I bought my first smartphone...

Over the years I have remained somewhat of a technophile...I got hooked on computers as a college freshman and eventually switched my major from a BS in Physics to a BS in Applied Computer Science at UNC Chapel Hill.  I am such a geek I even wrote a sort of technology biography a couple of years back. 

I have always enjoyed the products of Palm Inc.  Actually, I was printing out my calendar from an old app called Lotus Organizer when the first Palm handheld came out.  At that time it was from US Robotics before it was sold to 3Com, then spawned Handspring, which worked on cellphones called Treo, then Palm Inc, which borged Handspring back into Palm...

I have watched the smartphone market for years with some interest but two things kept me away.  First, the technology was not mature and the features of the early phones were very weak.  Second, they were just so expensive that I felt a little hitch in the soul paying 500 bucks for a phone.  Well, things evolved and the technology got better but the price did not go down as rapidly so I have held out.  

In October a little phone come out from Sprint/Palm called the Centro which peaked by interests.  First, it was 99 bucks.  Second, it was really small.  Due to the fact that I was moving my corporate plan phone onto my personal Sprint plan I was forced to do another 2 year contract...so this small phone was available to me at the 99 price.  I bit the bullet and grabbed on a few weeks back and I have been very pleased.  So what follows is a bit of a review of my little black Centro...

Fun Philosophical Quotes

I read these over at the Prosblogian. Perhaps those who are philosophically minded will enjoy.  The Avicenna quote is pretty well known, I had not seen how John Duns Scotus had adapted it.

Those who deny such manifest things need punishment..., for as Avicenna puts it: "Those who deny a first principle should be beaten or exposed to fire until they concede that to burn and not to burn, or to be beaten and not to be beaten, are not identical." And so to, those who deny that some being is contingent should be exposed to torments until they concede that it is possible for them not to be tormented.

Duns Scotus, Reportatio I A prol. q. iii. art. i

And then in the comments, a more kind but obscure quote from one of the men my Son, Thomas Reid Monaghan is named for:

"We may observe that opinions which contradict first principles, are distinguished, from other errors, by this:-That they are not only false but absurd; and, to discountenance absurdity, Nature has given us a particular emotion-to wit, that of ridicule-which seems intended for this very purpose of putting out of countenance what is absurd, either in opinion or practice."

Thomas Reid, Essays on the Intellectual Powers VI.iv

Just in case you wonder who the other folks Thomas is named for, please see the following link from the POC Archives: The Anatomy of a Name

Sad thing to see...

A friend showed me this video yesterday and to be honest it just made me sad.  Well, first it make me want to puke, then made me a bit angry, then it brought me sadness.

It is from a church in Georgia, I don't know the preacher and I believe the people there are likely well intentioned and desire for others to understand the message of the Bible.  This sermon was an introduction to a series entitled "Bling" - to talk about our culture's obsession with stuff.  But as I watched I saw a church surrounded by stuff, talking about "the worlds" obsession with stuff.  Additionally, I grew up very much in African American culture and I felt this to be very inauthentic and a bit over the top.  

Just a lesson of where a church, trying to be "cool", becomes very very far from being cool.  In fact, this is inauthentically as uncool as I have seen from the "cool church" crowd.  Plus, this little show looked like it probably cost a little bling to teach people about bling.

Here is the video - pull the slider to the 20min mark and let it go for a minute.  And then, if you are a pastor, promise sweet Jesus you will never do anything like this.  Or maybe I am overreacting...what do you think?

Incarnation and Pluralism

It is an amazing thing which happened in the region of Caesarea Philippi when Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God almost two millennia ago (See Mark 8:27-30 and Matthew 16:13-20).  Caesarea Philippi was a city dedicated to the worship of the emperor at the time of Jesus and in previous generations was a place dedicated to the pagan god Pan and to the idolatrous worship of Baal.1  It was in this place where Jesus' identity is openly confessed.  In our world today we often speak of pluralism, the idea that there are many gods and many ways to worship.  We think this is a new situation in the world brought on somehow by the diversification of viewpoints in contemporary America.  Yet this reality is nothing new at all for people have been building alters from the dawn of humanity.  People have always created and worshipped gods, yet the radical confession of Peter is that there was one God and that they were walking with him on the earth.

The claim of Monotheism was the teaching of the ancient Jewish people2 among nations who believed in many, many deities.  The ancient philosophers were coming to monotheistic conclusions3 as they wrestled with metaphysical questions of ultimate reality and truth.  Yet monotheism has an undeniable edge to it.  If there is one and only one creator God, then all other pretenders to the throne are no gods at all.  Those who stand for religious pluralism today and throughout history see this very clearly as a problem.  Mary Lefkowitz, professor emerita at Wellesley College recently wrote the following in an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. 

Prominent secular and atheist commentators have argued lately that religion "poisons" human life and causes endless violence and suffering. But the poison isn't religion; it's monotheism.4

Of course she is following the drivel of the so called "new atheists" who place all the problems of the world on religion. The thesis is that monotheism, belief in one God, necessitates killing those who disagree.  This of course is hardly what you find in the life of Jesus.  Yes, some Christians in history have murdered and conquered others in the name of Jesus, but in doing so they acted in contradiction to his very life and teaching.  Yet we must not dodge the reality found in the incarnation, in the biblical teaching that the one creator God, became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  The implications are that this person is the most important figure on the horizons of history and the coming contours of the future.  He is not one teacher among many, nor one way to many gods.  

The teaching of God incarnate in Jesus the Messiah is radical, humbling and life changing for in the gospel we do not see God coming to oppress humanity.  In stark contrast to the totalitarian visions of human utopias, offered by king, caliph, or communist, God came to earth to die for and redeem a people for himself from every nation on the earth.  There will be a kingdom on the earth some day which will be one of righteousness, love and peace.  It will not come by force of man or technological heroism.  It will come with the same Jesus at his return to the earth. 

All people from every ideology, religion, ethnicity and background are welcome at the foot of the cross of Christ.  It is a great heresy to teach that all from every nation are saved, but a beautiful biblical truth that some from every nation will be saved by grace.  In every age, from the time of Jesus until the end of the world, Christians will proclaim the wonderful news of God incarnate in Jesus Christ dying for sinners.  It was and will be an unpopular message to declare Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.  Yet this will be the song of all people at the close of history.  We now have the great joy and privilege of knowing him and sharing him with all.  In following Jesus in this world, living his mission and declaring his message, there will always be those who shout "crucify him!" and we must take up this cross.  Yet there will be those, to whom the Father reveals Jesus, who will look at him as did doubting Thomas and exclaim-my Lord and my God...

Notes

1. Ben Witherington III, Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 240.

2. See Deuteronomy 6:4,5.

3. The looming historical figures of Plato and Aristotle, though in very different ways, were coming to this conclusion.

4. Mary Lefkowitz, Bring back the Greek gods—Mere mortals had a better life when more than one ruler presided from on high, LA Times, October 23, 2007. 

Peter - Apostle, Preacher...Pope?

Mark 8:27-30 and its more robust parallel in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew's gospel has been the source of some historical controversy between Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  It is taken by the latter to be biblical warrant for the institution of the Roman papacy, the Pope as the father of the church and its supreme teacher in regards to faith and morals.  I will quote the Matthew passage here:

¹⁶Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." ¹⁷And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

While this brief essay cannot treat these issues with the rigor which is needed, I do hope it might illuminate the differences between Roman and Protestant/Eastern Orthodox views of the Christian faith.  I will lay out a few points of argument made by each side in regards to the issue of the papacy.

Catholic Arguments for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (The Pope)

There are many arguments that the Roman church makes in favor of the primacy and leadership of the Pope and the hierarchy of cardinal, bishop and priest which is under him.  The argument usually takes two lines-one from the sacred tradition of the church and the other from Holy Scripture.¹   On the tradition front, there is a section in the classic work of the 2^nd century church father Irenaeus to which Roman Christians point to as favoring papacy.  Irenaeus was bishop of Lyon which was located in what is now modern day France.  He wrote extensively confronting several heretical teachings of his day. He is quoted often in various contexts-in this case, in favor of the primacy of Rome.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.²

Additionally, the ecumenical council of Nicea in AD 325 listed four major patriarchates/sees (seats of authority) being Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem with Rome given the place of highest honor.  In the late fourth century Constantinople was inserted making the list of honor-Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, though the rivalry of Rome and Constantinople would continue until the east/west split in AD 1054.  One of the issues was papal authority which the Eastern Orthodox churches still reject until this day.  Finally, the text from Matthew quoted above is used extensively in the argument for the papacy. The keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome, the first pope.  His successors maintain the highest authority in the church.  The succession of bishops or overseers of the church in Rome is not the issue, the issue is this man's rule over the church as the supreme representative of Jesus on the earth today.

Arguments Against the Papacy

There are many long standing arguments against the papal authority in church history.  They too interpret both tradition and Scripture to make the argument.  Again, this is necessarily brief and therefore incomplete.  First, it is argued that Peter is but one of a plurality of leaders in the early church.  All traditions attribute great honor and leadership to Peter, but he was by no means infallible.  During the life of Jesus we see Peter's evolution into a great leader through his many failures.  Yet even post resurrection we see the apostle Paul rebuke Peter for his inconsistent and hypocritical actions in relating to Jew and Gentile in a way contrary to the gospel (See Galatians 2:11-14).  Second, the text in Matthew 16 does not imply the papacy and certainly nothing like papal infallibility.  Many interpretations have been offered which give primacy to Peter and his role in the establishment of the church, but none of this need imply the papacy which evolved in the Roman church during the middle ages.  Third, the historical honoring of Rome by councils does not warrant the papacy. Rome is honored as a great historical church in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople, but the other great churches and their patriarchates were not subjected to her-in fact, this was not the case with Constantinople and continued to be an issue for hundreds of years and persists until today.  There also has been a reality in history which stated that councils should decide matters of dispute, not one bishop.  This was the case through the first seven ecumenical councils and was argued by the Conciliar movement in the late middle ages.  Additionally, the apostolic succession of Pope's and their infallibility seems historically dubious.   First, one particular pope, Honorius 1, was declared posthumously to be a heretic and false teacher in AD 681 for advocating something called Monothelitism .  How could he be considered infallible?  Second from AD 1378 to 1417 there were actually two popes in the Western church, one in Rome one in France seated at Avignon.  The Council of Pisa in 1409 disposed both popes and appointed another, but both did not step down leaving the church with three popes for a brief time.  The issues were resolved with the Council of Constance (1414-17) but raised the question of whether a council could rule over the pope for the council had removed the two popes and elected Martin V to power.³  One last historical issue is of note, although the Roman church claims it was always the case, papal infallibility was not made Roman teaching until Vatican I in 1870. 

In conclusion it must also be said that the story of the papal institution has been haunted by grabs for power, accumulation of wealth, immorality and sin.  Though the Catholic church claims that the Pope has not erred and has never taught in contradiction to Scripture I think history is replete with examples of both action and teaching which do not reflect infallibility.  This only means that Popes are people and are in no way infallible.  The highest authority for the church has never been the succession in Rome, but the apostolic teaching of Scripture being faithfully entrusted and passed on through the ages.  We trust not hierarchy or power to maintain the church, but the Spirit and the Word of God.  There are errors on all sides...Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic.  Yet our disputes are resolved in humility, standing under, not over the very Word of God in Scripture.  History and our lives are messy, we no doubt move forward with truth and error.  But much as Luther echoed long ago under great pressure to recant his views-Our consciences are chained to the Word of God...here we stand, we can do no other.

Notes 

1. It should be noted that in the Roman religion that Scripture and the teaching Tradition of the church are equal forms of authority which are seen as complementary and never contradictory.   Protestants hold that Scripture is the supreme authority and is the corrective and judge of all human teaching in the church.

2. Irenaues, Against Heresies 3.3.2-http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

3. For a good summary of church history during this era see Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol 1 (New York: HarperOne, 1984) - See particularly the chapter on the Medieval Papacy.

The New Atheists...Guest Essay by Timothy Dees

Today we have another guest essay from Timothy Dees one of the founding members of Jacob's Well who has already relocated his operations to New Jersey.  If his Fact of the Day (FotD) is not on your radar it should be.  Here is the link to his site.

Today's installment touches a subject familiar to the readers of the POCblog - The New Atheism.  Dees essay should be read along with the excellent essay What the New Atheists Don’t See - To regret religion is to regret Western civilization by Theodore Dalrymple in the City Journal.  Dalrymple is not a believer but sees through much of the vitriol of the new atheists to some of the beautiful gems of Western Christian culture.  Highly recommend you reading Dalrymple and then Tim's essay below.  Hat tip to Ben Vastine for pointing out Dalrymple's essay to me last week.  Enjoy.

-----------------------------------------------
The New Atheists
by Timothy Dees 

Today we have a book review / essay on the New Atheists.  It mentions the following books:

• God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens
• Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett
• The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins
• The End of Faith, Sam Harris
  

It's a simple enough question: either there is a God or there isn't.  But there are some special properties to that question that make it exceedingly difficult, especially because the game is rigged against the atheists.  I say that as a theist, but I also say that in agreement with prominent atheists such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins.  The existence of God, as a philosophical proposition, is non-falsifiable; in other words, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

Russell, the patron saint of atheism, unpacked this idea when he said:

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

What this means is that atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, so they are forced to consign themselves either to rebutting arguments for God's existence, or attempting to demonstrate that if God existed, he would be a nasty fellow.  It's not that they don't have their reasons, but as a philosophical statement it is impossible to prove there is no God. 

Fighting a non-falsifiable idea is a Sisyphean task, and throughout history atheists have generally accepted modest expectations for what they can and cannot do.  Thus Bertrand Russell's legendary atheist tract is not entitled Why I Am an Atheist, but Why I Am Not a Christian.  In it, he goes through many of the classical arguments for God's existence and offers a rebuttal of each.  On these grounds he rejects Christianity and the Christian conception of God, but as a philosopher he cannot honestly say that he has proved that God doesn't exist.

Lately, however, a new flavor has emerged in the debate over God's existence.  The New Atheists, as they have been called, are a group of atheists who, in the wake of September 11th, have decided that belief in God isn't just wrong, it's evil.  It's a varied group, consisting of a legendary scientist (Richard Dawkins), a journalist (Christopher Hitchens), a graduate student (Sam Harris), a philosopher (Daniel Dennett), and a number of other people of different stripes.  The one thing they all have in common is that they write books on atheism, and those books sell at a fever clip.

Their tone is different from the atheists of the past: at times their books can be funny, rude, scientific, arrogant, self-assured, condescending, or caustic; I can assure you that they're never boring (with the possible exception of Daniel Dennett).  Sometimes their rhetoric descends into the despicable, as in this passage in Sam Harris's The End of Faith:

"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably.  Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.  This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."

This is a truly striking claim, but generally the New Atheists are more measured than Harris.  What they have in common is a belief that religion has been coddled too long, and a belief that religion only leads to evil.  They believe this second point quite scrupulously, as for instance, neither Christopher Hitchens nor Richard Dawkins mentions one good thing a theist has ever done, acting as though religion prompted the Crusades and the Inquisition, but not Mother Theresa and the Sistine Chapel.  Just as it isn't fair to judge atheism by Stalin, it isn't fair to judge theism by Osama bin Laden.  At its worst, this sort of argumentation turns into a spew of ad hominem attacks.

Not to say that these indictments against believers aren't worth noting.  If there's something inherent in religion that makes people mistreat others then that's obviously a bad thing, but most of the world's billions of religious people don't kill anyone and generally treat others with a certain fundamental decency. 

But all this is neither here nor there.  One can defend and attack believers and non-believers from dawn till dusk, but very little would be accomplished.  The central question is "Does God exist?" and on this question the New Atheists seem to misunderstand the philosophical challenge of the question.

They dispatch God in different ways, but all of them have holes.  In Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett (the most even-handed of the New Atheists) argues that religious faith is an evolutionary adaptation and thus has no correspondence to reality.  But this argument crumbles quickly: sight is also an evolutionary adaptation, and I would imagine that most atheists would believe that what they see represents reality.  Dennett's book takes an interesting thesis and tries to contort it into more than it is.

Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion propounds an innovative argument against God's existence - but it's an argument that ultimately doesn't hold water.  Essentially, Dawkins's argument is: God, if he (or she) exists, would have to be very complex because the things that God created are very complex.  Complex things are less likely, so a very complex God is very unlikely.  Since God is improbable, and (Dawkins argues) since the world could have been created without God through unguided Darwinian evolution, God does not exist.  Like I said, it's innovative, but it has huge holes.  One: there's no reason to suspect that complex equals improbable, and two: there's no reason to suspect that improbability implies non-existence.  Alvin Plantinga's response to Dawkins's argument is worth reprinting:

"You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class."

Christopher Hitchens's argument is more straightforward.  For Hitchens, God is a jerk.  This is more of sticky wicket for believers than Dawkins's "improbability" argument or Dennett's evolutionary argument, but Hitchens brings no new ideas to the table, besides implicating God's followers with God.  Hitchens basically says "God's bad, and if you don't believe me, look at believers."  The problem is that Hitchens can't see any difference between Osama bin Laden and Ned Flanders.  A believer is a believer for Hitchens, and they're all vile people, corrupted by the scourge of religion.  Hitchens seems unable to see shades of grey.

After reading through the assembled corpus of the New Atheists, I was exasperated.  The New Atheists have a few novel ideas, but most of the time they're merely spouting invective about how bad believers are.  Orwell discussed this argumentation style in Homage to Catalonia: "It is as though in the middle of a chess tournament one competitor should begin screaming that the other is guilty of arson or bigamy.  The point that is really at issue remains untouched."  That's the real innovation of the New Atheists: they don't care for the central question of theism vs. atheism; instead they prefer to shout.  It's enough to make even the most committed believer nostalgic for Bertrand Russell.  Yes, give me that old time atheism. 

Jacob's Well Update

 

The most recent update on Jacob's Well is over at the www.JacobsWellNJ.org - you can jump to it directly here. 

Just as an update, as soon as a few checks come in, the 35K match has been reached - a few of you POCBlog readers chipped in.  Thanks so much for praying for us and helping us towards our move north in June.

Heaven - Preview on Saturday Afternoon...

This past weekend I was in Blacksburg, VA for the second time in the last month.  My prior trip was to engage with a community about the atrocity which took place on the Virginia Tech campus in April.  During that trip we were looking at Jesus' view of suffering and the reality of evil in our hearts and in our world.  This trip was different.

I went to pastor the wedding ceremony of two friends, Abraham Hardee and Sophia Abraham.  Yes, it was an Abrahamic affair.   The wedding gave me a smal glimpse of the kingdom of heaven for which I am grateful.  No, it was not a Utopian weekend without any sin or drama - whenever you get lots of people together someone will find offense somewhere.  What was so beautiful about the occasion was the mosaic of God's people who were present in the wedding party. 

In one of the visions into heaven afforded by the book of Revelation we read the following:

9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” 11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen." Revelation 7:9-12

Now there was not a great innumerable multitude at the service this weekend; though the wedding party did have 14 attendants, a bride, a groom, a flower girl and me the pastor.   What was seen though was a beautiful tapestry of diversity in God's people.  Of the 18 in the wedding party I believe there were 1 Asian American, 3 Indian Americans, 6 Euro Americans and 8 African Americans.  In this party there was not only diversity, there was unity within the diversity.  To my knowledge each person is a follower of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Jewish carpenter from an ancient ghetto town called Nazareth. 

Often our contemporary world is marked by a diversity without unity and a mere tribalization of peoples by race, ethnicity, religion or economics.  Or it is marked by a unity without true diversity with communities segregated along worn out lines of division - Sunday mornings come to mind.

This weekend I stood as a white dude with some dear, dear friends.  One Indian, the other a black guy.  I could not help but weep during the ceremony and to be honest it had nothing to do with race.  I saw the gospel of Jesus working in people...and it was beautiful - as were the vows of covenant marriage made through communion with Jesus.  I wish the couple the best and continued grace in the gospel.  Now if I could only persuade the Hardees to come live in New Jersey with our family - and start churches together made from the same metal. 

Perhaps...

POC Bundle 11.04.2007

The Church

The folks at Stand to Reason have some interesting comments on the "gospel" being "Jesus as means to healing the planet" which is being put forth by some Intervarsity staff.  Remember, if we leave out the central focus of the "good news" we have presented a half truth.  Half truths fall short of communicating the rich reality that the gospel is about God saving sinners through Jesus AND send them on mission in the world.  That mission includes proclaiming the Jesus that died for sinners and forgives them AND sends the church into the world with good works for the common good as well. 

Pop Culture 

The gospel of Mark highlights that Jesus was seen as a different teacher for he taught as one with authority.  Our culture does not like to speak with any sort of conviction - one comedian has picked up on this and unpacks this cultural reality well. 

(HT - A-Team Blog) 

Gospel and Culture

Last Thursday we had a discussion entitled "Green and the Gospel - Christianity and the Environment. The wrap up from the evening is here.

John Weber

I just go word that John Weber, Athletes in Action chaplain for the Dallas Cowboys just passed away on Thursday.  Though I only knew John from a few short conversations he was as respected as any I knew in the AIA world.

There is a story about him over at the Dallas Cowboys Web Site.  John was a guy that quietly impacted many lives serving others in the name of his Lord.

Here is the link - please pray for the Weber family as they grieve the loss of a kind servant. 

Book Review - Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views

 
Brand, Chad Owen. Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2004. 338 pp. $19.99 

Introduction

Perspectives on Spirit Baptism is a volume in the recent Perspectives series being published by Broadman and Holman.  The series endeavors to present a wide cross section of views on various theological issues from the wider Body of Christ.   This particular edition, edited by Southern Baptist Theologian Chad Brand, deals with the subject of Spirit Baptism.   As the introduction of the book so aptly presents, Spirit Baptism is a doctrine that is important in today's theological landscape for several reasons.  First, the Bible speaks of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and any treatment of the integral work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and Christ's church must consider all the relevant texts.  Second, the historically recent Pentecostal and Charismatic renewals in various theological traditions as well as the spawning of new Pentecostal and Charismatic movements has encouraged the church to address the nature of the working of the Spirit in intentional theological study.   The book's format is to present five essays, each of a differing viewpoint, followed by responses by each of the other authors in turn.   This provides a multifaceted view of the issues from all sides which has become a welcome format in current theological literature.  

Summary 

As necessary with multiple view books, the volume begins with an introduction to orient the reader to the backdrop to the theological discussion.  Although brief, the introduction of the book is well written and sets the stage for the debate which follows placing all relevant issues before the reader.  Dr. Brand's introduction serves well as a tour of the working of the Spirit in the early church as well as the continued interplay of Word and Spirit throughout the centuries of the Christian church.  As in similar perspectives volumes, this book offers the views of five theologians laying out their understanding of "baptism in the Holy Spirit" from within their church tradition.   Walter Kaiser writes in favor of a Reformed perspective; Stanley M. Horton presents the case for classical Pentecostalism; Larry Hart a dimensional Charismatic perspective; H. Ray Dunning a Wesleyan assessment; and Ralph Del Colle a view of Holy Spirit renewal within the Roman Catholic Church.  Each of these will be evaluated in turn in the bulk of this review.  Overall, the book was a very helpful work of historical theology with each author presenting substantial views of the developments of both doctrine and experience in each tradition.  This was a pleasant surprise as it positioned each essay in a proper historical light.  Each author covered their historical bases with such clarity that the theological dialogue, cross pollination, and even spiritual interdependence which has taken place among all of these traditions was quite apparent.   Observing the biblical, theological, cultural, and existential issues which have unfolded over the past several hundred years was very helpful in understanding the issues.  I found this to be one of the foremost strengths of the volume.  Additionally, it was surprising that not one theologian of a thorough cessationist vantage point was included among the essays.  In my mind this was refreshing and encouraging, yet some may have desired to hear such a voice.  In summary, I found this volume to be irenic in its voice, collegial in tone, and rigorous in its treatment of the topic.  What will follow are short critical evaluations of each of the author's essays and then some concluding remarks.

Part 1 - The Baptism of the Holy Spirit as the Promise of the Father - A Reformed Perspective by Walter Kaiser

The first essay of the volume was by Dr. Walter Kaiser of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.  Dr. Kaiser writes representing a reformed perspective; a Protestant view which couples the baptism of the Holy Spirit with regeneration, being converted as a believer, or becoming a Christian.  Dr. Kaiser's essay places the baptism of the Holy Spirit within Redemptive history by carefully putting forth the Old Testament prophetic promises of a coming age of the Spirit (Joel 2, Isaiah 44, Ezek 37:14).  This anticipation is directly predicted in the Old Testament and points beyond the old covenant to a new and coming age which unfolds in the overall plan of redemption (19).   This anticipation found fulfillment with the New Testament giving of the Holy Spirit to the people of God.   I found the strength of Kaiser's essay to be in that he handles all the references to Spirit Baptism with care and deference to the Bible's actual usage of the terms.  The case is made that in the didactic literature, one is baptized in/with the Spirit into the body of Christ, all being given the same Spirit to drink.  This emphasis on Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 12:13 - that all are unified because all are believers, all have been baptized in one spirit.  If one does not have the Spirit he does not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9, 14); so in one sense all believers are indwelt by the Spirit, having been baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ.  Kaiser's discussion from this point is to address whether Paul and Luke/Acts deal with the theology of the Spirit in different manners.  Paul, as noted, was concerned with soteriology, Luke it is said was primarily concerned with the empowered and Charismatic doctrine of the Spirit.  Kaiser delicately stresses that the gift of the Spirit in Luke, though empowering and at times charismatic, is always related to salvation and initiation into the new age of the Spirit.  The included debate about the nature of narrative to provide doctrine and theology was especially helpful as this relevant in many discussions today.[1]  Overall I felt Kaiser did a good job relating to all the texts associated with spirit baptism and he made a compelling case that it refers to the initiatory work of the Spirit placing us in the body of Christ rather than a subsequent experience signified by tongues.  It was refreshing to see openness from the reformed position to subsequent empowering and infillings and perhaps all the charismas.  This is a welcomed trend in some reformed circles (Lloyd-Jones, Piper, Grudem) and one that will not doubt continue to be explored in the time remaining until the Lord comes. 

Part 2 - Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective by Stanley M. Horton

Stanley M. Horton, offers the case for a classical Pentecostal view of Spirit Baptism as a subsequent experience to conversion/initiation evidenced initially by speaking in tongues.  The essay was an excellent introduction to the history of the Pentecostal revival for those new to the discussion.   All theology is done by persons in historical contexts and knowing the "story of Pentecostalism" was very helpful.  The essay was robust and thorough yet the approach to the material seemed a bit tendentious.  I found that he supported the use of the Acts narrative to formulate doctrine, but then found him lacking in integrating the teaching of actual references to the terms "spirit baptism" into his doctrine.  His focus on the overall phenomena in Acts is helpful to show the work of the Spirit in the lives of believers as they were empowered in prophetic witness, but I found him unconvincing in presenting the doctrine of subsequence as universally taught in the narrative.  His arguments for the second facet of Pentecostalism, that of tongues as the initial evidence was even less persuasive.  He seemed to used arguments from silence in the case of Simon in Acts 8 and Paul's conversion experience in Acts 9.  He even used terms such as "it should be obvious that" (76) and "he must also have spoken in tongues" (76) and "only one thing it could it be" (75) which seemed to be question begging.   As the Acts narrative is not universal in presenting tongues as the initial evidence of the Spirit's coming upon a person, it is unadvised to extrapolate this to all believers.  I find the doctrine that tongues is THE evidence of the Spirit's work a bit strained in its correspondence to the Bible (1 Cor 12:30), church history, or contemporary experience of the diverse body of Christ.  Dr. Dunning's illustration of a mute man who came to faith in his ministry was very compelling as well.  Could this man who could not speak receive the Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by tongues as defined by Horton?  This point was well taken.  Other parts of the essay that I enjoyed were the stories of people's lives being changed and Dr. Horton's anti-cessationist summary on pages 81-83.  His handling of the cessationist argument from 1 Cor 13 was well done.  I also enjoyed his chronicling of the growth of the church in various parts of the world.  Overall I was encouraged by the missionary efforts of the Pentecostals, the stories of the work of the Spirit in the lives of people in various traditions, and their bold witness for Christ.  However, I was thoroughly unconvinced by the doctrine of subsequence evidenced initially and exclusively by speaking in tongues.

Part 3 Spirit Baptism: A Dimensional Charismatic Perspective by Larry Hart

Dr. Larry Hart, a charismatic of Southern Baptist background, presented the third essay of the book, what he called a dimensional charismatic perspective.  As one interested in philosophy, I appreciated the creative (though probably irrelevant) use of Hegelian synthesis to put for his dimensional view.   The thesis is the traditional view that Spirit Baptism is initiation/conversion.  The antithesis is the Pentecostal View of subsequence evidenced by tongues.   The synthesis spawned would be the dimensional view which he summarizes on page 124: Spirit Baptism in the New Testament refers to conversion-initiation, initial sanctification, and spiritual empowerment as well as the outworking of these in the total Christian life.  Hegel would be proud; or would he?

In his survey of the Biblical material, Hart makes the distinction between Pauline and Lukan emphasis on the doctrine of the Spirit with a helpful enumeration of Luke's language in reference to Acts.  Paul speaks of initiation and Luke complements this by adding the empowering nature of the Spirit.  It was good to see the range of vocabulary Luke employs describing the work of the Spirit.  The following phrases are used: baptized in, come upon, filled with, the Spirit is poured out, receive the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is given, and the Holy Spirit falls upon believers.   The emphasis is clear to Hart; Luke's emphasis is the "power for mission" dimension of pneumatology.  Such a both/and of initiation and empowering fillings seems to be a good tact when considering the overall witness of the text.  I found the categories of pneumatology on page 128 to be a great addition to the book, although a bit broader than the topic of Spirit "baptism."  Though perhaps beyond the stated topic, I felt this was a strength in Hart's contribution.  His categories of the Paschal work of the Spirit (Salvation, conversion, present in the Johanine literature), the Purifying work of the Spirit (Sanctification, Consecration, found in the Pauline literature), and the Pentecostal work of the Spirit (Service, Charisma, found in the Lukan account in Acts) are very helpful in viewing a dimensional work of the Spirit.  I also found his treatment of tongues to reveal some irony in the debate about the gifts of the Spirit.   Some use 1 Cor 12-14, which is addressing an overemphasis on tongues, to overemphasize tongues, while others use the same few chapters to rule them out all together.  The truth does seem to lie somewhere in between.  Finally, I agree with Dr. Kaiser that his use of Jesus' baptism and the decent of the Spirit as paradigmatic for our own empowerment for service brings problems in Christology that are not addressed in Hart's essay.  Also, Kaiser's critique that he misses the main issue in the debate between Pentecostals and Evangelicals about the "baptism" of the Spirit is on target.  I enjoyed seeing the multidimensional work of the Spirit in this essay, but the baptism of the Spirit is either regeneration/initiation/conversion or something else.   I would therefore prefer the language of one baptism, many infillings to the attempt to make the baptism a big happy metaphor into which we can stuff all our pneumatic wanderings.   With all that said, Hart's essay was insightful into the broad workings of the Spirit in believer and church and a joy to read.

Part 4 - A Wesleyan Perspective on Spirit Baptism by H. Ray Dunning 

H. Ray Dunning writes for the Wesleyan viewpoint as one who is striving to maintain a tradition which has been fragmented and perhaps high jacked over the years.  In reading his historical account of the thought of Wesley on the ministry of the Holy Spirit one can see why.  As Wesleyan thought diverged under his successors and then subsequently moved into the American holiness movement, and then Pentecostal thought, one can see why Dunning makes such a concerted effort to clarify the views of Wesley himself rather than his theological descendants.  Much of the essay focused on Wesley's primary theological concern; that of the moral transformation of the believer.  Wesley's concern was the sanctification, or making holy, of the Christian and his pnuematology kept this as a primary concern.  The Spirit was the agent of sanctification in Wesley's mind; the Spirit transforms the believer's life.   As a result Dunning's efforts focused upon character and moral development rather than gifts and empowerment.  Wesley held that initial salvation was indicated by the biblical terminology of baptism in the Holy Spirit.  He then held that entire sanctification, a second work of completion in love by the work of the Holy Spirit, but he did not equate this to the "baptism." (193).  As much of the Pentecostal arm of Christianity traces its roots back to Wesley and subsequently American revivalism, Dunning provided a great look at the historical evolution which brought about today's debate.  The American Holiness movement departed from a classic Wesleyanism and then this departure, combined with Finney's revivalist theology, led to the Pentecostal revival in the early 20^th century (see page 204-206).  This was helpful to understand how movements and their modifications spawn certain viewpoints over time. 

Dunning's own Wesleyan view was primarily Christological in focus.  The Spirit is focused on the mission of Christ and the working of Christ in us to change our lives.  This view of the Spirit as the working of Christ's mission to bring forth the new age of the Spirit, change the lives of the believers, was a good complement to the foci of the other essays.  In his focus on moral transformation rather than gifts of the Spirit, I think Dunning missed something organic to the very work of the Spirit he seeks to preserve. The gifts in the New Testament are given to build up the body, which includes the transformation of the people of God.  This corporate nature of the gifts is missed by Dunning in that a body, serving in mission, according to the gifts of the Spirit is morally transformed in the process.  I see his neglect of the charismas as his not wanting to be overly "gifts centered" like some in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles, but I see the charismas needed for the body.  The gifts are given to assist in mission and to fulfill Dunning's noble realization in Wesley's theology, the ethical transformation of the believer.   Although my own view of sanctification is different than that of Dunning (ie my rejection of Wesleyan perfectionism), this perspective is appreciated as the goal of the believer ought to be increasing sanctification and holiness over time.

Part 5-Spirit Baptism: A Catholic Perspective by Ralph Del Colle 

The final chapter is a Roman Catholic perspective on the Pentecostal revival and outpouring of the Spirit in Catholic faith.  This chapter was interesting to me for several reasons.  First, the noted evolution of the Catholic renewal as originating from the interaction with the Protestant Pentecostal movement is a fascinating occurrence.   Second, as Del Colle states, the concern for stated Catholic thought about the Spirit's movement flowed from existential and pastoral concerns.  Something is happening! So the question as to how one thinks about the practice from within the framework of Catholic dogma and spirituality must be addressed.  Del Colle notes that the classic Pentecostal doctrine of subsequence enabled quick reception of the Pentecostal experience into long standing ecclesial traditions (p 244).  Something has happened, but it is a subsequent experience that in no way invalidates Sacramental Catholic theology.  This enables the Catholic system to remain intact while the church, over time, figures out the right place to fit in official teaching on the matter.  The rest of the essay, both historical, and the offering made by Del Colle are about how Catholics have gone about integration of Spirit baptism with the Catholic system (249).  Some have connected it to a fullness of the Spirit received at the rite of initiation, that of water Baptism.  Others have connected it to the rite of continuation, the Sacrament of Confirmation, while still others have given it an extra-sacramental status and related it to a Protestant understanding of "multiple infillings."  Del Colles own constructive proposal holds fast to the sacramental giving of the Holy Spirit in water baptism and the continuation through confirmation.   His view then claims outpourings of the Spirit upon the Catholic as an available experience related to the reception of the sacraments, not replacing them. The Spirit is given to renew the believer, enrich the believer in the full scope of the graces and gifts to be richly received as the Lord gives, but not coveted for their own sake (279).  Overall, I found this essay interesting and an enjoyable read.  Like Hart, I was encouraged to see a portion of the body, wrestling to integrate a thoughtful theological response to a Pentecostal experience in its members.  My main problem was with the whole system of Catholic Sacramentalism.   Del Colle, as a good Catholic scholar, goes to great links to fit the experience many have had into Catholic dogma.  Yet, he does very little to seek to align it with the teaching of the Bible as the norm for doctrine.   However Del Colle's contribution to the volume was much appreciated.  He is very well read and grasps the larger confessional debates.  His approach is a good illustration of wrestling with new theological issues with a pastoral concern for genuine renewal and Christian well being.  The historical connection of Catholic Pentecostal renewal taking place after a renewed evangelical concern (trust in Jesus alone, concern for the lost, etc) among Catholics was a very welcome addition to his essay.

Conclusion 

On the outset of reading this book I was not looking forward to a long discussion of something I have looked at with some depth over the years.   So I must say that I was very pleased and pleasantly surprised by the volume.  I loved the historical horizon provided by the book as each author positioned doctrine within its pastoral, historical, and theological context.   The tone of each writer was collegial and the voice of the book was one that seemed to be moving towards a mutual appreciation, and perhaps even some doctrinal convergence.  The classic Pentecostal and the Reformed view perhaps will never meet, but recognition of the initial baptism of the Spirit into the body (1 Cor 12:13) and continued infillings of the Spirit (as seen in Acts and Eph 5:18) seems to be embraced by all.   I am torn with whether a Cessationist viewpoint should have been included in the book as it is a position still held by many.   Perhaps this view would have been injurious to the tone of the book and personally I am happy to see the influence of cessationism fading as its textual support to me seems scant.   As with most multiple view books, this one is helpful in the formation of ones own views on a matter as seeing all sides represented is always helpful is such growth.  So for this I am very thankful to have been given this volume to read.  May the Lord, the Sovereign triune God of the Bible, continue to save, sanctify and empower his church by the Promised Holy Spirit, our counselor, comforter, teacher and deposit of the glories to come!

---

[1] It is especially relevant in discussions of church polity as the Acts narrative provides several texts which weigh heavily in that debate (Acts 14:23,15, 20:17-38)

OS Battle Royale

 
OK, all of those who like OS X and hate all things Microsoft, or visa versa, Engadget has a pretty extensive comparison up which could begin a religious war.  Of course the fanatics will be most pleased as their operating system eeks out the win!

Here is the link... 

MacIdolators in Leopard Coats

Who dresses up for a release of a minor operating system upgrade?  I'll let you answer:

 

How do we Change?

A Reflection on Jesus' teaching in Mark 7 

One thing is universally agreed upon on planet earth.  Things are not perfect and things need to change.  Some in pride situate the needed change only in others, fully confident of their own righteousness and goodness.  They think, If THOSE PEOPLE would get their act together the world would be a better place.  Yet, just in case I may be writing to some people who realize that they themselves might need to change, I hope this essay is of some help to you.  In this brief discussion I have but modest goals.  I first want to diagnose the problem of the human heart following the teaching of Jesus in seventh chapter of Mark's gospel.  I then want to look at the biblical prescriptions and ways by which we actually change.  In doing so I will touch briefly on Christian sanctification, the teaching or the Bible about how we are conformed to the image of Jesus where sin is defeated and we are changed.  So following the great prophet Michael Jackson, lets start with the man in the mirror and ask him to make a change.  And when we find out that we cannot change ourselves we'll land in a good place.  The place of grace and transformation in the hands of our good God and Savior Jesus Christ.

What's Wrong with Us?

Years ago the British Journalist GK Chesterton was asked along with others to write an essay for the London Times responding to the question "What is wrong with the world?"  Chesterton wrote back a simple editorial which read: Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton.  Of course he had much more to say about the problems of the world and he did indeed write an essay dealing with this question.¹  Yet Chesterton's understanding of the question and his pithy response shows something profound and unique in the Christian worldview. 

Perhaps one of the more offensive, honest and easily verified teaching of Jesus and his apostles is that of the sinfulness of human beings.  Other worldviews present man as essentially good or morally neutral, it is simply his behavior that is out of line.  If we only teach a person the right things he will act better-hence there is a sort of belief today in salvation by education.  Yet in the face of this is the fact that sin is found both in the simple and the intellectual elite.  In fact, the most educationally sophisticated nation of the 20th century perpetuated the most evil of crimes in recent history.  Nazi Germany was not an ignorant people, but a sophisticated child of enlightenment thinking which resulted in atrocities unspeakable.   When we are honest we see that we all have sin in us, it is not simply "out there" in others.  Today many secular thinkers such as Steven Pinker of MIT are finally rethinking the "man as basically good" shtick teaching that human nature is in fact bent towards doing bad things.²  The problem is that he reasons that we are genetically predetermined to be selfish, fight each other etc. and we have no choice in matters anyway.  For in this view we are but the machinations and fluctuations of DNA with no heart or soul left to speak of. Of course many other secular minds do not want such a dark view of ourselves and Pinker has his critics.³  Thankfully, Jesus presents a much different picture of the problem of the human condition, one more devastating, but ultimately one that brings liberation to all who believe.

In Mark chapter 7 we find Jesus teaching a parable to some religious folks about what makes us unholy or unclean before God.  While today's secular minds might say our DNA makes us bad, the ancient religious person thought it was all manner of external things which separated them from God.  Being around the wrong people, eating the wrong foods, not maintaining proper hygiene or even some aspects of the human body itself were what made people unholy.  These external things would make us dirty and unacceptable to God.  Jesus blows this idea up with a simple statement that it is not what goes into a person that makes them unholy, it is what comes from his heart that is the problem.  In other words, Jesus diagnoses is much more severe than we would like.  He does not say that we are sinful because we do sinful things.  His teaching is that we do sinful things because our very hearts, the center of who we are, are sinful.  So what is wrong with me.  I have a sinful heart, a heart that turns from God and attempts to live life my own way.  I will have all things on my terms, my own morality, my own way of treating people.  So Jesus teaches us that what comes out of a person is what defiles him. "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person" (Mark 7:21-23). Our world is filled with all of these things-and they come right out of human beings not from evil aliens from galaxies far, far away. 

Sanctification-How the Sinner is Made Holy

The Bible's teaching on sanctification, or becoming holy, is wide and deep and beyond a full treatment in the junk drawer.  There are several views on the subject so for those interested I refer you to the discussion in the book Five Views on Sanctification edited by Stan Gundry.  The following will simply be a summary of the biblical teaching about how sinners becoming more saintly-in a real, not religious, sense of the term.  A quick definition is in order-this one is from the late Anthony Hoekema and I find it covers the breadth of the topic concisely:

We may define sanctification as that gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, involving our responsible participation, by which he delivers us from the pollution of sin, renews our entire nature according to the image of God, and enables us to live lives that are pleasing to Him.⁴

Many see sanctification as a work of God which takes place over time but begins at a definitive point in a person's life.  We will discuss it in these two ways, new life given and life change over time.  To these we now turn.

New Life Given

When a person gives her sin to Jesus, begins to trust him alone and his work on the cross for them for her sins, she becomes a Christian, a person forgiven by and reconciled to God.  At this point many things take place which the Bible describes in beautiful language.  The person experiences a new birth (John 3:5), he becomes a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:11-15) and is set free from slavery to sin to walk in newness of life (Romans 6).  All of this is done by God, by his grace, through the work of Jesus on the cross and the Holy Spirit's direct regenerating power.  This is a work of God the Trinity and is not a result of the believers own efforts, it is something accomplished for her and applied to her.  

Some have argued that human beings have in themselves the ability to turn to God on their own and obey him by their own moral ability.  The ancient heretic Pelagius erred in teaching this long ago and many have followed similar teachings throughout time.  Yet the Scripture teaches us that the solution to the human heart comes not from within but from a gracious and good God.  He moves us from a dominion of darkness to the new kingdom and rule of Jesus.  The Scriptures say many things about our initial conversion, our becoming a follower of Jesus, but one thing is clear-it is his work, not our own.  His work changes us, puts thanksgiving into our hearts and excludes boasting.  It is not by our own education, religion, morality, or will-that the human heart is changed, this remains the work of God alone.  Theologians call this initial sanctification (to set apart as holy) as definitive sanctification.  God no longer sees us as sinners but as saints.  This is good news-gospel. Yet this begins the journey of life change where we become more and more like Jesus over time.  Old habits, thoughts, indwelling sin must be fought and defeated by the power of God and the existence of new loves in our lives. 

Life Change-Joy, Affections and Battle

If all we were was "new" life would be somewhat easy.  We would skip through the tulips of this world singing "hakuna matata" without a care in the world.  Yet sanctification has a second part-the process by which God defeats indwelling sin and puts it to death in us daily.  This process is one in which we have a role to play.  He calls us to obey him, but we find that our hearts are prone to wander.  So our lives now are mingled with temptation to go back to a former ways of life or to succumb to the lure of sin which faces us in the world each day.  We are called to become more and more like Jesus and to he has given us means to this end-prayer, study, meditation, solitude, fasting, scripture, communion as well as others.  He calls us forward in order that we might grow in righteousness and mortify, or put to death, the sin which can cling so closely.  It is a process that begins when we come to Jesus and continues until we are made perfect by God in the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven. 

As we follow Jesus over time we find that we become more and more aware of our sin and how much we need the grace of the gospel.  As we see our sin more clearly, the cross of Christ and God's grace towards us grows larger as well.  God saves us by grace and also gives grace to us that empowers continual change as well (1 Corinthians 15:10) It is in the gospel, in thankfulness of heart, that our joy increases and gives us fuel in following him.  We know he has paid our debt and that we never can repay him so joy rises in us that helps want to faithfully obey Jesus.  If we ever make following Jesus a duty without delight we will find ourselves in empty legalism which Jesus rebukes so strongly in Mark 7:1-23.  It is the gospel that saves, it is God who sanctifies us in the gospel.  Our motivation for obedience and walking in God's paths is his gracious work for us in Jesus Christ.  When we love him, we obey him.  So our steadfast prayer is for the love of God to be poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5).  In this way he receives glory and we receive joy and new affections for him that give us hope to fight sin tomorrow. 

The British theologian John Owen years ago wrote a great work on the nature of our battle with sin.  He taught that the Scriptures do not teach that we arrive at a state of complete sinlessness in this life but the power of sin over us can grow dimmer and dimmer over time.⁶  It is a walk of faith to trust God, practice spiritual disciplines, and confess and repent of sin.  It is in love and joy we do not grow weary and lose heart in this struggle, for it is indeed a battle.   Our God has promised to complete the work he began in us so even in our darkest valleys and deepest failures we can get back up and live tomorrow.  The author of Hebrews reveals to us the beauty of this race called life and he needs to be repeated as it sums up the process side of sanctification so well:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. 

We indeed look to Jesus, who looked ahead to the joy of the mission of God accomplished on the cross.  We look to him in joy and love so that we may rise and choose the path of life each day.  God will one day deliver us finally and fully from sin and temptation so we are mindful of this as we fight the good fight together today.  Remember, we are not alone in this thing, we walk together as his people the church-discuss your struggles with a friend today and do not forfeit the hope we have in the gospel.

Notes 

1. You can read some of fuller thoughts on the matter in his essay What is Wrong with the World? Available at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/wwwtw10.txt
2. Steven PInker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, (New York: Penguin Putnam, 2002)
3. See Simon Blackburn's  essay Meet the Flintstones http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/reviews/Pinker.htm
4. Anthony Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) 192.
5. Ibid 202-209.  A great discussion of both definitive and process sanctification.
6. To read Owen's works see the recently published Justin Taylor and Kelly Kapic Overcoming Sin and Temptation: Three Classic Works by John Owen (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006)

Karl Marx, the Office, et al

Today is a guest essay from Timothy Dees.  The following is the October 25th installment of his excellent Fact of the Day.  Enjoy - insightful cultural analysis to follow.  Tim, your last lines are some of what makes the biblical values of Jacob's Well so important to me...see you in Jersey soon.

Yours for truth, family, passion, hope and dependence on the one who instituted work, sets the solitude in families, gives us hope each day...even today - when I need it. 

KARL MARX, THE OFFICE, ET AL

‘My work is an alienation of life, for I work in order to live, in order to obtain for myself the means of life. My work is not my life.’

This statement is a common sentiment today, but when a young Karl Marx wrote it down in 1844, it was novel expression of an idea that had been percolating since the Industrial Revolution.  Marx’s idea became known as the theory of alienation.  A fundamental gap had appeared between life and work.  In a pre-industrial world, one grew food.  If one did not rise daily to milk the cows and till the soil, that farmer would have nothing to eat.  The farmer wanted to live, and he needed food for nourishment, so he grew potatoes, carrots, and beets.  If the farmer wanted shoes, he made shoes, or perhaps he traded some beets to the cobbler for shoes.  There was no division between the products of his work and the necessities of his life.

After the Industrial Revolution, however, mankind started spending twelve-hour days making shoes, or pressing buttons, or turning screws, and suddenly production was cut off from one’s needs.  The worker had little personal interest in making hundreds of shoes, or pressing hundreds of buttons, or turning hundreds of screws, but the worker did it anyway, because that was the lot given to him by his society.  The daily act of work became separated from survival.

Lately, the situation has become complicated further by the breakdown of traditional families.  People are staying single well into their 30s, and the divorce rate teeters around 50%.  Without a family to support, aimless individuals are further alienated from their work. People work in jobs they don’t care about, to make things that don’t matter, so they can buy things that they’re only half-convinced they need.  Worst of all, they’re doing it alone.

Which brings us to the Scranton office of Dunder-Mifflin, a paper company, and its cast of employees.  I mention this place because it’s the setting of the American incarnation of the television show The Office.  While there is no appropriate term for it in English, Swedish has a term, kulturbaerer, which is used when something encapsulates the culture of its time.  The Office is a kulturbaerer, and it is important in a way that television has only been a few times.

The American Office has a British predecessor, but the shows diverged quickly.  The British Office centered around Ricky Gervais as David Brent, a numb-skull boss who always wanted to be funny.  He wasn’t funny, however; he was grossly inappropriate, and much of the enjoyment of the show centered around watching the grimaces of the employees as they suffered their boss’s intolerable stupidity.  The boss, however, is the protagonist.  As such, it is a traditional dark comedy, finding humor in schadenfreude.

The show was innovative, using a documentary style, and it seemed a refreshing change from the cleaned-up simulacra of Friends or Seinfeld.  Watching those shows, one couldn’t help but notice that they were divorced from reality (How do these people afford cavernous apartments in Manhattan?  What do they do?  Why are they so attractive?).  In contrast, the British Office was filled with mildly unattractive people, going about their day-to-day work.

The American Office began by going in the same direction.  Steve Carrell replaced Gervais as the boss (his name changed to Michael Scott), but the archetypes were the same.  The first season had many grimace-inducing moments reminiscent of the British Office (including one particularly off-putting racist rant by Michael), and the rest of the ensemble existed mainly as set-up for Michael Scott’s unthinking viciousness.

But in the first episode of the second season, something fundamental changed, and the show went from being a second-rate retread of the British series to something culturally significant.  It was in that episode that the protagonist ceased to be the boss and became Pam and Jim (played brilliantly by John Krasinski and Jenna Fischer).  The episode centered around the annual Dundies awards, an awards show that Michael Scott puts on for his employees.  Corporate refuses to allow open bar at the local Chili’s, so the mood is glum, and Michael’s inept comedy routine and third-rate karaoke leave the employees bored.  At one point, Michael’s rendition of “Tiny Dancer” wharbles, and people begin to pelt him with food.  He hangs his head and cancels the rest of the show.

But then Pam, in a drunken haze, begins cheering for him to come back.  She claps and the office joins her, and Michael is eventually brought back.  The party comes alive, the Dundees are awarded, and for a night at least, everything is wonderful.

At this point, the show is no longer about a stupid, inconsiderate boss and the decent people who put up with him.  It’s about a group of decent people, who are forced into an insane, and at times unbearable situation, and the way they get through their day.  Pam and Jim get through their days with pranks and stolen glances, Michael just wants friends, Stanley wants to send his kids to college, Meredith drinks too much, Ryan dreams of something better, and Dwight lives in delusions.  Somehow, they all cope and find meaning and purpose in a job that is the essence of meaninglessness.

But this show is about more than just getting by in an alienated, meaningless workplace.  It is also a romance.  The Pam-and-Jim power-couple is the most credible post-feminist love story on television, and it represents a new iteration in male-female relations.  From the Jane Austen days to the 1960s, love stories were about a dashing man pursuing a coy woman who was eventually won over by his irresistable perfection (it didn’t hurt that he tended to be rich and excessively handsome).  With the sexual revolution, women took the driver’s seat, dictating the pace of the relationship and dominating the stammering, infantile man (Woody Allen and Adam Sandler are the patron saints of these sorts of stories).

With Pam and Jim, however, we have something new.  It’s not a fiery love affair, it’s a de-sexed partnership.  There is almost no talk of physical attraction between them, and the sort of erotic love that is never left to the imagination in mainstream movies would be unthinkable in this case.  The sexual revolution came and went, and we’re left with these two: a receptionist and an affable salesman.

But the show isn’t just post-feminist, it’s post-everything.  As Fitzgerald once said, “We were a generation who woke to find all wars fought, all gods dead,” and the generation of Pam and Jim has much in common with Fitzgerald’s Lost Generation.  Pam and Jim, like myself, missed the turbulence of feminism, the Vietnam War, civil rights, and the sexual revolution, and now we’re left without anything but the vestigial structures of jobs, friends, and decreasingly) family.  Cultural institutions have been deconstructed, and we have little left but a few sidelong glances between friends, and a meandering hope for something better.

Divorcing Teaching on Divorce

There is a very good discussion taking place surrounding the nature of Jesus and Paul's teaching on Divorce in the New Testament.  Much of it has followed an article in Christianity Today by David Instone-Brewer on divorce which is a summary of his recent work on the subject.  John Piper, who many do not know holds a PhD in New Testament, responded to Instone-Brewer and others such as NT scholar Andreas Köstenberger have weighed in as well.  Here is a summary of the articles and blog entry's

• What God has Joined - What the Bible Really Teaches about Divorce by David Instone-Brewer
• Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce by John Piper
• John Piper corrects misconceptions about my Christianity Today article by David Instone-Brewer
• Clarifying the NT Teaching on Divorce by Andreas Köstenberger
• Q and A on Divorce and Remarriage by Andreas Köstenberger

As divorce is somewhat of a tragic norm in our society, this is a necessary debate with immense pastoral ramifications. 

Bookshelves are Beautiful

A good friend just sent me a delightful list of books from the Christian intellectual tradition.  This particular list is from Dr. David Lyle Jeffrey and it entitled A Beginners Christian Bookshelf and is served up by the Yale Graduate Christian Fellowship.

Personally, I would have liked to see a work by Jonathan Edwards, but nonetheless a great list:

A BEGINNER'S CHRISTIAN BOOKSHELF compiled by Professor David Lyle Jeffrey

The following list is divided into three categories: (1) classic works of Christian spirituality and devotional theology; (2) post-enlightenment and modern works of Christian intellectual and cultural criticism; (3) great novels, poems and plays whose Christian content and/or asking of questions central in their importance to accountable Christian reflection make them a desirable part of the well-tempered, well-furbished apostolic mind.

I. CLASSIC FOUNDATIONS

Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word
Augustine Confessions
The City of God
Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love
Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount
The Teacher (De Magistro)
Boethius Consolation of Philosophy
Gregory the Great Pastoral Care
John Chrysostom Homilies on 1 and 2 Corinthians
Anselm of Canterbury Truth, Freedom and Evil
Cur Deus Homo?
Proslogion
Basil On the Holy Spirit
Bernard of Clairvaux On Loving God
Sermons on Charity
Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, 5 vols. (Christian Classics)
Theological Texts, ed. Thomas Gilby (Oxford)
Commentary on John's Gospel
Bonaventure The Mind's Road to God
Walter Hilton Ladder of Perfection
Thomas à Kempis Imitation of Christ
Martin Luther On the Bondage of the Will
Commentaries on Galatians, Romans
John Calvin Institutes
Commentary on Deuteronomy
Thomas More The English Prayers of Sir Thomas More
Blaise Pascal Pensées
Thomas Browne Religio Medici
Richard Baxter Saints' Everlasting Rest
Ignaius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises
John of the Cross Dark Night of the Soul
Theresa of Avila The Way of Perfection
Lancelot Andrewes Private Prayers
Isaac Watts Guide to Prayer
William Law Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life
Phillip Doddridge The Rise and Progress of the Soul
John and Charles Wesley Spiritual Writings (Paulist Press)
Charles Simeon Memoirs
John Henry Newman Apologia Pro Vita Sua
Søren Kierkegaard Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing (Princeton)
Fear and Trembling
The Present Age: The Difference Between
A Genius and an Apostle (Harper and Row)
C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity
Screwtape Letters
God in the Dock and Other Essays
Dietrich Bonhoeffer The Cost of Discipleship
Watchman Nee The Normal Christian Life
Sit, Walk, Stand
The Release of the Spirit
J.I. Packer Knowing God
A.W. Tozer The Knowledge of the Holy
Josemaria Escriva The Way
Christ is Passing By
Simone Weil Waiting for God
Hans Urs Von Balthassar On Prayer
John Paul II Letter to Families
The Splendor of Truth
The Gospel of Life
Crossing the Threshold of Hope
Ut Unum Sint

II. CHRISTIAN INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL CRITICISM

A. Focusing on the Patristic Era

Jaroslav Pelikan The Christian Tradition: A History of the
Development of Doctrine (Chicago)
Bernard Lonergan The Road to Nicea
F.F. Bruce The Canon Of Scripture
Tradition Old and New
The Spreading Flame: The Rise and Progress
of Christianity from First Beginnings to the
Conversion of the English (Eerdmans)

B. Medieval through Reformation

Fredrick Coppleston A History of Philosophy (Penguin)
C.S. Lewis The Discarded Image (Oxford)
Gillian Evans The Language and Logic of the Bible, 2 vols. (Cambridge)
Beryl Smalley The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame)
Etienne Gilson Thomas Aquinas
The Christian Philosophy of St. Bonaventure
A Christian Philosophy (PIMS)
Alistair McGrath The Intellectual Origins of the European
Reformation (Blackwells)
Heiko Oberman Luther (Image)
William J. Bowsma John Calvin (Oxford)
Dom David Knowles Saints and Scholars
E. Harris Harbison The Christian Scholar in the Age of Reformation

C. Enlightenment and Early Modern

Donald Davie A Gathered Church
William Paley Evidences of Christianity
D.L. Jeffrey, ed. English Spirituality in the Age of Wesley (Eerdmans)

D. Modern

1. Arts and Humanities

Hannah Arendt Between Past and Future
Men in Dark Times
Herbert Butterfield Christianity and History (Bell)
Dorothy Sayers The Mind of the Maker (Methune)
G.K. Chesterton The Everlasting Man (Doubleday Image)
Orthodoxy (Doubleday Image)
Jacque Ellul The Technological Society (Seabury)
Propaganda
The Humiliation of the Word (Eerdmans)
Hope in a Time of Abandonment (Seabury)
T.S. Eliot The Idea of a Christian Society
W.H.V. Reade The Christian Challenge to Philosophy
John A. MacMurray The Self as Agent (Faber)
Persons in Relation (Faber)
George Grant Technology and Justice
David L. Jeffrey People of the Book: Christian Identity and Literary
Culture (Eerdmans)
Harry Blamires The Christian Mind (Seabury)
Mark Noll The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans)
Paul Ricoeur History and Truth (Northwestern)
George Marsden The Soul of the American University (Oxford)
J.I. Packer and Thomas Howard Christianity: The True Humanism (Word)
Nicholas Wolterstorff Reason Within the Bounds of Religion
Keith Yandell Christianity and Philosophy (Eerdmans)

2. Science

Herbert Butterfield Christianity and Science
Paul Davies God and the New Physics
The Mind of God
Jean Daujat Physique moderne et philosophie traditionelle (Desclée)
Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines
cosmologique de Platon a Copernic (Hermann)
Le théorie physique (Minerva)
Phillip Johnson Reason in the Balance: the Case against
Naturalism (IVP)
John Eccles and Daniel Robinson The Wonder of being Human, Our Brain and our
Mind (Free Press)
R. Harre The Philosophies of Science (Oxford)
Theories and Things (Sheed & Ward)
Casual Powers (Rowman & Littlefield)
W. Heisenberg Physics and Philosophy, The Revolution in
Modern Science (Harper)
Mary Midgley Science and Salvation (RKP)
Stanley Jaki Cosmos and Creator (Scottish Academic Press)
The Relevance of Physics (Chicago)
The Origin of Science and the Science of
Origin (Scottish Academic Press)
Angels, Apes, and Man (Sherwood)
Jacques Maritain Science et Sagesse (Desclée)
Roger Penrose The Emperor's New Mind
Emile Simard La Nature et la portée de la methode
scientifique (Laval)
William Wallace Causality and Scientific Explanation (U. Mich.)
From a Realist Point of View: Essays on the
Philosophy of Science (U. Press of America)

3. Law

Huntington Cairns Legal Philosophy from Plato to Hegel (Johns Hopkins)
Benjamin Cardozo The Nature of the Judicial Process (Yale)
Oliver W. Holmes The Common Law (Yale)
Roscoe Pound Justice According to Law (Yale)
Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex

4. Social Sciences

Peter Berger A Rumor of Angels (Doubleday)
C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man (MacMillan)
Jacques Ellul The Meaning of the City (Eerdmans)
The Politics of God and the Politics of Man (Eerdmans)
William K. Kilpatrick Psychological Seduction (Nelson)
Neil Postman Amusing Ourselves to Death
Paul Tournier The Meaning of Persons (SCM)
Mary Stewart van Leeuwen The Person in Psychology (Eerdmans)
Paul Vitz Psychology as Religion: the Cult of
Self-Worship (Eerdmans)

5. Philosophical Theology

Donald Bloesch Theology of Word and Spirit (IVP)
Holy Scripture (IVP)
The Battle for the Trinity (Vine)
O. O'Donovan Resurrection and Moral Order (Eerdmans)
T.F. Torrance God and Rationality (Oxford)
The Trinitarian Faith (T & T Clark)
Diogenes Allen Christian Belief in a Postmodern World(Westminster)
Carl Henry God, Revelation and Authority 6 vols. (Word)
A. Plantinga God, Freedom, and Evil (Eerdmans)
A. Plantinga and N. Wolterstorff Faith and Rationality (Notre Dame)
R. Swinburne The Coherence of Theism (Oxford)
The Existence of God (Oxford)
Faith and Reason (Oxford)
Revelation (Oxford)
Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford)
Alasdair MacIntyre Three Rival Genealogies of Moral Inquiry (Notre Dame)
Cardinal J. Ratzinger In the Beginning (Eerdmans)
Bernard Lonergan Insight (Darton, Longman and Todd)
Hans Urs Von Balthassar The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics,
3 vols.; trans. E. Leiva-Merikakis (Ignatius)

III. INDISPENSABLE WORKS OF LITERATURE

Donald Davie Christian Poetry: An Anthology
Dante Divine Comedy
Christopher Marlowe The Tragicall Historie of Doctor Faustus
William Roper The Life of Thomas More
George Herbert The Temple
John Donne Holy Sonnets, etc.
Devotions
John Bunyan Pilgrim's Progress
Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners
John Milton Paradise Lost
Paradise Regained
William Shakespeare A Winter's Tale
Measure for Measure
King Lear
Charlotte Brontë Jane Eyre
Fyodor Dostoevski Crime and Punishment
Brothers Karamazov
Albert Camus La Peste
Leo Tolstoy War and Peace
Anna Karenina
Resurrection
G.M. Hopkins Poems
François Mauriac Viper's Tangle
Woman of the Pharisees
The Leper's Kiss
John Betjeman Summoned by Bells
C.S. Lewis That Hideous Strength
Till We Have Faces
T.S. Eliot Poems
Murder in the Cathedral
Cocktail Party
Charles Williams Descent into Hell
All Hallows Eve
J.R.R. Tolkien The Lord of the Rings
Graham Green The Power and the Glory
The Heart of the Matter
The End of the Affair
Alexander Solzhenitsyn One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Walker Percy Lost in the Cosmos
Second Coming
Thanatos Syndrome
Flannery O'Connor Collected Stories
The Habit of Being
Mystery and Manners
Wendell Berry Fidelity (stories)
Remembering (novel)
Sabbaths (poems)
The Country of Marriage (poems)
Margaret Avison Collected Poems
No Time
George Bernanos Diary of a Country Priest
P.D. James Children of Men

(HT - Sandy Young) 

Some Reasons I like the Acts 29 Network

I read something today in the Acts 29 newsletter that just made me smile. Acts 29 is a church planting network of which Jacob's Well is affiliated.  There are several things in this quote which reflect some of the reasons I appreciate the network.  The quote is about the Acts 29 boot camps, three day equipping events designed to help men assess and receive training in a call to church planting:

Acts 29 boot camps provide the theological compass for church planting. We do not provide lots (any?) of how-to tips. We rather present a compass in seven- parts that will help a church planter navigate through a difficult journey. How-to tips are not bad, but a pastor armed with character, a Bible, a mission from Jesus, the gospel message and a passionate calling will usually figure out how to lead people on mission for the glory of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not die on a cross so that we could start a cool church. He died to glorify Himself as the mission is completed through His redeemed people. Without the cross, we have no mission. Without a mission, we only have religion. Without a mission, we have no passion because we have no cure for the hopeless condition of humankind. Jesus said, As the Father has sent me into the world, even so I am sending you. (John 17:18; 20:21)

Here is a quick list of what I like so much in this statement

• Jesus matters - you would think this is a given in church planting - but making Jesus the center of preaching, teaching, mission and leadership is on the tip of the spear with the network.
• Theologically driven - if a man knows how to use a compass he can find his way.  If someone is of sound doctrine, firm conviction - this will serve him better than simply copying models
• Character matters - a man's gifts are not the most important reality to the mission fo the gospel.  Acts 29 cares about the character of someone as reflecting integrity and virtue in his life and with his family
• Calling matters - a man must be called to follow God on mission in culture to plant a church.  If the calling is lacking many will cash in when it gets tough. 
  
• Not afraid of Passion and Leadership - we all know that passion must have a good direction.  Yet we need not fear a passionate commitment to a mission which is good, right and true.  I love the men from Acts 29 I have met and interacted with - they are passionate, masculine men who are not afraid to exhort and call each other upward. 
  
• Missional - we see the church as the sent people of God into the world for the sake of the world, to see people saved to the glory of God.

Acts 29's dual calling to strong and sound theology along with contextualization of the gospel into culture can stir the pot for some people.  In fact, clarification has been needed at times to clear the fog.  Personally, I thank God for what I have seen in the network so far and glad to throw my hat in with these guys.

Revealed...

There has been a bit of a buzz in some circles about Willow Creek Community Church's admission that the program driven seeker church model is not producing mature Christian disciples.  This revelation has come after a self study which produced "data" that convinced the Willow Leadership that much of what had been created was based on flawed assumptions.  If you build it, lots of people come out, then people become mature followers of Jesus Christ. Out of UR, the leadership blog of Christianity Today has a post on this today. 

Personally, everyone I know has the utmost respect for Bill Hybels as a godly man and a good leader.   This admission will only add to that for many, including myself.  What perplexes me though is that the model of church leadership seems to be continuing in the same processes that formed the orginal paradigm in the first place.

Market Research --> Get "the data" --> Reinvent the church

This is precisely what led to the "seeker movement" - you find out what the folks want, see what "works" and then reinvent.  Hold conferences, publish stuff, etc. so that others can follow the "cutting edge"

I am thankful for the changes which Willow is dreaming, more discipleship, more of a missional vision for the church in culture.  But why did we need this "new data" in order to realize that the means of grace (scripture, prayer, meditation, community, sacraments) are what changes people, not big venues and large crowds as an audience for services which cost millions of dollars a year to produce?  The solution now according to the Reveal video presentations and the quotes from the Out of Ur Blog?

Market Research --> Get "the data" --> Reinvent the church

Could it be that the very method is flawed as well as the  models which are re-invented?  In order to know the way, we follow Jesus as revealed in Scripture, illuminated by the Spirit of God.  Should we not as how he defines and lived discipleship before we start doing "what works?" After all - his way is what really works and we are best if we start there. 

I am thankful for the good influences Willow has had on many people's lives.  But I did not buy the previous seeker model and I am not looking to Chicago to find out what to do next.  The sufficiency of Scripture and the person of Jesus are the paths I will wrestle out in church leadership.  I think Willow will do the same.  At least I hope this will be the path to this next reinvention.  We need more men who treasure Jesus among all things, not more butts in the seats.  For this realization and revealing I am thankful. 

Contemporary Apologetic Aims and Methods

I need to confess something that many of you already realize.  I began a substantial series of posts a little while back...well, maybe a long while...on the new atheism which has been spewed of late by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and punk rocker and PhD Greg Gaffin.

You can see the beginnings of that here.  I just have not had the time to focus on this with all that has been happening in life.  Leading Inversion, having three little kids, wanting to date my wife, seminary studies/writing, writing for our people at Inversion, planting a church, raising money, doing some speaking etc.  Blogging on atheism has been slow coming and to be honest I don't loose any sleep about it these days. 

What I did want to revisit is the focus of contemporary apologetics.  Now I think there are several areas of the discipline which need focus, research, publication etc.  The following are just a few and the reasons why I feel they are important:

• The existence of God - there are academic skeptics and anti theists which are publishing today with some very weak argumentation, but broad popular appeal - this is a wall we must stay on.
• The historical Jesus and the related New Testament witness to Jesus - with the new emphasis in Gnostic gospels and the early church, the identity of the New Testament Jesus is very important.  The gospels as reliable though theologically motivated (even biased) texts is very important
• The Problem of evil - we live outside of the garden, in the midst of sin, death, disease and pain.  This has always been the case for humanity from very early on, but we seem to expect something different.  The relationship of God to suffering is an issue of both theological and apologetic significance
• Miracles - particularly the resurrection of Jesus
• Philosophical naturalism and attendant secularism.  This permeates much of western culture and our history from the 17th century onward...
  

These are all classic topics for the apologist must handle and great work has been done in all these areas.  This past week I was in Blacksburg, VA and heard two wonderful apologists speak to the issues of the heart and mind commending Jesus and contrasting him with other worldviews.  I felt the presentations were excellent focusing appropriately on naturalism as they were speaking to a university community.  

Overall however, I am a bit concerned that more focus must be given to engaging a culture which is much more spiritual and eclectic...building spiritual answers in the vacuum left by secularism. Today some of the issues we need to be engaging with need to be treated along with the topics above:

• The relationship between Jesus and other religions
• Why building your own spirituality is not wise 
• Why coherence even matters - if you can have contentment with an incoherent and false worldview...many simply choose to be happy
• We must locate truth in the biblical narrative of creation, fall, redemption, restoration.  We cannot simply call people to "truth" we must call people to the one who is the Truth.
• How does Christian faith and changing scientific paradigms relate - biotech, computer technology, AI, etc.
  
• Christian faith is associated with oppression in many people's minds.  How do we engage those who thing colonialism, imperialism, etc are the fruits of "Christianity"
  

Simply fighting the atheist boogie man may just distract us from mission - presenting Jesus and the good news to those who view spirituality as good, but religion (and the Christian flavor of it) as bad.  If we are perceived as just fighting philosophical battles with others we may loose track of the real war.  Apologetics must treat the issues and objections of people in culture, not simply the philosophical skirmishes which the apologist may enjoys.