I wonder what you might think about it?

Then, on the other hand…

Jonathan Fisk calls out Bethke and charges him with not adequately defining his terms and with promulgating a false dichotomy. I don’t post this for you because Fisk specifically promotes Lutheranism (though I personally agree with him), but because on a broader level, I think he offers a better way of thinking about how Jesus and religion relate to one another.

Oh yeah, and the clips from the Scott Wesley Brown video from the 70′s are worth twice the price of admission.

OK, it’s all yours. Have your say. Play nice.

Note: please make sure you watch the videos. Don’t just comment on what you may have heard elsewhere.

CM: I’m sorry I haven’t been able to moderate as closely as I’d hoped today. I’m going to close the comments. I think we’ve covered this enough for now. I’m more convinced than ever that we as Christians are going to have to learn to talk about issues like this in more loving and helpful ways. We’ll give it another try soon.

. . .

As I have been driving around the city lately, I’ve noticed billboards for a “new” church. The slogans are catchy and direct people to their website. So I checked it out.

The billboards are advertising a name change for a congregation that emphasizes ministry to the LBGT communities. They are a fully “affirming” church, in fact, the original congregation was founded by 18 gay believers who felt unwelcome in other churches. They are known for their intentional outreach to and inclusion of LBGT folks, and this ministry has come to define them.

But now, in their informational and promotional materials, they report that they are trying to broaden their appeal and become known as an “Emerging Church” that goes beyond the old categories of thinking, welcoming all people, celebrating diversity, and encouraging independent thought.

…our Vision is to become one of the world’s foremost Emerging Churches, then share that model of ministry with others, ultimately affecting the course of the global Christian movement.

Although there is no one fixed definition of an “Emerging Church,” we define it as a church that operates in accordance with the Guiding Principles listed above.

Congregations who self-identify as Emerging Churches are generally motivated by a deep desire to move beyond the conservative/liberal divide that has come to characterize modern Christianity and get back to focusing on the basics of following Jesus, as presented in the Holy Gospels. Emerging Churches encourage honest questions and allow room for freedom of thought and conscience.

What interested me as a subject of discussion was their statement in which they contrast their vision with that of “traditional, institutional” churches. In essence, they are saying that many churches today are not presenting the true Jesus, while their aim is to recover an accurate presentation of who he is and what he came to do. Here’s the statement:

There is a huge gap between how Jesus is described in the Bible and how he’s often presented in many churches. It’s almost as if the real Jesus (generous and loving) has been kidnapped, and a false Jesus (mean and judgmental) has been trotted out in his place. At ____________ Church, we’re under no illusion that we’ve got it all figured out. But we are genuinely concerned and want to spark an honest dialogue.

Consider the evidence:

• The real Jesus taught that his followers should take a flexible approach, doing what love requires in any situation (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 3:1-6). Many churches today teach that rules are more important than love.
• The real Jesus offered hope (Luke 4:18-19); one of his most common statements was, “Be not afraid” (Luke 12:32). Many churches today actively promote fear.
• The real Jesus defended sinners from attack (John 8:1-11). Many churches today lead the charge against them.
• The real Jesus empowered women spiritually (Luke 8:1-4; John 20:11-18). Many churches today teach that only men are worthy of spiritual leadership.
• The real Jesus encouraged simple living (Luke 12:13-34). Many churches today celebrate flashy materialism.
• The real Jesus celebrated diversity in God’s creation, including gay and transgender people (Matthew 8:5-13; Matthew 19:1-12). Many churches today call diversity an abomination.
• The real Jesus boldly crossed racial and ethnic boundaries (John 4:1-30; Luke 10:25-37). Many churches today are segregated by race and ethnicity.
• The real Jesus celebrated life and loved having a good time (Matthew 11:16-19). His first miracle was to create wine (John 2:1-11). Many churches today give the impression that fun is dangerous.

The list could go on and on. There’s a huge gap between the real Jesus and the Jesus often presented by institutional Christianity.

Now, it is no secret that Internet Monk has a well-earned reputation for being critical of the church, especially in its lack of a “Jesus-shaped” spirituality.

But I would like to know what you think about this statement, the contrasts it draws, the criticisms it levels against the traditional church, and the vision of Jesus it promotes.

WARNING: I am not going to tolerate belligerent behavior in the comments. Speak clearly, speak directly, and feel free to express your opinions strongly. However, keep in within the bounds of courtesy and respect. Any questioning of salvation or use of demeaning language is strictly prohibited and I will not hesitate to “trash” offensive comments.

You are having a dinner party for four, including yourself. If you could invite anyone else in the world, living today, who would you ask to join you at the table? Why would you ask those particular people? What interests you about them? What would you like to ask them?

Today, this is my answer. If I were to have a dinner party and invite three others to join me at the table, I would ask a historian, a leader in religion, and someone who has given me great enjoyment over the years, probably a musician.

For my historian, I would invite David McCullough.

For my religious leader, I would ask Tom Wright.

For my musician, I would call James Taylor.

I will be glad to discuss why in more detail in the comments, but suffice it to say at this point that David McCullough may be the most respected popular historian in the world. I recently heard him say, “If I were an expert at something, I would never write about it. For me the joy of choosing a subject is anticipating how much I will learn.” Few characteristics are more attractive to me than that kind of hunger. Tom Wright is a predictable choice, though Eugene Peterson would certainly do if Wright had to cancel. There is no theologian in the world, particularly among evangelicals, who is as interesting and well-spoken as the former Bishop of Durham. And why James Taylor? Well, first of all he represents one of a handful of musicians I appreciate whose career basically spans my lifetime of being a music lover. Secondly, he has provided my family and me a popular soundtrack for our life. No one has brought us more hours of listening pleasure than JT.

I’m sorry to say that this is a males-only table tonight. Next time, I will have a party for the three women I find most interesting.

Now, tell me who you will be having at your dinner party.

REUTERS: Mike Segar

By Chaplain Mike

Have you read reports about the controversy concerning the ceremony of remembrance at the Sept. 11 Memorial dedication next week? No Christian clergy or leaders of other faiths will participate and no formal prayers will be offered. Some in the church and in our culture think that is wrong. Others agree with the decision.

During this week to come we will feature several posts reflecting on 9/11, and we will kick that off by inviting you to discuss this matter.

To prime the pump, here are some quotes expressing various opinions on the “clergy ban”:

• “Your plan to exclude pastors and prayer from the Ground Zero commemoration is not only offensive to the families of victims, but strangely overlooks the role that faith played in bringing healing to countless lives,” (Petition from Family Research Council, signed by 55,000+. Source: Christian Post)

• “This is a shameful example of anti-religious bigotry,” said Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “This once again betrays the secular bias against religion in certain liberal elements of our society whose epicenter is New York City.” (source: Christian Examiner)

• “The way I and many other faithful Christians see it is as an act of mercy—sparing us the spectacle of bundling all religions together as if they are worshipping one god or as if all these gods are equal.” (Michael Youssef, Church of the Apostles, Atlanta. Source: Michael Youssef.com)

• “I’m stunned. This event affected the whole psyche and soul of the country, and you are going to have no prayer? What’s a memorial service if you are going to leave God out of it completely? It seems kind of hollow,” said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, which has sent “action alerts” to its 2.3 million subscribers urging them to write to Bloomberg to protest the ceremony lineup. (source: Huffington Post)

• “The clergy gag rule is being instituted to avoid ‘disagreements over which religious leaders participate.’ But since when has this been an issue? Plenty of clergy, including an imam, spoke at an interfaith service at Yankee Stadium after the attacks, and they managed to pull it off without a problem. Why would it be any different this time?” (Bill Donohoe, President of the Catholic League)

• “Florida Pastor Joel C. Hunter also told The Christian Post…that a 9/11 ceremony without church leaders or prayer paints an inaccurate picture of America. ‘It’s going to be exclusionary, secularist only, and we are one of the most religious countries in the world. So, the bottom line is, this is not how we were founded. This is not who we are,’ Hunter said.” (source: Christian Post)

• Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani urged Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Thursday to reconsider his decision to bar religious leaders from speaking at the ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”If I were the mayor, and this came up, I’d have a religious presence there,” said Mr. Giuliani during an interview with The Wall Street Journal.”I think [Mr. Bloomberg] has a right to make the decision and say, ‘We’re going to do it exactly the same as we did it in the past,’” Mr. Giuliani said. “He also has the ability to say, ‘We’ll make a slight alteration in light of how important religion was to many of these people.’ It could be done very simply by just having a priest, a rabbi, a minister and an imam together and say a little prayer at the beginning.” (source: Wall Street Journal, Sept. 2, 2011)

• “Many people would understandably prefer to see a presence of clergy, but priority must be given to families of victims — that is the overriding concern,” said Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, executive vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis. “If you do include clergy, then the question becomes, ‘Which faiths should be represented, which are not represented, how does one include everyone?’” (source: Huffington Post)

• “The ceremony was designed in coordination with 9/11 families with a mixture of readings that are spiritual, historical and personal in nature,” said Evelyn Erskine, a spokeswoman for Bloomberg, in an email to CNN. “It has been widely supported for the past 10 years and rather than have disagreements over which religious leaders participate we would like to keep the focus of our commemoration ceremony on the family members of those who died,” she said. There will be moments of silence in the 10th anniversary observance so people can have times of “personal and religious introspection,” Erskine told CNN. (source: Christian Examiner)

• “In a city where the most residents in recent memory now cite religious faith as strongly important, New York is tone-deaf to exclude all religion when remembering the slaughter of over 3,000 innocents,” says Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy. “To exclude clergy even at a memorial service implies that religion is not welcome in the public square, even in mourning.” (source: Charisma News)

• “At the end of this argument-filled day, not having the clergy involved in the memorial service is what’s best for everybody. In fact is that I’d have to argue against Cabrera when he said, ‘This is not a message of unity when you begin to exclude people who were crucial to the turnaround moment that we needed.’ What Mayor Bloomberg and his office are doing is the exact opposite of that; it is in fact a message of unity because they’re stripping all faiths away and leaving attendees to remember as one people. After all, what else are those moments of silence for, than to practice remembering in your own faith? The mayor should be commended for making such a daring political move; he’s taken a controversial stand in an effort to bring a multicultural city, and country, together to remember those we’ve lost. (Tyler Brown, Kansas State Collegian)

Here is some historical and contextual perspective about 9/11 commemorations:

• “A National Day of Prayer and Remembrance was held three days after the attacks. The Sept. 14 observance featured a service at Washington’s National Cathedral at which President Bush and Billy Graham spoke. On Sept. 23, an interfaith memorial service was held at Yankee Stadium in New York City.” (source: Christian Examiner)

• “Clergy have never been an official part of the 10 remembrance ceremonies at ground zero, which include one six months after the attacks and one on each 9/11 anniversary since. Instead, the events have featured moments of silence during which audiences may reflect and pray. Six such moments are planned this year — two to recall when each of the twin towers was struck, two to recall when each tower fell, one to mark Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, and one to remember the attack on the Pentagon. But while there has been little controversy over the lack of formal religion at previous ceremonies, this year’s event has generated petitions and responses from religious figures across the country.” (source: Jaweed Kaleem at Huffington Post)

• “The bottom line is for 10 years we’ve been doing this for families, and we’re going to continue to do it for families,” Mayor Bloomberg stated. (source: Examiner.com)

• [Rabbi Joseph Potasnik] noted that other commemorative events will have clergy and prayer. These include an event organized by the New York Police Department on Sept. 8 at Lincoln Center, which will include Rabbi Alvin Kass, the chief of chaplains for the NYPD; Cardinal Edward Egan, the archbishop emeritus of New York; and Bloomberg. Representatives of the Archdiocese of New York are participating in several 9/11-related events, and the Interfaith Center of New York is also hosting many 9/11-related gatherings. (source: Huffington Post)

Another group that has not been invited to the memorial is the group of 90,000 first responders: the firefighters, police officers, and civilian volunteers who courageously dealt with the crisis ten years ago. Historically, they have not been included in these ceremonies, either, but some are objecting to their exclusion on this tenth anniversary. One of them said, “The best of the best that this country offered 10 years ago are being neglected and denied their rightful place.”

Now it is your turn.

We look forward to a robust, civil discussion as we begin to remember this critical event in American history.

For our open thread discussion today, I would like to ask you some questions based on a quote I read the other day.

I am not going to give the source of the quote because I don’t want to get responses about the person or the ministry or tradition he represents. Suffice to say that he is a respected conservative evangelical pastor and that his work and writings have been reviewed positively here at Internet Monk.

So, in one sense, this is meant to be an entirely theoretical discussion. Take the statement at face value without consideration of the source and evaluate it. Let us know what you think about the approach taken and the ideas stated here.

In another sense, I don’t want comments to be all theory. Please give personal examples and perspectives from real-life congregational experiences.

Here is the quote—

Contrary to much popular wisdom, God has spoken clearly in the Bible about the purpose, leadership, organization, and methods of the local church. He designed churches to be a display of his own glory and wisdom (Eph 3:10). And he deliberately structured them to display for a watching world the close fellowship of the Trinity and the redemption that God has accomplished for us in Christ Jesus (John 13:34-35).

To summarize…

“God has spoken clearly in the Bible” about the local church’s:

• Purpose
• Leadership
• Organization
• Methods

God “deliberately structured them” to communicate truth about himself and his salvation.

Here are my questions:

• What is a “Biblical” church?

• Is that a helpful adjective to use when trying to understand the ecclesial nature of our faith in Christ?

• Does the Bible give us specific instructions about how a church should look and function?

• If so, why are there so many approaches to “doing church”?

How do you respond to this statement? It’s Open Mic time.

By Chaplain Mike

This post might also be called: “Ask Chaplain Mike: Eagle’s Questions, part 2.”

But I would like to take a different approach this time. Instead of me simply answering our friend’s question, I’d like the iMonk community to take part. In fact, Eagle himself asks for this when he writes:

What exactly is the prosperity gospel? How would you define it? What is the difference between being blessed versus believing in the prosperity gospel? Could the iMonastery have a basic discussion on what the prosperity gospel means, vs. what is being blessed by God? I’d like to know where a person draws the line.

Thanks, Eagle. I am looking forward to the discussion.

To prime the pump, here is a web reading list that will give you some good material and commentary to consider—

For Further Reading:

• What Is the Prosperity Gospel?, Michael Spencer
• The Real Prosperity Gospel, Michael Spencer
• Abundance for All, James K.A. Smith
• The Problem for the Prosperity Gospel, Scot McKnight

I’d like to pose an Open Mic question today to our entire Internet Monk community. I’d like input from readers in the United States reflecting our own self-awareness (or lack thereof). I’d also like to get perspectives from our international participants.

This question finds its genesis in a post by theologian Roger E. Olson. At his blog, in a March 5 post called, “N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, British evangelicals and Me,” Olson reflects on how refreshing it is to interact with British theologians like those he mentions, who seem to serve in a context that is more generous in spirit and respectful of differences than we here in the U.S. This leads him to wonder why the United States seems to provide such a unique arena for intense theological conflict and conflagration.

Here are a few excerpts from his post:

We seem to be the only country where evangelicals feel compelled to debate not just with vim and vigor but with serious intent to expose heresies among us and even cast each other out of the evangelical movement.

…Only (or primarily) in the U.S., it seems, do we have fundamentalists who have the power to dog cutting edge evangelical scholars and actually force them into constantly defending themselves against charges of heresy for fresh and faithful biblical scholarship.

…I once wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper (where I used to work and live) explaining that Westboro Baptist Church (Fred Phelps’ church that pickets funerals) does not represent all Baptists’ views.  In my lengthy letter (which was published in its entirety) I explained that Baptists are diverse and there is no “headquarters” of all Baptists.  I explained that some Baptists are fundamentalists and some are liberals; some refuse to ordain women and some ordain women; some would never ordain a gay person and some do.  (There were Baptist churches in that city all across that spectrum, but most people were Lutheran or Catholic and tended to tar all Baptists with the ultra-fundamentalist brush.)

My letter contained simply facts; it did not advocate anything except knowledge and understanding of Baptist diversity.  Apparently my president was fine with it until a parent (who I later discovered was also a donor to the college) called him and complained about me to the point of suggesting I be fired!  (I also found out later this man was a King James Only fundamentalist Baptist.)  My president, with whom I got along very well, called me in and chided me for writing the letter and asked me to let him view and censor my letters to the editor henceforth.  Of course, I refused.  Why was he surprised when I left?  (Well, it wasn’t for that alone, but partly, at least, because of that tendency to allow loud fundamentalists to cast a chill over academic freedom even to write completely innocuous letters to the editor!)

Now obviously, Olson is writing from one perspective—that of a “progressive” evangelical being dogged by those he views as conservative, fundamentalist interests. We all know the issue is much broader than this and that condemnation bombs get launched from theological foxholes on every conceivable side against others perceived as heretics, compromisers, and enemies.

So, today’s Open Mic question involves more than how the bad ol’ conservatives persecute the good ol’ progressives or any other single part of the broader conflict. No, my real question is, is there something unique in the American spirit that leads us to engage in such constant theological warfare?

The mic is open. I’m anxious to hear from you.

I am catching up with some books that I have wanted to read for some time. One is James Davidson Hunter’s, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, a provocative look at how we understand and call Christians to participate in the church’s mission in the world.

This is a fascinating, thought-provoking, and controversial book, and I am eager to work my way through it.

For today, I’ll throw out a snippet from one of the book’s early chapters for discussion.

I begin with faith in America. Consider, first, the fact that communities of faith have been a dominating presence in American society for the length and breadth of its history. There is some evidence that suggests that there are even more Americans who are worshipping as part of a congregation today than in the past. As late as 1960, only 2 percent of the population claimed not to believe in God; even today, only 12 to 14 percent of the population would call themselves secularists. This means that in America today, 86 to 88 percent of the people adhere to some faith commitments. And yet our culture—business culture, law and government, the academic world, popular entertainment—is intensely materialistic and secular. Only occasionally do we hear references to religious transcendence in these realms, and even these are vague, generic, and void of particularity. If culture is the accumulation of values and the choices made by individuals on the basis of these values, then how is it that American public culture today is so profoundly secular in its character?

Hunter is challenging a popular Christian notion—that if individuals in a society hold to certain ideas and values, it will lead to a transforming effect on society from the ground up. This idealistic notion has been the foundation upon which most Christian calls to “change the world” have been based. But Hunter claims the notion is false. Building upon this foundation, we have not clearly grasped our mission in the world.

He gives other illustrations. Why, for example, have minority communities such as the Jewish and gay communities, had such an enormous influence on society through our cultural institutions? Groups like these have apparently been able to “change the world” while being marginalized and at times even persecuted by those in the mainstream.

And so, Hunter asks, “If culture is the accumulation of values and the choices made by individuals on the basis of these values, then how is it that American public culture today is so profoundly secular in its character?”

Let’s bat this around today as I make my way through the rest of Hunter’s book. Step up to the mic, please.

By Chaplain Mike

UPDATE: Read this “Open Letter to John MacArthur” from an Egyptian American at Recovering Evangelical.

I hope this doesn’t ruin your upcoming weekend, but I’m going to post some remarkable words by John MacArthur for your consideration and discussion today.

I came across this interview with brother John at the Christian Post today. I’m still shaking my head. Frankly, I am stunned and speechless at the moment, and don’t even have an introductory comment to make. So I will punt at this point and hand it over to you, our thoughtful Internet Monk community.

I. . . uh . . . well . . . I will try to join in as able, but . . . wow.

Wow.

CP: Currently we’re seeing sort of a revolution in the Middle East with protesters opposing authoritarian rule. They want their freedom. I wanted to get your response to the uprisings – what are we seeing, what does it signify?

MacArthur: I think there are a lot of ways to approach that but if you just talk about a biblical thing, they are all in violation of a biblical command – to submit to the powers that be because they’re ordained of God. I’m not saying Moammar Gadhafi is the best leader, I’m not saying that Mubarak is a great, benevolent and just leader, not when he’s got $70 billion in his own pockets at the expense of people.

But what I am saying is that whatever the government would be, even if it was Caesar in the New Testament, that the believers are commanded to live orderly lives, peaceful, quiet lives, subjecting themselves to the powers that be because they’re ordained of God. And the reason is any form of government is better than anarchy. You get a little bit of a taste of what’s going on right now – people are dying, property is being destroyed. You can’t have this. And inevitably what’s going to come out of this is going to be less order, more chaos, and perhaps what will come out of less order and more chaos is a worse kind of control, more dominating power that. You’d like to think that nothing but freedom would come out of this. That’s not what happened in Iran. It’s not likely to happen there because you got to bring all this mass, the violence, and this volatility under control; that becomes then a military issue. So I don’t think the future looks good.

But biblically speaking, I would have wished the American government, which has a history of Christianity, would have risen up and said “this is wrong, this is forbidden for people to do this, this is intolerable.” Look, if you live in Iran and you obey the law, you’re safe because that’s what happens. You might not like the law, you might not like a lot about it, but … obviously there are times when you have to break the law because the Lord commands us to do something the law forbids. I just think the upshot of all of this is more instability, more chaos, you can’t make a transition to democracy this way; it’s impossible. After all, who said democracy’s the best form of government? No matter what the form of government is, the Bible doesn’t advocate anything but a theocracy. Any form of government is going to self destruct because you’re dealing with corrupt people, sinful people. The Kingdom of God advances without regard for the government but from a Christian standpoint, a biblical standpoint this kind of behavior is not approved in the Scripture and freedom – certain freedoms, liberties and democracies – is not a justification for this kind of mass rioting and disobedience and overturning of governments.

The illusion is that these people are going to get freedom. But what we have to understand is that you’re either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. As Martin Luther said in The Bondage of the Will, no sinner is free; that is the great illusion that the sinner is free. He’s only free to choose the sin. In other words, he’s only free to choose the course of his own damnation but he can’t do anything about it. This is another form of bondage. They’re going to end up in another form of bondage; they’re going to end up the same, sinful, corrupt, unsatisfied, unfulfilled people taking their same anxieties in a different direction. So it’s not a solution to anything. It’s a momentary reaction. I understand that like the French Revolution when they had enough. You know the story when Marie Antoinette they said to her the people need bread. She said well, let them eat cake and mocked their hunger. That’s what brought the revolution about. That doesn’t justify the anarchy but it explains it.

CP: So you see nothing good coming out of this? Even if it means possible religious freedom for Christians in the Arab world?

MacArthur: I don’t think religious freedom is even an issue in the advance of the church. If you look at China, I don’t know what the numbers are, tens of millions of believers in China when it was forbidden. Look at Japan which was open and free and you’ll search forever in any city in Japan to find one Christian. So democracy, freedom of religion or persecution, if you had to pick your poison I think you might want to pick persecution because you get a purer church. Now I’ve been to Russia a dozen times and the church there was so pure and so devout and yet you can go across the border from Russia into Western Europe and the church is dead, almost non-existent. And they had all the freedom. So you can’t make a case that religious freedom is a right. The powers that be ordained of God, God is the one who determines that – Acts 17 said the boundaries of the nations – these things happen within the purposes of God and God will rule through these things and overrule these things. But they don’t really have anything to do with the church and the advance of the Kingdom. It’s not tied to any form of government.

Internet Monk reader Ben sent in the following question, asking for counsel from our IM community.

Dear Chaplain Mike,

On Friday, I’ve got 30 minutes to talk to a group of 11-13 year-olds about ‘creation and evolution’.

They haven’t studied anything about either at school, and in the context of the church they go to, there isn’t a great deal of pressure for me to push things either way.

I’m a bit stumped about where to even start: creation/evolution, religion/science, Genesis/Gilgamesh?!

I may just be able to ask them questions and improvise from there, but I’d quite like a backup plan…

I’d be interested to know what advice Internet Monk readers might have.

Regards,
Ben S

Let’s help a brother out, folks.

How would you approach teaching these young people?