for two years.
But a videotape of a sermon he delivered at Wright’s church shows this “wonderful young pastor” referring to “ghetto prophets” and “thug theology,” calling the late rapper Tupac Shakur a “prophet,” and reciting at length lyrics to Shakur’s song “Thugz Mansion.”
Moss also states in the sermon:
· “Jesus has a soft spot for thugs.”
· “God is always using thugs to do God’s work.”
· “Everyone has a little bit of thug in them.”
· Noah was a “thug” who “was drinking much gin and juice and got drunk on the eve of reconstruction.”
· Abraham “pimped his own wife.”
· Jacob was a “hustler” who “stole his own brother’s birthright.”
· Moses was a “thug” and “if he got mad would give you a royal beatdown.”
· Sampson was a “thug” and a “player.”
· David was a “thug,” a “shot caller,” and a “player,” and a man after God’s own heart.
· “Jesus is on the cross being lynched between two thugs. The moment of execution, the moment of murder, Jesus, the son of God, is hanging out with thugs.”
In an interview last month with National Public Radio, Moss refused to distance himself from claims by Wright that the U.S. government was involved in distributing illegal drugs to minorities.
He said: “I think we need to be very, very honest in terms of that our government has the ability to place a Hubble Telescope in the sky but yet we haven’t had the political will to shut down drugs coming into our community. And from that perspective I think that’s something we can look at in terms of policy.”
In his Easter sermon, Moss said Wright was “lynched” by the international media, and compared Wright to Jesus.
In a Trinity church newsletter, Moss maintained that American entertainment companies operate with contempt for the black community, according to World Net Daily.
He wrote: “Currently, there are eight companies controlling 90 percent of everything we hear, read, watch on television or view in the movie theater. These companies operate with contempt and disdain for the black community.”
Moss has also referred to blacks as “lepers” with a “skin disease.”

I'm back....for now!

Well, I haven't been here for a month and it feels good. Having a life, instead of writing on a "blog", is quite nice. I guess we should all try it sometime. Just to keep you updated, here are the fun facts that have been happening in my little world.

1. I got married
2. I went on a honeymoon.
3. I had a blast!
4. I finished my final paper for seminary.
5. My favorite soccer team, Manchester United, is on the verge of winning both their domestic title, as well as the UEFA Champions League.
6. I have been observing and pondering some interesting thoughts on modern Christianity. It don't look good.
7. I got married.

I don't have much more to write right now, because I have to get ready for class. I will try to post some new stuff here soon, as my schedule might clear up a little bit.

Until then...

My Last Week of Freedom

Well, let me first say that I apologize for the long absence. My life these past few weeks (perhaps, months would be more accurate) have been filled with going from doing one thing to another. You see, I'm getting married next week so I have been running around like crazy trying to get stuff done for the wedding, finishing work in advance here at work, as well as getting my school work done. Thus, I have had no time for writing on here.

As far as the the promised posting by Lewis, I will try to make those up here shortly. If I can pop on here before I leave for the wedding, then I will do so. However, it probably doesn't look like it is going to happen before I get back.

I'm excited about marriage and becoming one with the woman of my dreams. God has been so good to me throughout my entire life and has given me one more reason to praise Him. I know marriage is going to be tough at times, but I am aware that it is going to be so rewarding too. I look forward to being in the warm sun of the caribbean next week!

Great Insight from Lewis

In the next few posts, I am going to be putting up various quotes by C.S. Lewis in his great work, Mere Christianity, that show his great insights and wisdom.  I hope you enjoy them as much as I do. 

 

All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts--to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer.  And they are very terrifying facts.  I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable.  But I must say what I think true.  Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort.  But it does not begin in comfort;  it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to the comfort without first going through that dismay.  In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it.  If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end:  if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth--only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.  Most of us have got over the pre-war wishful thinking about international politics.  It is time we did the same about religion.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity (San Francisco:  HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 32.

Go on and laugh...you know it's funny!

Ravi on Apologetics

"Apologetics is a subject that ends up defending itself. The one who argues against apologetics ends up using argument to denounce argument. The one who says apologetics is a matter of pride ends up proudly defending one's own impoverishment. The one who says conversion is a matter of the heart and not the intellect ends up presenting intellectual arguments to convince others of this position. So goes the process of self-contradiction. "I am convinced, in the words of C. S. Lewis—who in my estimation is probably the greatest Christian apologist in recent memory—that the question of being an apologist is not so much whether you use an apologetic in answering someone's question, but whether the apologetic you already use is a good one."

This is a great picture

Are You Paying For Atheism?

"Children spend the majority of their waking hours in school. Parents invest a good portion of their life savings in college education and entrust their offspring to people who are supposed to educate them. Isn’t it wonderful that educators have figured out a way to make parents the instruments of their own undoing? Isn’t it brilliant that they have persuaded Christian moms and dads to finance the destruction of their own beliefs and values? Who said atheists aren’t clever?"

Dinesh D'Souza
What's So Great About Christianity

Another Emerging Poster

The Word Made Flesh

I was reading (as I am prone to do) and came across this really good quote. It comes from a book I mentioned in an earlier post a few weeks ago, Your Mind Matters by John Stott. He makes the following statement which I think is pretty awesome.

"For in and through Scripture God has spoken, that is, communicated in words. One may perhaps say that if in nature God's revelation is visualized, in Scripture it is verbalized, and in Christ it is both, for he is "the Word made flesh".

A Great Quote By a Great Writer

If you have never read anything by Mark Steyn, then you need to start reading his stuff. He is a very good writer, with some great thoughts, and always adds in some humor. Here is a quote from a recent article he wrote that I found to be great!

"I'm something of a phobiaphobe. I don't subscribe to the concepts of "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." They're a lame rhetorical sleight to end the argument by denying it's an argument at all: you don't have a political disagreement with me over gay marriage or sharia, you have a mental illness. But don't worry, we can give you counselling and medication and your "phobia" will eventually go away."

Along the same lines, I was watching a talk by Dr. Frank Beckwith where he addressed this issue of "phobias". His example was in relation to when someone called him a "homophobe" during one of his speeches. He responded to that person by saying (paraphrasing), "You know, that's interesting that you would call me that name. If you really look at the word, then it would really mean I have a fear of homosexuals. Thus, if I have a fear of something, I essentially have a handicap. Why would you make fun of me for having a handicap such as my fear of something? Shouldn't you not make fun of me or put me down for my handicap in this area?"

I found this response to be right on target and hilarious. The idea of name-calling is so ridiculous and intellectually weak. If you can't offer a defense of your position, you take the easy way out and just call someone a name. You try and cower someone into your position by calling them a name that is supposed to be the worst thing ever. This tactic is usually implored by most liberals on any issue. If you oppose gay marriage, you are a "homophobe". If you oppose illegal immigration, you are a "xenophobe". If you say anything that has to do with race, you are a "racist". Do anything that might support the male species, you are a "sexist". Oppose anything liberal and you are a right-wing, fundamentalist. Unfortunately, this type of name-calling has infiltrated the church and continued the diminishing of the evangelical mind.

Food for Thought

Today, i went to a fast food restaurant and bought a biscuit.  Yes, it was Saturday morning and I was going to have a little taste of the my childhood memories.  As I was eating my biscuit, I noticed something on the bag.  It read, "Please put litter in its place".  I found this statement to be ironic.  If I really put litter "in its place", wouldn't that be just throwing it on the ground somewhere?  I mean, if I pick it up and put it into the trash can, then it is no longer "litter", but rather "trash".  So, if they want me to put litter in its place, then I should just throw it somewhere outside on the ground.  Do they really mean what they say or did they not really think about it? Hmmmm.  

Just something to think about it.  

It's Been A Long Time...

Wow! I just got back on this thing and realized how long it has been since I wrote anything on here. My life has been extremely crazy lately and by the looks of it, I actually do have a life! That's why I haven't been sitting in front of my keyboard posting thoughts for no one to read. Hmmm. However, I found some time and a new topic to ramble on about so here goes....

Let me first begin this post by laying out some interesting statistics about young people going to college these days.

• 75% of Christian youth leave the church after high school.
• Intellectual skepticism is one of the major reasons they walk away.
• Most Christian students are unequipped to resist rabidly anti-Christian college professors who are intent on converting their students to atheism.
• College professors are five times more likely to identify themselves as atheists than the general public.
• More than half of all college professors view evangelical Christian students unfavorably.
• The “new atheists”—Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens—are writing books and are growing in popularity.
• Anna, a pastor’s daughter, became an agnostic at UNC Chapel Hill.
• Steve, son of a famous Christian, renounced biblical morality at Elon.
• John, a high school worker for Campus Crusade, became an atheist after reading a Richard Dawkins’ book on atheism.

*statistics provided by www.crossexamined.org

These observations are quite informative and interesting to read. It is true that many college campuses are just a bastion of atheism and contain people who challenge the beliefs of Christians. Why are kids leaving the church so rapidly after they face these various intellectual arguments against Christianity? I think Frank Turek, of http://www.crossexamined.org/, has provided these fascinating statistics, but also a great observation about the church.

"Some think church is irrelevant. Others, out on their own for the first time, are attracted by all the world has to offer and put God on the back burner. Yet many leave because they’ve come to doubt Christianity. In fact, intellectual skepticism is a major reason cited by those who have left.

We can lay the blame for much of this on ourselves—that is, on the church. While there are notable exceptions, most American churches over-emphasize emotion and ignore the biblical commands to develop the mind (1 Pet 3:15, 2 Cor. 10:5). In other words, we’re doing a great job performing for our youth with skits, bands and videos, but a terrible job informing them with logic, truth, and a Christian worldview. We’ve failed to recognize that what we win them with we win them to. If we win them with emotion, we win them to emotion.

Now, I don’t want to discount the importance of emotion. If the Bible is true (as we show in the seminar), then God does want us to love Him with all of our hearts. But He also wants us to love Him with our minds (Mt. 22:37). Christians don't get Brownie points for being stupid! We're supposed to know what we believe and why we believe it. And for good reason-- emotion alone is not enough to protect Christian students at college or make them bold witnesses for those they meet. If they arrive at college with nothing more then good sentimental feelings about Christ, they are easy prey for anti-Christian professors and a campus environment intent on undermining their faith. "

I think Frank has nailed it squarely on the head here. The idea that so many churches are producing young people who have no idea what they believe or why they believe it is due to the lack of discipleship. Too many youth ministries cater to the young people and worry more about numbers and entertainment. As long as we can keep them in the church, then that is the main goal. The church, as a whole, has developed a Christianity that is merely based on emotion and a more pragmatic approach of "what works in my life". As long as it helps us get through the tough times and make me feel like God is in love with me, then this Christianity thing is pretty good! John Stott, in a recent book he wrote entitled, Your Mind Matters, makes a key observation when he writes, "Young people tend to be activists, dedicated supporters of a cause, though without always inquiring too closely either whether their cause is a good end to pursue or whether their action is the best means by which to pursue it." (pg. 14). If anyone knows young people or does any type of observing of them, you know this statement is true. They jump on the "environmental bandwagon" and "Can't we all get along" movements without really considering why they believe it or support it.

In the evangelical circles, I believe that this goes back to making "man" the center of the church and the teaching of the Bible. We have lost the idea that we are here to serve the Lord with all of our heart, mind, and soul. He is the one who deserves the glory, honor, and praise. We should be bending, molding, and submitting our wills, thoughts, and actions to God. However, today we think that if we cater to society and change everything that that is really true Christianity. We make God and His Word submit to us, through our desires, thoughts, and the way the world thinks. God doesn't need us. He doesn't need anything at all, but He wants to have a relationship with us because He loves. The belief that God's message should be changed to fit the postmodern mindset is not only blasphemy, but out right "man-centered" evangelism. I think that an omnipotent God can produce a message and gospel powerful enough to change lives and bring reconciliation between Himself and manthroughout time. We do not need to change or manipulate the message to reach a new generation as many in the emerging church are suggesting, such as Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Tony Campolo, and Rob Bell.

Young people are leaving the church because we have offered them something that makes them feel good and just fits into their current thinking. It hasn't changed their life or impacted them because they haven't heard the true gospel. Yesterday I was reading in an issue of Christianity Today a reader wrote in and said that we don't need intellectual responses to skeptics and unbelievers, but rather just tell them about our own personal experience and the wonderful feelings we have about God. Welcome to Mormonism! That is the old mormon view of how they know the Book of Mormon is true. They have felt the "burning in the bosom". Is that really how we know we serve and worship the one, true, and only God? Based on how I feel inside? Yes, great emotions accompany saving faith in Christ, but they are not the foundation upon which our faith stands. It is in knowing the Scriptures first and then knowing what and why we believe based upon the evidence. Our testimony is a powerful witness to unbelievers so they can see what God has done in our lives and how He has changed it. However, everyone who believes in anything has a "testimony". Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and even Atheists. Our testimony must be an essential part of our witness in order to relate to people and show them the power of the one true, living God. However, we must be prepared in and out of season to provide other answers to questions that they may have. Apologetics will never save anyone, but it does lead a horse to water. It can remove certain barriers for unbelievers before they can humble themselves to the Lord. Should apologetics be used in every instance of evangelism or witnessing? Not necessarily. Our primary source should be the Bible and the message of salvation by grace through faith. However, apologetics is just another weapon in our arsenal when people have true and deep questions about things. We need to be prepared to give an answer as Peter instructs us (1 Peter 3:15). Also, it builds our faith in knowing that we have a firm ground to stand on in our faith and allows young people to know it as well, especially when they face attacks on our campuses.

Churches need to finish the discipleship process or maybe just begin it. It starts with teaching the basic beliefs of Christianity as found in the Bible. Our first source should be a well-grounded disciple in the Bible. Teaching them the truths found in God's word, but then as they mature in Christ, we should explain to them the evidences found through logic, philosphy, science, and theology. Otherwise, we will continue to produce feel-good young people who fall under the pressure of any kind of objection to their faith. Josh McDowell could very well be right. We may be witnessing the appearance of the "Last Christian Generation".

A New Kind of BCS

Okay, so it's been a few days since I have written on here. As promised, I am going to be speaking about the BCS National Championship game. There is much to be said, but I will try to keep it to a minimum here. First of all, I think it's pretty obvious who has the best football conference in America. If you don't think the SEC is the best, then you haven't watched any football this year or you are just in denial. Face it people, the SEC has dominated in recent years. They have the last two National Champions and won more bowl games this year than any other conference. Do I think that LSU is necessarily the best team in the country? No. I think the only way to decide these types of things is on the field. The BCS system is completely moronic and is there really anyone out there right now besides an LSU fan, maybe an OSU fan, and anyone who might receive profit from the BCS system that would honestly say that you like it? I would love to see USC, Georgia, or LSU play again. I think that USC and Georgia would be a better championship game. LSU just won because they played well and OSU was THAT bad! If you couldn't see this coming then you are in denial too. The cupcake scheduling of the Big Ten conference? Pulease! I enjoyed the game because I wanted OSU to get blown out (it did) and I wanted an SEC team to win it (it did). Plus, throw in there the fact that the BCS got exposed for the sham that it really is and you have a recipe for a great night! The only thing that made it a little better were my Kettle Salt and Pepper Chips with some Tostitos Spinach dip.

How does the BCS relate to Christianity and more specifically, the Emerging Church? Well, the superficial similarities are the fact that neither one is the real thing. In the BCS, we didn't have the two best teams playing for the National Championship. We just had the two teams that got voted in somehow and went through the motions of playing out the supposed championship. The emerging church is the same thing. It's not really a Christian church, but it goes by that name and runs through the charade of supposedly being a church. Now, don't get me wrong here. I am not painting everyone that adheres to that movement "not really a christian" or people who may have a leaning in that direction. I am saying that the teachings within it are not Christian, but rather preaching another gospel. If you don't get sucked in by their clever books and cool media, and actually use your brain a little bit, you can see that what they advocate is not really Christianity. Do you need to believe in inerrancy of the Bible or the Virgin Birth to be saved? The short answer is no. Those are no pre-requisites for salvation as laid out in Scripture. However, it is logically inconsistent to try and deny those things and yet claim to have a relationship with Christ. I know "logic" is not popular to emergents, but you can't deny it without using it.

The emergent church is just plain dangerous. It's influence and advocating of Eastern and Catholic mysticism has invaded the Body of Christ. Christians are being swept up in this movement and being carried away from a real and true relationship with Christ. My experience does not constitute or explain my knowledge, but rather my knowledge explains and verifies my experience. Like the BCS, the emergent church presents itself as a form of Christianity, but it is really a false doctrine sweeping the Western church. Like LSU as BCS "national champion", we are left with a Christ who really isn't the real Christ.

Back in 2008!

I know it has been a long time since I have posted anything. No, I didn't give up on this thing or fall off the face of the earth. December was quite the busy month for me. I was out of the country for the first week of the month and then I was on vacation for the rest of it. I had family coming into town all over the place so it was hard for me to take the time to sit down and write on here. I guess you could call it lazy or lack of desire. Either way, that is the reason for my lack of correspondence. I have read a few books since my last post and come up with some new thoughts. I will hopefully be posting those here in the next couple of weeks. I just need to organize my thoughts a bit.

Besides my thoughts on God and this great life He has given to me, I do have some thoughts on another important topic. Tonight is the BCS National Championship game. Of course, this game is only the national championship in name only. Kind of like the emerging church...it's a church in name only. I will be watching the game with my bag of Kettle Salt and Cracked Pepper potato chips and Tostitos Spinach Dip. It should be a good game, mainly due to the fact that both teams (especially Ohio State) has had like a month and a half off. I will post my thoughts on the game, the BCS, and it's parallels to modern Christianity. I know that the anticipation is so high that if you could schedule my post on your TiVo, you would be programming me right now! Hold onto your hat, grab some chips and dip, and don't think about the deeper ramifications of the game...at least not until you read my next post!

East Meets West (or rather influences it)

I am currently reading the book, Passionate Conviction. It is a compilation of various apologetic topics. It is a really good and informative book. As I was reading a chapter on the difference between Jesus and Buddha, I noticed an interesting quote. It reminded me of another quote I had read a while back from a certain "christian" author. Take a look at these two quotes and see if you notice any similarities between the two:

"In 1960, the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich visited Japan, and in conversation with Buddhist scholars in Kyoto, he asked the following question: 'If some historian should make it probable that a man of the name Guatama never lived, what would be the consequence for Buddhism?' The Buddhist scholars responded by saying that the question of the historicity of Guatama Buddha had never been an issue for Buddhism. 'According to the doctrine of Buddhism, the dharma kaya [the body of truth] is eternal, and so it does not depend upon the historicity of Gustama'. Whether Guatama actually said and did what is ascribed to him does not affect the truth of Buddhist teaching, which transcends historical events."

--Netland, Harold. "The East Comes West (or Why Jesus instead of the Buddha?)" in Passionate Conviction. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007), 165.


"What if tomorrow someone digs us definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely poular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first centruy being 'born of a virgin' also refered to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?

What if that spring was seriously questioned? (Note: "spring" is Bell's word for doctirne)

Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?

Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?...But if the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring then it wasn't that strong in the first place, was it?"


--Bell, Rob. Velvet Elvis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 26-27.

Churchill and Christianity

The mantra today among many people in America, especially the young people, is mostly negative toward Christianity. The Christian church today has many flaws in it and definitely could do things differently. However, a main idea among Christians has been to abandon doctrine and theology in favor of just "living like Jesus". All you have to do is read any book by Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, or Donald "I never read the Bible, yet teach people how to be Christian" Miller.

It is interesting to note the similarities between many of today's supposed "hip" Christians in the Emerging Church and the connection with the liberalism of the 19th and 20th centuries. Here is a great example from a novel by Winston Churchill entitled, The Inside of the Cup. As Gary E. Gilley summarizes, "This early 20th Century novel by the American Churchill, tells the story of an up-and-coming minister who almost loses his faith, only to be rescued by a new understanding of the gospel and the church. Sound good? It’s not, because the new gospel embraced was that of liberalism bordering on socialism." Wow, didn't I read this book about a year ago? Oh wait, no that was A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren. Basically the same message. As you read these two excerpts, you can't help but see the extreme similarities between the Emerging Church and classic Christian Liberalism.

"Christianity was not a collection of doctrines, but a mode of life" (p. 418).

"I can see . . .. the beginnings of a blending of all sects, of all religions in the increasing vision of the truth revealed in Jesus Christ, stripped, as you say, of dogma, of fruitless attempts at rational explanation" (p. 470).

What's that saying again? History repeats itself? or maybe it was, those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it? I think I'll just stick with Solomon in admitting that there is nothing new under the sun.