You might also want to read an IM essay from almost 8 years ago: The Little Brothers of St. Archie Bunker.

There’s always “that one guy….”

Some of the posts here at Internet Monk run well over a hundred + comments these days, and you won’t be surprised that someone usually finds a way to get deleted. I’ve come to call that predictable commenter “that one guy.”

“That one guy” seems to always be on a different page from the rest of us in the conversation, and that’s not always bad. A different point of view can be God’s truth. I believe that. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on here.

Let’s review some of the classic contributions by “that one guy.” [Continue reading]

UPDATE: Check out: “Seven Reasons Women Stay In Abusive Relationships and How To Defeat Each One of Them” by John Shore.

From Kentucky.com, following a high profile murder that followed a high profile history of domestic abuse

The news reports of the recent death of Amanda Ross, allege that she was a victim of domestic violence. Based on statistics, it is likely domestic violence is happening across all faith communities in Kentucky. (According to the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association, in 2007, over 4,000 Kentuckians were in shelters, including 2,313 women and 1,760 children.) Are faith communities adequately addressing the problem?

1. It’s an issue where women and children are the victims of men’s sins (primarily), so it’s an uphill battle right there.

2. Scripture deals with “love your wife as Christ loves the church,” and the application is obvious, but none of Paul’s sin lists or our favorite parables or stories contain a guy who slaps around his girlfriend or a man who beats his wife when he’s drunk.

3. What’s the payoff for the average pastor who brings this up? Counseling women and hearing embarrassing secrets. And then….divorces. We all know how evangelicals feel about those….or, at least most of them

4. Never has the church’s need to develop its own counseling resources with women specializing in helping women been more obvious. [Continue reading]

Let me begin by saying that I did not receive a review copy of The Lutheran Study Bible, though I probably could have. Like the ESV Study Bible, I bought my own copy from the publisher. I’m open to bribes, kickbacks and rental, but in this instance, it didn’t happen.

Concordia Publishing has now completed what I think is a rather extraordinary collection of books for those interested in historic, orthodox Lutheran spirituality: The Reader’s Edition of the Lutheran Confessions, The Treasury of Daily Prayer, The Lutheran Service Book (I’d love to have someone donate ten of these to our ministry) and now The Lutheran Study Bible. I know of no other tradition that has accomplished anything remotely like this in such a usable form and in a way that can introduce anyone- clergy or layperson- to the riches of the Lutheran version of the Reformation and the Lutheran approach to spirituality.

It is ironic then, that I have to say at the outset that outside of existing Lutheranism, it’s doubtful that large numbers of evangelicals will ever seen these resources without asking for them on special order. I am sure that large bookstores will have the occasional volume here and there, but unless one is within Lutheranism, on a Lutheran campus, visits a Concordia store, listens to Lutheran radio or friendly confessional internet programming, these resources will never be known. [Continue reading]

Therefore, a slogan that was popular some years back: “Jesus yes, Church no”, is totally inconceivable with the intention of Christ. This individualistically chosen Jesus is an imaginary Jesus. We cannot have Jesus without the reality he created and in which he communicates himself. Between the Son of God-made-flesh and his Church there is a profound, unbreakable and mysterious continuity by which Christ is present today in his people. He is always contemporary with us, he is always contemporary with the Church, built on the foundation of the Apostles and alive in the succession of the Apostles. And his very presence in the community, in which he himself is always with us, is the reason for our joy.

Agree?

Anyone remember a religious leader talking about the “heresy” of individual salvation lately? You might be surprised how difficult it can be to continue to affirm that Jesus is saving sinners as individuals, not dispensing salvation to a group through a church.

Agree that when an individual “chooses” Jesus and not the church it’s an “imaginary” Jesus? Agree that Christ’s way of being present in the world is the church? There’s plenty for this collective-resisting Protestant to talk about, but I’m mostly interested in the papal swing at the well-known fat pitch “Jesus, Yes; the Church, No.”

“Jesus, Yes; the Church, No” has been around for a long time. It makes a good sign. Sounds good as a cheer. [Continue reading]

When I started studying Mark’s Gospel many years ago, I learned that, in Mark, faith is not contrasted with unbelief, but with fear.

The command to “not be afraid” was common in Mark. The disciples are constantly choosing between faith and fear as they journey with Jesus. It is fear, not unbelief, that cripples the community of Jesus-followers.

I don’t believe Christianity is a mind-game where we force ourselves to think happy thoughts. Far from it, I believe Christianity allows- even insists on- a full embrace of the difficulties, obstacles and deadly realities of life.

What does concern me, however, is the response of disciples to the media universe we live in, a media universe that uses fear in ways that are crippling to the mission of Jesus and detrimental to the work of the Holy Spirit. [Continue reading]

Read Luke 18:9-12

“He expects us to make mistakes. He gives us millions (indeed billions and trillions) of chances. If anything, God likes our weaknesses because it enables him to exercise his infinite mercy. When Paul prayed earnestly to be delivered from a particularly annoying weakness, God said to him, ‘My grace is enough for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.’ (2 Corinthians 12:9) According to this text, we do God a great favor by accepting our weakness. So there is no reason to be saddened by the fact that we do not measure up to our idealized image of ourselves and of how we should perform in the spiritual journey. That obviously is an ego trip.” (p. 104, Manifesting God by Thomas Keating) Thanks Lurker Joanie

“Lord, I thank you that I am not like other men.”

Of course, we are like other human beings. The Pharisee’s prayer was an exercise in self-deception. Informing God that we aren’t like other people is a particularly pointless endeavor, though it made enormous sense to the Pharisee, whose entire religion was based on separation from others.

“I’m right and you’re wrong.” How far should we go down that road? It does take us somewhere, but where does it ultimately take us? If you get out the map, it eventually takes all of us to the place where we’re all wrong, in one way or another. [Continue reading]

I received two letters this week from friends/readers asking for input and advice on relating to atheists in their workplace/families. It brought to mind a number of things I’ve been wanting to say about evangelicals and their take on atheism.

When I was growing up in a fundamentalist Baptist church, the face of atheism was Madalyn Murray O’Hair. I knew three things about O’Hair: she had taken prayer and the Bible out of our public schools, she was trying to get religious programs off of television and she was a weirdo.

For years, O’Hair provided the face of atheism to America: an angry, ranting, God-hating, bitter old woman who wanted to force her bitterness on the rest of the country. The way to defeat O’Hair was simple: Christians needed to sign a lot of petitions and vote the right way when elections came around.

It was safe to say that few people wanted to be like Mrs. O’Hair, no matter what their case against God and religion happened to be. [Continue reading]

For the past couple of years, the term “Gospel centered” has become ubiquitous in the blogosphere. And as the use of this term has become more and more common, I’ve become less and less certain that its meaning is simply….being Gospel centered.

I’m not saying that it means something other than Gospel centered or something less than Gospel centered, but I am suspicious that it might mean more than just Gospel centered.

I’m sure I’ve used the term many times. I don’t know any way to use it other than to mean….we’re centered on the Gospel. But as I think about how the term is now evolving and how it is being used in various quarters, I think we may need a clarification.

So anyone who considers themselves qualified may write me in the comments or via email and help me here. Does Gospel centered have some fine print? Should those of us who occasionally use the term be aware of exactly what flag we are waving?

Specifically, here are my questions: [Continue reading]

UPDATE: This has been a great conversation, but we’re starting to get some drive-by comments with little substance. Keep the tone and content to a high standard please.

WATCH: This short video- 8 minutes- of the building of a Gothic worship center for Covenant Presbyterian (PCA) church in Nashville. Don’t comment without watching, please.

Covenant Presbyterian Church in Nashville is a new church (1990) with an incredible worship center.

Jesus didn’t build cathedrals – or impressive temples- on earth. The New Covenant is explicit: the old temple worship and ALL its externals- are gone.

I don’t believe God wants most churches to build cathedrals to worship in. Most churches, as I see the cross cultural church planting task, should consider whether they even need a building, at least for a very long time. There’s a lot of reasons not to do this.

The resources spent on a Gothic Cathedral like this are mind-boggling. The economics of Jesus seem plain enough. the commitment to upkeep is massive. Such expenditures could fund missionary church planting efforts of monumental significance, print millions of Bibles, eradicate vast hordes of poverty and revolutionize the mission of the church in many places. (I have no idea what CPC’s resulting commitment to missions is, by the way, and I’d like to know.)

But I have changed my mind a bit on this subject, so stand by and take notes if you are tracking my inconsistencies. [Continue reading]

UPDATE: Ryan Cordle hits a home run in his response to this piece.

The discussion about the atheist’s report of attending a Planetshaker’s worship experience could be repeated a thousand times a week here at IM, and has been in various forms down through the 8 year history of this site.

Our Irish Catholic friend Martha, not being familiar with American evangelicals, had an epiphany in the middle of the discussion that’s worth reprinting:

Now see, here is the part that makes my head spin.

And I don’t want to sound like a proselytizing Catholic who’s criticizing the non-Catholics, because that’s not my intent, and we’re just as bad in the other direction.

But I did have a real moment of cognitive dissonance (fancy term, heh?) when I tumbled to it that by “worship leader”, people meant the person in charge of the music.

I was going “But…but.. the pastor? minister? whatever you call the guy on the altar? okay, you don’t call it an altar, probably, but… but…”

And that’s the head-spinning bit for me. Prayer isn’t worship, listening to the Scriptures isn’t worship, the service of the Lord’s Supper/Communion isn’t worship.

Worship means singing along (or more like, reading some of these posts, sitting and listening) to sub-rock songs. Worship means having a band (an actual band, with drums and guitars) playing and a soloist warbling.

That’s worship? Or a rock concert for the formerly hip and the non-hip (amongst whom I’d include myself, so not sneering)?

Seriously, as an interested, fascinated, and rather frightened outsider, when did “worship = watered-down secular music” become the equation?

[Continue reading]

UPDATE II: Phillip Winn has an excellent response to this post.

UPDATE: Moderation is on. My apologies that I have to do this so often.

Bill Kinnon reviews DeYoung and Kluck’s newest book, Why We Love the Church. I haven’t read the book, and won’t, but Bill did, and talks about it.

Tim Challies reviewed the book in early July.

A sympathetic DeYoung reader/hearer makes some very pertinent observations about the direction of things.
My mailbox is the constant recipient of the stories of those who have left the church, are considering leaving, or are wondering why they haven’t. Their stories are a large part of what I carry with me when I write or speak. Some of their stories are typical of leavers, and would not impress those who love the church. Other stories, however, are clearly stories of churches that are wrong. Deeply, painfully, often irreparably wrong. These stories make me angry that there exists people who, in the name of the infallibility of Christ, claim their church is right in situations of heinous and obvious wrongdoing.

I often get links to websites where individuals and groups in particular churches are using the internet to air their grievances against their church. I tend to believe a lot of what I read because it comports with human nature, but I respect the process churches may be using to deal with these situations, so I don’t ever publish those links. That may be wrong, but it’s a choice I’ve stayed with, so I am not an unaware critic with an agenda to tear up ministries and churches. Far from it.

We’re in an interesting cycle. A bunch of Protestants- Protestants, mind you- are constantly writing and blogging about the church in a way that leaves little room for their churches to be wrong and no way for the churches of their theological opponents to be right. [Continue reading]

Tim Challies recently reprinted an extended quote from Kevin DeYoung’s writing on the emerging/emergent church. I won’t reprint it here, but if the rest of the post is going to make any sense to you, go read it all.

When I first read this, it tipped my already leaning inclination to be highly annoyed at needless stereotyping and dividing of the Christian family by things that are neither significant nor truly divisive, but simply are the perceptions and caricatures of one team over another. We’ve come to the point where portraying emergent Christians as “useless idiots” is an approved form of bigotry, and it does positive harm. I posted at the BHT while I was steamed up, then decided to give DeYoung the benefit of the doubt, at least on this quote, and say he was simply having a little fun.

I’ll admit that DeYoung comes off like the witty kid who can make fun of the other kids without seeming to be all that mean, but the mean kids will find it hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

So turnabout is fair play, and perhaps a look in the mirror makes the point whatever way you want to take it: caricature, satire or humor. So courtesy of Adam Omelianchuk, author of one of the better explanations of why you don’t have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian, here’s the same passage, but with the gun sights aimed the other way. [Continue reading]

NOTE: Despite the fact that this post is law, you should still read it

I want to talk about a specific problem in preaching and teaching: the problem of preferring law over Gospel.

I consider the primary problem with preaching and teaching in my Southern Baptist tradition these days to be an obsession with (or addiction to?) preaching the “law.” To put it mildly, it’s brutal out there. In many churches and ministries, you’re getting clubbed into putty with the law and hearing slightly less Gospel than what you’d get in fifteen minutes of country music, all courtesy of a preacher who has no excuse not to know better.

I’m using the simple Lutheran “law/Gospel” division here: all of scripture is either what God commands/demands under penalty or what he promises/provides freely by grace. This is law and Gospel. “Do” or “Done.” Moses or Jesus. God the accountant older brother or God the Father of the Prodigal. Advice or announcement. Sinai or the cross. Threat or comfort. Blessing or curse. You do it or else. God did and praise.

If you get this, Luther said, you are a theologian even without the degree. So if you don’t know this, learn it, and if ou learn it, use it. Go to New Reformation Press and get you some Rod Rosenbladt or, if you’re up for it, the book by Walther. (Lutherans can make suggestions for the rest of us on this.) [Continue reading]

6: 9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. -Paul the Apostle, First Letter to the Corinthians

I’ve always been encouraged that there is so much discussion of the Gospel in the Christian blogosphere, but I’ve been disappointed where most of that discussion has focused. I’m sure there’s a great need to clarify the differences between Piper and Wright on the nature of justification, but I doubt that the church on the corner has many people walking in the doors who particularly care. (Oh, I know that the theologians among us can tell us why they should care, but the theological class has never suffered from a lack of confidence in the significance of their particular areas of interest, yours truly included.) [Continue reading]

I’m going to comment on three documents, and I don’t want to reproduce them here. All are available online. One is “A Post-Evangelical Manifesto” and can be found at Next Wave Magazine’s web site. It is written by Raffi Shahinian.

Another is “The Jesus Manifesto” written by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola. It can be found at its own web site, though the font is ridiculously tiny, and you may want to download the pdf at the bottom of the page.

Finally, the “Call To An Ancient Future Evangelicalism,” which was one of the last things to come from the ministry of Robert Webber.

I answered the question “What is a post evangelical?” here and here. [Continue reading]