Today In TheologyRelating Theology To Our World Today! |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Hold the FireworksPosted by Frank Turk - July 3, 2008 on 2:55 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments by Frank Turk I was chatting with Dan about Phil's posts on the subject of church and politics. What he said made me think hard about the exchanges going on here on this topic: he, frankly, isn't sure that he exactly grasps the shape and implications of my position. Let me say that if there is anybody on earth who is bright enough to follow even the most ponderous argument, it's Dan -- so if he can't follow the ball here, maybe I better step back and start over. Dan's starting point in reasoning here is utterly practical: let's imagine that he and I are standing on a street corner, arguing about whether it's tenable to call God's work over time "dispensational", and across the street a woman shrieks because two thugs are attacking her. Dan's view (and I think he's right) is that he and I would bound across the street and ... do what? Break out the book of Ephesians and start preaching the Gospel to these misguided, lost souls? No: we would make them stop by any means necessary. And in doing so, we would be doing something inherently Christian. I am sure there are some who would take a sacrificial, passivist view in this situation and not employ violence -- they might throw themselves on a knife or a gun, or simply find a way to obstruct at all personal costs, but they would intervene. They would do something. In that, I think all of us agree on something: we know who our neighbor is. That is, when we read the parable of the Good Samaritan, we aren't trying to justify our stupid question to Jesus about what the greatest commandment is by asking a further-stupid question like, "yes, but...?" We are reading what is a ridiculously-obvious story about the fact that anyone walking down the street knows when someone has been wronged, and anyone walking down the street can do something of immediate necessity which will offer right-minded aid. We know who our neighbor is. We know -- by virtue of both the revelation in creation and the revelation in God's word -- how to offer aid to those who need it. Now, from there, Dan would reason, "so what do we do about the government when it is handing out knives with which to slaughter the unborn?" A simple technique of arguing from the lesser to the greater, right? And who wouldn't follow him at least to the place where he would answer that question? Personally, I'm not ready to leave the neighborhood where the woman got attacked yet.  I want you to imagine for a moment that it is your neighborhood in which this woman got attacked, and where the Pyros intervened and, at least, got her purse back -- because the example is not the right scope yet to reason from lesser to greater. The example is one of practical immediacy, and it is seeking to reason up to an example of systematic injustice -- and the two are not necessarily analogous. While Dan would argue that he and I should offer first aid to the woman if she is injured, for example, I am not sure he would argue that the government should then provide universal health care -- the analogy breaks down quickly when we try to change a matter of personal moral action into a model of systematic political philosophy, and I would argue that it breaks down in the previous example in the same way it breaks down in this example: the government is not tasked to do everything the individual is tasked to do. In fact, it's tasked to do some things that the individual is not tasked to do -- like holding trials and conducting court to settle grievances.The example of personal responsibility does not translate into the example of governmental responsibility -- especially in the experiment of the American republic. Our system of government separates branches in order to restrain human power because, among other things, we recognize that government is really just men, and men are (at best) fallible and weak. The Constitution begins like this: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.And I post that not to make a theological point, but to circle-back my rabbit trail here and say that while this intention is broadly phrased, it is also narrowly conceived and bounded by the bill of rights which places certain political categories out of the reach of the federal entity. That is: the Constitution recognizes that there are some things which the Government ought not to do. Now listen: I bring that up because I'm trying to clarify, for Dan's sake if not for the rest of you, what I am talking about when I speak to the matter of church and politics. There are some things the Government ought not to do -- I think all of us would agree with that in premise, even if the particulars would vary depending on where we would fall out on the political spectrum.  For example, I think we would all agree that the police should not be able to come into our backyard and start searching for stolen money or dead bodies unless they have some kind of justifiable reason, right? And your neighbor probably would do well to mind that rule as well, right?But your neighbor has the right to look out his back window, and perhaps see you burying that big black sack in your back yard. So unlike the police who cannot be everywhere, your neighbor -- the one you would cross the street to help if he was in trouble -- has a right which you wouldn't give to the police. You wouldn't give the police carte blanche to check your back yard at any hour of the day, but your neighbor has that right insofar as he has a view from his window into your yard. So it is that citizens of a country, particularly in our constitutional republic, have the ability to do things which are not rightly called the work of the government which leads them by consent. The government is not merely the sum of the parts: in fact, in some ways it has (ought to have) fewer rights to take some actions to temper the greater rights is has to actually conduct the business of governing. And, in reasoning from the lesser to the greater, if this is so for a human-established government, can it be true of the Church, which is established by God? That is, is the church supposed to be everything that all humans inside it can and will do, or is the church constituted (you Baptists might prefer the word "commissioned"; the Presbyterians among you will prefer "covenanted") to do something specific which God has ordained, and which does not include all the things which individual believers might rightly do? The example I gave when this came up in the meta under Dan's post previously was the same neighborhood we were talking about above -- and after the one robbery was thwarted, the question was considered whether the local church ought to then take up a mission of volunteer service to interdict crime in the community -- and I believe Dan's answer was "yes". If the community is crime-ridden, the church ought to step in and do something -- including patrolling the streets and petitioning the local government for better policing. And the real irony is that I think it would be absolutely brilliant for those who live a community to own their community, and do what it takes to improve (which is an interesting word here) their community. Even if it included wielding meat chubs. The problem is when they take to the streets to do this as the church of Jesus Christ rather than the citizens of a crime-ridden city. And the problem is that the church is not commissioned to govern the world. The church has the spiritual authority to declare to men that their sin separates them from God; that God's wrath is waiting for them; that God has sent his son Jesus to receive the wrath due to sin for those who repent and believe. It declares to men a higher law than human government, and declares to them a greater good than mere civil peace. And it does this through the preaching of the word, the administration of the ordinances (you might say "sacraments" if you are a presbyterian in good standing), and the discipline of the body by rightly-qualified elders. And in this way, it is the manifestation of the kingdom of God, which is frankly not of this world. And I have two examples of this which, I think, those who have a different opinion about this subject than I do have overlooked pretty significantly. I also have to finish the riff on why the distinction between church and state is (especially for us baptisses) not only good but necessary, and what it means to have personal Christian responsibility as well as an active and healthy church life. But I have already bored most of you to tears. Take a break and come back tomorrow. Comments are closed until I finish this little exposition on whatever it is I'm talking about here. 
God Is Not DeadPosted by Adrian Warnock - July 3, 2008 on 11:10 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenChristianity Today's July cover takes its cue from the famous Time magazine cover from 1966 that asked, "Is God Dead?" CT responds "not yet" (?) with an article by William Lane Craig. He writes, "To paraphrase Mark Twain, the news of God's demise was premature. For at the same time theologians were writing God's obituary, a new generation of young philosophers was rediscovering his vitality." Craig sees a turning point in 1967 with the publication of Alvin Plantinga's God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. The cover package also includes Craig's recommended reading on the existence of God.
God-glorifying rescue!Posted by Terry - July 3, 2008 on 9:43 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No CommentsNext week we welcome approximately 5,000 people from over 50 nations to our conference in Brighton, Together on a Mission. A week before they were due to go to Calcutta to get visas to be with us in Brighton, John and Esther Pradhan, who are church planting in Nepal, had a terrifying experience. John and Esther had gone to a graveyard for the funeral of a child in the church, with their daughter, Aradhana, who is 2½. Aradhana fell down a narrow and very deep crevasse nearby. Newspaper reports say it was 60 metres deep at least. Because it was so deep and dark they were unable to see anything. At first they could hear her crying out, but after a while there was no sound. The police were called in, and then the army, but the crevasse was so narrow, it was impossible to tunnel down. By now, darkness was closing in. To add to their fears, it was monsoon season, and if it rained, water could rise in the hole adding another terrible possibility of drowning. Many prayed all night An expert team was dispatched from Kathmandu, who encountered another hazard: a huge boulder inside the pit further impeded access, yet to break it up could be very risky. Aradhana could be hit by falling rock. To their great joy, around 3 a.m., Aradhana’s voice was heard again, and attempts were made to lower food and water to her. By morning light, some progress had been made in digging, but it was disheartening to discover that the crevasse was in an L shape, and the food and drink had failed to reach her. The rescue crew kept everyone away from the spot, but Nepal TV were covering their efforts. All adult men were too big to squeeze through the narrow aperture but just before noon, a young boy of 12 or 13 volunteered to be lowered down. He managed to crawl over to where she was and found her curled up in a corner, alive. “Who are you?” she asked innocently. He helped her to crawl along to a space where she was visible to the team and they dropped down a harness which the boy strapped on to her, and they were then able to lift her out, covered in mud but otherwise unharmed. She had been in the pit for 22 hours without food, water, and limited oxygen. Her father, John, held her in his arms, tears pouring down his face. “Don’t cry, Papa,” she said, “I’m fine.” National TV The family is full of thanksgiving to God for preserving Aradhana, and desire to honour all who helped in rescuing her, especially the boy. They are also grateful to all who poured out their hearts in prayer. You can see dramatic pictures on What a mighty and merciful God we serve. It will be great to worship Him together with the thousands next week at Together on a Mission.
Bonhoeffer: The Cost of FreedomPosted by JT - July 3, 2008 on 8:13 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments I've mentioned before how highly I think of Focus on the Family's Radio Theatre--audio dramatizations on CD with superb acting and excellent production.One in particular to get is the 3-CD set, Bonhoeffer: The Cost of Freedom. Here's the description: With faith comes a price. What are you willing to pay? That's the question explored in Bonhoeffer: The Cost of Freedom. Chronicling the life of German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, this provocative Peabody award-winning dramatization shares the story of one man's battle against the evils of Nazism, a decadent culture, and compromising church--something that's not so foreign to society today. Challenging and compelling, it's entertainment with a message!
Paul Tripp, “Whiter Than Snow”Posted by JT - July 3, 2008 on 7:58 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments I've just started reading Paul Tripp's new book, Whiter Than Snow: Meditations on Sin and Mercy. The book contains 52 meditations on Psalm 51.The following is from the first meditation, and I found it especially helpful and convicting. Tripp is recounting the time a friend confronted him about some sin in his life. It wasn’t a big deal in one way. Just a small conversation that had turned a bit ugly. It wasn’t a dramatic life-altering moment. It was in the privacy of my home with one of my family members. But maybe that’s the point. Perhaps it’s very important because that’s where I live everyday. You see, you and I don’t live in a series of big, dramatic moments. We don’t careen from big decision to big decision. We all live in an endless series of little moments. The character of a life isn’t set in ten big moments. The character of a life is set in 10,000 little moments of everyday life. It’s the themes of struggles that emerge from those little moments that reveal what’s really going on in our hearts.Here's a video of Tripp reading an excerpt from his writing and talking about the book:
Don’t Call It a ComebackPosted by Adrian Warnock - July 3, 2008 on 7:39 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenChristianity Today reports on "A New Day for Apologetics." The articles says "it is the best of times" for apologists such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Ben Witherington III, Darrell Bock, and J. P. Moreland. I just finished Tim Keller's The Reason for God, and I'm currently reading Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. I thank God for these powerful responses to those who deny the truth and power of the gospel.
Prayer and the might-not-have beensPosted by DJP - July 3, 2008 on 5:55 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments by Dan PhillipsSome Calvinists have never struggled with prayer in any way. Others of us have struggled with it in almost every way. Number me with the latter. One conundrum bogged me down when I was a very young  Christian — and long before I was much of a Calvinist. In its simplest terms, it is: how can our prayers make any difference?If God knows what He is going to do, and has known since before the first tick of the cosmic clock, and if His will is settled and absolute and unalterable, then what possible impact can our prayers have? And even more to the point, what possible purpose could they serve? I've made sufficient peace with that issue on two fronts:
Instances where prayer factors in to God's plan
There are also other examples that I might call OTOH examples — examples where God announces a decision, is asked to change that decision, and refuses to do so. Instances where prayer is flatly rejected
For instance, what would have happened if Eve had asked God how to respond to the Serpent, rather than blundering on into gawping rebellion? What if, after Eve's sin, Adam had asked God what to do about Eve? We could go on and on.  Here, in one final enumeration, is what I take from this:
Where Are Europe’s Babies?Posted by Albert Mohler's Blog - July 3, 2008 on 4:18 am | In Christian Mind, Think Christian | No Comments"You can't have a country where everybody lives in a nursing home." The statement, shockingly obvious as it may be, was offered by Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau. He was speaking of Europe's looming demographic disaster. As The New York Times Magazine reports this week, many Europeans are now asking, "Where are the babies?" The cover story is by Russell Shorto, who contributes some of the most interesting pieces run in the magazine each year. As he makes clear in this article, the radical decline in birthrates will bring equally radical social challenges.
More from the Obama WatchPosted by Adrian Warnock - July 2, 2008 on 8:55 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenSorry for posting so much about Sen. Obama, but the guy keeps making news, since he's in the middle of a media push to court evangelicals. Relevant has posted one of the better interviews I've seen with the Democratic candidate. He explains why he would not allow faith-based organizations to hire and fire based on faith, contrary to the earlier AP report I posted. He also lays out when he would support banning late-term abortions, and why he voted against a bill that would require doctors to try and save babies who survived abortions.
Books on MarriagePosted by KP - July 2, 2008 on 6:14 pm | In Christian Mind | No Comments
Does the Pill Kill?Posted by JT - July 2, 2008 on 3:15 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments At the Life Training Institute Blog Rich Poupard (a very sharp pro-life advocate) has been posting on the issue.Below are some of the links with excerpts: The Dangers of Overstating our Case There is a real controversy regarding this issue, and science does not have all of the answers. Let me state this plainly: anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in "chemical abortions" is simply wrong. They don't. I don't know for sure either. Cool web sites and T-shirts do nothing to change this fact. Pro-lifers who overstate this case are acting very irresponsibly. What if breastfeeding kills? By endorsing a campaign such as "The Pill Kills" and overstating the case for a post-fertilization effect of OCs, we leave ourselves vulnerable to being hypocritical regarding possible dangers to an embryo. There are many reasons to question the use of oral contraceptives, and we should inform women to the best of our ability so they can make an educated choice. However, overstating dangers helps no one. Does a Thin Uterine Lining Support the "Pill as Baby Killer" Theory? . . . if a thick, receptive uterine lining is necessary for implantation, and we can show that OCs thin the lining, it almost has to effect implantation. This is the predominant reasoning used by those who support the abortifacient theory. However, this only covers the issue very shallowly. In order to understand what it really occurring, we have to go deep. This can be complicated and confusing, but I will do my best to simplify it where I can.
One Meeting OnlyPosted by Adrian Warnock - July 2, 2008 on 1:34 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenOver at the 9Marks blog I found this post by Mark Dever from last week. Capitol Hill Baptist Church is known for strong community among members, and Dever doesn't think it's a coincidence that the church has steadfastly stuck to one Sunday morning service. Certainly CHBC cuts against the grain of multiple campuses and multiple services.
Doug Wilson on Productive PloddingPosted by JT - July 2, 2008 on 1:24 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments A very helpful post here from Doug Wilson. Be sure to read the whole thing. He provides brief principles and shares the particulars from his own life and schedule.The basic principles are: (1) redeem the fifteen minute spaces; (2) maintain boundaries for everything, boundaries that suit the circumstance; (3) measure progress by the extended video, not the snapshot; (4) use and reuse everything.
Donate Books to the American University of IraqPosted by JT - July 2, 2008 on 10:45 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No CommentsChristopher Hitchens is making an appeal to donate books, helping to build the university library in Iraq. So here's what to do. Have a look at the university's Web site. Get some decent volumes together, pass the word to your friends and co-workers to do the same, and send them off to:Read the whole thing. I'm sure Hitchens wouldn't want you to donate Christian books of any kind (!), and it'd probably be inappropriate for the university to receive devotional-type books--but donating academic books related to Christianity would seem entirely appropriate and helpful.
Bill GrahamPosted by Adrian Warnock - July 2, 2008 on 9:15 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenHere's something unusual, from The New York Times: "[McCain] met Sunday with one of the country’s best-known evangelicals, Bill Graham, and his son, Franklin, for what was described as an 'excellent conversation' but secured no endorsement." Has anyone ever referred to Billy Graham as Bill? Maybe the aged evangelist let Sen. McCain know that he had finally outgrown the 'y.' The Los Angeles Times reports that McCain said, "Bill Graham recalled that during the Vietnam War when I was in prison, he visited my parents in Hawaii twice and he and my mother and father prayed together for me, and I expressed my appreciation for that a long time ago.…I am very grateful for the time they spent with me." Every other site I've seen, however, quotes McCain calling him Billy. Are there really journalists out there who apparently haven't heard of Billy Graham?
Poythress: He Makes the Winds BlowPosted by JT - July 2, 2008 on 8:38 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments I don't read World Magazine any more (mainly due to their restricted web access), but I did notice that they now have Vern Poythress writing a column--apparently they are short meditations on a theme from a biblical perspective. This is a great move!Here's his article reflecting on the recent hurricanes from a God-centered point of view: He Makes the Winds Blow.
A Worldview Gone to the Dogs . . . LiterallyPosted by Albert Mohler's Blog - July 2, 2008 on 4:38 am | In Christian Mind, Think Christian | No CommentsThe news out of New York City has to do with Leona Helmsley, a woman whose name (plastered all over Manhattan) became synonymous with the materialistic excesses of the 1980s. Helmsley, who died last August, still manages to make the news -- this time with regard to her instructions concerning the multi-billion dollar trust she left behind. Her instructions: The entire trust is to be spent on dogs. Billions of dollars. Leona Helmsley became a presence in the news and the media through her involvement in the management and promotion of the many properties held by her husband, the late Harry B. Helmsley, who built a legendary fortune in New York real estate. Their many holdings included New York's prestigious Helmsley Palace Hotel, for which Leona did her own television advertisements as the "queen" who stood guard over her palace.
A month of memoriesPosted by Phil Johnson - July 2, 2008 on 2:01 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments by Phil Johnson uly and August are looking impossible for me schedule-wise. Pecadillo is getting married in Seattle July 18 (I don't think he's coming back to the blogosphere for awhile; we're going to need a new mascot); I have two or three deadlines coming due within 2 weeks after that; and then I'm going to Cape Cod to speak at a conference there in mid-August. So I'm way overbooked and have no extra time to think about writing new blogposts.Here's what I'm gonna do: For the next month or so, all my posts are going to be reposts of classic material from the original PyroManiac blog. (Warning: some of it is highly flammable.)  Salvaging some of the posts from my original blog and getting them into the permanent record here is something I have wanted to do since we moved to a gangblog. (To make that material searchable on one site with the rest of my bloggage.) Dan Phillips's repost of his "Sister, Have Mercy" post last week settled it in my mind. I've never before posted the same exact blogpost twice (at least not purposely), but Dan has given me the boldness to do it.Yeah, I know all that stuff is already online (no fair rummaging through it now in quest of previews), but I'm going to pull as much of it as possible over here in the next couple of months. I know we have a lot of readers nowadays who don't remember the glory days of the original PyroManiac blog, so this will be fun and interesting. Back then I was still feeling my way around in the blogosphere, and believe it or not, I used to tick off a lot more people than I do now. So fasten your seat belts. To take us back to the very start, here's my first-ever substantive blogpost, which for two years or so held the record for being my most commented-on post of all. I had announced my intentions to start blogging about 2 months before I posted this, so a lot of people prolly thought I had been tooling up for this opening salvo for all that time. Truth is, I was burdened with a similar time-crunch then, under a big deadline for a book manuscript coming due June 1 that year. I delivered the manuscript (on time) the day before this entry posted, and then I wrote this post in about 45 minutes' time before going to bed that evening. Everything else is history. Quick-and-Dirty Calvinism Bashing Calvinism is the latest fad in blogdom. My turn.   hree years ago Rob Schläpfer had the best Reformed website and book business bar none. It was the place to go if you were looking for material responding to Dave Hunt. Schläpfer's online magazine, Antithesis, was the best-looking and most consistently interesting website I knew—and it was thoroughly Calvinistic.Michael Spencer, aka the Internet Monk, runs one of the most successful group blogs around. It's a lively theological discussion cast as a virtual tavern. The iMonk gained fame earlier this year by "outing" Joel Osteen's frivolous non-gospel. One of the iMonk's famous early blog entries was titled "Why Calvin Is Cool." Judging from the network of links, the iMonk's group blog, The Boar's Head Tavern (BHT), has attracted a lot of Calvinist readers. But last year with little warning, Schläpfer renounced all things Reformed and started giving rave reviews to almost every postmodern oddity and "emergent church" manual that the evangelical publishing houses could crank out. With a bit of fanfare, Schläpfer's mail-order company dropped some of the best Reformed books from their line. Meanwhile, Schläpfer was posting some fiery blasts both publicly and privately against Calvinists and Calvinism. (Some of them—including one sent to me personally—were pretty much in the spirit of Mark 14:71.) Recently, the iMonk followed suit with a controversial essay, "I'm Not Like You . . . (Calvinists especially)." He closed it with a paragraph that began, "I am not like you. Every day I wander further from the safety of Calvinism into the wideness of God's mercy." Although the text is still in the process of deconstruction at the BHT, it seems like the iMonk and his drinking buddies have decided postmodernism is a lot cooler than Calvinism. Schläpfer and the iMonk are by no means alone. More serious Calvinist leaders, including John Armstrong and Andrew Sandlin are saying similar things, albeit usually with just a smidge more subtlety. Jumping off the Calvinist bandwagon and lobbing rotten eggs at the attitudes and culture of "Reformed" folk is clearly le dernier cri in the blogosphere and beyond. Before we vivisect these gentlemen and their views (something I may eventually want to devote some bloggage to), I think it would be helpful to ponder why Calvinism, which seemed to be the flavor of the month not so long ago, has suddenly become so odious to so many of its one-time friends. I have to say with all candor that I can somewhat understand the feelings expressed by some of Calvinism's recent critics. Sniff around some of the Calvinist forums on the Internet and it won't be long before you begin to think something is rotten in Geneva. But I hasten to add that I don't think the problem really lies in Geneva, or in historic Calvinism, or in any of the classic Reformed creeds. I especially don't think the stench arises from any problem with Calvinism per se. In my judgment, the problem is a fairly recent down n' dirty version of callow Calvinism that has flourished chiefly on the Internet and has been made possible only by the new media. Internet Calvinism and historic Calvinism sometimes have little in common. Consider:
The upsurge of Calvinism on the Internet in the 1990s seems to have spawned a large and unprecedented movement of jejune Calvinists who wear arrogance as if it were the team uniform. That kind of hotshot, shoot-from-the-hip Calvinism is ugly. I don't blame anyone for being appalled by it. I'm worried about those who think it's a good thing. Obviously those criticisms are mostly generalizations, and they don't necessarily apply to every Calvinist on the Internet. But (and here's the hard part) I'm willing to admit that there have been times when every one of those criticisms could be legitimately applied to something I wrote or posted to a public forum somewhere. I'll especially confess to my shame that I'm too much of a polemicist and not enough of an evangelist. Historic Calvinism is not supposed to be that way. Yes, Calvinism is virile; it's relentless when it comes to truth; and it's not always easy to swallow. But it is full of truths that should humble us and fill us with compassion rather than swagger and conceit. The best Calvinism has always been fervently evangelistic, large-hearted, benevolent, merciful, and forgiving. After all, that's what the doctrines of grace are supposed to be all about. Until we get back there, some of the lumps the Reformed movement is currently taking are well-deserved. And meanwhile, my advice to young Calvinists is to learn your theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet. Some of the forums may be helpful in pointing you to more important resources. But if you think of them as a surrogate for seminary, you're probably going to become an ugly Calvinist—and if you get hit in the face with a rotten egg, you probably deserve it. 
Witherington on “Pagan Christianity”Posted by JT - July 1, 2008 on 10:32 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments The best kind of reviews not only critique, but also instruct. Such is the case with Ben Witherington's informative in-progress chapter-by-chapter dismantling of Frank Viola and George Barna's book, Pagan Christianity.Thus far, see part 1 and part 2. HT: James Grant
What Every American Should Know About the Middle EastPosted by JT - July 1, 2008 on 10:14 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Daniel Miessler:Most in the United States don’t know much about the Middle East or the people that live there. This lack of knowledge hurts our ability to understand world events and, consequently, our ability to hold intelligent opinions about those events.Read the whole thing. HT: Joe Carter
Another addendum on evangelicals as a voting blocPosted by Phil Johnson - July 1, 2008 on 10:12 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments by Phil Johnson ere's someone  else who evidently disagrees with my opposition to transforming the evangelical movement into a political lobby:Brian McLaren, a former pastor who spent 24 years in the pulpit and is now an informal adviser to the Obama campaign, believes that a significant portion of evangelical voters are ready to break from their traditional home in the the Republican Party and take a new leap of faith with Obama.  I'm inclined to think McLaren's numbers are inflated ("between a third and half of evangelicals" voting for Obama)—unless you take George Barna's and Christianity Today's broad and fairly meaningless definitions of what constitutes an "evangelical." But I'm quite sure McLaren is right that the tide is turning, especially among younger churchgoers. No wonder. Evangelicals have been doing practically everything but teaching doctrine for the past 50 years—ranging from entertaining themselves to picketing Disney. So it's no surprise at all if the generation Brian McLaren appeals to most wants to look for deeper meaning in Obama's notions of "justice."
Gagnon DVDs: Love, the Bible, and Homosexual PracticePosted by JT - July 1, 2008 on 8:09 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments If you're looking for a good resource on thinking about homosexuality, you probably can't do much better than this new 4-hour, 3-DVD set by Professor Robert Gagnon, entitled, Love, the Bible, and Homosexual Practice. (It's $35, plus $7 for shipping and handling. If you live outside the US, you have to order by phone: 615.507.4166. The DVD set is in NTSC form.)DVD 1: What's at Stake & What Are the Closest Analogies (83 min.) Treats why we disagree in the church about homosexual practice; what's at stake in this debate; why the oft-cited, alleged analogies to Gentile inclusion, slavery, women in ministry, and divorce and remarriage are not in fact good analogies to the Bible's prohibition of homosexual practice; what the main problem with homosexual practice is; why adult-committed incest and polyamory are the closest analogies; and responses to audience questions. DVD 2: The Witness of Paul on Homosexual Practice (72 min.) Treats the witness of Paul, showing how Paul opposed homosexual practice absolutely by looking at: echoes to the creation texts in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9; the meaning of Paul's argument from nature in its historical context; the case for identifying Rom 1:26 with an indictment of lesbianism; the conception of caring homosexual unions in the ancient world; the condemnation of even such caring unions by some Greek and Roman moralists; and the case for identifying the terms for homosexual practice in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1;10 with homosexual practice per se. DVD 3: The Witness of Jesus & the OT on Homosexual Practice (76 min.) The first 11 minutes completes the discussion of Paul by showing why the "orientation argument" (i.e. had NT authors known about sexual orientation it would have changed their view on homosexual practice) doesn't work. The next 19 min. are devoted to discussing the witness of Jesus; 8 min. to the witness of Genesis; 7 min. to Sodom and related texts (Ham & Noah, the sacred cult prostitute texts, Levite at Gibeah, commentary on Sodom in Ezekiel, Jude, and 2 Pet); 5 min. to the Levitical prohibitions and the problems with alleged analogies to menstrual law and cloth mixtures; 2 min. to David and Jonathan; and 23 min. to responding to questions from the audience. CD: The Importance of Sexual Ethics in the NT (72 min.) You can also get the three DVD presentations on audio CD, along with the CD above, for $20 plus $5 shipping and handling.
Population LossPosted by Adrian Warnock - July 1, 2008 on 5:12 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenStan Guthrie at CT comments on a New York Times Magazine article about staggering population loss in Europe. Guthrie writes, "The hypothesis [journalist Russell] Shorto presents is that nations that have only half-heartedly embraced modern society’s welcoming of women into the paid workforce by failing to provide state financial incentives or career flexibility inadvertently end up providing strong disincentives for couples to have children." Unfortunately, according to Guthrie, Shorto failed to interact with the counter-trend among religious traditionalists.
Tradition or Bigotry?Posted by Adrian Warnock - July 1, 2008 on 4:41 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenReading the results of a significant poll on religion and public life conducted by the Paul B. Henry Institute of Calvin College, I was a little bit surprised by what the poll reveals about evangelical attitudes regarding abortion and gay marriage. Significantly fewer evangelicals support same-sex marriage (21 percent) than who back legal abortions (35 percent). The results become more interesting when you analyze the so-called modernist evangelicals, who attend church less frequently and hold more liberal theological views than traditionalist evangelicals. Among these modernists, a whopping 62 percent believe abortion should be legal and solely up to the women to decide. But only 42 percent believe gays and lesbians should be permitted to marry legally. For all the talk about anti-abortion views among evangelicals, there is much more unified opposition to same-sex marriage. I share this observation in the context of Senator Obama's recent letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in California. Obama said he supports "extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] and the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy, and the passage of fully inclusive laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states." The New Republic reports that these stands make Obama far more favorable to gay rights than were the Democratic running mates in 2004, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. John Edwards. Hugh Hewitt weights in with the doomsday scenario: "If Obama is elected and he leads majorities in the House and Senate to repeal DOMA, eight judges in two states--California and Massachusetts--will have reversed 3,000 years of law and culture in the West." Peter Wehner criticizes Obama for equating support for traditional marriage with bigotry. "He has now taken a position that strikes me as fairly extreme: same-sex marriages ought to be imposed by the courts, even if the citizens of that state object–thereby making an already-contentious social issue even more contentious." Needless to say, Obama's policy positions complicate his well-publicized efforts to gain evangelical support. It can't help his campaign that this letter went public just as he announced a beefed-up faith-based initiative.
Packer Interview, Post-GAFCONPosted by JT - July 1, 2008 on 3:56 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments J. I. Packer was interviewed at All Souls regarding GAFCON. You can read the entire transcript here.Asked to summarize his counsel to them, Packer--who has frequently reminded us that he's Packer by name, packer by nature--said, "Keep the faith, resist Liberalism, do not act the ostrich, hiding your head in the sand." HT: Kevin Cawley, who has collected other links as well
Florida OutpouringPosted by Adrian Warnock - July 1, 2008 on 12:14 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenThe Good News newspaper in South Florida reports about the Florida Outpouring, a healing revival led by Canadian evangelist Todd Bentley. As with other such events, however, some Christian leaders are doubting this revival's validity and biblical warrant. A closer look at the event reveals a number of causes for concern. “We increase our scrutiny of people like Hugh Hefner, and we decrease our evaluation of people like Todd Bentley just because he comes in the name of Jesus,” Tullian Tchividjian told The Good News. “Hugh Hefner is not nearly as dangerous to the church as someone like this.” “I would pay much more attention to those people who have stood the test of time. I would pay very little attention to anyone who comes and says, ‘God told me something that he’s never told anyone else, and you can’t find it in the Bible.’ It’s a lie, it’s that simple.”
Reasonable Faith: Third EditionPosted by JT - July 1, 2008 on 12:10 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments The third edition of William Lane Craig's classic apologetics textbook, Reasonable Faith, is now available. This book holds a special place in my heart and mind, given that the Lord used it in some significant ways early in my undergraduate years at a studies of religion program at a state college. There's nothing else quite like it on the market. Even if you don't agree with all of the arguments and perspective, I've long thought that every Christian family should own at least one copy.A web-based companion to the book has been set up online. Here are some blurbs for it. "It is hard to overstate the impact that William Lane Craig has had for the cause of Christ. He is simply the finest Christian apologist of the last half century and his academic work justifies ranking him among the top 1 percent of practicing philosophers in the Western world. Besides that, he is a winsome ambassador for Christ, an exceptional debater, and a man with the heart of an evangelist. I know him well and can say that he lives a life of integrity and lives out what he believes. I do not know of a single thinker who has done more to raise the bar of Christian scholarship in our generation than Craig. He is one of a kind and I thank God for his life and work." J. P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, "Bill Craig is one of my personal heroes! He is among today's very finest defenders of Christianity. He offers a powerful mix of authentic faith, intellectual firepower, debating skill, and the gentleness and respect that the Bible requires" Lee Strobel, Best-selling author of The Case for Christ "Especially regarding his breadth of scholarship, no contemporary Christian apologist surpasses Bill Craig. Some of Bill's wide range of interests are evident in this third edition of Reasonable Faith. To be introduced to crucial topics such as God's existence, creation, Scripture, and the historicity of Jesus, including his deity and resurrection, all under one cover, is an enormous treat. Not a singlestudent of apologetics should miss this volume by a major scholar. Crossway Books deserves much credit for continuing its strong tradition of Christian textbooks." Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy and Theology, Liberty University (www.garyhabermas.com)
"Whenever I pick up a book by William Lane Craig, I know I will be treated not just to a feast of rational insight, but also to a tutorial on how good thinking is done. I can always count on a thorough, charitable, even-handed, and intellectually elegant analysis.Reasonable Faithis a classic example of these virtues." Gregory Koukl, founder and president of Stand to Reason (www.str.org), author of Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing your Christian Convictions, and co-author ofRelativism— "A much-needed book for our times. It overflows with cogent and compelling argument presented in accessible and irenic language. University and seminary students will find this book especially helpful in exposing the fallacies and lack of evidence in the many and various challenges that have been leveled against historic Christian claims. I highly recommend this book." Craig A. Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament, "As a former student and now collaborator with him in writing and in ministry, I am one of the numerous beneficiaries indebted to William Craig and his stellar work in the philosophy of religion and Christian apologetics. He has been a model, a mentor, and an inspiration through his scholarship and his commitment to God's kingdom. His newly-updated Reasonable Faith continues to be the gold standard for apologetics texts: vital historical discussion of issues and arguments; rigorous reasoning and state-of-the art scholarship; and highly relevant, personal application—all permeated with an evident passion for the cause of Christ." Paul Copan, Professor and Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University and President, Evangelical Philosophical Society (www.paulcopan.com)
"William Lane Craig is both an absolutely topnotch, world-class scholar and a man with a warm heart for apologetics and evangelism. This astute book combines both passions. It gives rigorous and well-documented argument which are aimed at producing a rational faith that can be commended and defended before the watching and waiting world. Bravo (for the third time)!" Douglas Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary "William Lane Craig is arguably one of the finest Christian philosophers of our time. His knowledge and skill have placed him on platforms on every continent, engaging the most notable skeptics in dialogue and debate. Reasonable Faith will provide only increased opportunity and impact as he makes his mark on our time with a timeless message." Ravi Zacharias, Founder and Chairman, Ravi Zacharias "The third edition of William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith is simply a masterpiece. It combines clarity and applicability without sacrificing depth. Each chapter has three major parts. First, the topic is introduced with an extensive discussion of the historical development of the arguments and objections to the arguments. Second, Bill leads the reader into the depths of the most contemporary discussion. He treats the leading versions of the arguments for Christianity as well as the best of the objections. He has taken great care to achieve a thoroughness that is rarely found in apologetics texts. Third, he explains, through many personal examples, how the arguments in the chapter can be appropriated in personal evangelism. Combining these three elements is enough to make this text unique. The depth and quality with which each step is accomplished makes it indispensable." Gregory E Ganssle, Lecturer, Department of Philosophy,
Obama Pledges to Boost Faith-Based InitiativePosted by Adrian Warnock - July 1, 2008 on 9:52 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenFrom the Associated Press: “Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.”
Conservative AnglicansPosted by Adrian Warnock - July 1, 2008 on 9:20 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenAround 750 Anglican clergy and leading conservative archbishops, including Peter Jensen, are meeting today at All Souls Church in London. The bishops have recently arrived from Jerusalem, where conservative Anglicans hosted the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) ahead of the decennial Lambeth conference, which convenes in a couple weeks. In Jerusalem the archbishops introduced the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, a bulwark against counter-trend of theological liberalism in Great Britain and North America. Conservatives have not always been united, even as they agreed that Anglicans should not consecrate homosexual bishops. This most recent meeting shows that conservatives see the need to present a united front as they lobby for like-minded oversight without sinking the Anglican Communion. N.T. Wright, bishop of Durham, was not invited to Gafcon, but he expressed praise and concern about the gathering in a statement. Christianity Today's Tim Morgan attended Gafcon and has been posting developments at the CT Liveblog.
A New Search and Destroy MissionPosted by Albert Mohler's Blog - July 1, 2008 on 4:34 am | In Christian Mind, Think Christian | No CommentsEven before the Nazi Party came to power, the doctors of Weimar Germany began to divide humanity into those who should live and those who should die. They developed the category of "life unworthy of life" in order to designate those whose infirmity, deformity, race, or lifestyle rendered them subhuman in terms of rights. Similarly, the eugenicists of the twentieth century -- in America as well as in Europe -- called divided humanity into the "fit" and the "unfit," and called for more children from the fit, less from the unfit.
How People Change & The Christian’s Ongoing Need of RedemptionPosted by KP - July 1, 2008 on 2:02 am | In Christian Mind | No Comments
Sovereign grace in ProverbsPosted by DJP - July 1, 2008 on 2:01 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments by Dan PhillipsWe recently looked at reflections on substitutionary atonement in (what many would see as) an unlikely  place: the book of Proverbs. Does Solomon also say something about sovereign grace?For brevity's sake, I'll focus on one specific verse: Proverbs 20:12 — The hearing ear, and the seeing eye,At first glance, the point of the proverb seems plain: Yahweh created the faculties of sight and hearing. The flows from the doctrine of creation, stressed often in the Canon as a whole, and in Proverbs in particular (cf. 3:19-20; 8:22-31, etc.). But we remind ourselves that biiblical proverbs are not meant to be smimmed, scanned, glanced at in passing. They are designed to be singled out, ruminated over, meditated upon. Does this proverb say more than the obvious? The obvious is almost too obvious, to the point of being banal and insipid — and Proverbs is neither. So at the least, perhaps Solomon is saying that these faculties are creations of Yahweh, to be taken seriously and used in a way that pleases Him. Or he could be saying that, if we have these faculties, certainly Yahweh has them to a vastly greater degree, and hears and sees us. Both of these are Biblical thoughts (cf. Luke 12:48 and Psalm 94:8-11, respectively). But I think Solomon's word-usage in Proverbs points us in a different direction. "Hearing ear." For instance, the word translated "hearing" is from the verb šāma`. You  know if from the "Shema": "Hear, O Israel..." (Deuteronomy 6:4). It does mean to hear. It also is the verb usually translated obey. šāma` commonly means not only to hear, not only to listen, but also to respond obediently, as in the phrase "to hear is to obey." Every parent (and pastor) knows that not all hearing is listening, and not all listening is obedience: but this word regularly takes in all three dimensions.See this for yourself in its uses in Proverbs 1:5, 8, 33; 4:1, 10; 5:13; 8:33-34; 12:15; 13:1; 15:31-32; 19:27; 28:9. This list is not exhaustive, but you will readily observe that mere physical hearing does not satisfy the meaning of any of these verses. Similarly the ear in Proverbs is meant to be employed not merely in hearing the birdies sing nor the brooks babble. The ear is to be used in accepting and accumulating God's wisdom, as you readily see in Proverbs 2:22; 4:20; 5:1, 13; 15:31; 18:15; 22;17; 23:12; 25:12; 28:9. So both of the first two Hebrew words point strongly beyond a surface reading. What of the next two? "Seeing eye." Similarly, the "eye" has many uses in  Proverbs, but is also used of the organ of perception and evaluation. The "eye" is spoken of in warning (3:7; 5:21; 12:15; 16:2) and encouragement (3:4; 4:21, 25). We should use our eyes to perceive and learn wisdom (23:26). And the common verb "to see" (rā'â) is used of looking and learning, of picking up wisdom through the eye-gate (6:6; 7:7; 22:3; 24:32; 27:12).Could Solomon have meant more? I've shown that Solomon's own usage heavily weights the case for thinking he means more than the mere physical powers of seeing and hearing. In fact, I'd say that if that's all he meant, this is actually an unusual use of the words, for Solomon. But even more persuasive are some earlier Canonical uses he surely would have known: Deuteronomy 29:4 — “But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.” Here are all the elements of Proverbs 20:12. Clearly, Moses is not speaking of the mere physical ability to receive and decipher light and sound waves. He's talking about responding to the revelation of God receptively, understandingly, believingly, and  obediently.Another verse may or may not have a bearing, depending on the date of Psalm 119. Verse 18 voices the prayer, "Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law." The writer is not asking for physical eyesight. He sees just fine. He is praying that he'll have the spiritual insight to perceive and receive what is already there in Yahweh's word — the ability, in other words to see what he sees. Putting this all together, I might suggest this interpretive paraphrase of Proverbs 20:12 — The ear that hears, listens and obeys;And thus I concur with Derek Kidner's characteristically terse observation: “Hearing is the Heb. term for ‘obedient’ (so translated in 25:12; cf. 15:31; I Sa. 15:22). It can also, like ‘seeing,’ express understanding: cf. Isaiah 6:9, 10. The proverb makes a constructive companion to verse 9, pointing with it towards Ephesians 2:8-10” (Proverbs, p. 138)The doctrine of sovereign grace is called Reformed, or Calvinistic. But Calvin and the Reformers got it from the Bible — all of it.
The Surprising Work of GodPosted by JT - June 30, 2008 on 6:23 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Those interested in Collin's recommendation of the upcoming Haykin/Steward edited volume might also be interested in the new book coming out from Garth Rosell and published by Baker Academic: The Surprising Work of God: Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the Rebirth of Evangelicalism.Here's some info on it: Product Description There is growing interest in the story of mid-twentieth-century evangelicalism. One of the central leaders of that era was Harold John Ockenga. He was pastor of the historic Park Street Congregational Church in Boston and cofounder of Fuller Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Christianity Today. The Surprising Work of God examines the birth and development of modern American evangelicalism--its history, personalities, and institutions. The history of that time is seen through the window of the life, ministry, and writings of Ockenga and his long friendship with Billy Graham. This lively, engaging story will be of value to anyone with an interest in the American church of the last century. From the Back Cover The Surprising Work of God tells the story of how America's mid-twentieth century spiritual awakening became a worldwide Christian movement. This seminal study brings a unique perspective to the history, personalities, and institutions of that period and offers an intimate look at evangelicalism through the window of the life, ministry, and writings of Harold John Ockenga and his long friendship with Billy Graham. Ockenga was pastor of the historic Park Street Congregational Church in Boston and cofounder of Fuller Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Christianity Today. As such, he was a central figure in the birth and development of American neo-evangelicalism. This lively, engaging story will be of value to anyone with an interest in the American church of the last century. "In this thoroughly researched book, Garth Rosell has put flesh on the dry bones of history. His deep immersion in the rich records left by Harold John Ockenga brings to life the critical developments that forged the modern evangelical movement. The result is a most valuable book."--Mark Noll, Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History, University of Notre Dame "The story of post-World War II evangelicalism, and of Harold Ockenga's role in its reconstruction, is here told with an insider's understanding, a historian's eye for detail, and diligence in the use of original sources. Rosell has ploughed fresh ground and has given us ways of looking at all of these events that are fresh, authentic, and helpful."--David F. Wells, Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary "This is insiders' history at its best. Not only is Garth Rosell a truly first-rate historian but he has also lived through many of the events he recounts. His front-row seat within the theater of post-war evangelicalism combined with careful work in little-known manuscript materials has yielded an accurate, vivid account of the evangelical movement's twentieth-century revival. This book is real treasure--must reading for all who care about American religion."--Douglas A. Sweeney, associate professor of church history and the history of Christian thought, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Obama’s Religious Affairs AdviserPosted by Adrian Warnock - June 30, 2008 on 4:51 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenSen. Barack Obama's campaign has hired Shaun Casey from Wesley Theological Seminary as senior adviser for religious affairs. Casey will focus on evangelical outreach. That effort will continue tomorrow when Obama speaks on faith at a community ministry in Ohio.
The Advent of EvangelicalismPosted by Adrian Warnock - June 30, 2008 on 3:16 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Post by Collin HansenA recent surge in the popularity of Jonathan Edwards has corresponded with intense historical debate about whether evangelicalism began during the Enlightenment. If you start their story with the First Great Awakening of the 1700s, does that mean evangelicals are hopelessly captive to modern rationalism? A new volume edited by Kenneth Stewart and Michael Haykin observes greater continuity between transatlantic evangelicalism and the Protestant Reformation that began in the 1500s. Their book, published earlier this year in the UK, includes a response from David Bebbington, who wrote the landmark Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. Tom Nettles from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says of the Haykin/Stewart volume: "This book provides just the kind of constructive dialogue that is sure to help us move ever closer to a more satisfying grasp of evangelical identity, not as a mere historical curiosity, but as a matter of self-knowledge for thoughtful action to the glory of God." B&H will be publishing the American edition of The Advent of Evangelicalism this October.
Interview with ThabitiPosted by JT - June 30, 2008 on 2:59 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Michael Dewalt interviews Thabiti Anyabwile about his new book, What Is a Healthy Church Member?
Collin HansenPosted by JT - June 30, 2008 on 12:01 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Speaking of Collin (mentioned in the previous post): he's kindly agreed to help me out this week, co- or guest-blogging.
Obama and the EvangelicalsPosted by JT - June 30, 2008 on 11:42 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments A number of writings whom I respect have taken up the topic recently, all writing in light of James Dobson's recent critique of Obama's use of the Bible:1. Ross Douthat: [T]here's no question that Obama's overt religiosity, his emphasis on social justice, and his team's savvy religious outreach make him a more attractive figure to many evangelical voters than any other Democratic nominee of recent vintage. Factor in John McCain's reticence about his own faith, his much-publicized spats with religious-right pooh-bahs, his obvious discomfort with issues like abortion and gay marriage and his disorganized, behind-the-eight-ball staff, and you seem to have a recipe for real Democratic inroads among a constituency that the GOP has owned for a long time now. This places Dobson, never the most politically-savvy operator, in an obvious bind: He's on the record saying he won't vote for McCain in the general election (an "undorsement" that came to late to actually affect the GOP primary campaign), but he no doubt doesn't want to be perceived as throwing the election to a pro-choice Democrat -- or worse, losing a generation of Christians to the lure of the religious left.2. Michael Gerson, writing in the Washington Post: Obama is properly understood as a man of the religious left, in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. . . . [Obama] seems determined to call an evangelical bluff: Since you now praise King as a model of religious involvement in politics, you need at least to consider me. |
The strains of hyper-Calvinism that are flourishing today are more harsh and more hyper than any of the historic hyper-Calvinists ever thought about being.
