Christian Church-Based Prostitution? Perhaps the Time has Come

Read this modest proposal here. Fascinating. The arguments are quite persuasive, aren't they?

Some Christian Classics

A former student of mine recently wrote to me, wanting some suggestions for Christian classics she should read. Here's the list I wrote back:

1. J.I. Packer, _Knowing God_. This is a modern classic. Fantastic. It's not just about God; rather, it is about spirituality and Christian living.

2. Brother Lawrence, _Practicing the Presence of God_. This is a devotional classic by a Catholic brother. He writes about how he learned to live in a constant awareness of God's presence.

3. Thomas a Kempis, _The Imitation of Christ_. Another catholic brother; and another devotional classic. Kempis embraces some Catholic theology here and there, but by and large, it is an extended meditation on pursuing Christilikeness in everyday life.

4. C.S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_. I've read this about 4 times; some of these letters have deeply influenced the way I think about all of life. It is humorous, serious, relevant, entertaining, readable. A Christian classic without question.

5. G.K. Chesterton, _Orthodoxy_. This one is a bit more "heady" and intellectual, but also funny and practical at the same time. Not a long book, but one has to read it slowly to appreciate it. It is one of Chesterton's defenses of the Christian faith.

6. John Bunyan, _Pilgrim's Progress_. Perhaps THE Christian classic of all time. I've read this countless times, and it always inspires. Bunyan's allegory of the Christian life: memorable, convicting, comforting, inspiring.

7. Daniel Defoe, _Robinson Crusoe_. You probably know the story, but few have actually read the book. When I did, I was surprised at how many quotations there are from Scripture. Crusoe tries to come to grips with life from a Christian perspective.

8. Hannah Hurnard, _Hind's Feet on High Places_. Another devotional classic. An extended allegory with lots of symbolism; very readable, emotional, inspiring.

9. Wayne Grudem, _Systematic Theology_. Get the unabridged version. It is LONG, but this book is not just another systematic theology. Dr. Grudem was one of my teachers in seminary. This book is a wonderful example of allowing Scripture to be our authority. It is not only educating but very nourishing to the soul. Both my wife and I have read it from cover to cover. Each chapter has memory verses and a hymn on that particular topic. Give yourself a year or so to finish it. I read a few pages every night before bed. My wife read it during morning devotions. Worth every page.

10. F.F. Bruce, _Paul's Letter to the Romans_ (Tyndale New Testament Commentary). This would not make many other people's list of classics; it was the textbook when I had Mr. Bedell for Romans class, and it changed my life. Bruce is a scholar, and writes like one, but his explanation of the gospel as taught by Paul in the book of Romans really did change my life.

"It's Not Easy to be Christian in the Middle East"

See an interview between Newsmax and Mordechay Lewy, Israel's Ambassador to the Holy See (Vatican). Read it here. Here are two key paragraphs:

If someone wants to be pro-Palestinian, he can find many reasons. When they look at our area they ask: Do we have Christian brothers there? It’s natural that Christians will have solidarity with their brothers in the Middle East. It’s not easy to be Christian in the Middle East. I am not saying Christians don’t have problems in Israel, but they should pray to God to thank Him they are under Israeli and not Muslim rule.
I can understand Catholics’ special affection for each other, but they should not seek to improve the personal security of their brothers in need by being anti-Israeli. This is not a life insurance policy. It is a notion which experience shows has failed. You’re not buying anything with it. The Muslims deeply resent Christians, so they are not impressed by such Christian anti-Israeli statements. That’s the experience in the Middle East.

{image}

UPDATE:

Hamas reinstitutes crucifixion of Christians as "enemies of Islam."

Read it here. I haven't heard much about this in the media.

What Can We Talk About?

I found a great quote today in the Economist, in an article on conversions of Muslims in Kosovo to Christianity. In the reader's comments, someone very perceptively wrote the following:

Discussing large things is now a capital offense, we must only debate
trivialities. You may oppose a man's opinion on transportation policy, but you
must not oppose his view of the world - even if he wishes to see that world burn
in an act of suicidal violence.

Told Ya!

The "Criminalization of Christianity" - read about it here. It is not far in the future, folks, that Christians will be imprisoned in this country because of theological convictions. This is how things started in Nazi-Germany: very slowly, using ridicule, then laws for "good things," then gradually increasing limitations.

Something Beautiful Has Begun

Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite columnists, and a catholic, has written a piece (here's the link) contrasting Pope John Paul II with Benedict XVI. "Something beautiful has begun." Perhaps so. Here's my favorite graph:

John Paul made you burst into tears. Benedict makes you think. It is more pleasurable to weep, but at the moment, perhaps it is more important to think.

That would be nice, to have a thinking church for a change.

Anglican Realignment Videos

Here is a great set of YouTube videos explaining the current situation facing the world-wide Anglican communion, and specifically the Diocese of New Westminster (the Vancouver, BC. area). Here's a handy collection of links to the videos. The videos are in 10 parts: parts 1-5 and 10 are an interview with Rev David Short, Rector of St. John's Shaughnessy, a congregation which recently voted to separate from the local Diocese and to align itself with an alternative pastoral oversight; parts 6-9 are an interview with Dr. J.I. Packer, famous evangelical theologian. I found the discussions with Rev Short to be very informative concerning the current situation, especially from an historical and political perspective, whereas the discussions with Dr. Packer are more basic and theological. If you attend an Anglican/Episcopal church, or have any interest in global Christianity, this is an important issue, and I recommend that you watch all these videos.

Evangelical Monastics?

Here's how an article starts in the Boston Globe about the rise of monasticism among evangelicals:

S.G. PRESTON IS a Knight of Prayer. Each morning at his Vancouver, Wash., home, he wakes up and prays one of the 50-odd psalms he has committed to memory, sometimes donning a Kelly green monk's habit. In Durham, N.C., Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove and fellow members of Rutba House gather for common meals as well as morning and evening prayer based on the Benedictine divine office. Zach Roberts, founder of the Dogwood Abbey in Winston-Salem, meets regularly with a Trappist monk to talk about how to contemplate God. Roman Catholic monastic traditions loom large in their daily routines - yet all three men are evangelical Protestants.

Read the rest here.

I have to confess, I resonate with some of this. I, too, am sick of the consumer, pop-culture, me-centered religion of so many evangelical protestants. Hence my recent interest in the Book of Common Prayer. I think it is a mistake to downplay the theological differences that will forever separate Evangelicals from Catholics (like papal authority, prayers to, or 'veneration' of, saints, transubstantiation, purgatory, the contents of the Biblical canon, the role of 'good works,' to name just a few); however, there is much that we (Evangelicals) can learn from the passionate devotion to Christ (not Mary!) of Catholic mystics. Most evangelical protestants would do well to learn something about a life of devotion to someone/ something other than their own thinly disguised, middle-class materialism.

I plan to visit a local Trappist monastery in (of all places!) Moncks Corner, SC, in the next few weeks, now that I'm on my sabbatical. (I'll be sure to report on that here at HOTI.) I have no problem admitting that we have much to learn from other branches of Christianity, but we should not lose sight of the fact that, by God's grace, we also have much to teach others.

Romney and the "Cult" of Mormonism

I've read some panicked Christians asking the question, "Do you really want as president someone who is in a cult?" I think this issue needs to be addressed a bit. Here are my thoughts on the matter.

The word "cult" can be used in several senses.

1. "Cult" as "religious practice." The word can be used to describe any religious observance, and is not used pejoratively. This is what we mean when we talk about the "cult" of Ancient Israel; we simply mean the "religious practices" of Mosaic religion, i.e., the traditions in the Pentateuch.

2. "Cult" as "non-orthodox, sectarian religious belief and practice." When used in this way, "cult" refers to Jehovah's Witnesses and the like. The beliefs and practices of these "cults" are heterodox vis-a-vis orthodox Christianity.

3. "Cult" as brain-washing, kidnapping, weird sex, religious nut-cases. I think of David Berg and "The Family of God International," Victor Paul Wierwille and "The Way International," or David Koresh, and the like. These still exist, and we need to watch for them, but we also need to be careful with our terminology.

Now, I am no expert on Mormonism, but I know a little. I may be wrong on a few things, and will gladly admit so if someone wants to point it out. Mormonism is certainly a cult; the question is which kind of cult? I suppose we could use definition #1 to describe it, but that wouldn't mean very much. Definition #2 works much better. Mormonism is a pseudo-Christian religion that shares very little teaching at all with traditional, orthodox Christianity. My biggest problem with Mormonism, and its myriad of missionaries, is the deception. Mormonism uses many of the same terms of orthodox Christianity but attaches to these terms vastly different definitions. There is certainly internal pressure on a Mormon to remain in Mormonism, but the same is true in Christianity. Nevertheless, people are free to leave, if they so choose, even if it may take a deep emotional and social toll on a person.

The "polygamy" of Mormonism is apparently largely a thing of the past, though we hear of it still going on in secret. One gets the idea, though - at least I do - that the impetus for Mormon polygamy is not a raw sexual urge for multiple partners but a theology based on birthing "spirit children."

So, although I in no way want to downplay the heterodoxy of Mormonism, I think we need to be careful about using the term "cult" to define it. We may be treating people as we ourselves would not want to be treated, and we may be using emotive language to scare people and discredit others. I think it is much wiser to explain clearly that Mormonism has about as much in common with orthodox Christianity as Hinduism does. Mormonism is a different religion than Christianity.

"Malcolm Quotes" #2

Here's another installment. Lewis writes to "Malcolm":

Broaden your mind, Malcolm, broaden your mind! It takes all sorts to make a world; or a church. This may be even truer of a church. If grace perfects nature it must expand all our natures into the full richness of the diversity which God intended when He made them, and heaven will display far more variety than hell. (Letter II)

I'll never forget the "cognitive dissonance" I experienced when I first arrived in England for a year of Bible training. I immediately mixed it up with all sorts of European Christians, some of whom even (gasp!) baptized babies! Having been raised in a "believer only" baptismal tradition, it was difficult to accept when I found out that these people were clearly brothers and sisters in the faith. "The church must be bigger than I thought," I said to myself. I learned to hang out with Christians who had a pint of beer with their lunch, or smoked cigars, or...baptized babies!

I wonder if I have completely learned this lesson. Of course, there are theological convictions that I will never, NEVER jettison, but sometimes I wonder if our denominational differences are rooted more in tempermental differences than theological. In other words, I wonder if our denominational differences (dare I say, our "denominational richness"?) are almost necessary to display the full panoply of God's richness.

Now calm down, my baptist brethren. I'm not at all suggesting a doctrinal relativism; I'm suggesting a packaging relativism. Is the ONLY way to do a God-glorifying worship service to have three hymns (or choruses), an offering, and a sermon? Is it really wrong to repeat the Lord's Prayer every Sunday, along with the Apostle's Creed, or Nicene Creed?

I'm very comfortable in my Southern Baptist situation (though that is not the tradition in which I was raised); I'm just trying to be a "Christian," in the fullest historical sense of that word, or as F.F. Bruce once said, "I want to be an un-hyphenated Christian," as opposed to "Baptist Christian," or "Lutheran Christian," etc.

"Malcolm Quotes" #1

I'm going to record a bunch of quotes from C.S. Lewis's Prayer: Letters to Malcolm (I bought my copy in England; in the US, I think it was published under the title, Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer) that I've been reading. I'll write the quote, then make some comments on it. Here's the first one.

Speaking about the liturgy of the Church of England, Lewis writes:

And it [the liturgy] enables us to do these things best -- if you like, it 'works' best -- when, through long familiarity, we don't have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don't notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. (Letter I)

This introduced me to the idea of a church service as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Our worship services should be just that: worship services, not concerts, performances or club meetings. The problem is that very few churches, it seems to me, make a conscious effort to do this. We are very - sometimes VERY - focused on keeping people entertained, keeping them coming back, keeping them happy, or whatever. In this sense, I'm afraid many of our worship services are functionally atheistic; if God wasn't there, I'm terrified to admit that many of us wouldn't notice. He simply isn't the focus.

[I should be careful to explain that when I say "our worship services," I'm not necessarily referring to the church where my family happens to be attending right now in our lives. In fact, our worship pastor works hard at getting people in touch with God, at making people aware that we are to be encountering God during these services.]

I've internalized Lewis's idea here and applied it to worship leaders and so-called "worship bands." I think very few people who are "worship leaders" are really gifted at it; they too often need to be the center of attention. "Worship bands" too often try to dominate the worship. More often than not, "less is more." Recently at the school where I teach, we had a break from the usual rock group worship band, and instead, a small ensemble of singers stood on risers and sung some accapella numbers. I was surprised at my response; I got all teared up. In thinking about it later, I realized that what moved me was the beauty of the music. Rock bands are rarely beautiful, though they are often loud.

I've also started to think that worship leading is a spiritual gift. Perhaps we should work harder at identifying people who have this gift, instead of anointing anybody who has a "worship band" as a "worship leader."

Here's my personal dilemma: I am from a "low church" worship tradition, but that tradition doesn't seem to be giving me the intellectual / spiritual food to sustain my worship of God on Sundays. I find myself thinking about many things other than God. The service is "predictable," as Lewis wants, but the forms of worship that sustain the intellect don't seem to be present. On the other hand, the "high church worship" churches I know of are usually theologically liberal, so I can't very comfortably change churches.

As a compromise, I've been attending a local episcopal church on Sunday mornings, one that has a service late enough that I can still teach SS at my church and attend most of the worship service; I slip out of our service early and drive quickly to this other church where there is very traditional Anglican worship. I'm not quite comfortable enough with the liturgy to "not notice it," but I'm getting there. Besides that, the beauty of the worship is very compelling.

In any case, Lewis, many years ago, introduced me to the idea that our worship services are not only (though they are partly) for preaching, but also for worship, and they do that best when we aren'y always wondering what is coming next. But, for my part, I also need some intellectual fodder (which the BCP provides) and beauty.

World View Competition

Rick Warren wrote a short article for CT in which he lists the six world views we Christians are up against. Read the article here. I'll list them briefly.

1. The One with the Most Toys Wins - Materialism
2. I've Got to Think of Me First - the "Me Generation"
3. Do What Feels Good - Hedonism
4. Whatever Works for You - Relativism
5. God Doesn't Exist - Naturalism/Atheism
6. You Are Your Own God - Humanism

I would add, at least, a seventh, "Spirituality," a nebulous movement that allows people to think they are "spiritual" as long as they have some kind of transcendent reality in their lives.

Joel Osteen on 60 Minutes

60 Minutes had a piece on Joel Osteen last night. I actually thought it was pretty good. The reporter did a good job, asking tough questions in a non-confrontational way. I learned a lot about Osteen. I don't like his brand of teaching - way too slick for me, too car-saleman-like. Nevertheless, I find it hard, personally, to condemn him, although I would make quite a few changes if he asked me about his ministry. Some of the reaction to Osteen has been pretty harsh. However, when you listen to the drivel preached in most churches today - and I mean evangelical churches! - I can understand why people flock to someone who says something they can use in their lives. If evangelicals want to rage against Osteen, they should look in the mirror; that's the problem. What think ya'll?

I'm Stunned and Confused!

I just finished watching on CNN the installment of "God's Warriors" that I had missed, the one on "God's Islamic Warriors." All I can say is that I am stunned and confused, and even a little upset. I don't feel this way because I feel threatened, although clearly Islamic militancy is a problem; I feel this way because everything I just saw goes 180 degrees against everything I believe about God.

First, I am stunned by just how little I understand - and I don't think I ever can understand - the mindset of a religion that exalts the taking of other people's lives in the name of God. I'm confused and disoriented. I realized, as I watched interview after interview with people so filled with anger and hatred, that I simply have no category for expressing my religious faith and hatred simultaneously. The two are mutally exclusive. As a Christian, I cannot hate.

Perhaps the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam spring from the lives and examples of their founders. At church, I am currently teaching through the New Testament book of 1 Peter. The apostle continuously points to the sacrifice of Jesus as our example for life. Last week I taught on 1 Peter 2:21-25. Peter addresses the slave and tells him to endure injustice and to continue doing good. Then, perhaps knowing that that is a very difficult teaching, he grounds this imperative in the willing sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The willing submission of Jesus to injustice is our example. The contrast between Jesus and Muhammad simply could not be more profound.

I was struck by the weeping Muslims do during that festival honoring the sacrifice of Imam Husein (not sure how to spell his name). As I saw those people crying so freely, I thought of the passion of Christ - and Amanpour even referred to the dramatic presentation of Husein's death as a "passion play" - but even here, Husein died in battle! His sacrifice was not Christ-like. It would be like us crying over the death of Davy Crockett at the Alamo. Not quite the same as Good Friday, is it?

I should also mention how stunned I am at the implication, perhaps unstated but still present, that somehow Amanpour's "Christian warriors" are on the same level as the jihadists. The comparison is simply laughable.

God's Warriors?

Last night concluded the final installment of Christiane Amanpour's series on CNN entitled "God's Warriors." Tuesday night she explored "God's Jewish Warriors," Wednesday night was "God's Muslim Warriors," and last night was "God's Christian Warriors." I watched the first and last episodes, but missed the middle one. Thankfully, there is an encore presentation starting Friday, Aug. 24 through Sunday, Aug. 26, at 9 p.m. ET. (Check the CNN TV schedule.)

Unfortunately, despite Ms. Amanpour's seemingly best efforts, bias abounds. I wondered why she excluded "God's Hindu Warriors," for militant Hinduism is certainly on the rise. She also excluded "The Anti-God Warriors: Secularists;" that would have been an interesting expose. Aren't secularists on a crusade to rid the public square of all references to religion? Is the ACLU a docile, tame, organization? What about "The Economic Warriors: Communists." Both of these movements are also quite militant, or at least we could say they have their militant elements. I also noticed that only the "conservative" wings of these movements were considered warriors, as if being liberal disqualifies a person from being militant. But wouldn't Gene Robinson, the gay bishop in New England, be considered "militant," since he is taking the church in a radically different direction?

Aside from the obligatory reference at the beginning to rabid killers of abortionists (who speak for no sizeable block of Christendom), Amanpour essentially spent her time on "God's Christian Warriors" examining various conservative religious groups who were attempting to motivate a voting block. I kept thinking, "All this is legal! Why is she focusing on an example of 'democracy in action'?" I thought it was quite unfair to draw a moral equvalency between, on the one hand, Jewish settlers in occupied territories who violate both Israeli and international law, and Islamic jihadists who are training to wage war on all infidels, and, on the other hand, conservative evangelical Christians who are working very hard to accomplish their political/cultural goals within the American political system. One thing should have been very clear: given her definition of "warriors," among Christians, THERE ARE NONE. Hmmm....

What do my readers think?