Safe Haven

I received my first paper back in Religious Studies. I expected an A, or something close. I got a C+. You have got to be kidding. I loved that paper. So much did I cherish it! Part of the problem stems from my use of the word "orthodoxy." No, I did not try to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I merely was trying to say that the new religious pluralism threatened traditional notions of Christian orthodoxy. I shouldn't have to tell my instructor the contours of what that might look like. I wasn't trying to put forward my view of orthodoxy, just to say that those who define what it is feel threatened. Duh. Also, I defined sacred space as any place where the presence of God is, or was. Which, in my view, seems self-evident from Exodus 3:5 and the rest of what I would call the Old Testament. To refute my basic definition, my instructor referred me to Jonathan 2 (which doesn't exist). I hope you're reading this, Chip. Because I expect better from you as wel...

I think I should make something clear today. Today, I want to talk about fundamentalism. You hear the term thrown around a lot in Religious Studies departments, but no one seems to be able to define what it means. Among these folks and religiously committed types, it seems to mean, "A religion with a bunch of zealots that scares me." After much refinement in the field, they came up with something similar to, "A religious movement characterized by stringent committment to certain doctrines." Positively stunning. You could call any Christian a fundamentalist by that definition! Right now, I have dozens of old lectures and conversations with my Religious Studies professors floating back to me saying, "You're only saying that because you have a personal narrow view of what a Christian is." Well, it's not a personal view, but you're darn skippy I have a narrow definition. I ask you, "In whom do you trust?" and you'll probably give me ...

Please don't click on the ad banner above this site if it says, "A New Christianity for A New World" by John Shelby Spong. He's a heretic, and a liar. Just trust me on that. (Going into rant mode) We don't need a new Christianity, we need the old one. Things got all messed up when we started changing things, and adding things. Like I don't know who said Mary didn't have sex after the Lord was born, but that's just silly. Seriously, who did that? Scripture teaches us this. Just what do you think a "marital duty" is anyway? Ever-virgin, my foot. Joseph is liable to be the unhappiest married man ever, if that were so. (And if you're Catholic, and that last remark really bugs you, well, too bad.) And don't let anyone get away with saying, "Christians think sex is wrong," because that's easily the second-dumbest thing I've ever heard. And third, Christians think drinking is wrong. Where do people get this stuff? If you...

I'm going to blog about a controversial topic now. Abortion is back in the news. Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 281-142 in favor of banning partial-birth abortion, or late-term abortion. Critics of the bill say it is an attack on Roe v. Wade. Or, an attack on the right to an abortion itself. The critics are absolutely right. Roe v. Wade is most likely the most unconstitutional piece of garbage ever to become the law of the land. Rather than secure "health care" for millions of people, it has caused the death of fifty million people, and ruined the lives of millions of others. Why won't pro-lifers permit a heath exception? Because prominent abortion doctors have admitted that they would classify the most blatantly elective abortion as a health-related one. "Life" or "rape" is clear enough; health is not. And an overturn of Roe would not mean automatic illegality, as most perceive. Rather, individual state laws would be reinstituted. ...

That last post is a great transition, because the next section of Colossians tells us some important things about Jesus. Without further delay, let's read Colossians 1:15-29. What does this passage say about Jesus and the Father? What does this say about Jesus and creation? What was the purpose of creation? What does it mean that "he is before all things"? What function does a head have for a body? What must happen before the resurrection on the last day? What does verse 19 mean? (This is HUGE) How does Jesus make peace, and with whom? Who is "you" in verse 21? What then is true about all people, whether they are Christians or not? Why is Christ's death important? How are we holy and blameless? How will we be made holy and blameless? Are these two truths contradictory? How can we be stable and steadfast? Why does the gospel help us do that? Are the afflictions of Christ not complete enough for the church? (Must a...

What is Christology? Good question. Christology is the study of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Or, "Who is Jesus, and what did He come to do?" That, I think, is the most important question that anyone could ask. Your answer determines your destiny. Christians take the rock-solid foundational answer to this question for granted. It's not obvious to everyone that Jesus is the Lord, the Son of God, the author and perfecter of our faith. If you believe Jesus in this way, it is a miracle. We are then vessels for His glory, and nothing else. Most heresies that have ever appeared undermine Jesus and his work. They have to do that very thing, because He is the center of it all.

I would encourage everyone to buy (or just read) The Many Faces of Christology by Tyron L. Inbody. There's a great chapter on evangelical Christology (think: Christian Christology) so that's worth it all by itself. According to the author, "evangelical" does not simply mean Protestant, either. It was simply the Reformation that demanded the real Church stand up and identify itself. The book's also useful to look at unorthodox hermaneutical approaches (like Marxist Christology) for comparison.

Well, I have a paper topic for my Religious Studies class. Since we are studying 9-11 as a religious event, I thought of something like, "9-11 Memorialization as a Function of Sacramental Awareness." "Sacramental Awareness" is defined as the extent to which ordinary things are seen as divine, or reflections of the divine Presence. The book that I lifted the concept from is called Living from the Center. The author is not a Christian, in my estimation (Orthodox confessional Christianity, see Apostles' Creed) but he's trained in theology, so his knowledge is useful for thinking theologically and sacramentally.

I read the whole chapter for context, friends, and we're gonna have even more fun next week in Colossians 1.

Today begins our study in the letter of Paul to the Colossians. I'm using the English Standard Version, or ESV. I'll simply post whatever questions I have about the text right here. I'm wanting to avoid quotation as much as possible, as not to run afoul of those publishing rules. So, here we go, Colossians 1:1-14. What is an apostle? Does it have anything to do with "by the will of God" in verse 1? What is a saint? And if it is any believer, how come it says, "saints and faithful brothers" in verse 2? What is grace? Why is Paul thanking God for their faith? Why doesn't he thank the Colossians? I know the "right" answer, but isn't that thought-provoking? What does in mean to have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? What is the gospel? Why can we trust in Jesus? Why do we love one another? Why does Paul describe the gospel like a plant with fruit? How are grace and truth related? What did Epaphras do? And why is ...

And I do not think the evangelical denominations are just interest groups for the GOP. Rather, I feel that the mainlines are interest groups for whatever social cause is in fashion. Without the Gospel, they are just civil groups that make religious noises every now and then. Christians in posession of the true Gospel can stand outside the political fray and make valuable contributions to both parties. Yet as long as one party (the Democratic Party) remains committed to defending "abortion rights," they will not gain the allegiance of Christians who might generally agree with other policies.

I was reading about mainline church opposition to U.S. invasion of Iraq. My instructor was lamenting (or observing, to allow a claim of objectivity) the lack of impact those leaders' opinions had on Bush's policy. The list of denominations was less than impressive. ELCA, PCUSA, United Methodist? C'mon. Most real Christians are either considering leaving these denominations, or have already done so. If Christians perceive that the Gospel itself has been forsaken, why would leaders' opinions on "just war" theory mean anything? You can't assume that the more "conservative" elements are all Southern Baptists and independent evangelicals, either. Religion scholars have failed to account for the creation of new "mainline" denominations to replace the others, where doctrine and practice has remained strong and traditional, better explaining the huge groundswell of support for the war policies of our President. This is a much better explanation...

So, today is the day for talking about whether Christians can lose their salvation. Can we? Depends on what a "Christian" is. Someone who walks, talks, and even acts like a Christian might not really be one. (1 John 2:18-19) "False sons in her pale," indeed. But we are assured over and over in Scripture that we will not fall away on account of God failing us. (John 6:37-40, Ephesians 1:13-14, John 10:27-30) Nor can we commit any sin so great that we cannot be forgiven if we truly repent (1 John 1:8-9). The real theme of Romans 8-9 is not election, but rather assurance. The same could be said for the first two chapters of Ephesians. How did we get where we are, and where are we going? Will God lead us out of the slavery of sin to perish in the desert of our own efforts? Surely not! The same grace that called us out of sin and death will sustain us. If we were dead in our transgressions and sins (Ephesians 2:1) and we were made alive with Christ (Eph. 2:5) surely He i...

Crumpets. Tea and crumpets. I can't think of anything to say. It has been my experience that no one ever reads 2 Peter. That is, unless they're quoting something about losing your salvation, or other such foolishness. I'll do what can only be described as a column on this. Anyway, I've read Paul's letters a billion times, but has anyone ever quoted from the book of Amos? I've had people ask me if that book is in the Apocrypha. No, it's in the Old Testament, and it's not disputed. Don't ask me about Joel, either. You should know this stuff.

Today, class was supremely interesting. It's my Congress and Legislative Policy course. My instructor said that parties are getting stronger, and becoming more ideologically pure (less overlap). Let's hope so.

Much was made of the fact that George W. Bush did not meet with a single bishop (including his own) from the United Methodist Church before deciding to move against Iraq. On the other hand, I saw his bishop on a program discussing religion and salvation. If one is a Christian, or even knows a lot about it, one expects to hear a certain answer to the question, "How must I be saved?" Regardless of denomination, the answer, with little variation always is: "Repent and believe in the name of Jesus, God's only Son, our Lord." Never changes. Never should. Well, this guy said some ridiculously pluralistic drivel about how all religions are the same. Yours truly had to conclude that perhaps this man was no disciple of Jesus at all. I myself am not the Judge, but were I the President, I'd ignore this man's "religious opposition" to my policy in the same manner.

I don't have any worries about Warner keeping perspective. But I know that I'd have a hard time if it was me.

A little over a year ago, I unequivocally stated that Kurt Warner should be the starting quarterback for the St. Louis Rams. Today, I am changing my decision. It pains me to write this; I love Kurt Warner. He's my favorite football player. In case you're wondering, yes, it is because he's a Christian. Warner plays for my hometown team, and he's my brother in Christ. (Aside from the fact that he's also really good) Yet, Marc Bulger is better. I won't say that I'll have a Marc Bulger card or jersey. I won't follow his career when he leaves the Rams. But he deserves to start for my team. I will never have the intense loyalty to Bulger as I do to Warner, and Marc will have to understand that is true for many St. Louis fans. If they trade Warner, there's going to be an uproar. But what else will you do? 47 million dollars was paid to Warner after the Super Bowl victory. You can't have a backup with that much money! A seven-year contract. This is only ...

On the eve of the two-year anniversary of the attacks on our country, I should say something. First, we're going to hear a lot of blather about how President Bush uses overtly religious language to cast his foreign policy in favorable terms. Supposedly how he really believes in the American Civil Religion, that we have a special place in the world, how Americans think we are a "chosen people" like we are God's very own...yadda yadda yadda, blah blah. Look, people: We happen to live in the modern day equivalent of the Roman Empire. Nations rise and fall in this time based on what the United States does, and does not do. If that makes you squirmy, it should. It doesn't change the fact. Now, with all that power comes obligation. You want some religious language, here's some. To whom much is given, much is expected. You had better believe we're going to make sure people understand the gravity of the choices we make. And if you were in posession of this power, ...

Speaking of John Calvin, sometimes good things do come out of France.