I mentioned Jerry Coyne’s site in an earlier post Five Sites I read Because I Disagree, and I still read it. I get some good information about evolutionary science and great cat pictures and videos. But Jerry Coyne is not particularly friendly to believers.

Now I want [...]]]> I just made this discovery this morning.

I mentioned Jerry Coyne’s site in an earlier post Five Sites I read Because I Disagree, and I still read it. I get some good information about evolutionary science and great cat pictures and videos. But Jerry Coyne is not particularly friendly to believers.

Now I want to be clear. I’m not one to be terribly upset by vigorously expressed viewpoints, so I’m not offended by the new atheists. I’m more concerned with Christians who use excessive rhetoric. After all, we’re supposed to be on the same team. So the new atheists are proud and open about their atheism and their objections to religion, and I have no objection.

So today I read Coyne’s latest on Bart Ehrman’s new book in which he presents evidence that Jesus existed. Now one has to be careful in stating Ehrman’s thesis. Ehrman doesn’t mean that the divine savior of the world of Christian doctrine existed. He means that there was a man Jesus who existed in history and about which certain things can be said with reasonable historical validity. (I haven’t yet read the book, but I think this much is clear from the reviews. Further, it’s an unsurprising thesis.)

Coyne is concerned that people will misunderstand Ehrman, and that Christian believers will take comfort from the book. Coyne says, “I’m hoping he isn’t being deliberately ambiguous to cater to believers.” Probably not. Ehrman hasn’t really been known to cater to believers, though his book jackets seem to be designed to annoy them. Compared to the relatively tame content, the jackets manage to stand out as shocking. (I previously blogged through Misquoting Jesus [link to the summary and conclusion with links to the parts].)

Then his penultimate sentence:

But what is important, and all those Christians who buy the book should know this, is that both Ehrman and atheists see not a scintilla of evidence that Jesus was the son of God or divine in any way, was born of a virgin or resurrected, or is the way to salvation.

Really? I would have thought that the important issue was whether Ehrman had done his historical work with any accuracy. Not having read the book yet, I can’t comment in detail, but I suspect he has. I can certainly understand his annoyance with the mythicists who use very poor historical methodology. I see the annoyance that Ehrman seems to be expressing as the the annoyance of a scholar at the use of unscholarly methods and approaches. Coyne would doubtless be quite annoyed were the methods of mythicists used in science. (See James McGrath on this issue–for example, Creationists, Mythicists, and Schroedinger’s Scholar Fallacy.)

But then there’s the last sentence:

That remains fiction to all thinking people.

I am, of course, aware that Coyne regards this as fiction. I’m aware that Ehrman does as well. But that wasn’t the point of Ehrman’s book.

It’s an interesting form of attack. If you think Jesus was divine in any way, then you are not a thinking person. Not You are a person whose thinking is faulty. Not even You are a thinking person who is mistaken on this point. If you disagree, you are just not a thinking person.

I think Christians should be forthright and open about what they believe. But when I hear a Christian say something like “You have to be stupid to see the universe, and not believe in God,” I will tend to point out that there are definitely very intelligent atheists, those who are able to think clearly on issues about which we agree. Why would one assume they are suddenly stupid because they disagree on one point? My preference would be for one to simply say, “It is not sensible to assume that something came from nothing.” That may simply push the issue back a level, but it is an attack on the idea, and by implication on the person’s thinking in that particular area, but not an attack upon the person.

But since I confess that I regard Jesus as divine, not to mention savior of the world, something that is not really an historical question as such, I guess I am not a thinking person.

Oh well!

My company (Energion Publications) will be releasing a new book by Dr. Vick, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, taking the approach of systematic theology. This will be released some [...]]]> Joel Watts is quoting from a book I publish, From Inspiration to Understanding. I’d like to get more involved, but for now, check out his quote.

My company (Energion Publications) will be releasing a new book by Dr. Vick, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, taking the approach of systematic theology. This will be released some time in May.

We have both previously written on this topic. To be honest, I don’t think that many people are really interested in a church like the first century church. I [...]]]> My wife Jody is again writing about the first century church. She wonders if we want to just visit it for one hour per week.

We have both previously written on this topic. To be honest, I don’t think that many people are really interested in a church like the first century church. I suspect it would be too demanding of our commitments, time, and resources. But isn’t that what God calls us to?

(HT: Allan R. Bevere) Related Posts: Jesus vs. Religion – Really? Seventh-Day Adventist vs Methodist on Family Guy The Problem with Stories When Robots Chat A New Testament Political Theology Powered by Contextual Related Posts ]]> Walter Brueggemann suggests how we might avoid getting tangled up on secondary issues:

(HT: Allan R. Bevere)

I was invited as a Christian leader to hear Dutch [...]]]> I have previously written about the term “dominionism,” one which I don’t find very helpful as a label for a political position. So I was very interested to hear Dutch Sheets, one of those called (by some) a dominionist, make reference to the term.

I was invited as a Christian leader to hear Dutch Sheets speak at Kingsway Church in Pensacola, Florida (I was unable to locate a web page for Kingsway). I’m thankful for the invitation to this session for pastors and leaders. This post isn’t a critique of that talk, but rather deals with just a few moments of his presentation that relate to the term “dominionism” which has been very controversial. I will need to mention some of my own political views in delineating the various positions.

The bulk of the presentation dealt with the role of the church. Sheets is anxious (as I am) for us to get away from the idea that “church” is a building or a gathering at which we babysit the pew-sitters. That’s an incredible simplification of what he was saying, as he has some very specific points to make about just how we do it, but I think disagreements over details of strategy shouldn’t make us miss the main point.

He says that the church has elevated just one of the offices (or better, gifts), pastor, over all the others, and thus has gotten unbalanced. By nature, pastors nurture people. But a group that wants to get something done needs leaders who will also get people moving. Pastors may do that to some extent, but we’ve emphasized the care and nurture part.

He builds the way in which this happens around a broad scope of biblical history, starting with creation and the fall. Humanity is created and given dominion, then loses that dominion at the fall. Christ comes and restores what was lost. He takes the specific meaning of “legislative assembly” for the Greek word “ekklesia,” and uses it as an example of what the church is to do—act with authority. One might debate his extension of that particular meaning of the word to the New Testament, but nonetheless it gives the flavor of what he means by the church taking authority.

It was in this context that he brought up the term “dominionist.” He indicated that he didn’t like the label, but at the same time, he noted that if it’s defined as noted above—that humanity had dominion, lost it, that Christ came and restored it, and that the church carries on that mission—then in those terms he’s a dominionist.

I can see this term from a theological point of view. His view places a strong emphasis on the word “dominion.” You’ll hear him use that word much more than your average speaker. And if you make differences of emphasis central, then you could say his view is somewhat different from what is usually preached on this point. How frequently do you hear the word “dominion” in a discussion of the atonement? But as I mentioned earlier, I’m not writing to critique his presentation, but to clarify what he means.

What that dominionism, as he (reluctantly) accepted the term, means in politics became clear when he discussed specifically what it would mean for the church to be “ekklesia” as he defined it. In politics, he used the example of the young man who is interested in changing education. He said that as Christians we do not use force (he repeated this a number of times). What we want, he said, is for a young man to go out, get a PhD, become the superintendent of schools, and then we would be able to do things about prayer in schools. (Prayer was the specific example he used.)

Since it is currently quite legal for students to pray in school in the United States, despite some school boards’ overreactions, but not legal for school officials or teachers to lead or prescribe prayer, I’m going to assume that what Sheets wants here is for officially led or prescribed prayer. That would seem to be the one thing a school superintendent could work on regarding prayer in public schools. Of course, one would need to have lawyers educated and on the Supreme Court, legislators at various levels of government (a constitutional amendment might be required), and so forth.

This was the example Sheets used of the impact of the church acting as a legislative assembly (ekklesia as he defined it) for the world. So there is a particular political strategy that comes out of the church behaving as he is calling on it to do. Understand that the presentation was only about two hours, so he did not have time to flesh it out. I have used the most fleshed out example I heard.

So how much different is this from the basic idea that Christians should live their values in the public sphere? (I’m avoiding the “seven mountains” terminology, though that did come up.) I would simply note that there are a variety of views on how a Christian acts as part of one of the “kingdoms of this world” while being a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. For some, being part of the kingdom of heaven means no political participation at all. We witness for the kingdom of heaven, but we do not become part of the political structures. At the other extreme would be Christians who believe that we will successively take over the world’s governments until, by that means, the rule of Christ will extend to the entire world. In addition, there would be variations on just what methods are justified in pursuing those goals. Sheets specifically rejected the idea that Christians would take over the whole world; he said God would come in and finish it in a sweep.

I personally believe that Christians should participate in a secular, pluralistic society as moral and ethical people, but not in a way that would make the society less friendly to those of other beliefs. In fact, because of the freedom I believe God gives us, I think we should make society more friendly. If the Muslims in my community want to build a mosque, I’m there to back them up. At the same time, this means I disagree on the issue of prayer in public schools. My imaginary Christian young man would grow up, get a PhD, and be the person who makes life more comfortable for an atheist student, rather than the one who requires that the atheist student hear a prescribed prayer or do Bible study.

Sheets emphasized that he does not believe in force. I appreciate that. It distinguishes him from some extremists, and it’s a critical distinction. At the same time, my concern is that, as soon as we as Christians have the power of the state behind us, we are, by nature, employing force. I think Christian history suggests that when we bring the power of the state to bear in religious issues, the results are not good either for the church or the state. Sheets explicitly said “no separation of church and state,” though it’s important to note he said that from the church’s point of view, i.e. the church doesn’t separate itself from the state.

At this point I see “dominionism” as a possibly useful theological label. I’m still not convinced it’s useful as a political label, and hearing Sheets speak only further convinced me of this. His position on political issues, and on the church’s action in the political sphere, is essentially the dominant position of the Christian right. They wish to get elected and enact laws that favor Christianity in the public sphere. It’s no secret. I don’t see the need for a separate label. In Escambia County Florida, where I live, that’s pretty much the definition of a conservative Republican, with the note that there’s hardly any other kind of Republican around these parts.

Theologically, there is a greater difference, because Sheets has tied theology and the action of the church much more closely to this specific agenda. But it’s specifically of that usage that he acknowledged the term “dominionist” in the first place. And I want to note that I see his theology as a different emphasis on various elements of existing theology, and not something created out of whole cloth.

My concern is that the more detailed of a political strategy we pursue, the more opportunities we have for division over things that are not central. That could be further illustrated by how very American both Sheets’ presentation and my response are. How does this relate to various countries in Africa? What about to Christians living in the Muslim world? How does our tying Christianity to American political goals impact the gospel message worldwide?

I know there are dangers working from memory on hearing someone talk. As a writer and speaker myself, I generally prefer people to work from my written works, and I’d prefer my views to be taken from my books rather than my blog, if there’s a conflict. At the same time, what someone says in a more informal setting may well reflect one’s views more accurately.

So take this as my impressions. It didn’t really shift my view on the application of the term “dominionism.” It reinforced and clarified my existing position.

The question, I’m told, is what we should be doing and [...]]]> The tragedy of the American church is that we have the greatest resources ever in the history of Christianity and for the most part we’re sitting on them, doing nothing. When we are doing something, most of what we do is for ourselves.

The question, I’m told, is what we should be doing and how we should be doing it. A close second is how we motivate people to go into action and do whatever it is we should be doing.

But I think that’s the wrong question. If we’re going to be Christians, we know what we’re supposed to be doing, and it falls somewhere amongst the bad words I use in the title. The gospel commission in Matthew tells us to go and make disciples. It is repeated elsewhere in the New Testament in different words, but the essentials remain.

This is why I continue to insist on using the words “evangelism” and “missions” no matter how bad they may sound to some people. I’ve been told that I will turn people off by doing so. I’m well aware that there have been many things done under the heading of these words that have likely driven people away from Christ rather than drawn them to him.

There have been missionaries who spread a “gospel” of American culture rather than the Gospel of Jesus. There are been those who were very destructive to those with whom they came in contact. I’ve seen the occasional distant look, or heard the silence when I tell people my parents were missionaries. But I can tell you that my parents carried medical care and the love of Christ where they went, not American culture. The word (“missions” or “missionary”) is not the problem.

Similarly I continue to use the word evangelism, proclamation of the Good News. There have been many whose “good news” was that the hearer should come to my church, follow the norms of my “church culture,” and pay tithes into the church budget, thus avoiding hell. But that isn’t the Gospel, and we know it, whatever we may practice.

I have had a number of conversations with pastors who told me their churches looked good on paper. They had the right numbers. But at the same time, these pastors told me, things were not going well. The church wasn’t carrying out its mission. People were not becoming active.

There’s a great debate amongst Christian scholars as to whether missions should consist mostly of care for the physical needs of people or whether it should be primarily about their spiritual needs. The big problem here is that the debate is often conducted between people who are actually doing neither one. More importantly they represent groups and denominations who, in overwhelming numbers, are doing neither.

I would like to suggest that we don’t need a change of words. I want to say we need a change in the way we understand those words, and that our understanding should turn back to scripture. But that would be to get back into the very same debate. What I really think we need to do is replace the words with actions.

We often think we need to straighten out our beliefs first, and then base our actions on right beliefs. I believe that in many cases this process needs to be reversed. Obey the obvious commands, and the more obscure ones will begin to fall into place.

I was showing a pastor from overseas around the Pensacola area. He was a very activist evangelist in his homeland. He had planted many churches. He had built orphanages and schools. He had carried out both the mandates of caring for people’s physical needs and also addressed their spiritual needs. As we were driving he suddenly said to me: “You know, Henry, how you can hear the voice of God more often?” “How?” I asked. “Just obey what you’ve already heard and you’ll hear more from God.”

I think that could apply to following the commands of God received through Scripture. How can I learn more of God? Act on what I have already learned.

That isn’t a command for pastors, teachers, or for those who own publishing companies. It’s a command for all Christians. I often tell people that all Christians are witnesses. The question is what type of witness you’ll be. Will you be a good witness or a bad one. Even if you just warm a pew you are a witness. The testimony you give in that case is that Jesus is really not that important, and can be ignored by people who have serious things to do.

To be a missionary you have to go. It may be a few feet. It may be a few thousand miles. If you’re a missionary, you’re also going to be an evangelist. You’ll be proclaiming good news. It’s a commission you get when you accept Christ in the first place. If you’re part of the church, you’re called.

Because of this, I’m delighted that my company, Energion Publications, has just released a new book, Will You Join the Cause of Global Missions? by David Alan Black. I try to write a few notes on each book I publish. I view my business as a ministry, and there is a reason for the manuscripts I choose to publish, a reason beyond whether I think I can sell them. In this case I wanted to give some of my own thoughts on missions before discussing the book.

For this book I’ve worked closely with the author and planned the way we’d publish and market it to make sure we can offer it for the lowest price possible, especially in quantity. It’s just 32 pages including front and back matter. Quantity prices at Energion Direct get this down to $3.24 each if you’re ordering 50 or more copies. (I’ll tell you why you want to order in quantity below.) But right at the moment you can beat that price through B&N, which is still (February 9, 2012) offering the book for just $2.57.

Why do I emphasize the price? Because we’ve pared this price to the bone to make the book as accessible as possible. Over the next few days watch for a Kindle edition, and we’ll follow that shortly with one for the Nook. The Kindle edition will be sold for just 99¢.

So why buy this book in quantity?

To put it simply, this isn’t a book for you to read and put on your shelf. It’s a challenge to action, and it’s a tool for Christians to use in leading other Christians to become active. Let me quote a few lines:

“If churches in America were truly committed to the Great Commission, it would show in a lifestyle that matches our response to a lost and dying world” (8).

“The most important principle to keep in mind is to employ material things for the kingdom of God rather than for ourselves” (9)

“Kingdom Christians have found the pearl of great price. Like Jesus, they refuse to separate doctrine from practice, word from power” (10).

“Under God’s great grace, we are called to be one with one another. What can create this kind of community? Community cannot be preached. It can only be practiced and the place to start is with oneself” (16).

Now those are little snippets taken out of the context of a carefully planned presentation, but I think they give a taste.

But the book ends in an unusual way. It asks you, the reader, to sign on the dotted line. Will you join the cause of global missions? If so there is a specific commitment, and a place to sign and date your commitment.

Dave is a Baptist, and I’m a Methodist. I’m sure someone will find something “Baptist” about this book and point it out to me. That will be an excellent sign that they haven’t gotten the point. There is nothing in the commitment requested in this book that I, as a Methodist should not already be committed to. Dave doesn’t tell you in this book just what mix of social, physical, and spiritual you’re supposed to try for.  The Holy Spirit will guide you in that. And I’m convinced that, as that visiting pastor once told me, if you obey the clear things you already know, other things will become much clearer.

This isn’t about denominations or the numbers on church rolls. It’s not about the amount of money in the offering plate. I believe all of those things will be impacted by our obedience to the gospel commission, but I believe it is dangerous to make material things the goal. This is about being sent into the world as the Father sent His Son.

If you need a copy of this book to evaluate, let me know. If you’d like a copy to review, let me know that as well.

But above all, act on what you know.

This whole topic led [...]]]> Scot McKnight asks why Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and Albert Mohler start a firestorm when they say certain things, while others, such as Tim Keller can believe and say those same things, but don’t get the same heated response. There’s an interesting discussion in the comments, which is worth reading.

This whole topic led me to think about something else, however. Is there a proper role for polarizing figures? I have started a few arguments in my time, but I don’t aim to be polarizing. I aim to bring people together. So I tend to look more favorably on the non-polarizing proponents of any position, those who invite conversation while suggesting new (or resuggesting old) ideas.

At the same time, I don’t think those who build consensus are sufficient to bring out the truth. There have to be voices that challenge the way things are done. There have to be people who generate the annoyance and anger that it takes to get people moving. As an egalitarian, I have to think that Mark Driscoll and John Piper may be good things for the entire discussion and even for my cause.

By this I do not mean that they are promoting my point of view by being radically on the other side. I could equally suggest that someone equally polarizing on my side of this particular issue might also have a beneficial role to play, however much they might annoy me. I’m reminded that the prophets were not always sympathetic, moderate people. They normally preached a radical message and did so often in radical ways.

You may object that the prophets preached truth in radical ways. Of course, those who do speak in polarizing ways all believe they are speaking the truth. But that’s not my point. I believe that people tend not to move due to moderate suggestions.  The preacher who suggests to his congregation that they really ought to be just a little more generous may find that they give only a fraction of that “little more.”

I think both extremists (in moderate numbers!) and polarizing people (again, in moderate numbers) do us a great service. Many of us would never move at all if we were not drawn or pushed away from their positions by their positions and manner of presentation.

I discuss identifying the extremes as an important part of thinking in my earlier post Moderate Thinking.