November's Precipice is Expanded

Precipice Magazine (Re-visited) is now 2 months old. Our upcoming November issue features an expanded version of the magazine. We're introducing a section called "involve" - dedicated to issues of social justice. November's "involve" will tackle the issue of fair trade. As to why we've added this section we turn to the immortal words of Plato:

"Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom."

Well said.

As always, our November issue will feature four major articles dealing with issues pertinent to Christianity and culture. So be sure to check back in a few days to see the new issue- out at the stroke of midnight on November 1st.

And as always, we extend an open invitation to anyone who wants to drop us a line. We're happy to receive everything from a full-length article, to a simple note that says:

"Hi. I populate cyber-space, therefore I am."

Just kidding. That would be sad. Seriously though, we're always happy to hear from people. Shalom in the maximum way.


Your host,
--Darren King




No Married Priests

Recently Catholic bishops from around the world gathered to come up with some recommendations for Pope Benedict XVI to consider. Of course, in the end, it's the Pope who makes the call. But often popes will go along with the recommendations of the bishops- who represent the various geographic regions and peoples of the Catholic Church.

The issue that's getting the most play in the media is a bit of a "non-event". Not surprisingly, the Bishops overwhelmingly voted to maintain the Catholic Church's position that priests cannot be married.

There are various reactions around the world, and around the Church, to this decision. Some approach it from a pragmatic point of view- arguing that this restriction should be lifted due to the fact that there is an overwhelming shortage of priests available to serve as clergy within the Church. The bishops acknowledged this development- but decided the rule should remain the same regardless.

Others argue that the position is "unbliblical" to start with. In other words, this rule did not exist in the early days of the Church, and so holds no real precedence or authority today. While the Bishops would not contest the lack of such a rule in the early clergy, they would still argue that church law is church law- whether it was authored in the 1st or the 21st century.

From my point of view, this is one of those situations where the Church (notice the capital "c"- in other words- all of us) can learn much from "natural evidence". I wrote a post a few days ago about the evolution of church. This is a prime example where an evolution would be, in my book, a good thing.

Not only does the "unmarried rule" keep many a good lay priest out of Church service, but so too does it sometimes encourage the appointment of people who shouldn't be priests at all- either because they are not called, or, even more troublingly- because they have ulterior and sociopathic motives for joining the priesthood in the first place.

God created the natural order. And from my perspective (and I am just voicing my own thoughts here) the natural order clearly suggests that the vast majority of men were called to be husbands and fathers. To deny a priest such a vocation (and that's what husbanding and fatherhood truly is) is not only to deny a man his God-given role, but it is also to alienate the clergy from the everyday experience of the very people they are trying to represent and serve.

In the end, I think everyone loses.




Missing the Point with Squares and Circles

Somewhere along the way Brian McLaren came up with a catchy phrase- "adventures in missing the point". In reading a recent review of D.A. Carson's book "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" in Christianity Today, that phrase leapt to the forefront of my brain.

At one point during this supposedly even-handed critique of Carson's critique, the reviewer, Eddie Gibbs, says in regards to McLaren and Emergent that "...Carson is correct to critique the blanket condemnation of modernity," and that "as with any culture, there is a mixture of the good, the bad, and the ugly". Funny- I think that's exactly what Brian McLaren and others are trying to say. To suggest that McLaren sees postmodernity as "better" than modernity is to miss the point.

In McLaren's 2001 work, "A New Kind of Christian", the character Neo clearly makes the point that one worldview is not better than another; postmodernity is not better than modernity- it's just different; and to a large extent works with a different methodological syntax than the other. This doesn't even touch on the fact that it would be decidedly "unpostmodern" to anachronistically claim one paradigm is superior to another. Again- a claim like that would be another "adventure in missing the point".

Part of the problem is that some (not all) of McLaren's critics proof-text his work. In other words, they take a small morsel in isolation and try and extract an entire theology from it. This is not a very helpful way to examine McLaren's work because he himself admits he's more interested in posing questions and starting conversations than he is in coming up with any kind of systematic theology. So why would someone then go searching for one?

No matter how much diligent effort (good willed and all) you put into the process, trying to catch a circle with a square peg is to miss the point entirely.




The Evolution of Church

The above title is designed to deliberately push the envelope a little bit. There are a couple of different reasons why this phrase- "the evolution of church", can raise blood pressure. For one- some Christians are still just all around uncomfortable with the term evolution. Obviously that's because the word is now fully immersed in connotations of fish growing arms and legs and walking upright. However, the term itself (all connotations aside) is a wonderful one. There are few words in the English language that do as good a job in describing the incarnational growth we experience through the natural and supernatural process of living life.

The second reason why this title can make some people uncomfortable is that there are still plenty who think the Church is just fine the way it is. To say the church is evolving, to many people, means that the church is giving into the whims of culture; like a form of "theological or ecclesiological fashion".

And yet, the truth is, even the most rigid of Churches does go through transformation- given enough time. The Catholic Church is a good example. While some still see the Church of Rome's views on unmarried clergy and birth control as out of date, those inside the Catholic Church see the reforms of Vatican 2 as ground-breaking and in a sense, revolutionary- when compared to the theology and ecclesiology that preceded it.

It makes perfect sense to me to say that the church should and does evolve. While I am no Humanist, I do believe we have a capacity to grow in understanding- both individually and collectively. I don't trust Man alone to navigate this course. But I do trust the process when Man is led by the Spirit.

I would also add that those of us with a postmodern sensitivity don't see the course of progress merely as a linear phenomena that moves in only one direction. We can learn much by re-learning or rediscovering aspects of our faith that have been long forgotten. The term "ancient future" comes to mind here.

For example, I continue to be fascinated with the Orthodox Church and its way of "seeing faith" through a decidedly pre-modern lens. When more traditional evangelical churches argue as if they have the corner on the theology and ecclesiology market, they would do well to remember that there are traditions, much older than themselves, that see things from a perspective that mirrors a postmodern perspective more so than a modern one.

I often like to apply a rule of nature in situations such as this. In the natural world, organisms that do not evolve or mutate, die. There are really no exceptions to this rule. I think we would do well to realize that this law of God's natural world can rightly apply in the context of our ecclesiology and spirituality as well.

Given the choice between evolution and death, I know which path I would choose.




Natural Disasters and Theology

Saturday's earthquake in south Asia is now suspected to have been responsible for something like 40,000 deaths. That is a staggering number by any standard.

The epicenter of the quake was located below the Hindo Kush mountain range in Pakistan. The effects of the quake were felt over vast distances throughout south Asia.

Knowing that building codes in that region of the world are not what they are here in the affluent West does not really help reduce the shock. We knew the potential was there- but even so, this is a crushing blow.

It seems that natural disasters have reached a new scale in 2005.

Or have they?

I know the question that runs through my brain over and over again, is - are natural disasters happening more frequently and/or more violently than they have in previous years, decades, centuries?

I often hear people saying these kinds of things are happening more now than ever before. But do we really know that? Or are we just being shortsighted?

I haven't heard any "scientific" statistics quoted either way as of late.

We do know that it's hard to make such comparisons because global records of this sort have just not been kept for very long- really only for a blink of an eye in terms of geological time.

As Christians, we wonder- what is the meaning behind these events? The theories amongst the brethren are as diverse as they are passionately held.

Some see this merely as the consequences of a fallen world.

Others see it as the judgment of God.

Still others see it conversely, as the work of Satan.

Some see it as nothing more than the natural fallout that comes when human beings choose to build in locations especially prone to such natural occurrences. They argue that these things only become natural "disasters" because we continue to choose our habitation zones unwisely.

Then there is the whole "end times" question. Are such occurrences a sign? And if so- what exactly do we do with it?

One thought does occur to me in the midst of all of this. Whether it be mudslide disasters in South America, earthquakes and tsunamis in Asia, or hurricanes in the Caribbean and the southern United States, surely these things are being spread out enough (in geographic terms) that at least the idea that God is judging one area or another- should fall on deaf ears. If anything, we should argue that the entire planet is under "unusual" siege.

But then again- if there were people in inhospitable places such as Pluto or Mars ready to weigh in on the debate, they'd probably argue that no one is exempt.

Maybe we should listen to the Martians.

And if nothing else- we can remember to pray.

No one ever said you have to understand fully in order to pray effectively.

Pray that God would strengthen and empower those who are helping with the rescue and relief efforts.

Pray for the families who have lost loved ones.

Pray that this disaster would foster a sense of community amongst nations.

Pray that people, all over the world, would realize just how fragile life is- and as a result would look to God for a sense of greater meaning.




Objectivity of the Court?

Despite an early endorsement, James Dobson (host and founder of Focus on the Family) is now sounding unsure about President Bush's Supreme Court nominee- Harriet Miers.

What is a little startling about this story is that Dobson's initial nod towards Miers was apparently due in part to a private conversation Dobson had with Carl Rove- President Bush's right hand man. Now that this fact has surfaced, Democrats are demanding access to the same information revealed in that private conversation.

It seems that Miers appointment is receiving even more publicity than did the appointment of now Chief Justice John Roberts. The reason why this appointment is considered so crucial is that Miers (or whoever takes this open slot on the Supreme Court) will hold the "swing vote" in future judgments on issues as pivotal as the legality of abortion.

Conservative leaders see this as an opportunity to finally repeal Roe vs. Wade. Considering the fact that the opposite end of the political spectrum is worried about the very same thing, we're likely to see the opinionated dialogue rise to a crescendo over the coming weeks.

What many find astonishing about the appointment of Miers is that there is so little "paper trail" to follow- in terms of discerning how she might vote on such matters.

And I find this interesting. It seems that while we continue to talk as if, as John Roberts put it, judges (supreme or of any other kind) are supposed to act like passive referees, our actions seem to suggest other beliefs. People want to know what a potential appointee's opinions are ahead of time, because they assume that these same views will carry over on "judgment day"; regardless of the arguments made during the actual proceedings.

So much for the objectivity of the court.

I think this only goes to show that the modern assumption regarding the possibility of observational "objectivity" is functionally long dead and gone.




The Shroud of Turin

For centuries now this particular piece of burial cloth has fascinated believers and unbleievers alike. And the debate about the origins of the Shroud continues. This month The 3rd International Dallas Shroud Conference takes place.

To many, recent revelations seem to support the theory that this was indeed the burial cloth of the Jesus we all know and love.

For years, it was the carbon dating done on pieces of the Shroud that cast the most doubt. But more recent evidence suggests that the pieces tested may have been woven into the original shroud at a later period- perhaps in the Middle Ages.

Still, the debate continues- and likely will for some time to come...




Intelligent Design On Trial

This past month saw a small group of parents in HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania, sue the Dover area school district over its decision to add "Intelligent Design" to the curriculum it teaches students.

Pennsylvania is the first state of the union to make such a change in curriculum- though its expected others will follow. Rather than merely replacing what has been known as "Creationism"- which directly asserts the existence of God, "Intelligent Design" theory seeks only to suggest that there is an apparent "intentionality" behind the creation of life in the universe.

The eight families sueing the school district argue that "Intelligent Design" is only a re-cloaking of the "same 'ol God argument".

This argment seems to beg the question. Obviously a theory called "Intelligent Design" is going to suggest the existence of some form of intentional, creative force behind everything. But this is no more a "dogma drive" than is the theory of evolution's counter-claim that there is no such intentional, creative force. Yes, these are two distinct views/theories, but surely its absurd to suggest that one is any more biased than the other.

"Expert witnesses" argue that there is nothing scientific about the Intelligent Design theory. There may be something to what they're saying. But maybe that's where we need to shift our educational approach. The scientific method is useful, but it has its limits. Why not let our children imagine, and explore other means of verifying truth.

Until all the evidence is in (and not just the kind that is scientifically verifiable), it seems that any reasonable proposal deserves attention. After all, each one has underlying assumptions. Only a modernist would assert otherwise:).




Emergent a Fad?

The UK's Christianity Magazine recently published an article in which a Vineyard UK pastor questioned the aims of Emergent and people like Brian McLaren. This pastor asks:

"...Does the (emergent movement) have something to say to us in the UK church, or do they want us to retreat to Christianity devoid of the manifest presence and power of God?"

Huh?.. How did he get there? Where does he find that in anything that Brian McLaren or Emergent in general has said/written?

This article opens with this pastor expressing frustration that young people in his congregation often come to him with the latest "fads" to dress the Church in. He says these ideas usually originate with the Emergent Church.

Fads? Does he really think that all Emergent and people like McLaren are trying to address is the equivalent of "theological fashion"?

It's frustrating to read such resports. It suggests that many Christian leaders still greatly misunderstand how the "postmodern factor" is affecting things. Despite what many continue to think, this is not about window dressing.

I'm quite positive that people like McLaren would argue for anything but the adoption of fad-culture. Seeker sensitive movements might be accused of this- but that's not what Emergent is. The questions posed in the Emergent conversation address the walls of the building, not the wallpaper.

It is human nature to dismiss that which we don't understand; unfortunately so.




Messianic Jews and Christian Outreach

News out of the American South this week - The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization, is condemning the Southern Baptist Convention for using a group of Messianic Jews in evangelistic efforts.

The Southern Baptist Messianic Fellowship has a mission to "to encourage Jewish believers that their ethnic and historical heritage need NOT be lost upon their commitment to Yeshua [Jesus]."

Abraham Foxman, the Anti-defamation League director, was quoted as saying:

"If people convert, that's their individual business, but don't use them as a tool to convert other people."

I think the Apostle Paul and millions of others missed that memo.

Religious tolerance and open dialogue is one thing, but to ask Christians to keep the gospel to themselves, kind of misses the entire point of the exercise.

Relativism taken to such an extreme is absurd.




The Daunting Task of Defining "Playing God"

It's official- John Roberts is now the 17th chief justice of the US Supreme Court. He was sworn in to his new office as head of the nation's top court this week.

Considering the fact that Roberts is only 50 years old (almost a spring chicken by supreme court justice standards) it's basically a given that he's going to be offering judgements for the next several decades.

When considering that likely development, one cannot but wonder what kind of broad-reaching cases will come before the "Robert's Court" in the years and decades to come. A host of extremely controversial issues are likely to arise during Robert's reign; everything from the ethics of human cloning to advanced biological profiling.

It seems that the speed of technological advancement is making the job of defining what is permissable according to the constitution is becoming increasingly difficult.

Generation after generation in the 20th century had to define, and in many cases "re-define" what human activities were equivalent to an act of "playing God". That definition has undoubtedly been a sliding one. Consider for instance that a majority of American Christians were once against birth control in any form.

One wonders where those lines will be drawn when Judge Roberts is making rulings 30 years from now.




Narnia and Commercialism [What Would Aslan Think?]

As the early December release of the motion picture adaptation of C.S. Lewis' classis "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" draws closer, more and more of Disney's and Walden Media's publicity blitz are coming to light.

First there was your standard visit with Santa at the mall, why not extend the invitation to Aslan? That's right- the nationwide chain of Traubman shopping centers will be featuring Narnia-themed sets (including a walk-in wardrobe of course) for mall enthusiasts to enjoy as the Christmas season approaches.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that even for those of us eagerly anticipating the upcoming release of TL,TW,&TW, that there will come a point where the hype will be too much to endure.

And one can't wonder how Aslan would respond to the blatant commercialization of his famed little empire- perhaps he would roar?



Current from: September 2005