CRN.Info and Analysis

The third commandment of the summary of Torah (the Ten Commandments):

You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

In the list of the Ten Commandments, this one, more than any other, seems a bit out of place - particularly in its most used context. However, when examined in the light of its full context in scripture and its originally understood context, I think there is a lesson for all of us to grasp.

Vows and Oaths and Empty Words

Probably the way this verse is most often interpreted is that we should not use God’s (or Jesus’) name as an expletive, or otherwise extraneous manner. This is very wise, and I am sure a part of what is covered by the command. However, if we stop there, we completely miss the heart of this command.

To ‘misuse’ God’s name, or to take in vain (i.e. to ‘make it nothing’) is to attach it to something that to which it does not belong. It is claiming that God has blessed or cursed something, someone or some activity based on your own purposes. Or, as Andy Stanley notes, “the original intent of this command was to prevent people from attaching God’s name to purposes that are not His.”

To take God’s name in vain - to make it nothing - basically is man’s way of pitting God against Himself. Continue Reading »

When I saw Chris P. was going to post his argument(s) against a universal application of the Imago Dei I was intrigued… this is such an assumed doctrine in Christianity that I was stunned the first time I read someone write that only those who are born-again have the Imago Dei. After reading part one I was disappointed and not a little bit confused at the non-sequitur logic.

Here are some excerpts with my comments and/or rebuttals.

There is a lot of teaching that all men currently exist as God’s image and likeness., i.e. that “divine spark” is found in all men. There are those who teach God exists in all creation. Everything, and everyone, is essentially good. Everything is beautiful in its own way……….What exactly does that mean? - CP

Here we find the first flaws in the argument. It is sort of a straw-man. That some teach that there is a divine spark in all humans, that others teach that God exists in all creation, that still others teach that everything and everyone is essentially good is true. It is also moot to the question. The misapplication of a doctrine, the misinterpretation of a passage bears no weight on the doctrine or the passage itself. The Dispensational claim that Covenant Theology may lead to anti-Semitism neither argues for Dispensationalism nor against Covenant Theology. It is moot, and not a good start.

God made man in His image and “likeness” by creating him as male and female, and then giving “them” dominion over creation. So man is like God in being male and female, and in asserting dominion, or rule, over creation. CP

Maybe. Genesis 1 describes how humans were created subsequent to God saying “Let us make man in our image…” - but it does not follow that the descriptions given (male, female, have dominion, etc.) define what “in our likeness” means. These may be descriptive; they may just be the order in which things happened. Therefore any argument built on this interpretation is only as strong as the interpretation itself.

God does not exist in the created things around us. He does not exist within fallen man. That is what Romans 1 is all about. God only exists in the new creation, i.e. Jesus Christ the head (chief authority), and in His Body, the ekklesia, and ultimately in the new heavens and new earth. - CP

The teaching that God exists in all creation, or that all creation is part of God is called panentheism (god in all) and pantheism (all is god), respectively. And it is false. But does God only exist within the new creation? Of course not. God exists separate from all creation – current or new. Jesus Christ is the head of the church and he will be the ultimate authority of the new heaven and new earth, but this is not another way (cf. the i.e.) of saying God only exists in the new creation. God is separate from creation, now and forever.

So death is the state of all mankind who are outside of Christ. Therefore Christ’s atoning death on the cross not only satisfies the requirement of the Mosaic covenant regarding sins, forgiveness, and deliverance,, i.e. the Passover, it also fulfills God’s (His Law) judgment on man, based on Adam’s transgression of the covenant, which is death. -CP

What death are we referring to in Adam’s transgression – physical, spiritual, both? It cannot be physical, i.e. that only those born again will be physically resurrected since all will be resurrection, those in Christ and those not… some to everlasting joy others to everlasting punishment. To say otherwise, to say only those in Christ are physically resurrected would be to embrace annihilationism.

The resurrection then is essential, which is why Paul defends it as fact so aggressively in 1 Cor 15. It is through the death and resurrection that we exit the old creation, and enter the new. Jesus said, in answer to the Sadducees trick question, that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so he is the God of the living not the dead. That would mean that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are participants in the resurrection and thus the new creation. (1 Peter 4:1-6)They are “the living”. So are we who are now called the Sons of God because of the second Adam.- CP

OK – no problem there… but I need to include it because of…

This would the mean that “imago dei” is found only in Christ, the new creation, and in His body the church. We, who are “born again” are imago dei. Imago dei is not found in unregenerate mankind. Unregenerate man is dead (literally) in the sins of Adam. (Romans 6: 4-13) He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God is only found in His Son, who is alive forevermore, Amen.

What’s that noise I hear? Oh, it’s your transmission fallen apart as you grind the gears shifting too fast from one thought to a supposed conclusion. Where is the connection between the need for the resurrection and the Imago Dei only being found in believers, in the new creation, in the church? That God is the God of the living proves that He is the God of the living. That the resurrection is necessary proves that the resurrection is necessary – no connection was made to the Imago Dei. I suspect no connection was made because there is no connection to these truths and the residence of the Imago Dei.

So, part one fails to prove that only the regenerate possesses the image of God. It fails because it is built on a spurious interpretation of the meaning of the Imago Dei. It fails because it relies on the buttresses of the false and straw-man doctrines of pantheism and panentheism both of which are moot to the argument. It fails because it claims God exists only in the new creation – which is not only false, but is itself panentheism in the future. And it fails because it never makes the connection between God being the God of the living, the need for the resurrection and the limited Imago Dei.

Maybe part two will be more convincing.

*** UPDATE *** June 30

Chris P. has posted part 2 of why the Imago Dei resides only in the regerate.  It consist with a list of Scriptures interspersed with commentary and “The conclusion is that Imago Dei is seen only in the new creation. Those who are born again from above, i.e. the Body of Jesus Christ.”  It was rather an odd process to read the Scriptures Chris P. posted, agree with a lot of his commentary on them, then reach the summation that it all proved his conslusion… maybe if I try a little harder I’ll see the link.  Usually I can follow an argument even if I disagree with it.

Bottom line, I am still unconvinced (but now confused at the flow of logic or lack thereof), and dissappointed that he never dealt with Genesis 9.

I think Chris P. confuses good works that reflect the Father and/or Christ with the Imago Dei… I’ll have to think about that.

I couldn’t begin to count how many times it’s happened.  I’ve been discussing a certain issue with someone, and eventually to prove his point, the phrase “well this is what the Bible says” comes up - usually followed by a long, poorly edited, copied and pasted passage from BibleGateway.com.  In the person’s mind this passage is the end of the argument, the last hurrah, the final amen.  It is the trump card of debate, and the checkmate of discussion.  The howitzer of the Bible has been pointed squarely at me, and I am a casualty of theological disagreement.

I’ve often wondered where the practice of referring to the Bible as a weapon came from.  I remember in Children’s Church when we have “sword drills“.  The teacher would open her Bible, pick a verse at random, and the student who found the verse in the least amount of time won.  Not to boast or anything, but I remember winning more than my fair share of these battles.  Perhaps growing up in a pastor’s house where I was surrounded by Bibles had given me some sort of innate ability to thumb through the pages of Scripture quickly…

Continue Reading »

Since the release of his first book, The Irresistible Revolution, Shane Claiborne has both risen to prominence and taken a lot of flak in Evangelical circles.  He is one of those people who people either seem to love or hate.  He is one of the few people who seems to have the ability to remain within the mainstream of American church culture, yet offer some harsh critiques at the same time.  All the while he never comes off as mean-spirited or like he has an ax to grind.

His new book, Jesus for President, a collaboration with Chris Haw, is in some ways a sequel to the first book, but it goes in some unexpected directions along the way.  With a subtitle, Politics for Ordinary Radicals, some might expect that this book would be Claiborne’s take on the current political scene in the U.S. or some sort of alternative Christian voting guide.  While, the book is certainly political in the sense it talk about political issues, it never really delves into the American political system.  In fact a strong theme throughout the book is the futility of expecting any real change to come through the political process, much like the point that Greg Boyd made in his 2005 release, The Myth of a Christian Nation.  That certainly doesn’t mean Claiborne doesn’t have opinions about issues, though.

First, I think I need to say something about the actual book itself.  The book is full color paperback, and nearly every page has unique, hand-drawn (or at least made to look hand-drawn) artwork pertaining to the content on the page.  It is obvious that the was a labor of love for the authors.  The book is nearly 350 pages long, but in actual content it is probably comparable to other paperbacks half that length.  It’s a pretty quick read.

The book is broken up into four sections, and the first three are largely historical in nature.  In Section 1, the Old Testament narrative including Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the call of Abraham are reviewed.  The authors make special note that all throughout this time, God was working with humanity to bring redemption and restoration to the fallen world.  They talk of God’s plan for the Israelites, and His frustration with them for neglecting their calling.  They talk about God’s giving in to the Israelites demands for a king, and the prophets that were sent to keep these kings in check.  An interesting discussion in this section has to do with the Levitical laws and festivals the Jewish people were to observe.  A major point of these laws and observances, according to the authors, was to set Israel apart as an example for other nations to see.

At their core, these Hebrew laws were ways God was protecting the integrity of a new humanity.  It was not simply for their sake but for the sake of creation.  For the original plan of God was that Israel would be set apart to redeem the nations.  This was not a plan to reform the pagan nations around it - like making the neighboring Assyrian empire better at doing empire.  Rather, God would save the world through fascination, by setting up an alternative society on the margins of empire for the world to come and see what a society of love looks like.  It would be the city on a hill that God would use to light up the world, drawing the world back to God.

Continue Reading »

There has been a great deal of discussion lately on the subject of “atonement”, sin, and the nature of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. In many cases, adherents of specific views of atonement (particularly the theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement) have taken a dim view of groups of Christians who do not hold to identical views - in some cases, suggesting that the “correct” view (theirs, of course) is required both for evangelizing and for salvation.

Fortunately for Christians throughout the centuries without such ‘enlightenment’, systematic theology does not save, but rather the Grace of God and the mysterious work of salvation made possible through the cross and the empty tomb. In reality, many theories and ‘word pictures’ have been used throughout the history of the church to describe this work, and there is room for liberty in differences of view. Despite this liberty, though, there is need for some boundaries…

Guardrails

In Charleston, S.C., there was a bridge that was rather narrow, and was somewhat frightening for many motorists to cross. Once, during a period of repairs, the outside rails of the bridge had to be removed. Immediately, this bridge went from 2 functional lanes to a single lane, causing all sorts of traffic snarls, because people were afraid of falling off the edge. The rails, when in place, were not very capable of stopping a determined car from going into the water, but they gave some sense of security to motorists.

One of the lessons we can learn from this is that boundaries, contrary to popular opinion, are not always restrictive. Rather, boundaries clearly delineate how far you can be without going over the edge, leaving much more functional room within their borders. Unlike those who acted as if there was only room for one lane on the narrow bridge, once guardrails were in place, there was room for multiple lanes for cars to cross. The bridge, itself, did not change - it did not become wider or narrower. In fact, it became safer AND more efficient.

In the case of atonement theory, it is important that we establish the ‘rails’ - the primary one being that Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection was required in order to bring salvation to mankind. The second rail would be that man could not find salvation by his own means. These rails rule out “all paths lead to heaven” and “if you’re good enough, God will accept you”, and other universalist/semi-universalist views of atonement.

Atonement Views

The Views of Atonement: Continue Reading »

I thought this comment by new commenter, Chad, was rather insightful, demonstrating a truth I’ve tried to convey in the past, though much more ham-handedly than he has elegantly phrased.  In answer to the question “what would you consider ‘heresy’”, he writes:

Making works necessary for salvation. I would qualify this, though, by saying that our Roman Catholic friends are not heretics in this regard. When I say “works as necessary for salvation” it is to say that grace is being denied as free gift (or more to the point, that there is no need of grace), that God in Jesus has not done something to open the door to heaven.

I am quick to point out that many of my protestant brothers and sisters are no different than our RCC brothers and sisters - they have simply changed the system of “works” from one of penance to one of mental assent to a set of propositional truths or doctrines. While not “heresy” I consider it to be a departure from orthodox understandings of grace (gift!).

In the early church, particularly those with a Jewish background, the separation of “works” from “faith” was inconceivable.  In this mindset, one physically cannot have a belief system that is not demonstrated.  Sin, itself, is a demonstration of a belief that God cannot provide.  As most of the world, and the church along with it, was Hellenized it began creating abstract compartmentalizations which separated ones “faith/belief” from one’s “actions”, leading to the church schizophrenically pitting one against the other.

We see the seeds of this already planted in the book of James, and the schizophrenia fully realized in Luther’s desire to strike it from the canon, since it appears to stake out ground somewhere between legalism and sola fide.  To paraphrase James, “faith” (mental assent) really isn’t faith (mental assent) unless it is demonstrated.

And all of this is independent of grace, which is freely given.

As you survey the online landscape of Christianity (in which the relative percentage of Evangelical vs. Reformed vs. Catholic is skewed far differently that represented in living, breathing human beings), you can’t help but wonder why so many people are busy defending a 450-year-old church split, looking for the devil in the other party.  One need only examine the wailing and gnashing of teeth anytime a Protestant church reintroduces a Catholic tradition.  What you end up seeing is extra-biblical whining in condemnation of extra-biblical tradition (noting that I used ‘extra-biblical’ and not ‘unbiblical’ or ‘anti-biblical’).

It’s no wonder Jesus’ criticisms were almost exclusively about the religious class, always eager to demonstrate their righteousness while condemning anything that didn’t fit their own narrow traditions.

Tony Jones posted the latest installment of his “On the Road with Trucker Frank” series today, webisode 5. In this clip Jones talks with two Evangelical pastors about their opinions on church planting, what people want in a church, and going to bars.

The second pastor in the clip may be familiar to you, as he is none other than Pastorboy, a semi-regular commenter here at CRN.info. As is quite evident, he and Tony Jones don’t quite see eye to eye, especially on what God can and cannot do. Also, Emergent’s lack of statement of faith is a matter of contention. Perhaps one commenter on Jone’s blog sums up the difference in worldviews with this comment:

“Jesus is who the Bible says He is.”- you

“Well lets nail that down…”- other guy

There’s an interesting sentence.

I think there has been enough “nailing down” of Jesus already.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the entire, unedited interview.

I have been reading about how the SBC is slowly becoming catholic for a while now. And, anyone who is a part of the convention knows that this is far from reality. There is a lot you can say about the SBC: irrelevancy to world around it, unbiblical guidelines for ministry, use of funds — all that to say, I am not one who always tows the party line. However, this connection that Watcher’s Lamp makes is strange to me.

They make the comparison between the catholic practices of the stations of the cross and the prayer journey with signs and symbols that will be taking place at the Convention this year. First off, let me say that the practice is very similar. It seems (from the two sentences provided) that participants will go from station to station, be reminded of an aspect of God with a symbol, and stop to pray. How horrible could that be? In either case, no one is praying to the icons or symbols. Nor is anyone confusing Catholic theology with that of SBC protestantism. I am sure it will be a series of pictures from the 10/40 window, baptist churches, and various other images that will remind pastors to repent, give thanksgiving, and pray for the needs of the world.

Why is it that we have such a hard time with symbols and icons in the Christian faith. I mean, it seems like Jesus was constantly using images and symbols when he spoke. Everything from mustard seeds to a lost coin became iconic for who we are to become, and how we are to live. Heck, I don’t think that anyone would argue that we should stop taking communion in remembrance of our Lord because the Catholics have created transubstantiation. I think Jesus understood that so much of our learning process is visual, not just auditory. If he set up symbols and icons to remind us of the truths of God, why shouldn’t we? Or are we dismissing it simply because the Catholics came up with it first?

Remember in scripture where it tells us that God will provide holy men to feed the lowly spiritual peons. And that when the spiritual peons are spiritually hungry, they are to go to the holy man, the one who can truly fill them up. But, if the spiritual peaons are not getting spiritually fed (whatever that means), then it is the fault of the holy man. mmm… that passage really spoke to me.

I find it really hard to believe that people still believe this stuff. I mean, that should have flown at the window when Luther presented the biblical idea of the priesthood of beleivers. When most people say that they are not getting fed, it usually doesn’t mean that their souls are suffering due to what is happening at church. It usually means that they just want more theology taught to them from a hired holy man, to hide the fact that they really don’t have an actual relationship with the living God. Really what we have created is a spiritual consumer culture. I come. I get fed. I leave. If my spiritual life isn’t vibrant, it must be because the man who has the seminary degree isn’t feeding me right.

I am absolutely disgusted with what we have created — an obese community of beleivers. We have so much knowledge of God, so many resources available to us, and so many freedoms to pursue our faith… but we still cry out “FEED ME!” to those who have studied the exegesis of Hebrew and Greek texts (and I graduate on Friday with one of those degrees, so I can say that). AS if they have some magic spiritual food that will make everyone full. What we need is pastors who don’t see it as their job to feed people. We need pastors who make a living out of making people HUNGRY enough for God, that they go on a relentless pursuit of Him.

And for the last time… where in scripture does it say that exegetical preaching is going to save the world?

by the way, if you haven’t checked out this blog, you absolutely MUST!

**Disclaimer:  I am doing an admittedly dangerous and possibly frustrating thing here.  I am defending Brian McLaren.  This should not be taken as blanket endorsement of McLaren’s thoughts.  I will admit, I like a lot of what he says, but there is some that I disagree with.

Well, it seems that Mr. Silva has gotten tired of talking about Rob Bell for a while, and has now set his sights on Brian McLaren.  This is not surprising since McLaren has become a de facto spokesman of sorts for the Emergent movement, but what it surprising, is how so easily facts get twisted in these attacks.

In this piece, we are told that Brian McLaren is “Speaking for Satan” - a pretty serious charge.  Ken gives this quote from D.A. Carson’s book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, which says:

substitutionary atonement doesn’t address the question of why, if God wants to forgive us, he doesn’t just do it. How can punishing an innocent person make things better? “That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?”

Now it would be one thing if this quote were an accurate representation of McLaren’s work.  What Silva is doing is actually quoting someone who is pulling one line from McLaren’s book, The Story We Find Ourselves In.  For those that aren’t familiar with this book, it is the second in his New Kind of Christian trilogy.

These books are essentially semi-autobiographical novels.  They tell the story of middle-aged pastor, named Dan Poole, who has a crisis of faith, and ends up having a bunch of conversations about faith with Neo, a biology teacher who turns out to be somewhat of a mentor to Dan.  The passage that this quote is ripped out of is from the chapter entitled “More Than Even All the Windows Can Show”.  In this chapter Dan, Neo, Carol (Dan’s wife), and Kerry (Neo’s friend) are having a convseration about why Jesus had to die.  Below is an excerpt:

Carol was quiet for a minute, very thoughtful, first looking down at her feet, then over at the mountains that surrounded us, and then back to Kerry in front of her.  “Well, I believe that God sent Jesus into the world to absorb all the punishment for our sins.  That’s what the cross was all about.  It was Jesus absorbing the punishment that all of us deserve.  He became the substitute for all of us.  As he suffered and died, all our wrongs were paid for, so all of us can be forgiven.  OK?”

Kerry smiled. “I know that is supposed to mean something to me, and I suppose I can see it, but it raises so many questions.”

“Go ahead,” Carol said. “What questions?”

“For starters, if God wants to forgive us, why doesn’t he just do it?  How does punishing an innocent person make things better?  That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation.  It sounds like divine child abuse.  You know?”

Carol looked for help. ”I don’t think I’m doing very well.  Dan? Neo?”

I spoke up. “Kerry, what Carol just tried to explain is what theologians call a theory of atonement.  It’s a possible explanation for how Jesus’ life and death play a role in the salvation of the human race.”

Kerry responded, “Yes.  I can see that you would need such a theory.  It’s just that it…well, Christian dogma and doctrine don’t make complete sense to me.  No offense, but I grew up with this stuff, and it just stopped working for me as I grew older.”

“I understand,” I said. “Really, what Carol explained is just one of six theories.  It’s called the ’substitutionary atonement’ theory.  To me, it’s like…” - I gestured up toward the sky - it’s like trying to see the whole beautiful, majestic sky from one of your hospital windows.”

The chapter goes on to talk about the different theories of atonement, and it doesn’t deny any of them.  It just says that none of them capture the full meaning of the cross.  There will always be part of the beauty that is mysterious.  Brian McLaren never denies substitutionary atonement as a valid explanation in this book or in any of his other books.  If anything, he like other theologians, realize that it has the potential to be misunderstood.  This is a far cry from a denial.

So once again, it goes to show that if you do a little research, like actually reading the book for yourself, you can avoid making a fool out of yourself.