Comedy meets post-modernism
This is a great answer to the culture’s bias against any statement being Truth.
The Anchoress: This guy is like so right, you know?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
The Relationship Between Culture and Government
Read the following and then click on the link to see its author and the entire article from which this is selected.
The Founding Fathers Knew: Good Government Requires Good Culture
One of the amazing things about the generation that founded America was that they knew we as a people would eventually drift into a crisis of bad culture and bad government. And they had no doubt which came first. They knew that bad culture leads to bad government -- and good government requires good culture.
Consider just a few quotes from our Founders:
"...there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained..." -- President George Washington's First Inaugural Address
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." -- George Washington's Farewell Address
"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
"Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness." -- Samuel Adams
"Reading, reflection, and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in which all religions agree." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Religion is the only solid Base of morals and Morals are the only possible support of free governments" -- Gouverneur Morris
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." -- Benjamin Rush
Read the rest of this article to see what happens to a society when “bad culture [is] reinforced by bad government”.
The Founding Fathers Knew: Good Government Requires Good Culture
One of the amazing things about the generation that founded America was that they knew we as a people would eventually drift into a crisis of bad culture and bad government. And they had no doubt which came first. They knew that bad culture leads to bad government -- and good government requires good culture.
Consider just a few quotes from our Founders:
"...there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained..." -- President George Washington's First Inaugural Address
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." -- George Washington's Farewell Address
"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
"Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness." -- Samuel Adams
"Reading, reflection, and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in which all religions agree." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Religion is the only solid Base of morals and Morals are the only possible support of free governments" -- Gouverneur Morris
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." -- Benjamin Rush
Read the rest of this article to see what happens to a society when “bad culture [is] reinforced by bad government”.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Is It Christianity When . . .
All sorts of positions can be taken within a range of what can reasonably be called “Christianity”. Is it Christianity, though, when a pastor wants to discard the “theological detritus—her words—of the past two millennia…and build on its ashes a new spiritual movement…”
To illustrate, the article Taking Christ Out Of Christianity (from the Toronto Globe and Mail), says:
“She wants salvation redefined to mean new life through removing the causes of suffering in the world. She wants the church to define resurrection as “starting over,” “new chances.” She wants an end to the image of God as an intervening all-powerful authority who must be appeased to avoid divine wrath; rather she would have congregations work together as communities to define God – or god – according to their own worked-out definitions of what is holy and sacred. She wants the eucharist – the symbolic eating and drinking of Jesus's body and blood to make the congregation part of Jesus's body – to be instead a symbolic experience of community love.”
I came upon this article via this post Deconstructing Christianity, Itself from The Anchoress (who got it via Deacon Greg’s blog.
To see more of what Rev. Gretta Vosper of Toronto’s West Hill United church (referenced in the article above) teaches, here is a selection from her message to the Canadian Centre For Progressive Christianity
“In many communities of faith, the guiding light has been some form of church authority, based on literal or metaphorical Scripture, accepted traditional formulas, or official pronouncements. May we now look to the only light that can guide us into the freedom of faith and the privilege of responsibility - the truth revealed to us in the light of love. May we see and know that spirit within us, may it shine forth in us, and from us.”
Charitably, I have to applaud Rev. Vosper for her (partial) honesty. She admits that she no longer believes what the Church has traditionally taught. She no longer is putting on a mask of traditional Christianity while underneath knowing that she is living a lie. By her honesty she challenges those who hear her or read her books to examine what they truly believe.
Of course, I don’t agree with her beliefs or her approach. I think the truly honest approach would be to say, “I’m no longer a Christian.” Then she could join whatever group with which she feels most comfortable; and she could promote her own brand of spirituality freely.
To illustrate, the article Taking Christ Out Of Christianity (from the Toronto Globe and Mail), says:
“She wants salvation redefined to mean new life through removing the causes of suffering in the world. She wants the church to define resurrection as “starting over,” “new chances.” She wants an end to the image of God as an intervening all-powerful authority who must be appeased to avoid divine wrath; rather she would have congregations work together as communities to define God – or god – according to their own worked-out definitions of what is holy and sacred. She wants the eucharist – the symbolic eating and drinking of Jesus's body and blood to make the congregation part of Jesus's body – to be instead a symbolic experience of community love.”
I came upon this article via this post Deconstructing Christianity, Itself from The Anchoress (who got it via Deacon Greg’s blog.
To see more of what Rev. Gretta Vosper of Toronto’s West Hill United church (referenced in the article above) teaches, here is a selection from her message to the Canadian Centre For Progressive Christianity
“In many communities of faith, the guiding light has been some form of church authority, based on literal or metaphorical Scripture, accepted traditional formulas, or official pronouncements. May we now look to the only light that can guide us into the freedom of faith and the privilege of responsibility - the truth revealed to us in the light of love. May we see and know that spirit within us, may it shine forth in us, and from us.”
Charitably, I have to applaud Rev. Vosper for her (partial) honesty. She admits that she no longer believes what the Church has traditionally taught. She no longer is putting on a mask of traditional Christianity while underneath knowing that she is living a lie. By her honesty she challenges those who hear her or read her books to examine what they truly believe.
Of course, I don’t agree with her beliefs or her approach. I think the truly honest approach would be to say, “I’m no longer a Christian.” Then she could join whatever group with which she feels most comfortable; and she could promote her own brand of spirituality freely.
Almost all you need to know about being a Personal Representative
So, you think you might want to be a Personal Representative (P.R.) of an estate? Or maybe you don’t want it but you find you have become one by default or request. You might know this role under the older title of “executor” of an estate.
Now what do you do? I recently sold a home that was in the estate of the mother of the Personal Representative. It seemed to me to be an overwhelming task—and a thankless one at that. My most recent real estate blog post will help you clarify your general duties, specific responsibilities, and possible liabilities.
Now what do you do? I recently sold a home that was in the estate of the mother of the Personal Representative. It seemed to me to be an overwhelming task—and a thankless one at that. My most recent real estate blog post will help you clarify your general duties, specific responsibilities, and possible liabilities.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Christian Compassion In Action
Inside a campaign video, an amazing story of faith and the presence of God in trials. You've got to see a video on Hugh Hewitt's Townhall blog in which a prison guard shows genuine Christian compassion in action.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The War Against Jihadism is a Theological Battle
In my last post I referred to an interview I heard with George Weigel. Since then I read his new book “Faith, Reason, and The War Against Jihadism-A Call to Action” (see link in left panel).
The book has 15 lessons about “things we cannot not know”. These lessons are grouped under three headings: “Understanding the Enemy, Rethinking Realism, and Deserving Victory”. I found it particularly satisfying to see someone write plainly and openly about the enemy that declared war on us. Abandoning political correctness while still retaining civility and fairness is rare. Weigel seems to pull it off in this concise and critical work.
Weigel correctly identifies the struggle not as a “war against terrorism” (a method), but a “war against jihadism” (an ideology which has no qualms about using terrorism to further its ends). He also correctly identifies that ideology as religious, as seen in his first “Lesson”: “The great human questions, including the great questions of public life, are ultimately theological”.
Ideas have consequences. Faith, and that which is the object of one’s faith, matters. Thus we are engaged in a war, though not of our choosing, which we will only win if we recognize and identify as a war of ideas as well as a physical war. Faith has to be considered along with reason in this battle.
It will involve “[c]hallenging the assumption in the American foreign policy establishment that the only answer to global jihadism is to convert 1.2 billion Muslims into good secular liberals…”. If it is a theological battle, not a secular disagreement, then our approach must be to begin to understand the theology that drives a jihadist to blow up those whom we (in our sense of logic and justice) consider “the innocent”. All 15 lessons are valuable and instructive. We might like to ignore or reject his last lesson that we cannot not learn (“There is no escape from U.S. leadership”), but this lesson and all before it derive from looking at the world situation realistically.
Get the book. Read it. And then ask your favorite candidate who is running for office this year what approach they have to winning this “war against jihadism”. Their answer will tell you whether they are serious enough to deserve victory.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Respect For Differences
I heard an interview where Catholic author George Weigel discussed what is needed for inter-faith dialogue between Christians and Muslims. See the transcript here. Weigel said:
The prerequisite for serious inter-religious dialogue is a frank acknowledgement of differences. Tolerance does not mean ignoring differences, as if differences don’t make a difference. Tolerance means engaging difference with civility and respect, but with a clear understanding of your own moral values as applied to politics, and why they’re worth defending.
This has relevance in other situations as well: political discussions between Republican and Democrat friends; theology differences between different Christian denominations; policy issues within religions denominations; or in disagreements within a church.
You find “politics’ in every organization, even a church. Good people disagree on deeply held issues. To often, though, we avoid discussing issues where we know there are strong disagreements. We don’t want conflict, and we end up shrinking from true dialogue.
Using Weigel’s formula for serious dialogue above, here are some suggestions for engaging in true dialogue with respect for each other.
· Frankly acknowledge that differences exist. Ignoring them is like trying to cap a volcano.
· Know that differences matter. If you strongly believe something, you don’t want to just be told that it’s OK to disagree and let’s move on. That is effectively saying your beliefs don’t really matter. They matter to you.
· If your beliefs and values matter, you want to defend them--respectfully. In Weigel’s interview he links this defense to reason, not emotion. Reasonable dialogue involves civility and respect; and it seeks to find common values that enable us to live and work together in harmony.
· Respectful and reasonable dialogue means discussing issues, not people. Another author I’ve heard recently said that “refuting” an argument “doesn’t mean reject strongly or angrily. It means to argue successfully against. . . . It involves rational discourse.”
We may differ on various issues, but if we can agree on certain values we can still live together in peace. You may not be able to find peace with everyone (you may want it, but they may not). Even then, Paul’s advice in Romans 12:18 applies, “ If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” Respect for differences and for each other makes it work.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Setting Goals-a bizarre way to start
This is a bizarre way to start a column on setting goals, but it’s very effective. Read the entire column (it’s short) at http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/01/02/setting-goals-for-the-new-year/. It’s called “Setting Goals For The New Year”, by JP Moreland at ScriptoriumDaily.com.
“It’s the time of year when we set New Year’s resolutions. However, before you do, I offer you something to ponder. Suppose I invited you over to play a game of Monopoly. When you arrive I announce that the game is going to be a bit different. Before us is the Monopoly board, a set of jacks, a coin, the television remote and a refrigerator. I grant you the first turn, and puzzlingly, inform you that you may do anything you want: fill the board with hotels, toss the coin in the air, grab a few jacks, fix a sandwich, or turn on the television. You respond by putting hotels all over the board and smugly sit back as I take my turn. I respond by dumping the board upside down and tossing the coin in the air. Somewhat annoyed, you right the board and replenish it with hotels. I turn on the television and dump the board over again.”
“It’s the time of year when we set New Year’s resolutions. However, before you do, I offer you something to ponder. Suppose I invited you over to play a game of Monopoly. When you arrive I announce that the game is going to be a bit different. Before us is the Monopoly board, a set of jacks, a coin, the television remote and a refrigerator. I grant you the first turn, and puzzlingly, inform you that you may do anything you want: fill the board with hotels, toss the coin in the air, grab a few jacks, fix a sandwich, or turn on the television. You respond by putting hotels all over the board and smugly sit back as I take my turn. I respond by dumping the board upside down and tossing the coin in the air. Somewhat annoyed, you right the board and replenish it with hotels. I turn on the television and dump the board over again.”
Friday, December 21, 2007
Freedom and Opportunity
“The Anchoress” blog has a wonderful story about her experience talking with some immigrants to the USA:
Same old America: Freedom and Opportunity
“Can I ask, why here? Why did you come to America?”
As it turned out, the fellow helping me did not speak much English. He turned to his cousin, the receptionist, for translation, and I asked again.
“More freedom,” she said immediately, without first translating. “America has freedom.”
“Opportunity,” said the girl at the next workspace. “We can have small business and grow it and make bigger business. We can be anything.”
By then the receptionist had translated to her cousin and he had responded. He smiled hugely at me while she told me what he had said.
“America is a great country where we can use all our energy, all our knowledge, all our creativity. There is freedom.”
“Opportunity,” the other girl repeated. “Anyone can be anything, do anything in America.”
“Yes,” said the receptionist, who is pregnant. “My son can be president, if he wants.”
Same old America: Freedom and Opportunity
“Can I ask, why here? Why did you come to America?”
As it turned out, the fellow helping me did not speak much English. He turned to his cousin, the receptionist, for translation, and I asked again.
“More freedom,” she said immediately, without first translating. “America has freedom.”
“Opportunity,” said the girl at the next workspace. “We can have small business and grow it and make bigger business. We can be anything.”
By then the receptionist had translated to her cousin and he had responded. He smiled hugely at me while she told me what he had said.
“America is a great country where we can use all our energy, all our knowledge, all our creativity. There is freedom.”
“Opportunity,” the other girl repeated. “Anyone can be anything, do anything in America.”
“Yes,” said the receptionist, who is pregnant. “My son can be president, if he wants.”
Friday, December 14, 2007
My 2007 Book Recommendations
It’s that time of year when lists of recommended books come out. I’ve gone over several of those lists, and see some of the books I’ve read on some of them.
For whatever it’s worth, here is a list of some books I’ve read this year, and my comments on each.
1776, by David McCullough: A captivating narrative history of the critical year in American history. It shows how difficult it is in reality to gain freedom, and then to keep it once gained. Excellent read.
A Mormon in the White House?, by Hugh Hewitt: With a subtitle of 10 Things Every American Should Know About Mitt Romney, it is a friendly look into the character and qualifications of one candidate for President. And of course, it deals with “the Mormon question”. Worth reading, especially as Romney is leading in several states.
America, The Last Best Hope, Vols. I & II, by William Bennett: An excellent narrative history of the United States. It is essential reading for those who have read nothing in American History since high school or those who would like to read something positive about the United States, but still see how we really are, warts and all.
Christianity For The Rest Of Us, by Diana Butler Bass: This could be a beautiful read about “Christian practices” that have been helpful to many and are signposts of some healthy and growing “mainline Christian” churches. I say it “could be” because to get to the beautiful parts you have to endure a lot of negative, polemical, bigoted, and condescending comments about those groups Bass doesn’t like: evangelicals, fundamentalists, the “religious right”, and others she ironically deems narrow-minded. If you fit into one of those categories, skip this book. If you like polemical writing, you may like this one.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, by J.K. Rowling: The last book of a series that is great fun. I loved them all.
My Grandfather’s Son, by Clarence Thomas: This is a truly inspiring story about one of the Supreme Court’s most controversial justices. His rise from a poverty and prejudiced culture that is unbelievable to all except those who have seen it firsthand is a challenge to all of us who complain about whatever roadblocks we may have had to success. I loved it.
Prayer, Does It Make Any Difference, by Philip Yancey: Our Sunday School class did a study of this book early in 2007. You can see some of the weekly lesson guides online here AntleHope.blogspot Prayer Study. It is a most important book on prayer, with no false promises but with a lot of excellent information and advice. A great study!
Simply Christian, by N.T. Wright: This is N.T. Wright’s approach to what some have called an update of C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”. It’s an attempt to present the Christian faith in a manner that will appeal to 21st Century non-Christians and Christians alike. It may be a bit hard to get into for those who don’t understand metaphors. I like it very much, since I’m trying to adapt my approach to “evangelism” to reach those who aren’t steeped in the evangelical Christian culture I grew up in.
The Forgotten Man, by Amity Schlaes: I knew very little about the Great Depression and the FDR administration, even though it’s effect on my parents affected me greatly. I learned how much that era continues to dominate the political landscape and arguments about the role of the Federal government (in Social Security, taxes, health care, etc.). It is a lively readable book that throws light on a lot of people whose names I only vaguely knew. This narrative history of the 30’s is one of the most important books that can be read by those who will vote in 2008—if you believe that “the past is the prologue to the future”.
The Last Word, by N.T. Wright: This book, along with the last one on my list by N.T. Wright, gave me the framework for an extensive study of the Bible that my Sunday School class is doing now (God Speaks To/Through His People, the story of the Bible as a Drama in Five Acts—see more about that here. It is an important smaller work whose value is seen in its sub-title” “Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture”.
The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright: This is THE classic (true) story of the rise of Al Qaeda and the road to 9/11. Anyone who claims to have the answer to ending the war that Al Qaeda declared on the United States and has not read this book is only fooling themselves. A MUST READ!
The New Testament and the People of God, by N.T. Wright: This is the more extensive study from which “The Last Word” derives its framework. It’s a big (476 pages), detailed, scholarly book by a pre-eminent New Testament scholar who is also the (Anglican) Bishop of Durham, England. The first of a trilogy, it’s not a book for those with little biblical background; but it is still a great book that I would recommend to anyone who is interested in Christian theology and today’s culture.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Christmas with a capital C
I love these songs and this group “Go Fish”.
Turn sound on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAckfn8yiAQ
It’s About The Cross http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyR0lwO-nXc
Turn sound on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAckfn8yiAQ
It’s About The Cross http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyR0lwO-nXc
Saturday, September 29, 2007
God Speaks Session 3: The Human Condition
This is for session 3 of a study on "God Speaks To/Through His People, the story of the Bible as a drama in five acts" for the Koinonia Class at Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, CO. Session 3 is Act I, Scenes 2 & 3 (Genesis 3-11)
Earlier (in the Prologue, Part 1) I called our experience of living in a world of ultimate questions, problems, evil, sin, and eventually death as “The Human Condition”. The subject is not original—many have written on it; and every religion treats it in one way or another.
My use of this term situates chapters 3 through 11 of Genesis as Act II in the 5-Act Drama of the story of the Bible. Act I is creation—of the world and finally of humans as those who are created “in the image of God”. Act II shows what happens when the actors don’t follow the Director’s directions.
In Genesis 3 Eve is tempted by the personification of evil to disobey God. She ate the forbidden fruit and then tempted Adam to join her. He did, and life has not been the same since.
Apparently, being created “in the image of God” included having the ability to choose and to be responsible for one’s choices. Free Will it is sometimes called. It’s not just that we are free to choose whatever we desire. Choices result in actions. Actions bring (sometimes unforeseen) consequences. Having the ability to choose also means being responsible for the consequences.
In biblical terms, Adam and Eve sinned against God. They chose to put themselves and their will ahead of their Creator and his will. In essence they said, “I want to be in charge of my life. I want to be a god myself.” The consequence was that God let them have their wish.
The paradise in which God had placed them was now off limits to them. They wanted to be their own god and create their own paradise. We know how successful they and all their descendants have been. The consequence of their sin (and ours) can be seen in the news every day.
Fortunately, the play does not end at Act II. God may have let us have our own way, but He has not left us alone. God’s desire for a loving fellowship with His creatures did not change. Act II, Scene 2 introduces the subplot of a covenant which continues throughout the rest of the drama. Even in the worst of times there is good news. We are not alone—God loves us and wants to reconcile us to Himself. Moreover, God provides the means for that reconciliation.
More about covenants next week.
Earlier (in the Prologue, Part 1) I called our experience of living in a world of ultimate questions, problems, evil, sin, and eventually death as “The Human Condition”. The subject is not original—many have written on it; and every religion treats it in one way or another.
My use of this term situates chapters 3 through 11 of Genesis as Act II in the 5-Act Drama of the story of the Bible. Act I is creation—of the world and finally of humans as those who are created “in the image of God”. Act II shows what happens when the actors don’t follow the Director’s directions.
In Genesis 3 Eve is tempted by the personification of evil to disobey God. She ate the forbidden fruit and then tempted Adam to join her. He did, and life has not been the same since.
Apparently, being created “in the image of God” included having the ability to choose and to be responsible for one’s choices. Free Will it is sometimes called. It’s not just that we are free to choose whatever we desire. Choices result in actions. Actions bring (sometimes unforeseen) consequences. Having the ability to choose also means being responsible for the consequences.
In biblical terms, Adam and Eve sinned against God. They chose to put themselves and their will ahead of their Creator and his will. In essence they said, “I want to be in charge of my life. I want to be a god myself.” The consequence was that God let them have their wish.
The paradise in which God had placed them was now off limits to them. They wanted to be their own god and create their own paradise. We know how successful they and all their descendants have been. The consequence of their sin (and ours) can be seen in the news every day.
Fortunately, the play does not end at Act II. God may have let us have our own way, but He has not left us alone. God’s desire for a loving fellowship with His creatures did not change. Act II, Scene 2 introduces the subplot of a covenant which continues throughout the rest of the drama. Even in the worst of times there is good news. We are not alone—God loves us and wants to reconcile us to Himself. Moreover, God provides the means for that reconciliation.
More about covenants next week.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
God Speaks Session 2: Purpose in Life
This is for session 2 of a study on "God Speaks To/Through His People, the story of the Bible as a drama in five acts" for the Koinonia Class at Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, CO.
Recently I’ve seen several things which bring to mind the complexity and miraculous nature of Creation: NASA photos taken with the Hubble Telescope—sights so beautiful, awesome, and inspiring that it’s difficult to believe they are really of galaxies so many light-years away; a program about how the Rocky Mountains were formed by some tectonic plates subducting under others and pushing up the mantle of the earth; and another program about archeological discoveries giving evidence of people over 15,000 years ago inhabiting what is now America.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote in the Prologue, Part 1 of this Bible study entitled “God Speaks To/Through His People” that we seek answers to the questions Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going when this life is over? Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Why is there evil? Why do I do things which I know are evil? Is there any hope for forgiveness and for a happy future? Is there a solution for this human condition that I myself am in?
This week we are looking at two of those questions—the one that asks Where did I come from? and another one, Why am I here? From astronomy we might get an answer that tells us something about all matter on Earth having come from exploding stars. Even that fact is predated by the formation of the stars from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Biology might say we are here because of our ancestors having evolved over millennia to produce the species homo sapiens.
A number of the sciences might together be able to piece together a partial explanation of how we physically got here. It can only be a partial explanation, though, because none of them can get prior to the theoretical Big Bang. That, they say, is for metaphysics (or religion) to propose. One theologian/philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, offered five “proofs” for the existence of God, one of which (expanding Aristotle’s concept of an “unmoved mover” is that since there is motion, there had to be a prime mover (that is, something or some being that started it all in motion), and he said that the One we call God was that prime mover.
None of these arguments answers the “why” question though. That answer we can find in the Bible. Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, tells us that God created all that is, including us; and that He created us for fellowship with Himself. Being created “in the image of God”, we find our ultimate happiness and purpose relating to and working in partnership with God.
If you’ve been wondering why you are here, perhaps a re-reading of Scripture can give some clues—especially if you ask God to show you what He wants of you. God didn’t create us in His image without a reason for doing so.
Recently I’ve seen several things which bring to mind the complexity and miraculous nature of Creation: NASA photos taken with the Hubble Telescope—sights so beautiful, awesome, and inspiring that it’s difficult to believe they are really of galaxies so many light-years away; a program about how the Rocky Mountains were formed by some tectonic plates subducting under others and pushing up the mantle of the earth; and another program about archeological discoveries giving evidence of people over 15,000 years ago inhabiting what is now America.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote in the Prologue, Part 1 of this Bible study entitled “God Speaks To/Through His People” that we seek answers to the questions Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going when this life is over? Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Why is there evil? Why do I do things which I know are evil? Is there any hope for forgiveness and for a happy future? Is there a solution for this human condition that I myself am in?
This week we are looking at two of those questions—the one that asks Where did I come from? and another one, Why am I here? From astronomy we might get an answer that tells us something about all matter on Earth having come from exploding stars. Even that fact is predated by the formation of the stars from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Biology might say we are here because of our ancestors having evolved over millennia to produce the species homo sapiens.
A number of the sciences might together be able to piece together a partial explanation of how we physically got here. It can only be a partial explanation, though, because none of them can get prior to the theoretical Big Bang. That, they say, is for metaphysics (or religion) to propose. One theologian/philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, offered five “proofs” for the existence of God, one of which (expanding Aristotle’s concept of an “unmoved mover” is that since there is motion, there had to be a prime mover (that is, something or some being that started it all in motion), and he said that the One we call God was that prime mover.
None of these arguments answers the “why” question though. That answer we can find in the Bible. Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, tells us that God created all that is, including us; and that He created us for fellowship with Himself. Being created “in the image of God”, we find our ultimate happiness and purpose relating to and working in partnership with God.
If you’ve been wondering why you are here, perhaps a re-reading of Scripture can give some clues—especially if you ask God to show you what He wants of you. God didn’t create us in His image without a reason for doing so.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Prologue, Part 2: The Story of the Bible in Five Acts
In the Prologue, Part 1, I wrote, “To get to specific answers to particular questions, it helps to get the big picture first—to see the overall theme in the Bible. There is a grand story or plot that will keep us on track as we look at the smaller sections.
Simply put, the theme of the Bible is that the same God who created us loves us, and keeps reaching out to us even though we rebel against Him. Having reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ (see II Cor. 5:18-21), God makes us partners in extending His love to others and in helping to make right what is wrong in the world.”
Today we start to see the details of how we will look at that theme. There are 66 books in the two major sections of the Bible, the Old and New Testaments. More than 50 different writers, inspired by God, wrote these books that cover a timeline from Creation to around 100 A.D. It helps to use some kind of mental device to pull all these diverse works together and see the thread that runs through all of them. We will borrow the device of a play, developed by N.T. Wright as seen below.
In his masterful work The New Testament and the People of God,[i] N. T. Wright details his concept of seeing the Bible as the foundational story of Judaism, and therefore of the early church. Here he expands on what he just outlined in his much smaller book, The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God--Getting Beyond the Bible Wars [ii], the big picture of the Bible can be seen if the Bible is presented as a five-act drama.[iii]
Those five acts are Creation, the Fall, Israel, Jesus, and The Church. As we get into our study, it might seem strange for the first Act to encompass only two chapters of Genesis and the second Act covering only nine chapters of Genesis while the third act encompasses the rest of the Old Testament. The drama is not balanced in length.
The power of the storyline in this drama is not dependent upon the number of scenes in each act, however. Without Act I, Act II doesn’t make sense. And without Acts I and II, the rest of the drama would be incomprehensible. In fact, without the foundation given in Acts I and II, we would have no way to understand the life we live or the universe we live in.
Those are bold claims, but they start to ring true when we see how Wright presents his concept of the story of the Bible as a drama.
Seen from the perspective of a first-century Jew…the basic story concerned the creator god and the world, and focused upon Israel’s place as the covenant people of the former placed in the midst of the latter.
Thus, the call of the patriarchs was set against the backcloth of creation and fall. Abraham was seen as the divine answer to the problem of Adam. The descent into Egypt and the dramatic rescue under the leadership of Moses formed the initial climax of the story, setting the theme of liberation as one of the major motifs for the whole, and posing a puzzle which later Jews would reflect on in new ways: if Israel was liberated from Egypt, and placed in her own land, why is everything not now perfect? (page 216, emphasis mine)
Here we see the key insight of the drama: the “backcloth” (Wright is British; we would say “backdrop”) of creation and fall set the scene for all that follows. Behind every scene in the drama is the Bible’s depiction of the human condition. We experience suffering, hatred, war, greed, death, and all the other problems of life because of rebellion against our Creator. However, in spite of our rebellion, that Creator loves us and wants to have a personal relationship with us. The Creator (the LORD or God, a single god who revealed himself to Moses and said his name is Yahweh) chose one faithful man (Abraham) to be the other party in a covenant so God could bless and restore the rest of His creation to Himself.
The rest of the drama, then, is the story of how God reaches out to restore His fallen world to a loving relationship with Himself. A covenant with Abraham and his descendants, and a new covenant later with the community of faith Jesus established as His “church”, would be the means by which God would effect that reconciliation.
What we will try to do over the next 30 weeks or so is to firmly grasp the storyline of the drama (get the big picture) so we can understand the smaller stories or subplots that give the Bible its richness and depth as the Word of God. The subplots are comprehensible when we look at them in the context of the overall story.
Our approach to getting the overall view will be to expand on N.T. Wright’s theme of the Bible as a drama in five acts. We will see the five acts as:
Act I Creation, and Made In God’s Image
Act II The Fall, and Fallout From The Fall
Act III Abraham And Israel—Chosen To Keep And Proclaim God’s Covenant
Act IV Jesus—The Word Incarnate Institutes A New Covenant
Act V The Church of Jesus Christ Spreads The Word
There is a lot more in each of these Acts than can be grasped in one week, of course; so we will further divide the longer Acts into several Scenes, one for each of the Sundays from September 16, 2007 through May 2008.
One more thing. God is the author, playwright, producer, director, and even takes roles on stage periodically—especially in the starring role.
We get to play a role of our own today. We will have opportunities to improvise that role; however our best performances are when we follow the script.
_________________________________
[i] “The New Testament and the People of God”, by N. T. Wright, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992)
[ii] “The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God--Getting Beyond the Bible Wars”, by N.T. Wright (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 2005)
[iii] For a lecture that briefly summarizes what's in his book, go to http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
Simply put, the theme of the Bible is that the same God who created us loves us, and keeps reaching out to us even though we rebel against Him. Having reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ (see II Cor. 5:18-21), God makes us partners in extending His love to others and in helping to make right what is wrong in the world.”
Today we start to see the details of how we will look at that theme. There are 66 books in the two major sections of the Bible, the Old and New Testaments. More than 50 different writers, inspired by God, wrote these books that cover a timeline from Creation to around 100 A.D. It helps to use some kind of mental device to pull all these diverse works together and see the thread that runs through all of them. We will borrow the device of a play, developed by N.T. Wright as seen below.
In his masterful work The New Testament and the People of God,[i] N. T. Wright details his concept of seeing the Bible as the foundational story of Judaism, and therefore of the early church. Here he expands on what he just outlined in his much smaller book, The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God--Getting Beyond the Bible Wars [ii], the big picture of the Bible can be seen if the Bible is presented as a five-act drama.[iii]
Those five acts are Creation, the Fall, Israel, Jesus, and The Church. As we get into our study, it might seem strange for the first Act to encompass only two chapters of Genesis and the second Act covering only nine chapters of Genesis while the third act encompasses the rest of the Old Testament. The drama is not balanced in length.
The power of the storyline in this drama is not dependent upon the number of scenes in each act, however. Without Act I, Act II doesn’t make sense. And without Acts I and II, the rest of the drama would be incomprehensible. In fact, without the foundation given in Acts I and II, we would have no way to understand the life we live or the universe we live in.
Those are bold claims, but they start to ring true when we see how Wright presents his concept of the story of the Bible as a drama.
Seen from the perspective of a first-century Jew…the basic story concerned the creator god and the world, and focused upon Israel’s place as the covenant people of the former placed in the midst of the latter.
Thus, the call of the patriarchs was set against the backcloth of creation and fall. Abraham was seen as the divine answer to the problem of Adam. The descent into Egypt and the dramatic rescue under the leadership of Moses formed the initial climax of the story, setting the theme of liberation as one of the major motifs for the whole, and posing a puzzle which later Jews would reflect on in new ways: if Israel was liberated from Egypt, and placed in her own land, why is everything not now perfect? (page 216, emphasis mine)
Here we see the key insight of the drama: the “backcloth” (Wright is British; we would say “backdrop”) of creation and fall set the scene for all that follows. Behind every scene in the drama is the Bible’s depiction of the human condition. We experience suffering, hatred, war, greed, death, and all the other problems of life because of rebellion against our Creator. However, in spite of our rebellion, that Creator loves us and wants to have a personal relationship with us. The Creator (the LORD or God, a single god who revealed himself to Moses and said his name is Yahweh) chose one faithful man (Abraham) to be the other party in a covenant so God could bless and restore the rest of His creation to Himself.
The rest of the drama, then, is the story of how God reaches out to restore His fallen world to a loving relationship with Himself. A covenant with Abraham and his descendants, and a new covenant later with the community of faith Jesus established as His “church”, would be the means by which God would effect that reconciliation.
What we will try to do over the next 30 weeks or so is to firmly grasp the storyline of the drama (get the big picture) so we can understand the smaller stories or subplots that give the Bible its richness and depth as the Word of God. The subplots are comprehensible when we look at them in the context of the overall story.
Our approach to getting the overall view will be to expand on N.T. Wright’s theme of the Bible as a drama in five acts. We will see the five acts as:
Act I Creation, and Made In God’s Image
Act II The Fall, and Fallout From The Fall
Act III Abraham And Israel—Chosen To Keep And Proclaim God’s Covenant
Act IV Jesus—The Word Incarnate Institutes A New Covenant
Act V The Church of Jesus Christ Spreads The Word
There is a lot more in each of these Acts than can be grasped in one week, of course; so we will further divide the longer Acts into several Scenes, one for each of the Sundays from September 16, 2007 through May 2008.
One more thing. God is the author, playwright, producer, director, and even takes roles on stage periodically—especially in the starring role.
We get to play a role of our own today. We will have opportunities to improvise that role; however our best performances are when we follow the script.
_________________________________
[i] “The New Testament and the People of God”, by N. T. Wright, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992)
[ii] “The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God--Getting Beyond the Bible Wars”, by N.T. Wright (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 2005)
[iii] For a lecture that briefly summarizes what's in his book, go to http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Prologue: The Story of the Bible as a Drama in Five Acts, Part 1.
From where I sit every morning I can look out and see my wife’s flower garden and the tops of some mountains. I’m reminded daily of the beauty in this world. Life is good.
I’m also reminded of something else every morning—my body is not as fit and flexible as it was. The warranty on this body seems to have expired, and one by one its parts are wearing out. Some day it will need to be turned in for an upgraded version.
It’s not only my body that seems to be falling apart. I see or hear the news and note that most of it is bad. Local television news operates on the principle of “if it bleeds, it leads”. National and world news focuses on war, weather, political fights, and scandals.
Since I’ve read some history, I know that it’s the same “news” that has been recycled in every generation. Every now and then, though, we read or hear of heroic and inspiring actions. Blessedly, some good news is included or we would despair.
Good and bad. Beauty and ugliness. Inspiring truths and depressing “news”. What’s going on? Is there any way to make sense of all this?
This is The Human Condition. We experience what every generation has experienced. We seek answers to the same questions everyone else asks: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going when this life is over? Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Why is there evil? Why do I do things which I know are evil? Is there any hope for forgiveness and for a happy future? Is there a solution for this human condition that I myself am in?
Fortunately, there is a solution. And, there is a source to which we can go for answers to all of these “ultimate questions”.[i] The source which has provided answers for millennia is the Bible. The answers we seek are there. Sometimes they are explicitly stated. Sometimes they are imbedded in stories, and we have to discern them as we read and re-read those stories at different stages of life. Sometimes the answers are hidden from plain sight, and can only be found with careful study and reflection.
To get to specific answers to particular questions, it helps to get the big picture first—to see the overall theme in the Bible. There is a grand story or plot that will keep us on track as we look at the smaller sections.
Simply put, the theme of the Bible is that the same God who created us loves us, and keeps reaching out to us even though we rebel against Him. Having reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ (see II Cor. 5:18-21), God makes us partners in extending His love to others and in helping to make right what is wrong in the world.
This theme has been communicated in many different ways over the centuries. We will borrow a device from a modern scholar, N.T. Wright, and look at the Bible as if it is a play—a drama in five acts.
----------------------------
[i] They are “ultimate questions” because they are the questions everyone ultimately asks. They are the foundational questions for our philosophy of life, our “worldview”, or more simply, “How we look at life.”
I’m also reminded of something else every morning—my body is not as fit and flexible as it was. The warranty on this body seems to have expired, and one by one its parts are wearing out. Some day it will need to be turned in for an upgraded version.
It’s not only my body that seems to be falling apart. I see or hear the news and note that most of it is bad. Local television news operates on the principle of “if it bleeds, it leads”. National and world news focuses on war, weather, political fights, and scandals.
Since I’ve read some history, I know that it’s the same “news” that has been recycled in every generation. Every now and then, though, we read or hear of heroic and inspiring actions. Blessedly, some good news is included or we would despair.
Good and bad. Beauty and ugliness. Inspiring truths and depressing “news”. What’s going on? Is there any way to make sense of all this?
This is The Human Condition. We experience what every generation has experienced. We seek answers to the same questions everyone else asks: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going when this life is over? Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Why is there evil? Why do I do things which I know are evil? Is there any hope for forgiveness and for a happy future? Is there a solution for this human condition that I myself am in?
Fortunately, there is a solution. And, there is a source to which we can go for answers to all of these “ultimate questions”.[i] The source which has provided answers for millennia is the Bible. The answers we seek are there. Sometimes they are explicitly stated. Sometimes they are imbedded in stories, and we have to discern them as we read and re-read those stories at different stages of life. Sometimes the answers are hidden from plain sight, and can only be found with careful study and reflection.
To get to specific answers to particular questions, it helps to get the big picture first—to see the overall theme in the Bible. There is a grand story or plot that will keep us on track as we look at the smaller sections.
Simply put, the theme of the Bible is that the same God who created us loves us, and keeps reaching out to us even though we rebel against Him. Having reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ (see II Cor. 5:18-21), God makes us partners in extending His love to others and in helping to make right what is wrong in the world.
This theme has been communicated in many different ways over the centuries. We will borrow a device from a modern scholar, N.T. Wright, and look at the Bible as if it is a play—a drama in five acts.
----------------------------
[i] They are “ultimate questions” because they are the questions everyone ultimately asks. They are the foundational questions for our philosophy of life, our “worldview”, or more simply, “How we look at life.”
Saturday, August 25, 2007
"E Pluribus Unum"
Last night I wrote a piece I called “E Pluribus Unum”, and planned to post it this morning. Prior to posting it, though, I saw a blog article by Chuck Colson on Townhall with the same title. In his "E Pluribus Unum", Colson makes the same point I’ve made, and points to another author (Robert Putnam) with the same concept in an article entitled “Bowling Alone”. Here is my treatise on the glorification of “Diversity” to add to what they have said.
In our church we often hear, “We celebrate diversity”. We come from many denominations in addition to Baptist—and we even come from a variety of Baptist backgrounds. Our recent survey showed that only about 60% of the respondents grew up in Baptist churches.
In the Sunday School class my wife and I teach the results were even more dramatic. One Sunday I took an informal poll. Out of 21 present that day, two grew up in American Baptist churches, four in Southern Baptist, and one Independent Baptist. The other two-thirds of the class were from Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic , and various other backgrounds.
We are diverse in age as well, although in recent years skewing more toward an older demographic. With almost half of the respondents in that survey claiming membership for twenty years or more, it is inevitable that the membership would be ageing.
Theologically we see a lot of diversity. That is understandable given the wide range of religious backgrounds of our members. Although the majority is moderate to conservative in its beliefs about Jesus, the Bible, and salvation, a sizeable minority is fairly liberal. For example only 74% said they believe the resurrection was an actual event.
I could cite other areas of diversity, but the point is clear—we are a diverse congregation. That seems to be the major factor in establishing our corporate identity for some. In a presentation by our Pulpit committee, a tentative theme mentioned unity in Christ, but emphasized and elaborated on our diversity and the latitude we extend to others to pursue their own spiritual journey.
The tentative theme has some appropriate elements, but a shift of emphasis would make it more biblical. Going back to the “We celebrate diversity” statement, a more biblical approach would be, “We welcome diversity. We celebrate unity in Christ.”
We have diversity. That’s a given. The more we emphasize our differences, though, the more difficult it will be to come together to both call a new pastor and move forward towards a unified mission goal.
After all, in John 17 Jesus did not say, “I pray that they may all be diverse”. He said, “I pray that they may all be one…even as you and I are one.” (from John 17: 21,22).
If we are truly disciples, or followers, of Jesus Christ, let’s work toward the answer to His prayer. We do that, not by emphasizing diversity, but by focusing on what unifies us. From many different and very diverse backgrounds comes one unity in Christ.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Abduction of Churches?
In the Summer 2007 issue of City Journal Heather Mac Donald writes about The Abduction of Opera. (Read the whole article, but be warned, the language explicitly describes the vile and base extent to which European, and some American, opera directors have taken classical opera.) The vivid description of what some have done to Verdi, Puccini, Mozart, Strauss, and others is necessary to show how low some will go to elevate their opinion above that of the genius of a former era.
Mac Donald’s last three sentences in the article are especially worth noting, “But Gelb should remember that he is the guardian of a tradition that generations have built. That tradition approaches the magnificent works of the past with love and humility, recognizing our debt to them. The Met will remain a vital New York and world institution for another century if it allows those works to speak for themselves.”
In addition, the article shows the end result of Postmodernism on popular culture. All the past is irrelevant; only my own experience today matters. What someone in the Enlightenment (i.e. “modern”) period thought or intended when they wrote music, or an opera, or a play takes second place to what we think today. We must transform the message as well as the medium in order to appeal to today’s audience.
This is exactly the problem churches face today. Churches have to decide whether to appeal to this generation by using different technology (such as PowerPoint projections on a screen above the pulpit); by changing the worship experience through more contemporary music; and by changing the message of the Gospel to one that is more in line with multiculturalism, moral equivalency, religious pluralism, and diversity politics; or to use whatever technology and methods of presentation are helpful in communicating the one Gospel that has transformed lives and cultures for centuries.
I’ll paraphrase Heather MacDonald’s last three sentences above. But churches should remember that they are the guardian of a tradition that generations have built. That tradition approaches the magnificent gospel message of the past with love and humility, recognizing our debt to it. Churches will remain a vital American and world institution for the future if they allow that message to speak for itself.
There is a reason that certain Christian denominations in the U.S. have been on a steady decline for the past two or three decades while others are growing. Trends and political themes come and go. The traditional message appeals to the felt needs of people, regardless of to which generational group they belong. Changing the message may be trendy in some circles, but changing the core of the Gospel message leaves it hollow, shallow, and ineffective. Churches today that do well follow Paul’s example in saying, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” (Romans 1:16 NIV)
Mac Donald’s last three sentences in the article are especially worth noting, “But Gelb should remember that he is the guardian of a tradition that generations have built. That tradition approaches the magnificent works of the past with love and humility, recognizing our debt to them. The Met will remain a vital New York and world institution for another century if it allows those works to speak for themselves.”
In addition, the article shows the end result of Postmodernism on popular culture. All the past is irrelevant; only my own experience today matters. What someone in the Enlightenment (i.e. “modern”) period thought or intended when they wrote music, or an opera, or a play takes second place to what we think today. We must transform the message as well as the medium in order to appeal to today’s audience.
This is exactly the problem churches face today. Churches have to decide whether to appeal to this generation by using different technology (such as PowerPoint projections on a screen above the pulpit); by changing the worship experience through more contemporary music; and by changing the message of the Gospel to one that is more in line with multiculturalism, moral equivalency, religious pluralism, and diversity politics; or to use whatever technology and methods of presentation are helpful in communicating the one Gospel that has transformed lives and cultures for centuries.
I’ll paraphrase Heather MacDonald’s last three sentences above. But churches should remember that they are the guardian of a tradition that generations have built. That tradition approaches the magnificent gospel message of the past with love and humility, recognizing our debt to it. Churches will remain a vital American and world institution for the future if they allow that message to speak for itself.
There is a reason that certain Christian denominations in the U.S. have been on a steady decline for the past two or three decades while others are growing. Trends and political themes come and go. The traditional message appeals to the felt needs of people, regardless of to which generational group they belong. Changing the message may be trendy in some circles, but changing the core of the Gospel message leaves it hollow, shallow, and ineffective. Churches today that do well follow Paul’s example in saying, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” (Romans 1:16 NIV)
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Moral Equivalency at CNN
Check out this example of what is called "moral equivalency". Is it really true that some people think that there is no difference between Christian "fundamentalists" and Islamist "fundamentalists"?
The article is a post on PowerlineBlog "Fundamentally Flawed"
"On Tuesday evening, CNN will debut a three-part series called God's Warriors. The series, devoted to an examination of "religious fundamentalism," is created and hosted by Christiane Amanpour; the first segment, to be aired Tuesday, is called "Jewish Warriors;" Wednesday's show is "Muslim Warriors," followed by "Christian Warriors" on Thursday.
While these three topics are treated as though they were on a par, there are some obvious distinctions. Like, the Christian "warriors" are home-schooling their children, while the Muslim "warriors" are blowing people up. If this Associated Press account is accurate, CNN's series is devoted to obfuscating such obvious differences rather than elucidating them."
The article is a post on PowerlineBlog "Fundamentally Flawed"
"On Tuesday evening, CNN will debut a three-part series called God's Warriors. The series, devoted to an examination of "religious fundamentalism," is created and hosted by Christiane Amanpour; the first segment, to be aired Tuesday, is called "Jewish Warriors;" Wednesday's show is "Muslim Warriors," followed by "Christian Warriors" on Thursday.
While these three topics are treated as though they were on a par, there are some obvious distinctions. Like, the Christian "warriors" are home-schooling their children, while the Muslim "warriors" are blowing people up. If this Associated Press account is accurate, CNN's series is devoted to obfuscating such obvious differences rather than elucidating them."
Monday, June 18, 2007
Critique of "god Is Not Great"
Christopher Hitchens has a top-selling book called “god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”. It’s a book you may want to know about, but probably won’t want to buy it. For an analysis, read this at http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/godisnotgreat.htm (it’s a series about the debate between Hitchens and Mark D. Roberts on the Hugh Hewitt show and then Roberts’ critique of Hitchens’ book).
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
The Mission of the Church
Mark D. Roberts has started a new series on the mission of God in the world, and how we can be involved in it. I have enjoyed and appreciated several of his prior series (DaVinci Code, Can We Trust the Gospels, etc), so I'm looking forward to this one.
I like his concept of laying out the broad biblical context for mission--it is something I've also picked up in N.T. Wright's The Last Word. In this new book Wright placed today's church in Act V of a drama through which God uses His Word to effect His will.
To check out Roberts' series, click on The Mission of God and the Missional Church.
I like his concept of laying out the broad biblical context for mission--it is something I've also picked up in N.T. Wright's The Last Word. In this new book Wright placed today's church in Act V of a drama through which God uses His Word to effect His will.
To check out Roberts' series, click on The Mission of God and the Missional Church.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)