Pointedly Missing the Point

Is anyone besides me half brought to tears and half brought to laughter by the degree to which some people seem to be missing the point when it comes to the issue of philosophical underpinnings?

Almost every time I read responses to posts or articles that discuss postmodern philosophy and its implications for Christian outreach I find one or two people who seem to miss the point entirely.

While many people are thoughtfully contemplating the modernist assumptions behind some of our 20th century questions about theology, you always seem to get those handful of people who rather aggressively demand that you "get on with it" and answer the questions with a plain yes or no (i.e. with a yes or no according to a modernist matrix of truth).

While recently reading through the feedback section of Brian McLaren's site, I came across the following rather abrupt email that was definitely to the point, while entirely missing the point. A rather frustrated poster asks:

Do you believe the Holy Spirit authored all 66 books of the Bible as He moved men to write them? And do you believe that all 66 books are Inspired, infallible and inerrant? A simple yes or no would be appreciated, laying aside this thought on postmodernism and dancing around the questions.

As is almost always the case, Brian's response was calm, collected and gracious.

Brian answered the question by asserting that he views all scripture as being "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, rebuke, correction, and training in right living so that God’s people may be fully equipped to do good works."

Isn't it ironic that when Brian responds to the question of Biblical authority by quoting the Bible (which seems rather sound doesn't it?) he gets accused of being wishy-washy on the question of inerrancy?

I would like to add some of my own thoughts regarding the kinds of questions that exist behind the questions posed by this person. I would ask in return:

1.) Are you aware that prior to Luther's time the Bible consisted of 73 books- as is attested to by Catholic bibles today? And knowing that, what does that do for your hyper-idealized view of the Protestant Bible? If you trust so much in the early process of Biblical formation, should we go on using a Bible that was edited only a few centuries ago?

2.) Do you realize that while the term"inspired" is somewhat Biblical (though perhaps with a different connotation than you propose), that the other terms you use; "infallibility" and "inerrancy", do not appear in the Bible anywhere? And isn't it rather unbiblical to make a claim for the Bible that it doesn't make for itself?

3.) And in reference to the comment that "a simple yes or no would be appreciated, laying aside this thought on postmodernism and dancing around the questions." what you need to realize is that the postmodern factor IS THE QUESTION. I'm afraid you just missed it because you missed the larger context of the conversation.

To sum it up, it is rather bizarre that people such as this demand adherence to a theological perspective born out of relatively recent historical events (i.e. the birth of fundamentalism) while simultaneously supposing that they are merely defending adherence to the Apostolic Faith of the first century.

A perspective such as this is bad theology and bad history all wrapped up into one.

What is even more telling than the argument itself, is the INTENSITY!! with which it is presented.

My last question is this: Knowing that your one-size fits all view of the Biblical texts seems to be THE ISSUE for you, what exactly are you afraid of? Honestly, deep down, what are you afraid of? What do you think is at stake here?

An exhortation: Be not afraid. God is in control. I think its it's important to remember that, as a pastor of mine used to say, "the Bible is the menu and Jesus is the meal."




Bono Strikes the Right Tone

There exists a certain group of figures that, for many Christians, demarcate the Emerging Church from the mainstream church. One of those figures is the leather-clad, lead singer of U2, Bono. If you have any doubt as to Bono's popularity for the "younger evangelicals" and the Emerging Church crowd at large, just run a search for Bono's name in Emerging Church themed blogs and websites (such as this one!). You'll find Bono's name mentioned almost as much as Brian McLaren's.

Bono has popped back up on the radar screen over the last few days following his National Prayer Breakfast speech in Washington, D.C. I think most "Emerging Christians" would agree with the themes that Bono touched on during his speech. As usual with Bono, social justice as a Biblical mandate was front and center. To make his point Bono quoted freely from the scriptures. And from the warm reception of the Prayer Breakfast crowd you get the sense that the speech was very well received indeed.

What really struck me about Bono's speech (and I got a chance to see it in its entirety on C-Span) was its tone. Bono certainly didn't hash words when it came to the theme of the speech, quoting passages of scripture such as Leviticus 25:35:

If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself...you shall maintain him.... You shall not lend him your money at interest, not give him your food for profit.

But what seemed to make the speech go over so well was Bono's humble approach. Rather than barking at his audience (which still seems to be the modus operandi for many Evangelical pastors I'm afraid) Bono opened up with a little ironic humor at his own expense- making it clear that he doesn't take himself too seriously:

If you're wondering what I'm doing here, at a prayer breakfast, well, so am I. I'm certainly not here as a man of the cloth, unless that cloth is leather. It's certainly not because I'm a rock star. Which leaves one possible explanation: I'm here because I've got a messianic complex.

Yes, it's true. And for anyone who knows me, it's hardly a revelation.

Well, I'm the first to admit that there's something unnatural...something unseemly...about rock stars mounting the pulpit and preaching at presidents, and then disappearing to their villas in the south of France. Talk about a fish out of water. It was weird enough when Jesse Helms showed up at a U2 concert...but this is really weird, isn't it?

Tone might seem a small thing to many people. And if tone is considered at all, it is still often assumed by many "religious leaders' that one should come across as either ticked off, over the top, or hyper-ecstatic. And maybe that's what makes Bono's approach so refreshing. I think tone is a huge part of Bono's popularity with the Emerging crowd.

Bono does well to remind us that when it comes to delivering a message with gusto, sometimes the best approach is to get out of the way and let the power of the Scriptures speak for themselves.


The Palestinian Dilemma

In watching the election results in Palestine this last month one cannot help but shake one's head. How can so much effort put towards a compromised peace process result in a backwards shift such as this? Hamas is a terrorist organization. There is no nuance to this point. Even the most "generous" of international watchdog groups reckon it as such.

So how is it that a majority of Palestinians would bring such a group into power? Well, this is one of those situations where (almost incredibly) Palestinians were forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

So how can voting in a terrorist organization be the lesser of the two evils? Well, it seems that the Fatah party (proving once again the adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely) led with unbridled levels of corruption taking place on a regular basis. There were reports for instance of something like 80-90% of foreign aid being stashed in the Swiss accounts of Fatah leaders.

So, once one looks a little deeper into the election of Hamas it proves more complicated (and perhaps slightly more understandable) than at first glance. None the less however, Palestinians might be hard-pressed to continue to hold to the belief that Hamas was the lesser of two evils in this situation. If war-like conditions break out with Israel again (which in not unlikely considering that Hamas has publicly stated their desire to see Israel wiped off the map) and if the United States and various European governments cut aid because they (understandably so) refuse to hand moneys over to a terrorist organization, then it is hard to imagine how the situation in Palestine will improve when compared to recent governing under Fatah.




Selectively Black and White

People such as Brian McLaren have recently commented on the peculiar way we Evangelicals tend to approach the Bible. It seems that while we say that the Bible is the authoritative word for life and that it should apply "as is", we're often selective in how we actually apply that rule.

In other words, there are some points, both from the Old and the New Testaments that we assume need to be applied today. And yet there are other instances where we assume (without clear hermeneutical reasoning) that another point should not apply. An example I heard made mention of recently made note of how Christians often refer to verses in Leviticus to argue the prohibition against tattooing and yet we ignore another admonition to avoid shaving one's head- even though this appears in Leviticus as well.

How do we explain this discrepancy? Are we even aware when we do this? I think we're often not aware. Which goes to show that, whether we admit it or not, we do not apply scripture equally.

It's somewhat understandable therefore that people such as McLaren want to question (or at least open up for debate) some of the passages that we do apply literally.

This kind of selective biblical literalism is less than intellectually honest. It seems high time to look more deeply at our hermeneutical approach. And just as importantly, this insight should encourage greater charity and grace in how we treat each other when disagreements over certain scriptural interpretations and applications arise.




What the Blog is This?!

Over recent weeks an interesting debate has been launched in the virtual land of the Christian blogosphere. It seems that some Christian bloggers are beginning to question whether or not blogging really is very helpful in producing helpful dialogue between brothers and sisters of the faith- who sometimes hold to differing viewpoints. Some have gone as far as to declare a "blexit"; a succession of blogging activity altogether!

It is somewhat understandable why such a stance would be taken; even amongst bloggers who used to be passionate about the activity. It seems that what some blogging has turned into is not a dialogue so much as it is a propaganda war; where one group states a longwinded argument (without rebuttal from the other side, and without the impression of the real presence of one's sparring partner- which often makes people fire off much more vehemently than they would in person).

The other problem with blogging (both in initial postings and then in subsequent "comments") is that its so easy to fire off the cuff- and then turn around and regret it later. In the case of commenting on others' blog postings, usually once you press that enter button- there is no turning back. I discovered a similarly troubling tendency in relation to email several years ago. Personally, I had to get to the point where I would write an email, but then leave it in a holding pattern for several hours before actually "letting it fly". This technique proved very helpful in my case; because in our human nature it is so easy to be brash. And this tendency is only increased when we can fire away without the gut check of the real presence of a human being sitting across from us.




A "Hardliner" Preaches Love

Isn't it interesting how differently things sometimes appear once the effect of spin has worn off? Just this past week Pope Benedict XVI released his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (God Is Love). Some have reacted with surprise that this man, who used to be known as Ratzinger, would chose the topic of love for his first official papal release.

The way the media portrayed the new Pope running up to his appointment you would think that this wolf-like theolog would have chosen any number of topics in order to lambaste and oppress people with "irrelevant, archaic" ideas that are "out of step" with the contemporary world.

I remember one particular CNN commentator referred to Ratzinger as "a transitional pope". It seemed that she called him this more because she couldn't see any rational group of leaders choosing him to shape the future of the Catholic Church, rather than because of his age.

This is a good reminder that what looks like foolishness to the world can not only be wisdom, but also love.




Two-Way Conspiracies

Recently I have noticed a peculiar phenomena in terms of potential "conspiracies" and the media. On the one hand I agree wholeheartedly with Brian McLaren and others who point out that much of conservative Christian radio seems to gain support (both monetary and otherwise) by making frequest mention of the supposed left wing plot to turn America into a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. While this may "work", it does make wonder about a conflict of interest. Are these conservative radio personalities not influenced by the thought that the more fear they stir up, the more support they will recieve?

Now, on the other hand, I can see the point made recently by Christian groups who argue that Hollywood seems bent on promoting films with plotlines that seem decidedly "left wing". Take for instance the recent acclaim that the controversial film "Brokeback Mountain" has recieved. Is this film deserving of such acclaim- for being a superior piece of cinematic acheivement? Or is it merely being celebrated for so boldly "pusing the envelope"? Hmmm... One cannot help but wonder.

Madonna, Britney Spears and others have made a career of pusing envelopes- and they never once worked for the US Postal Service. However, Spears would be a case in point that constroversy is no indicator of talent and artistic prowess.




Maple Leaf Conservatism?

For the first time in 12 years or so Canadians recently voted in a non-Liberal government. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have taken over the reigns after Paul Martin was unable to follow up the longtime legacy of his predecessor, Jean Chrétien.

It's interesting to me how quickly political winds can change direction. Not so long ago the idea of the Liberals ever loosing an election seemed much like an impossibility.

What was frustrating in the last election was how many Canadians seemed to fall for the scare tactics the Liberals played. The line the Liberals used over and over again was that life under conservative rule would mean a return to a "narrow-minded", "unenlightened", "Bush-like" society.

While this tactic worked in the past, it did not this time around. Although, as has been broadly reported, what was the undoing of the Liberals, more than anything else, was there own ineptitude and legacy of political corruption.

Harper is a confessed Christian who is expected to move Canada ever-so slightly to the Right. He will need to be careful however if he hopes to be sucessful. This is true firstly- because a coalition government means that he will have to negotiate a middle ground to get much of anything done. And secondly- because Canadians have given him only a short rope. The fear stirred up by the Liberals still rolls around in many Canadian brains- and as such they will be watching closely.




Current from: June 2007 - May 2007 - March-April 2007 - January-February 2007 - November-December 2006 - July-October 2006 - May/June 2006 - April 2006 - March 2006 - February 2006 - January 2006 - December 2005 - Christmas Current 2005 - November 2005 - October 2005 - September 2005