I expect that this emphasis on my part will not endear me to some people, mostly on grounds that I am failing to see the significance of things like moral issues, behavior change and political causes. I’ve come to the point that I realize a discussion of the Gospel is going to have a predictable shape:

1) We all know the Gospel. It’s basic.
2) Once you’ve preached or taught the Gospel, then you need to deal with other things.
3) If you are constantly trying to bring the Gospel to the forefront as the main concern, you’re missing the importance of things like behavior change and obedience.

Or

1) Any message on any Biblical text is “the Gospel.”
2) You’re trying to push your theology over basic things like obedience and behavior change.

Or

1) The point is to get people to accept Jesus into their hearts, not turn people into theologians.

In my own tradition as I experience it in several hundred sermons a year, the Gospel is rarely articulated with Biblical priority or in Biblical balance with the rest of scripture. Good ideas from the Bible are common. Concerns of preachers and church leaders are heard every week. Frustrations with the decline of society or poor behavior of individuals is constant. Some form of the Gospel will frequently pass through these sermons in a place where the truth is seen, but it is also not uncommon to hear generic deism, pure moralism or behavior modification based on “Biblical principles.” Vague ideas like “living for God” or “being a good witness” are frequently referenced. As my readers have often heard, sermons without reference to Jesus are so common as to no longer be that shocking.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this decline is how often in 18 years of ministry I have addressed this topic of the Gospel specifically. Never underestimate the power of preaching to make little impact on deeply held beliefs. Clearly, this displacement of the Gospel is not perceived to be particularly problematic. Of course, these are people who have not been exposed to the Gospel-centric emphasis coming out of various places in evangelicalism or reformation traditions today. There is a reason so many of my good friends don’t emphasize the Gospel: to them “Gospel” is a word in front of singing. At most, it references a four step evangelism outline. It is not the central concept in the Christian life. Something like “Holiness” or “obedience” seems far more practical.

In the second post, I will share some of the ways I’ve tried to consistently articulate the Gospel over the years.

This will seem hard to believe, but I simply wanted a way to say I was moving past evangelicalism to something else, but that something else wasn’t what would cause me to say “non-evangelical,” at least using the generally accepted understanding of evangelicals. I wasn’t in any way trying to identify with post-modernism or the emerging church. The Ancient-Future Evangelicalism of Robert Webber really described me, but that label was unclear to me at the time and I still see it as being more ambitious than I ever want to be with “post-evangelical.”

The discernment blogosphere use of the term is synonymous with “apostate liberal in sheep’s clothing.” I notice a graphic at teampyro that says something about tours of the post-evangelical wilderness. Well, my post-evangelicalism is a way of navigating through the evangelical wilderness with the resources of the broader, deeper, more ancient church. I think the discernment blogosphere is talking about Mclaren, Bell, etc.

Let’s be clear about something: whatever post-evangelicalism means here at IM, it’s my own label used my own way, with a few friends along for the ride. There is no movement, no leaders, no conferences, no books. Tossing “post-evangelical” around as a term that describes the opposition from the reformed blogosphere’s point of view has nothing to do with me, unless you want to get down to issues like “are Catholics Christians?”, etc. My discontent with evangelicalism isn’t a rejection of the Protestant evangel.

2. How can you deny that the numbers of evangelicals are growing? How does that numerical growth affect your claim of a “coming evangelical collapse?”

First, if someone takes evangelicals seriously when they start talking numbers, they should know that at the sources, evangelical numbers vary wildly.

Second, what generally registers as an evangelical is someone who self-reports as an evangelical. Have you considered what this actually means?

What percentage of evangelical churches have membership? Meaningful church rolls? Are we talking about people who say they are evangelicals because when they do attend a church, it’s evangelical? Do they mean they vote for the GOP? Are they pro-life? Do they listen to evangelical media/ Like K-Love?

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that we’re talking the evangelical niche-market and not a seriously definable group of people? Why do I have the feeling that evangelical conviction and American self-definition are being mistaken for one another?

One of the reasons I am convinced we are going to have a collapse is because I am convinced no one really knows if most evangelicals are “there” at all. If they are “there,” what is the level of their loyalty? How easily can they not be “there?”

It’s more than a bit optimistic to say that evangelicalism is growing because of reasons that actually forestall an eventual collapse. Evangelical growth among Hispanics and immigrants is undeniable. Growth in selected small segments of evangelicalism is true and good growth. But megachurch growth is transfer and re-affiliation growth. Much of evangelicalism is spin and “low loyalty.”

Look at the numbers in the SBC. The denomination “grows” in various ways, even as it moves closer to generational free fall and the loss of thousands of churches. I’m grateful for the kinds of growth we have in the SBC, but if you are SBC you know what’s actually going on in most of that “growth”: rebaptisms, baptizing children and adding ethnic congregations.

3. Did I hear someone say you would see a Baptist becoming a Lutheran as making a “post-evangelical” turn?

Yes. I believe that the move from evangelicalism to Reformation traditions, such as we saw in the creation of the Reformed Baptist movement starting in the 1960s, is an example of discontented evangelicals looking at the theology of the larger, deeper, more ancient church and making a move in that direction.

That’s certainly true with evangelicals moving to Lutheranism and Anglicanism.

So, ironically, some of the Calvinists who are the most vociferous critics of what I’m saying are examples of a move in a post-evangelical direction.

Chandler’s quoting Eugene Peterson, he who created the much vilified paraphrase “The Message” and who most recently endorsed The Shack with a glowing comparison to Pilgrim’s Progress. Suffice it to say you won’t read a lot of Peterson quotes at 9 Marks or hear his name dropped at Together for the Gospel. Classic mainline liberal, fiery prophet of learning from Dickinson and poets no one can pronounce, renegade translator of the original languages into even more original language, a curmudgeon who lives in Montana and doesn’t answer the phone, unapologetic advocate of “spiritual direction” and “contemplation,” and without question the most passionate advocate of the role of the classic Protestant pastor and the most fearsome critic of whatever it is that passes for a pastor today.

Chandler was reading from page 5 of the most underlined book in my library, Peterson’s nuclear attack on the contemporary re-invention of the pastor, Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity. If you think you are a pastor or might want to be, this book cannot be avoided.

I’ve read every word of Peterson that I can beg, buy, borrow or steal. I discovered him in the original IVP Long Obedience In The Same Direction, and then couldn’t stop. I’ve read Five Smooth Stones. If you have read that one, you can drink coffee with me anywhere.

In 1987, I was a young church staff member with a burning desire to preach, convinced that once people heard me they would melt like butter. Peterson took pastoral ambition and its contemporary manifestations in entrepreneurial and therapeutic garb to the bombing range, tied them down and proceeded to drop explosives for 130 pages. When he was finished, I never- never, never, ever- looked at a pastor the same way again.

You can complain that Peterson’s model of the pastorate is too Catholic, isn’t evangelistic, turns the pastor into a spiritual director, doesn’t match up with the pace of modern life, won’t work in the megachurch (oh my….you have to keep reading Peterson till you get there) and is just a reflection of his personality. I’ll tell you that Peterson is one of the few writers with the courage to keep his eye on the ball and tell the team exactly why they can’t play the game, even if they can point to a big score.

Peterson is closing his writing career with a series of books on Spirituality, The Bible and Discipleship. All are worthwhile. Whoever finds Peterson has found one of the true spiritual masters of our age. He’s PCUSA. His views on the controversial issues of the day probably wouldn’t be popular. He’s a contrarian with a massive burden for Jesus shaped people and pastors. But he speaks to everyone who’s teachable about what it means to be a pastor. Acquire his books and be torn down and built up.

A few words on Matt Chandler. I’ve listened to Chandler for several years and I notice a few things.

This is not one of those guys who shows any plans to join anyone’s club. He says he’s a Calvinist and he quickly says he doesn’t want to be known as one.

He is not anyone’s drooling fanboy, though he’s obviously appreciative of others.

He does not tolerate a cult of personality by looking like he doesn’t notice, all the while liking it. I’ve rarely heard anyone as severe on that aspect of the current evangelical scene.

He isn’t educated and he doesn’t play his church growth and preaching success as proving education doesn’t matter. (I do believe he can be a much better preacher with some academic study of the Bible, but neither God nor Matt asked for my opinion.)

His focus on the Gospel isn’t shorthand for a focus on Calvinism or Reformed theology. There is no reformed winking or nodding.

He genuinely struggles with the issues of multi-site success and a growing mega-church.

He understands the dynamics of hero-worship and ministerial celebrity that are flooding into evangelicalism today. He understands the dark side of technology. He convinces me he fears the potential damage and corruption.

He unashamedly built a large part of his church’s ministry on a Rick Warren program, Celebrate Recovery (lately evolved to their own version.)

In preaching, he cuts it to fit, not to entertain.

He may not be all about Peterson, but he gets Peterson’s critique of the contemporary minister and it is burning inside him.

I don’t think he will have a bobblehead anytime soon.

I don’t think he reads these kinds of posts.

His preaching style can be odd, even uncomfortably revivalistic, but you know there will be the real deal at the core of it all.

If there is someone out there who seems to defy most of the stereotypes, it’s Chandler.

I won’t ruin his life by saying I like him, but you ought to.

Take the Gospel into the world, but stay out of anyplace that serves beer. That’s someone’s version of how the Gospel applies to church planting. Go to jungles, mountains, into the tribes of cannibals or the roughest ghetto, but stay out of O’Charley’s.

Here’s my current theory: it’s not that we are simply ignorant of the Gospel. We can stop announcing that the church needs to hear the Gospel for the first time. It’s more than that. I think most people in most evangelical churches have heard it more than adequately. (Though I am not disagreeing with myself or anyone else that many in evangelicalism’s darker corners haven’t heard the Gospel with accuracy, understanding or personal application.) They may not have your footnotes on justification memorized and they may not be wrath-anxious enough for some of you, but a lot of Christians understand the Gospel.

The problem isn’t simple ignorance. It’s primarily cowardice.

Here’s the Gospel. Here’s life. Let’s apply the Gospel to life, to sin, to church, to ideas, to boundaries, to traditions, to power, to the accepted way of looking at everything.

Or let’s not….because it could cause some trouble and we’re afraid. We aren’t going to go where the Gospel goes. We’re going to get some brakes on that sucka.

The Gospel should create a whole room full of problems from the extreme nature of grace and God’s radical forgiveness. Instead, we want our church planters to stay out of pubs. That’s not the beginning of the cowardice that accompanies the Gospel these days. We want to have fun and feel great, but we don’t want our message- THE message- to upset, overturn and explode our predictable experiences and presuppositions.

We want to blame the Muslims. We want to hate our enemies. We want our money left in the bank. We don’t want to forgive anyone who isn’t sorry. We want the men in church and the outsiders out of sight and quiet. We want the music enjoyable and the youth group fun. We want our values, politics, opinions and certainties left alone. We’ll praise the power of the Gospel to save, but we don’t want a Rock to crash into our comfortable club.

We don’t want the Gospel to DISTURB the way things are. We want the Gospel on a leash. This far and no more. We want it in a box so we can put it where we want to do what we want.

We resent- deeply- those voices who tell us our Gospel is a mini-Gospel and its power is a prop to the way we’ve always wanted things to be. Radicals are annoying. And the Gospel isn’t radical, is it Marge?

If we could hear ourselves talking about all our opinions and “values;” if we could see ourselves making the world safe for our comforts, assumptions and presuppositions; if we could see our no-risk, no-rankle, no-rock-the-boat religion- and how we keep the Gospel tamed- we would be ashamed.

At every place in history, in every church, in every sermon and book, there is one common fact: NO ONE LET THE GOSPEL GO FAR ENOUGH.

We wimped out. We didn’t want to be called liberals, fanatics, johnny-one-notes, progressives, trouble makers. So it was the Gospel that got pushed back into the closet and told to be quiet.

We don’t want a revolution that causes us to question what we’ve always been comfortable with. We want the predictable path, going where we want to go and no where else.

We will venerate other cowards, imitate their tactics and say how much they helped us understand the Gospel. In almost every case, they brought us nothing of the demands and power of the Gospel. They let us be today what we were yesterday.

If someone goes with the Gospel and strange, new, different, unlikely and uncontrollable things start to happen without our permission, we already know that’s divisive or dangerous or just wrong.

Our Gospel is safe. The Gospel isn’t safe.

Our Gospel is predictable and familiar. The Gospel is flying in a new direction.

Our Gospel is familiar and affirming. The Gospel overturns the status quo and shakes us up/down.

Our Gospel is the scenery for our little play. The Gospel runs us all out of the theater because the world is on fire…or could be.

Do we need to know more? Or do we need the courage to stop taming and neutering the announcement that turns the world upside down?

While we’re still tying the Gospel down with the Lilliputian legalisms of culture and religion, the Gospel doesn’t need our entourage around. We need to stand back and let the Gospel go places, do things and set precedents that testify to a whole new Creation brought about by a death-defeating resurrection.

We need to repent of being cowards with the Gospel.

Every so often I hear someone say “I want to see the Glory of God in all spheres of life.”

Really?

I wonder. I really do. If it moved us all out of our political/social/religious/personal/financial comfort zones- if it even challenged the opinions of our favorite pundits or preachers!- would we recognize such a thing?

Or do we mean: I want to see more of the way I think, the way I operate, the way I justify my words, attitudes and actions. When more people agree with me and act like I think they should, then Glory to the Gospel.

Like I said. Our problem isn’t that we don’t know what it means that Jesus is Lord now. It’s that applying that could make a lot of people upset.

So waiter, more of the same please.

“Must say that Catholics are not Christians….”

“Must say that all things ecumenical are bad unless it’s guys on our team writing books or putting on a conference….”

“Must say all mainline Christians are apostate….”

“Must find ways to say our church actually has the pure Gospel others don’t have….”

“Must point out heretics like the emerging church and N.T. Wright…..”

Recently I’ve noticed a new variety of fundamentalist itch.

“Must show that creeds written before the Reformation are deficient compared to Reformation theology….”

Apparently, we’re on track to a kind of KJV-only logic. Don’t trust anything before we got everything right somewhere in there in the Reformation. Somewhere in there. Somewhere.

In a hundred years, we will be warning young theologians about reading the church fathers or anyone before Wayne Grudem. Be careful about listening to preachers before Piper.

Of course it all makes sense. Our various kinds of exclusive Fundamentalism always do. It’s so inclined towards rationalism that making perfect sense to your intellect is never the problem.

Making the case that the Nicene Creed isn’t enough to answer all the questions in Christianity- which no one ever claims- is clear as new glass. You won’t solve every theological issue with the Nicene Creed. No, we’ll need more than that.

Right. But then what are we going to say together as a common creed? Nothing? Jesus is Lord? Your book of Confessions? Whatever’s in the head of the latest reformation cop?

The more you add to that brew, the fewer and fewer people are going to be at the party…oh wait…that’s the real issue isn’t it? Is there a party? Do we want anyone else to stop by and have a hot dog and a root beer? Or is this get-together just for us and our closest friends?

Conservative evangelicals are pretty easily convinced that ecumenical conversation is not nearly as interesting or as helpful as telling all the Eastern Orthodox near you that their church is the “Orthoborg.”

Is the Jesus you are following calling you into ecumenical relationships with other Christians? Not evangelistic relationships, but fellowship around a shared Christ, even if not a shared table?

Or is Jesus giving you your theological policeman’s orders for the day? Get your quota of arrests. Get the Catholics off the streets. Arrest some mainliners. Let’s clean this neighborhood up. And be careful out there.

If grace has created an ecumenical party around the Jesus described in the Nicene Creed, it’s not the church. those can’t be the absolute boundaries. Some are left out. These days, a few that shouldn’t be in may use that good confession to slip in the door. The party may not be much more than a meal, a drink and a few laughs. Or it may be a clinic, a clothes closet and a meal for the poor. It may be working together on ecumenical worship during Holy Week or a prayer walk around your community.

In my house, it’s loving my wife, her friends and her church. At my ministry, it’s loving and sharing a school day with Orthodox, Catholic and every other denomination and tradition.

In my own experience of seeking a Jesus shaped spirituality, it’s learning that “if they aren’t against us, they are for us.” It’s the party grace throws for all the many different kinds of prodigals, sinners and lost sheep Jesus has collected.

It’s about the flavor, scent, sound and presence of grace toward other believers.

It’s not about agreement, but it’s about mutual confession of the ancient faith.

It’s not about the table, but about reverencing the one who is on the table.

It’s not about whether major things are at stake, but about knowing that people for whom Jesus died are always important and worthy of love and respect.

It’s not about whether the Gospel applies, but about how I apply the Gospel.

The ecumenical community is created by Jesus. It’s his guest list, and I can set up a lecture room at the Hyatt and outline my objections, or I can go in and have some food, drink and conversation. Jesus won’t beg me. He’ll just tell me where to find him.

Support the monks of St. Meinrad, who make a great wooden casket/urn at a reasonable price. Will look much better under the tree

Stand by America, Wal-Mart is selling caskets. And urns. I’m not joking.

Any of you with a small funeral home in your community might want to consider two things: Just how far in advance you want to buy that pre-planned service and what is the meaning of the phrase “Some unanticipated future charges may be necessary.”

What Wal-Mart has done for Main Street USA in small town America it is now going to do for the funeral industry in those same towns: deliver what the public wants. irresistably heap. (If you know anything about casket prices, these are quite inexpensive.)

If you buy stock, I’d take a look at whoever made this deal. It’s a brilliant piece of 21st century capitalism. America is SO ready for the Wal-Mart casket.

If it bothers you to spend eternity in a box made by children in China, you might want to see if you can special order.

Reading the small print, there’s no return on this stuff, so if grandma calls and doesn’t like it, too bad. Wal-Mart won’t be doing refunds. Even if you wash it out really well. So I don’t think there will be any great deals on “refurbished” caskets.

I can only imagine what the job of the guy who has to enforce that “No Returns” policy is going to be like. He’ll have enough stories for a book in a few weeks.

Large caskets for large people are available. Catholic caskets? Yes. Just take a look.

Is there any reason we can’t hope for customization? Nascar? Disney? Favorite sports teams? Colleges and Universities. Even sponsored caskets. Cialis. Visa.

I can imagine that Fed Ex is about to have a great time delivering these to older Americans. Some of you can probably look forward to a Thanksgiving visit to the garage where dad shows you the casket he just bought from Wal-Mart. What a deal? Ol’ Jones down the street doesn’t have one of these!

And Christmas. Oh my. Won’t that casket look wonderful under the tree? (By the way Denise and family….the answer is NO.)

You have to wonder how long it will be before Wal-Mart takes the next step: Install a chapel, attached right next to the big box store, and staff it with funeral attendants and a minister.

Wal-Mart, if you are looking to hire someone in the Southeast Kentucky area, I’m available. Will I get a name tag? And an employee discount? I can do the greeter thing when business is slow.

Don’t forget about those urns. We can get Wal-Mart discount crematoriums right there next to the oil and lube shop.

What do you need ma’am? Cremate your husband? Bay 4. You have a coupon? Great.

So what will we put in those local funeral homes? Around here we always seem to need one more tattoo parlor and tanning salon.

I would say use them for start up churches, but if Wal-Mart goes into church planting…..now there’s an idea…..

[One other note: The ministry where I serve gets a lot of donated items from Wal-mart. We usually take it all and find some way to use or pass it on. So if a donated truckload of hot pink oversized Michael Jackson caskets shows up, I may have an on-line auction ]

I’ll never pass as an apologist for Douglas Wilson’s (or Mark Driscoll’s) views on gender. I was turned off to his rhetoric long ago. At the same time, I’m the kind of person who can not like his views on gender and very much like his debates with Chris Hitchens and his books on church life. I’m the guy who has the views on grace that you like and the views on inerrancy you don’t like. I am all about the Gospel and I don’t believe in the rapture. I’m the guy who got followed to the car a few months ago by a good friend who said, “You’re such a good preacher; it’s a shame that you’re so wrong on Genesis.”

I have things I like about Piper and things I don’t. Same with Driscoll. Same with Wright. When my book is out there, it will be the same with me if you’re actually thinking and not just being a shill or a sheeple.

“The commenter’s” story is heart-breaking. Her description of her husband’s domination of her life would have earned him a bloody nose from the “dudes” at Driscoll’s church. And if it makes your head hurt that traditional complementarians can get furious about the abuse of women by men who don’t understand the dynamics of complementarianism, then you’ve just proved to me that you aren’t listening to the depth and diversity of the conversation. Driscoll- love him or hate him- is legitimately fired up on behalf of women and how they are being treated. Deal with it.

I have no sympathy for abusers. Not in any form, shape or fashion. But every day I teach at a school full of high school boys, many without dads, whose only model for being a man is a rapper or an athlete. They are 18 and can’t pull up their pants. They call women bitches and baby mamas without regret. And I see crowds of girls who buy it. They buy the disrespectful treatment and the commodification of their sexuality. I understand where complementarians are coming from when they look out at the destruction of traditional gender roles and wonder if anyone is counting the cost for what it means for boys to never become men and girls to literally idolize prostitutes as role models.

Egalitarians writing books about the evils of fundamentalism at Bob Jones and Christ Church, Moscow might want to visit their local public school- heck, visit their local Christian school- and see the state of things. See how the ideals of equality and respect are doing out there. If you can’t see why complementarianism makes sense in so many communities and sub-cultures, you’re looking past reality.

But the answer may not be traditional complementarianism. I don’t think it is. I believe the answer is the Gospel. I’m an egalitarian in most ways, but I know what I see supposed notions of progressive eqalitarianism doing in marriages and it’s not any reason to say stupid things like “complementarianism leads to abuse.” Abuse, rotten parenting, no agreement on moral/marital basics, financial sin, adultery, porn addiction- these are the sins in the majority of our homes, no matter our views on gender. Have any of you heard Douglas Wilson talk about how the sins of men have ruined families and destroyed the good name of “submission as unto the Lord?”

“The commenter’s” description of her husband is not just sad, it’s sick. Anyone who heard any aspect of that story and approved of us was furthering abuse. No question.

But the fact of abuse doesn’t encourage me to buy into the characterization of complementarians as abusers any more than I believed the study that said men who watched the Super Bowl were the most likely to physically abuse their wives. The badness of bad people will always find something to use as a prop. There’s always a justification for losing your temper or being a jerk. Sure, some props are more appealing to bad men that others. But that doesn’t make the prop bad and it doesn’t mean that we can say whatever we want about an author or throw 5 other characters in the same comment thread and say they are all of one sort.

The reason conservatives and progressives can’t talk to one another are the tactics of vilification. We turn to them too soon. We use them without restraint. We all turn into Bill O’Reilley. Both sides. And more often than not, none of it has anything to do with why “the commenter’s” husband is an abuser. If he comes to me for help and says he’s following Douglas Wilson, I’m telling him that he’s using Wilson to justify abuse. His problem goes all the way to the core of the lies he tells himself to justify the pain he inflicts on others.

If you want to stop abuse, help”the commenter” and her children. And see that the abusive husband takes moral responsibility for his sin, including his sin of using what doesn’t endorse abuse to justify his own.

Proverbs says spare the rod and spoil the child. Most evangelicals don’t believe that’s abuse, but has anyone used it to justify abuse?

But I’ve also learned what it is that snags me, and it’s not always the big issues. It’s usually one word. Yes, one word can throw my switch and give me an almost irresistible yearning to argue my point.

Three examples from the last 24 hours:

1) A debate is going on several places on the blogosphere around this question: “Are the doctrinally obsessed missing the heart of Jesus?”

My answer is a simply “yes,” and the reason is one word: obsessed. You said it. Not me.

Obsessed isn’t doctrinally interested, doctrinally aware or doctrinally correct. Doctrinally obsessed isn’t someone who makes doctrine a priority or who even brings it up frequently. Obsession is….obsession. Single mindedness. Idolatry. Loss of perspective.

I’m obsessed with vanilla oreos. When we are two weeks into February, I’m obsessed with “pitchers and catchers report.” I’m close to obsessed with a new Apple laptop. I’m obsessed with my family’s safety.

If I were obsessed with doctrine, I would be perverting my experience of the heart of Jesus, because obsession with doctrine is against the teaching and example of Jesus himself. Love God with all your heart, etc. Don’t be obsessed with the outlines and definitions. Let them do their good work. See the Pharisees for more information and I Corinthians 13 for a good picture of what we’re going for.

Doctrine rightly placed and rightly valued clarifies and carries the Gospel of Jesus. It centers it and gives it language. Obsession with doctrine equates Jesus with a right view of justification. If we don’t know the difference, our Christianity will become debate points and our discipleship nothing but promoting and publishing our favorite ideas.

2) An IM commenter says about Douglas Wilson, “…My abusive marriage was, in so many ways, modeled on his book, “Reforming Marriage.” (No disrespect to this commenter, with whom I greatly sympathize, as I do with all abused persons. Her comment simply raises an ongoing issue in talking about traditionalists and complementarians.)

I’m not a complementarian, but I understand and respect complementarians. I don’t agree with all of their rhetoric and I don’t agree with all of Wilson’s dramatic metaphors and illustrations in his early work on marriage (and on several other things as well.)

Now I don’t know what behavior the commenter is calling abusive, so I’m not assuming I know everything that went on in a family. That being said, the word “modeled” implies that Wilson would endorse the behavior the commenter calls an “abusive marriage.” I take your presentation and I seek to copy it, i.e. “model” it. It implies the abuser was following the words of Wilson in being abusive, not distorting or twisting them into abusive actions Wilson would not approve of and did not suggest. (I understand that Wilson’s rhetoric of male leadership inevitably leads to excesses with some people, and I have never known a complementarian that didn’t address that. But I lament the lack of focus on abuse, and have written about that here at IM.)

I don’t think we are going to get anywhere in talking about the differences in living out gender relations as Christians if we say taking the other fellow’s book at face value will lead you to abuse. We have to take a more complex view. Wilson is a great target, but great targets aren’t necessarily right targets.)

Anyone who has ever talked with an atheist who knows the Bible is aware of how someone can take many statements in scripture- such as the endorsement of stoning rebellious children to death – and say that abusive parents are “modeling” their abuse on a passage in Leviticus.

Here’s the problem: the writer’s choice of an illustration does not determine the ethics of a person undertaking an action. That ancient Israelites could stone their children in extreme cases and be right doesn’t imply that I should abuse my child and assume I’m right. No, no. That Wilson says a woman must be led by strong male leadership may fall far short of what I understand to be the New Testament message on family life, but it doesn’t give anyone permission to abuse a spouse and I don’t think complementarian views on male leadership make that jump without the addition of the male sinful nature. (Ever hear Mark Driscoll go off on the abusive men in his church?)

Someone who “models” their abuse on someone’s endorsement of strong complementarianism- such as you might see among traditional Amish or among Orthodox Jews- is not being approved in their abusiveness. They distorting a guideline.

I’m all for telling Wilson to chill out on some of those rhetorical theatrics, but the responsibility for abuse can’t be shuttled over to complementarians like Wilson, who teach that women are to be honored and loved as Christ loved the church.

Better sentence, in my opinion: “My confused husband took ideas from men like Douglas Wilson and misused them as a justification for abuse.” On target and helpful in this discussion.

3) My friend Mel says that “Swine flu is mostly hype, stirred up by the President and the media to get the public to support health care.”

The word that gets my attention: “hype.”

Hype as in “The reported numbers aren’t accurate?” Or hype as in “The reported deaths didn’t occur?” Hype as in “They are making this stuff up?” Really?

Now, if hype means “lack of context,” count me in. There’s not enough context in this discussion to be seen under a microscope.

And the public’s lack of scientific knowledge- it’s a known virus, people- is appalling. This isn’t the plague. 90,000 people die from the flu in a typical year in the U.S. The vulnerable populations don’t vary with any of these kinds of diseases. Various protocols are acceptable, but viruses aren’t going to be daunted. They’ve managed to be quite successful on planet earth.

And swine flu as political? How far is that from Farrakhan’s line that AIDS was invented in government labs to kill blacks? Not much different, because now he’s saying swine flu is a plot to kill blacks. When you join the conspiracy club, please take note who else is at the party

The “hype” could be the swine flue, or it could be the various interpretations of why we keep hearing about it. Does someone really believe the President calls in the story? “I want H1N1 on the front page?” His own kids aren’t vaccinated!

Here’s no hype: H1N1 is getting attention because news networks are dying in a war with the internet. Disease, terrorism, crime, entertainment and financial apocalypse keep an audience on the line so advertisers will still pay for Cialis commercials. End of plot.

You can’t just make this stuff up. Mess it up? Sure, but not make it up.

So there you have it: Obsession, modeled and hype. My three words for today. Who knows what tomorrow’s words will be?

A speech about saving America and the church, in case you just don’t care enough actually watch the clip before you comment.

Anytime someone tells me the “Creation museum” is a museum I want to run this piece out. Ham’s organization owns this “museum.” It’s goal is to get the public in and discredit any science that doesn’t come to the conclusions of fundamentalists. You can get all four sessions of this “State of the Nation” speech in the Youtube sidebar. Don’t think that Creationism is a matter of agenda? Watch this talk and get back to me. Tell me that the kids being taken to this “museum” are learning “science.”

Ham believes that the reason young people leave the church is they aren’t taught AIG’s apologetics and views on science. That’s why young people leave the church: failure to teach creationism. (BTW, ask George Barna if his research shows young people want to be taught creationism to answer their questions.)

And what does the creationist dialog with contemporary science sound like? Like this:

All seven sessions can be found at the Youtube site. This is a lobbyist for a Conservative political group redefining science and declaring what the only acceptable attitude toward science can be. Listen to the discussion of “evidence.”

Now let’s be clear: I’m happy for creationists to take whatever approach they wish in their discussions, but I’m deeply concerned that this is being presented as the only true and Biblical “Christianity.” It’s not Christianity. It’s a kind of Christianity and it doesn’t speak for millions of us. I’m not precommitted to a view of science. My religious faith is the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed, not Ken Ham’s philosophy. Science disproves, advances, questions, disproves, advances and on and on. That’s a whole different business. If your science equals “the Bible is the only valid science and the only valid politics,” then say so and cut the “museum” act.

What you are listening to is the culture war. Politics. Not scientific inquiry of any kind, and I’m not sure what a person would have to be to actually miss that point.

I’ve been monitoring a discussion at a prominent Calvinistic blog regarding Richard Dawkin’s defense of evolution in his new book, The Greatest Show On Earth.

I do a unit on the New Atheists in my Advanced Bible class, so I get several hours of Dawkins vs John Lennox each fall. I’m always amazed at how naive Dawkins is regarding any kind of religion that isn’t the backwoods, book burning variety. He seems to think that those who aren’t creationists or fundamentalists aren’t cooperating sufficiently with his certainties of what religion is doing to the world. I could easily do six posts on goofy conclusions Dawkins draws about religion, i.e. there is a logical connection between religion and violence, but there is not a single case where he can see a logical connection between atheism and violence. Mmmmkay.

On Darwinianism, however, I find Dawkins to be a voice worth listening to. He does understand the significance of Darwin’s theories- something that Christians who reject evolution should still appreciate- and he represents well that shrinking minority of atheists who believe science necessarily leads to atheism.

I always find it interesting how Dawkins will, without knowing it, start talking about feelings of transcendence or universal moral sentiments, without realizing he’s echoing some of the finest Christian minds who look at the same questions he does. In the Birmingham debate with Lennox, he gives as fine a statement of C.S. Lewis’s evidence for a universal morality as Jack himself could muster. Dawkins simply credits it all to a Darwinian “lust to be good.” I’m sure you’ve all observed that on the Discovery Channel.

But Dawkins and his book aside- someone will have to buy it for me if I am going to read it- there’s a point to be made in the discussion regarding the message young Christians are hearing, and it will be better made and better discussed here than elsewhere.

One creationist contributed the following after a mention of a recent series of articles regarding a fossil discovery in Ethiopia:

That would be “Ardi” and it wasn’t that recent that “it” was discovered. It was over ten years ago and the remains were apparently such a mess (along with other remains) that they spent the last ten years trying to put “it” together. And wow… what do you know… they managed to figure it out on the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”… what luck!

The commenter is commenting on the publishing of research regarding “Ardi,” a sensational fossil find made in the early 1990s.

Take a moment and think with me. Imagine that you are a young person sitting in a college anthropology class. (My young friend who recently left the faith, Greg, was such a person.) You’ve been brought up in the conservative evangelical faith. You’ve had creationism in science classes straight through middle school and high school. You’ve been exposed to Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind as proof positive that the Bible, not any scientist anywhere, is the only reliable guide to scientific truth.

What do you learn in this commenter?

1) Scientists are making bones say what they want them to say.

2) The fossil finds say nothing coherent. They are “a mess” and any conclusions from them are imposed.

3) Announcements of discoveries like this are orchestrated for media attention.

4) Taking time to evaluate evidence is actually proof that the evidence is being “cooked.”

5) Creationists know all about Ardi and other anthropological discoveries. Trust what they say.

Now, if you are this young person and you read the above comment with understanding, your entire attitude toward science is basically going to be at stake. What you are being told is that such discoveries are tantamount to conspiracies and frauds. If you imagined that you could enter into the study of anthropology or similar fields and simply study the evidence, you’re in for quite a surprise.

This is all about the presuppositions that both “sides” have before any evidence is discovered or discussed. (If you read the review I have taken the comment quoted above from, that’s the major point: presuppositions make any consideration of evidence useless.) Instead of being a discussion of the evidence raised by “Ardi,” this is a “war of the worldviews,” in which considering evidence is apparently simply a casualty or, at best, a waste of time.

And if that sounded completely postmodern to you, too, then I’m glad to not be the only one.

Let me be simple: if we can’t discuss evidence, but are simply playing gorilla warfare with worldview weapons, then our young people aren’t coming to conclusions. They are simply deciding whether to stay on our team and play the game.

You are going to lose hundreds of thousands of bright evangelicals with that approach. You better homeschool them till they are 40 and keep the television firmly under parental control if you are going to pull this off. You’ll need lots of propaganda and manipulative tactics to keep your kids motivated against those evil scientists and their distortions.