Go to Google.
- Type in “find chuck norris”.
- Click the “I’m feeling lucky” button.
January, 2008:
Tim Challies on the Church
Tim Challies delivers this post of reflections on his readings of those who claim to know how to fix the church. “The standard book,” he says, “begins with a few chapters outlining all the ways the church has failed with the rest of the book providing the solution. If only we did this or that or the other thing, we would make the church what she was intended to be. I haven’t read too many books that give the church a pat on the back and said ‘good job!’ Maybe for good reason. Maybe not.”
We need to find a balance between pursuing change because of perceived failures and denying those failures exists at all. What he points out here is that a model of dissatisfaction is no more useful as an overarching philosophy than one that says that things are fine and nothing needs to change.
The negative/dissatisfaction model leads to all sorts of compromises (both theological and cultural) in the name of being relevant and attuned to culture. It is convenient for those who think the church has been a total failure to throw everything out and start again, pretending to have discovered something about the teachings of Jesus that no one else has seen for 2000 years.
On the other side, pretending that all is well and any perceived failing of the church in reaching the world is a problem with “the exceeding wickedness of this generation.” This both puts the church out of reach and makes it comfortable for it to stay there.
Challies summarizes: “So if you are part of this body, allow yourself a moment of gratitude and awe for what God has done in and through His body; thank God that you can be part of something so awesome, so glorious, so godly. And then put your hand to the plow and continue the work He has entrusted to us.”
An interview with Tim Keller
I’m really looking forward to Keller’s new book. As a speaker, Keller is a rare combination of calm, rational and very interesting. In the book The Reason for God: Belief in and Age of Skepticism he offers a response to any belief systems skeptical of Christianity.
Here is a short interview with Keller by Justin Taylor.
A key quote:
“If you are going to be persuasive to someone, you’ve got to enter sympathetically into their objection so they say to you, ‘You articulated my point of view in a more positive and compelling way than I could have myself. Thank you!’ If you then show why their problem is nonetheless surmountable, they’ll at least listen carefully because they feel understood. I think most of the books you mention are written by authors to bolster the faith of the already convinced, or even their own faith. They don’t really ‘get into the skin’ of the typical skeptic very well. Just ask one.”
I’ve found this to be true in my reading and interactions with atheism and atheists.
Michael Spencer on “Steve Brown Etc.”
I’m not quite sure I like Steve Brown yet, but what a great voice. Here he interviews “post-evangelical” Michael Spencer (The Internet Monk). I do like Spencer. He represents my own combination of conservative theology mixed with a appreciation for Thomas Merton and both a critical and positive view of Emerging Church ideas.
Have a listen.
Seen and Heard (Jan 23, 2008)
CT reviews McLaren’s latest book “Everything Must Change”
From the Tim Challies archives, a post on “Excessive Reading”
Have you seen “No Country for Old Men”? What did you think?
Andy Stanley is into a series on the ten commandments. Here is
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
.
Links Relating to Atheism
Time: “God vs. Science: Francis Collins vs. Richard Dawkins”
Newsweek: “The God Debate: Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris”
Christianity Today: “Is Christianity Good for the World? Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson”
Here are some reviews:
“Darwin, Mind and Meaning: Review of Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” by Alvin Plantinga
“The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum: Review of Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion” by Alvin Plantinga (Books and Culture)
“Lonely Atheists of the Global Village” by Michael Novak
Google Video has an hour-long interview of Alister McGrath conducted by Richard Dawkins. It was filmed for Dawkins’s TV documentary, “Root of All Evil?” but was left on the cutting-room floor.
The Harvard Atheist Chaplin
The Enright Files – Michael Enright interviews Dawkins and then Neuhaus
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Dawkins on The Hour
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The following are all from a new podcast I discovered called Point of Inquiry
Christopher Hitchens – God is Not Great
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Hemant Mehta – I sold My Soul on eBay
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Sam Harris – The End of Faith, The Mortal Danger of Religion, Letter to a Christian Nation
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Daniel Dennett – Breaking the Spell
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Dr. Francis Collins – The Language of God
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Emerging / Emergent Roundup for January 2008
I plan on doing a lot of reading and writing about the Emerging Church this year. It seems there has been an ubundance of posts about that topic recently on the blogs that I read:
Andrew Jones looks at the rather ancient origins of the term “Emergent” and while he’s at it, takes a lot at the earliest known use of the word “missional”.
Dan Kimball announces a follow-up to his book “They Like Jesus but Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations“
Four Models of Emerging Churches. Steve Knight at Emergent Village comments on Wess’s post here.
Nick Fox looks at “Defining the Emerging Church Movement” by working his way through a paper by the ever-popular (and ever-reliable) Scot McKnight.
The Music Industry’s Last Stand Will Be A Music Tax
By Michael Arrington at Tech Crunch
Comments:
The economics for the artist will work out like this:
1. The artist (or record company) will front the cost of recording the material.
2. The material will be released on the internet.
3. ISP’s will collect money (on some plans according to usage)from people downloading the album. You see, there is no such thing as downloading something for free.
4. The artist receives no direct return on his investment, which would be acceptable if nobody was profiting, but in this case one party is eating the cost of producing something and another party (who has invested nothing) is taking the profit.
Of course there are complications to this idea. How do you know what people are downloading? And if you could know, wouldn’t someone just write some code that would hide this info?
The only option for the artist (probably how this will all shake out eventually) is to stop considering recorded music a source of income and treat it as a promotional item to draw people to the live show. Smart artists like Madonna (I said smart, not good) are already going this route.
My advice to music retailers: get out of music retail, invest in live music venues, concert promotion, etc.
Atheism, Humanism, Death… and Other Light Topics
Michael ( at Atheistperspective.com ) and I have an ongoing conversation in the comments section of my post “Overchurched” that I thought would make a decent post in themselves. I really enjoy these conversations with Michael, I hope you enjoy the vicarious involvement:
Michael (the atheist) asks: Okay, let’s say I agree with your initial assertion; tell me this, why should man not be the sole focus of his attention? Neither of us believe that a secular humanist’s sole focus is himself, but rather the well-being of mankind. How is that so different to how you would want others to live their lives?
Michael (the Christian): What I said was that “therefore man is the sole focus of his attention.” If I did not state it clearly, my intention was to communicate the idea of the humanist being focused on “mankind”, not each individual on himself. However, this does seem to be the logical outworking of such reasoning. But you can help me understand it a bit more. Would your reasoning run something along this line: “I want the maximum enjoyment/pleasure/gain from this life. In order to attain that it is important not only that I do well but that as many people as possible do well. Under these conditions, the maximum enjoyment/pleasure/gain can be attained.”?
Michael (the atheist): For me, God or no God, our first thought should be for our fellow man, our families, our planet. I would find it very surprising if you thought for one moment that your God would not be the first to wave the secular humanist banner.
Michael (the Christian): Loving God is of first importance, but I would argue that loving him will always leads to loving others. Now, of course, we come to our differing definitions of love. Does loving others mean allowing them always to pursue what they think is best for them, including behavior that is self-destructive? Or does it mean assisting them in discovering the plan God has for their lives?
Michael (the atheist): If he were to exist I think (apart from the not believing in him bit) secular humanism would be a philosophy he’d be more than willing to trumpet. Or is he so vain that believing in him takes precedence over treating others with respect and love?
Michael (the Christian): He desires our love, our attention, our affection because he is the ultimate truth and in him we find our purpose. Anything that robs him of our focus is unhealthy not for him, but for us.
Michael (the atheist): Think about it, if your kids grew up with respect for other people, for the planet, didn’t cause any harm to others and lived every day to make sure it was better for the people they knew would that be so bad? Would it matter that they didn’t believe in God?
Michael (the Christian): The trouble is I don’t believe that can really be done without a life based on faith in God. What is “having respect”? How does one “not cause harm”? Why only seek to make life better for those we know? Why not a more global focus?
Michael (the atheist): IMO, the moment one puts God before fellow man is the moment we’re all in trouble.
Michael (the Christian): No, that’s completely backwards, but I understand it in the context in which I think you mean it. Those who perpetrate some of the worst crimes claim they do it “in the name of God.” But we’re in trouble to a large extent because we try to please fellow man rather than looking first to God. The fallacy of pluralism is that everyone’s beliefs can co-exist peacefully. Well, is there truth or is there not? If there is, the “true” truth negates the false. Loving others involves pointing them to truth. You loving me involves disabusing me of my belief in what you see as religious mythology, which robs my life of proper fulfillment; me loving you involves pointing you at Jesus Christ, who I believe not only represents the truth but is the truth.
Michael (the atheist): Oh, and I have a really interesting question for you. I’ve been puzzling over this one. I was chatting with a friend the other day. He’s a bit religious and he said, “How can you live thinking that death will be the end of you? How depressing”.
Michael (the Christian): Well, first of all, I don’t believe as he does. I would be OK with death being the end of me, I just don’t happen to believe that is the way it will turn out. I wouldn’t find it depressing but I think it would have to change the way I live my life.
Michael (the atheist): Okay, it’s a tad boring but here’s the question. Why do Christians get upset when faced with death in the family? If my son died I’d be distraught, naturally. But if I truly believed that this life was just a junction, a way to get to eternal happiness, well, I’d be fine. I’d think ‘lucky bastard, he’s up there with God living the eternal afterlife in pure bliss’. I’d be more annoyed that I’m not there with him.
Michael (the Christian): No, I don’t think you’re being completely honest. You would still grieve for your son just for the same reasons I grieved for my grandfather (the only person really close to me who has died). Although I do envy his current state, I still miss his essence, his voice, his firm handshake. I miss talking to him, golfing with him, joking with him, and helping him with building projects. These are all completely human reactions to an upsetting event.
I am not annoyed that I’m not there with him because we are all intertwined in many similar relationships and that is why I do not look forward to death. My daughters and wife would suffer from the absence of all the things I mentioned above.
Michael (the atheist): So what’s up with Christians getting so upset? The same goes for those that make a big thing about people sacrificing their lives. It’s not a bloody sacrifice! If I thought I could help others by going to war and if I died I’d be able to eat Big Macs in heaven all day without getting fat, I’d be first in line. Sign me up to that kamikaze course sergeant!
But seriously, why the heck do Christians get so upset about death? I simply don’t get it.
I’d love you to write a little on this. Should death be seen as a negative? Shouldn’t it in fact be celebrated by those that truly believe? (and I’m not talking about a few drinks after the funeral, I mean real celebration) :) If not, why not? If a close relative of yours dies, (I’ll use the term, God forbid) would you be upset? Why? Shouldn’t the first reaction be a clench of the fist and a knowing smile?
Michael (the Christian): I do balance the grief of a death with the comfort of knowing where my grandfather is, but this only alleviates grief, it does not obliterate it completely. So death is, in one aspect, a celebration, and in another a cause for grief. John Piper recently spoke of this at the funeral of a young Christian who had taken his own life and drew a parallel to the raising of Lazarus by Jesus. We long, when someone dies, for them to be returned to us, but if we believe that they are now with Christ in heaven, free from sin and suffering, cured of their afflictions, and enjoying eternal happiness, isn’t it selfish of us to ask for them back?
He saw this as the reason that, as reported in scripture, Jesus wept before he raised Lazarus, since he was doing something wonderful for Lazarus’s sisters but issuing something of a downgrade for Lazarus. Lazarus was returned to his earthly existence, to sin again, to suffer again, and finally, to die again.
Michael (the atheist): Ps, and what’s up with this focus on Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross? For goodness sakes, earth was s— for him, he would have been relieved to get up there with dad and the rest of the family.
Michael (the Christian): Yes, but he stayed for a reason, and that was to serve as a substitutionary atonement for our sins.
