Tim Tebow and the Temple of Doom

Regarding the recent controversy involving Tim Tebow's acceptance and subsequent withdrawal from an invitation to speak at First Baptist Church in Dallas, a few observations:

1)  It must be acknowledged that First Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress sometimes says things in an unfortunately unguarded way.  While it is inevitable that some will be offended when speakers venture to opine on volatile topics, a little rhetorical self-control can help ensure that offense comes more from the substance of the issue than from the way that it is characterized.  Mr. Jeffress needs to learn that the prominence of his position -- and the rapidity of modern communication -- necessitates speaking wisely about divisive topics.

2) The ranting of CBS Sports columnist Gregg Doyel, who did much of the work that resulted in Mr. Tebow finding himself in a difficult public relations position, was so over the top that it would be difficult to describe his writing as anything other than either intolerant hate (thus, demonstrating what he accuses another of) or simple ignorance.  Whatever one thinks of Rev. Jeffress' most incendiary comments, Mr. Doyel's suggestion that he should be compared to the truly loathsome traveling sanitarium known as the Westboro Baptist Church is just ridiculous.  In substance, Rev. Jeffress is criticized for holding that the term "marriage" applies exclusively to a relationship between a man and a woman.  This happens to have been the primary understanding of western civilization for millenia, and it was the stated position of President Barack Obama until less than a year ago. The position is certainly one being debated, but to describe it as extreme is simply not correct.  As far as his pronouncements on Muslims and Mormons, Dr. Jeffress is arguing that the truth claims of those religions are different from those of historic Christianity. If Mr. Doyell thinks that he can prove otherwise, he should explain where he finds that Islam and Mormonism teach that the second person of the Trinity endured death in order to propritiate the sins of His people, then rose again.  One waits with baited breath.

For a more sanguine assessment of Rev. Jeffress by someone who found his views to be utterly disagreeable, see here.  One suspects that no one has ever written like this about the Westboro crowd.

3)  Christians should use this moment to reflect on the wisdom of the negative impact of the culture of celebrity that many among us promote.  In short, one might ask:

What qualification does a Christian who happens to be a professional football player have for leading in public worship in a large church?

Of course, Mr. Tebow is a devout Christian, and for some, that seems to be enough.  Since he is a genuine believer, it is fine to trade on his celebrity in order to draw a crowd.  However, if public worship primarily has to do with meeting God and being fed by His Word, then turning the festivities over to a celebrity without training in sharing that Word might be regarded as more distraction than help.  In the quest to define the meaning of church as involving any means of putting butts in seats, it is easy to forget that Christians also believe that the power of God is found in Word and Spirit. 

Having forgotten that, Dr. Jeffress, no doubt feeling jaded, resorted to his unguarded tongue again, at least implying that Mr. Tebow had wimped out.  While wishing Mr. Tebow and his faith well, we should also value the simple preaching of the Gospel, the proper exposition of law and grace, and trust God to use those means to draw sinners to himself.

Claiming Jesus, Worshipping Self

Because churches often manage to put their worst foot forward, one can easily have sympathy for those that argue for the need for better marketing.  However, the values of Madison Avenue differ greatly from those of the Sermon on the Mount, and those who think that they can harness the former in the service of the latter often underestimate the ways that a marketing mentality can corrupt Christian proclamation.  Preaching the Gospel to every creature is not synonymous with putting butts in seats, and that is a difference that many contemporary American Christians will agree to in theory but violate in practice.

This past weekend, I opened a locker at the fitness center where I regularly attempt to turn back the inevitable, and I found inside a slick, double-sided postcard sized advertisement for the largest megachurch in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.  The headline in large letters across the top asked, "What would Jesus say to..." and then listed six names:  Katy Perry, Lance Armstrong, Ellen DeGeneres, LeBron James, Jerry Jones, and Kim Kardashian.  Pictures are important in marketing, and this piece includes a bastardized close up of Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper, with the six persons just mentioned replacing the disciples closest to Jesus.  On the back of the card, the pastors of the church ask what Jesus would say to these people in a "one-on-one conversation." Assuring us that Jesus cares about the "famous and fortunate, bold and beautiful, eccentric and outspoken, and the shocking and scandalous," the pastors explain to the readers that by knowing what Jesus might say to those people, we can "hear what Jesus has to say to us."  We are invited to learn about this in a "series of talks" given at "weekend experiences" in the coming weeks, those being the terms that this church uses for what some of us refer to, in Luddite fashion, as sermons and worship services.

Where shall we begin?  In this small advertisement, the church engages in questionable theology, pastoral care, ethics, and psychology in a manner that is cheesy at best and sleazy at worst.  In doing so, the ad encapsulates much of what is worst in American evangelicalism.

Because the doctrinal problems are the most critical, let's start there.  According to the post, the minister is going to attempt to tell us "what Jesus would say" in a "one-on-one conversation" with each of these people. Yet, the truth of the matter is that we don't have any idea what Jesus would say to these people, as he never has spoken to them in a "one-on-one conversation."  In addition, we should note that in the Bible, when Jesus did engage individuals in such conversations, he frequently addressed them in ways that we would not expect (he talks to the woman at the well about living water and then tells her to go get her husband, he tells the rich young ruler to sell everything he owns, and he tells Nicodemus that he has to be born a second time, etc.).  Because the pastor does not know what Jesus would say to these people, what he really will tell us is what he, himself, would say to these people, thus putting himself in the place of Jesus.  While I suppose we are supposed to wink and understand this as a clever way of getting people interested in the sermon (excuse me, I mean "talk"), if taken at all seriously, it is a sort of idolatry, because it puts him and his words in the place of Jesus and His Word, making his own thoughts, words, and ideas out to be the words of God.

In addition, putting these celebrities in the positions of the apostles' at the Last Supper is theologically and historically offensive.  This was a unique event in the Passion of Christ that had unique significance, and it should not be vulgarized in this way.

Second, it should also be noted that the motif is pastorally irresponsible, in that it models pastoral malpractice.  While it is possible that the minister may know these people personally, I am guessing that this is not the case -- especially since he appears to be using some of their lives to model what Jesus would say to the "shocking and scandalous."  Most of us don't go out in public to talk in that way about our friends.  Certainly, he could  not have counselled these people, because in that case the sermons might well be violating pastoral confidences.  If these assumptions are true, then he is postulating what Jesus would say to people based solely on their public personnas, without having any knowledge or understanding of their personal lives and stories, much less their need for the gospel.  In reality, the minister is not dealing with them as real people: they are just props.

There are additional ethical issues here.  The church is appropriating both the names and the images of these people in order to market its product, and I suspect that it is doing so without their permission.  The lines are sometimes blurry here, and I am sure that the church would argue that first amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion would protect its right to produce this material, but one can be sure that if McDonald's or any other large company were using the names and faces of these people in a major marketing effort, that such company would be hearing from their attorneys.  While I am not qualified to state whether there are real legal issues involved, I would note that appropriating these people in a marketing program based on noting their vices -- even if the messaging will end up saying that Jesus will have pleasant things to talk to them about, it is obvious to see that the group has been selected because of public vices, real or perceived -- raises significant ethical concerns.

Finally, I want to talk about the psychological issues that are apparent.  It is interesting to note the narcissistic strain that runs throughout this ad, which can in many ways be understood as an appeal to narcissistic personalities.  By this, I am not referring to clinical narcissism -- narcissism can be seen on a spectrum, and many people have narcissistic tendencies or characteristics without having the clinical diagnosis.  Indeed, authorities such as the late Chrisopher Lasch have argued convincingly that our culture as a whole is moving in a more narcissistic direction.  That being the case, it is not surprising that a marketing strategy would attempt to appeal to and validate these unhealthy tendencies, though it is more than a bit suspect that a church would validate them in this way.

Narcissism is not merely selfishness.  Rather, it is a sort of self-centeredness resulting from an inner emptiness.  Lacking inner resources, the narcissist externally projects uber confidence and then demands constant validation from those around him.  Narcissists care neither about the past or the future -- it is only the present that matters.  Because of doubts about their own significance, narcissists also frequently live their lives through the lenses of important celebrities.  They live for new experiences to validate themselves.

It is not hard to see these tendencies in the ad.  Because history doesn't matter, it means nothing to replace the apostles with the figures of Katy Perry, Jerry Jones, and so forth; nor does it matter if we replace what we know about the sayings of Jesus or the Word of God with the clever present musings of the minister.  In addition, we are assured that what Jesus would say to these famous and infamous people is a way of mediating what he wants to say to us.  All of this can be gathered from a "weekend experience," a phrase that is notably self-centered, as opposed to the notion of worship service, which looks outward and upward.

Because this is one of the five largest churches in the country, it is considered a pacesetter.  However, those who care about the cause of Christ need to resist and oppose these approaches.  Paul, when going to pagan Corinth, determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified.  In our increasingly pagan culture, similar commitments are required.

For anyone that has read this far, the marketing material I have described can also be found online here.

Backwards Preaching

I don't normally listen to Christian radio or radio preachers, but driving around in a rental car this week, I listened for a while to a particular minister -- a Baptist of some reknown -- and I had a sort of eureka experience of recognizing a theme in much of his preaching that I find quite disturbing. When I say a eureka experience, I mean that I recognized this in preaching I had heard from hi...m before, but I had never identified the trend before this week.
In his descriptions of God, he describes One who is essentially passive. Oh, God wants to bless us, he urges, but He is really waiting on us. God is waiting for us to act or do something, and when we do, God will respond by blessing us. When we fail to act, we are missing out on the opportunities that God would have given us. But, God is mostly waiting for us to react to His principles.

On the other hand, when this minister talks about Satan, as he is prone to do, the pastor describes a creature who is actively engaged in opposing God, thwarting His purposes, and defeating Christians. The devil is busy and active.

God is passive and waiting, in this view; Satan is busy. The view of Satan approaches dualism, except that the view of God is closer to deism than to historic orthodox Christianity.

This is really quite extraordinary. Rather than seeing God as active in history and redemption, working out His purposes for the good of His people and for His own glory, God is pictured as more or less hindered by our willingness, or lack thereof, to work in His behalf. On the other hand, Satan is unfettered, working to accomplish his purposes.

This is horrible preaching, both doctrinally and pastorally, as it results in calling upon people to do more and try harder in the face of superior obstacles, without an emphasis on God's divine initiative or the driving motivations of God's active grace in our behalf. In fact, all of Christian doctrine, as has been said, is grace, and all of Christian behavior is gratitude. We don't earn God's favor; we respond in gratefulness to it. And we don't battle a superior being in hopes of accomplishing God's purposes. God's purposes are certain to be accomplished, and we have the privilege to be participants, the means through which He accomplishes His will.

Let pastoral motivation driven by forces other than the grace of God be done away, cast into hell along with God's enemies. We can rest -- and be energized -- by divine sovereignty and grace.

On Hope and Change

In a fallen world, it is no wonder that we tend to associate hope with change. Life is too much filled with death and depravity, disappointment and despair. Naturally, we long for things to be different.

In a temporal sense, it may be appropriate to pursue hope by seeking change, whether that be by personal or political means. However, in an ultimate sense -- theologians would say in an eschatological sense -- hope is found in that which does not change. "For I the Lord do not change," we are told by Malachi.

Malachi follows that statement by saying that as a result of God's changelessness, God's covenant people were not consumed. In other words, the God that does not change will therefore keep His promises, and that can be relied upon even when the world around seems to be falling apart. This also means that the day will come when death and depravity, disappointment and despair, will be swallowed up in victory when He fulfills all of His promises and makes all things new. We see these promises expressed in Romans 8, where, after talking about suffering, the Apostle Paul says that we ultimately "know that all things work together for good" for believers. How can we know that? Well, Paul says, those whom God foreknew, he chose, and justified, and glorified. God already gave His Son for us -- that which was most valuable to Him -- so we can be sure He would not withhold anything else. Therefore, nothing can separate us from the love of God. Whatever the current circumstances, we can be confident that God is keeping His covenant.

I read recently the blog of a professional acquaintance who said that he would be "miserable" if his prediction about the outcome of Tuesday's election turns out to be wrong. Certainly, elections are important, and I will be disappointed on Tuesday if the candidate I vote for does not win, even as I find that much about the country disappoints me regardless of the winner on Tuesday. Even so, it is important to remember that the condition of our souls, and the ultimate hope for our future, and for the future of our children, does not depend on temporal change or on the future or solvency of the country, but on the God who does not change, and who keeps His promises.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I should add that this confidence should not engender an escapist mindset, with the result that we would sit on our hands and wait for the end. Rather, it should give us boldness to engage our world with confidence that our efforts, in both word and deed, will benefit our neighbors and be for God's glory. Confident assurance is not the opposite of active engagement, but it is the opposite of cynical indifference engendered by a hopeless fatalism. To the contrary, amidst trouble, we have hope in Christ and the opportunity to share the same with those who see only death and depravity, disappointment and despair. Such is the Christian task in this world.

Courage Required

A couple of decades ago, a friend of mine, the pastor of a small rural southern church, was asked by a church leader what he would do if a black man and a white woman approached him and asked him to perform their wedding ceremony.  My friend, suspecting that he would be asked this, had prepared himself for this question.  He smiled slightly, but met his questioner's eyes, and said firmly, "I would probably be fired."

The questioner, caught by surprise, quickly backed off and assured the pastor of the church's support in such a situation.  But the pastor knew that he was facing an issue that he had to meet head on, and he made his point in the only way he could and retain his integrity.

Recent news from Crystal Springs, Mississippi brought this old story back to mind.  The pastor there justifies his request that a black couple hold their ceremony at another location away from his church by saying that he wanted to avoid controversy, and he evidently was threatened with firing if the wedding occurred in his church.  But the call to ministry is not one for cowards, and while it is appropriate to deal with many types of issues in delicate ways, the New Testament teaching that the people of God are composed of every tongue and nation is foundational to the minister's calling.  While a period of repentance may prepare him for future ministry, with regard to the present, he has betrayed his calling and should resign.

Book Review: "Bad Religion: How we Became a Nation of Heretics," by Ross Douthat

While socially conservative voters lament the lack of religion in the public square, and secular liberals decry the excess of the same, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat argues that both miss the point.  The problem, Mr. Douthat claims, lies not in the quantity of religion in American life, but in the quality.  Over the last half century American religion has gone bad, and both the religious and irreligious should be concerned about the trend.  In Bad Religion: How we Became a Nation of Heretics, he argues that "both doubters and believers will inevitably suffer from a religious culture that supplies more moral license than moral correction, more self-satisfaction than self-examination, more comfort than chastisement." 

Mr. Douthat looks at the years following the second world war and finds a golden age of religion that encompassed a broad swath of American Christianity.  The neo-orthodoxy championed by theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr swept the mainline Protestant churches in a direction that was more orthodox than the liberal views that preceded this period, and the churches thrived. Meanwhile, theologians such as Carl F.H. Henry (misidentified, perhaps tellingly, as "Carl F.W. Henry" through the book and in the index) and the evangelist Billy Graham led the movement of evangelicalism out of the fundamentalist ghetto into a more biblically reasonable and culturally mainstream direction.  Catholicism, as seen in the popularity of Bishop Fulton Sheen, also thrived and was generally viewed quite favorably in pop culture.  Finally, the author points to the successes of the Rev. Martin Luther King, who, with other black religious leaders, united an essentially conservative theological base with progressive politics to effectuate the successes of the civil rights movement.

While Bad Religion is not a work of scholarship, it is well researched, and Mr. Douthat shows how each of these sectors of the institutional church lost its way beginning, as so many jeremiads do, in the 1960's.  Given the cultural challenges faced at that time, he argues that the church faced the choices of accomodation -- rejecting orthodox theological and moral foundations in order to find agreement with the emerging intellectual and sexual mores -- or resistance -- identifying Christianity with cultural conservatism.  Both of these roads have led to tragic consequences.

Mr. Douthat identifies four streams of heresy that have resulted from either accomodation or resistence, and for the sake of of clarity he outlines each stream in terms of popular writers that have impacted those with religious or spiritual concerns both within and outside the institutional church.  Thus, the forsaking of the biblical texts, based largely on questionable scholarship, in favor of those later works known collectively as "gnostic gospels" has resulted in the sort of orthodoxy rejecting spirituality associated with those who read Dan Brown's Da Vinci Codes as though it is a work of non-fiction (the discussion of Brown's own religious motivations and the result is excellent).  In the chapter entitled "Pray and Grow Rich," the author describes how the sort of "name it and claim it" theology once associated with the fringes has become more mainstream with ministers such as the schmaltzy Joel Osteen.  The third type of heresy is the self-absorbed narcissistic "god within" teaching that is personified in books such as the popular Eat, Pray, Love.  Finally, Mr. Douthat takes on the religious nationalism increasingly associated with radio and tv personality Glenn Beck, showing Mr. Beck to be the truly disturbing figure (for the future of American Christianity) that he really is.

While this is an important book that deserves a wide reading, it is not without its problems.  While the title of the book indicates that he is concerned about orthodoxy and heresy, Mr. Douthat never quite defines these terms, and at times it seems almost as though orthodoxy is more about cultural hegemony and sexual mores than what is found in, say, the Apostle's Creed.  He also fails to offer a clear definition of evangelicalism.  While that term has always been a bit nebulous, it was easier to define at Mr. Douthat's beginning point in the 1950's than it is now.  While the author is correct in associating fundamentalism with dispensationalism and a belief in inerrancy, he doesn't seem to understand fully what differentiated those who self-identified as fundamentalists and those who did so as evangelicals.  His identification of Kenneth Hagin as an evangelical is anachronistic (Pentecostals such as Hagin sometimes are considered in that camp now, but were not during his hey day).  Mr. Douthat's handling of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, in which he expresses surprise at J.I. Packer's nuanced explanations of inerrancy, is clumsy, at best.

The book also suffers from Mr. Douthat's lack of critical evaluation of neo-orthodoxy, which he champions as an ideal.  Certainly, he is correct that neo-orthodoxy is more true to the historic faith than either the liberalism that preceded it or the views that have dominated mainline churches over the last half century, but he glosses over the weaknesses of that theological movement.  Thus, he notes that Mr. Niebuhr could pen hundreds of pages of Christian theology without referencing the resurrection, but he seems to dismiss this as a weakness, rather than seeing it as a fatal flaw to orthodoxy's concerns.  Indeed, while neo-orthodoxy's philosophical return to biblical categories of thinking was welcome in light of what had prevailed in mainline Protestantism prior to World War II, its indifference to the historicity of Christianity's core events virtually assured that it would not stand in the face of its intellectual challengers.

While genuinely concerned about doctrinal orthodoxy, Mr. Douthat largely views these problems through political and sociological lenses, thus somewhat limiting his range of viable solutions.  That being said, this is a book that I would highly recommend as a perceptive take on America's religious landscape.

The Meaning of the Millenium: Four Views, edited by Robert G. Clouse: a Brief Review

The popularity of Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series, a set of fictional accounts of life in "the last days" just before the second coming of Jesus Christ, demonstrates the ongoing interest of many Americans, both Christian and non-Christian, in the subject of Bible prophecy and the end of the world. The view of the end times expressed in those books, which is known to theologians as dispensational premillenialism, has been arguably the most popular one among fundamentalist, evangelical, and Pentecostal Christians over the course of the last century. Indeed, many believers within those camps assume that this approach to eschatology is the only viable option for Bible believing Christians. However, this is not the case. In The Meaning of the Millenium, a volume that was published in the 1970's, four conservative Christian scholars argue differing positions regarding the Bible's teaching on the end of the age. While the work is now over 30 years old, it remains a relevant guide to the various understandings of conservative Christian scholars on the end times.

In the book, each author contributes an article outlining his basic position of the end times. The writers also each respond to the views of each of their colleagues. This format effectively enables the reader to evaluate each position both as advocated and as critiqued by opponents. That all of the authors are able exponents of their particular views makes this a helpful book in sorting out these issues.

The four positions and their advocates are as follows:

• Historic premillennialism: George Eldon Ladd


• Dispensational premillenialism: Herman A. Hoyt


• Postmillenialism: Loraine Boettner


• Amillenialism: Anthony Hoekema

Based on Revelation 20, which speaks of the binding of Satan and the reign of Christ for 1,000 years, both forms of premillennialism argue that Christ will return and set up a literal reign on earth based in Jerusalem that will last for that precise length of time. In contrast, both postmillenialism and amillenialism contend that the kingdom is spiritual in nature and that the millennium takes place during the church age prior to the return of Christ. The primary distinction between these latter two views is that postmillennialism takes an optimistic view of spiritual and material progress as a result of the successful spread of the gospel, whereas amillenialists see a rise of both Christianity and the forces of evil up to the end of the age.

While the only passage that speaks of a 1,000 year reign is found in Revelation 20, all of the writers emphasize that these views hinge on significantly different hermeneutical approaches to the Scripture. In particular, a- and post millenialists interpret prophetic passages and promises from the Old Testament in light of the first coming of Christ and New Testament teaching, while dispensational premillenialists make the Old Testament their beginning point and re-interpret the New Testament in light of the Old. Interestingly, Ladd, representing the historic premillennial view, largely agrees with Hoekema and Boettner with regard to his understanding of the Old Testament and attempts to distance himself from the weaknesses inherent in the dispensational perspective. Ladd's view is almost entirely driven by his understanding of Revelation 20. Nonetheless, the result of these varying approaches to the Old Testament is that Hoekema and Boettner both view the promises of a Davidic kingdom being fulfilled figuratively during the New Covenant age or during our future eternal state. The premillenial dispensationalists expect those promises to be fulfilled literally on earth. The non-dispensational writers effectively argue that their understanding of the Old Testament coheres with the methodology used by Jesus and the New Testament writers in interpreting the Old Testament as it relates to Christ's first advent and the New Covenant that he inaugurated.

Given the popularity of the dispensational view, it is striking to note how weak, not to mention extreme, it appears when viewed alongside the other viewpoints (I write as one who was raised as a dispensationalist, but who long ago rejected that teaching and now would describe himself as an amillennialist). Indeed, one suspects that dispensational premillennialism only prevails as the dominant viewpoint because most laypeople have not had the opportunity to hear other viewpoints argued. A volume such as this would help remedy that problem. At the very least, it should help disabuse dispensationalists of the notion that those holding differing views are guilty of denying the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

This volume is highly recommended for anyone interested in these issues.

The Gospel Driven Life, by Michael Horton: a brief review

Michael Horton opens his provocative new book, The Gospel Driven Life, by explaining his intention in writing it: "The goal of this book is to reorient our faith and practice as Christians and churches toward the gospel: that is, the announcement of God's victory over sin and death in his Son, Jesus Christ."

The stated need "to reorient" implies that Dr. Horton believes that the church has gotten off track. However, it would be incorrect to suppose that this is primarily a negative book. He has previously written Christless Christianity, a book that outlines in depressing detail where the church has become wrongly oriented. In this work, he places primary focus on what Christians and churches should be focused on. In so doing, he has written a book that is relentlessly Christ centered and gospel centered. It is a vigorous call for the church to recenter itself around the gospel of Christ. For many churches, both liberal and conservative, this would represent a change of Copernican proportions.

While Dr. Horton's book is more prescriptive than critical, he does helpfully draw some contrasts throughout the book that help the reader understand what he is getting at. For example:

The gospel is not good advice; it is good news.

The gospel is not about God writing himself into our story; it is about Him givins us a new script, writing us into His story.

The gospel is not something that happens within us; it is something that happened outside of us in real space and time.

The gospel is neither personal nor primarily about our transformed lives; it is a public and objective set of events that occurred in real space and time.

The gospel creates a cross cultural community that has no power other than the gospel and the Spirit; the church does not effect change through coercive means.

Even the modern terminology of the church points to its tendency to conceptually move Christ and the gospel to the periphery. Thus, when we speak about having a "worship experience," we place more emphasis on our pursuit of the experience than we do on the God who is supposed to be worshipped. And, such emphasis on experience in the end leads to burnt out believers.

While Dr. Horton argues that the church should "avoid resorting to hostile rhetoric," he criticizes the church for caving into mindless sentimentality. He writes:

Lazy minds breed lazy hearts and hands.... The greatest threat to Christianity is never vigorous intellectual criticism but a creeping senility that transforms truths into feelings, public claims into private experiences, and facts into mere values. Christianity is either true or false, but it is not irrational.... We must recover our distinctively biblical commitment to rigorous, inquisitive, and persuasive thinking before there can be a genuine renewal of Christian conviction, faith, repentance, and discipleship. It is time once again to love God with our minds.

Indeed. The book suffers from some repetitiveness and as a result is not the most brisk of Dr. Horton's writings. However, it is a worthy exposition of a subject of great import. I highly recommend it.

Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord

Up until this point, the Apostle’s Creed has focused on the first person of the Trinity, God the Father. Now, it begins to address belief in God the Son. This portion of the Creed can be divided into two sections: the first provides several names or titles for Christ; the latter portion focuses on a summary of his life and work.

The Creed focuses on four specific names or titles for the second person of the trinity:

Jesus
Christ
His only Son
Our Lord

Each of these names emphasizes some specific aspect of His life or work, and all of them should be a regular part of the vocabulary, especially in prayer, of believers. Christians nowadays tend to use these names indiscriminately, based largely on personal preference, but the New Testament writers did not do so. They used these names intentionally, speaking of Him using nomenclature that was relevant to whatever it was about Him that they were discussing at the time.

Thus, for example, there are many Christians who speak of Him almost exclusively as “Jesus,” with no title appended (i.e., Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus, etc.). I have heard some Christians even speak as though there is something especially spiritual in doing so, though there is no biblical basis for that idea. Interestingly, while the Gospels frequently refer to Him in this way, the rest of the New Testament rarely does. The name “Jesus” by itself in the Bible always looks back to something that Jesus said or did during his earthly ministry.

I might also add that many Christians have misconstrued Jesus’ promise to answer prayers made in Jesus’ name. This is not a promise to answer prayers when those magic words are spoken: it is a promise to answer prayers consistent with the character and will of Him.

The term “Christ” speaks of His saving work. He was the promised Messiah who died and rose again in order to save his people from their sins. As there is much about this in the part of the Creed devoted to describing Christ’s life and work, I will leave further discussion to that time.

The phrase “God’s only Son” focuses on relationships within the Trinity. God the Son is not inferior to the Father, but has submitted to the Father in order to accomplish the Godhead’s eternal purposes. The terms Father and Son reveal the eternal and perfect familial love within the Godhead. That love has only been broken once in all eternity: when the Father punished the Son upon the cross because of the sins for which He died. Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The incredible prophetic passage in Isaiah 53 says that “it pleased the Lord to bruise Him.” It is a remarkable thought that the eternal fellowship between God the Father and God the Son was broken at Calvary as Christ died for our sins.

“Our Lord” refers to the enthronement of Christ, who is the ruler over all Creation. One day, He will be acknowledged by all as the King of kings and Lord of lords.

It may be that those who speak of Him primarily as “Jesus” have focused on His humanity or his closeness to the exclusion of His other attributes, while those who talk only of “the Lord” may have lost sight of His closeness or His saving work. Of course, these are only words, and they may not say anything about the thoughts of one’s heart, but it is certainly worth taking a look inward to see if we are thinking of the Lord Jesus Christ in a way consistent with all of His majesty and glory.

Learning to think and speak His names and titles in this way is a difficult habit to start, and in the beginning it may seem stifling. However, in learning to do so there is great devotional value, as intentional thinking can help to produce intentional worship that focuses more clearly and dearly upon the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s only Son.

Change the Names to Protect the Innocent

A while back, I googled my own name. Because my first name is not a particularly common one in the United States, I was actually surprised at the number of notable people, real and fictional, who share my first and last name. I learned the following people have (or had) the same first and last name that I do:

• The director of the Pacific Garden Rescue Mission in Chicago who was responsible for the conversion of a baseball player named Billy Sunday, who became the Billy Graham of his day.
• The character portrayed by Richard Pryor in the movie Stir Crazy.
• An on air personality who works for Voice of America.

And then there is one more. I am glad that I knew a little bit about it from Google, as it prepared me somewhat for a visit I received last night.

A person who has the same first and last name as I do is a former Catholic priest who has been accused of molesting young boys in Indiana between 1979 and 1984. 11 lawsuits have been filed against him to date.

Last night, around 6:30 p.m., my phone rang. After asking for me, the caller identified himself as a reporter for the Indianapolis Star. He wanted to ask me some questions. I was confused at first as to why he would want to talk to me, but I remembered my Google finding about the same time that he realized that this was going much too easily and that I might be the wrong guy. He apologized for bothering me, and explained that no one was sure where the child molester lived, but that it was commonly believed that he lived somewhere in Nashville. Because he has never been convicted of a crime, he doesn't have to register as a sex offender.

Oh, great. I had previously had some fear about name association when I read about him in another state. Here in the same city as me? I groaned.

The reporter then had a request. He now explained that he was at the entrance of the apartment complex I had just moved into. He had driven all of the way from Indianapolis based on finding my newly listed address and phone number. Would I mind if he just came by to look at me to confirm I am not the perpetrator?

I figured my choices were to meet him or to have someone waiting outside my door to see me, so I said I would do so. I told him that I would be standing outside the apartment when he drove up. He asked what I looked like. I'm in my 40's, have brown hair....

He interrupted, telling me if I had hair I wasn't the guy he was looking for.

The reporter and I talked briefly. He looked close to my age -- a little younger perhaps-- and he actually seemed like a nice guy, though he was obviously disappointed. He was going to be headed back to Indianapolis, but he had one more request:

Would I let him see my driver's license? He needed to make sure I wasn't someone that was sent out to cover for the real one.

I shook my head in disbelief and pulled out my wallet. He looked at my license, half chuckled, and, realizing that his whole day had been a wasted effort, said, "Well, there you have it."

In some ways, the incident was amusing at first, but the more I think about it, the more I am frightened by the whole thing. I was still in high school when that man began abusing boys as a priest, so clearly there is no way that a rational person could confuse me with him. But what about an irrational one? Could the association of name and place impact my professional life if people I am working with from a distance hear a story and draw a wrong conclusion? Will someone else find my address the same way that the reporter did and assume that I am the perpetrator? Is it possible that I will open my door some morning and see a shotgun pointed at my face? Will they take time to look? If I protest, will they believe me?

I don't blame the reporter for raising these concerns. He's doing his job. I suspect that in preparing his series of stories that he has heard heart wrenching stories of the aftermath of abuse. But, this has scared me. It has scared me a lot.

"Maker of Heaven and Earth"

When reading this portion of the Creed, one immediately thinks of the first verse in the Bible, which declares, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The remainder of chapter one and the first half of chapter two proceed to discuss God's creative acts.

Much discussion of God as Creator nowadays revolves around debates about the age of the earth, whether the concepts of divine creation and Darwinian evolution can be reconciled, and the relationship between science and religion. I have opinions on those issues, about which both many Christians and many scientists sometimes are guilty of making statements that go beyond their areas of expertise, but for this discussion I want to focus on a couple of different questions -- one that should be thought about before discussions of science begin, and the other a consideration of the implications of divine creation.

There are some Christians who both believe that Scripture is divine revelation from God and accurate in all that it teaches who also believe that the Bible is not inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. Again, I am not going to debate that point today. What I will say is that, regardless of the relationship between faith and current scientific viewpoints, philosophical naturalism is not consistent with Christian belief. Naturalism, simply put, is the belief that nature is all there is. Thus, there is no God and no soul. There is only nature.

Of course, nature is the subject matter of science. Nature is what scientists study. However, some scientists are guilty of folding the philosophical definition of naturalism into the meaning of the scientific method and, by extension, the definition of science itself. That confluence should not be allowed to stand without debate. It is one thing to say that nature is what scientists study. It is something quite different to say that what scientists study is all there is. That supposition is both unproven and unprovable empirically, as it outside the realm of what scientists study.

Just as some Christians may be guilty of arrogance in making statements about scientific matters about which they have no knowledge, some scientists may be guilty of an intellectual and philosophical arrogance that claims that nothing is beyond their realm. As to whether God, either by a sudden act of creation or by a guiding hand on what we would otherwise regard as natural processes, created all that there is, the scientist really has no ultimate answers. That is not to say that there are no answers; they just cannot be found conclusively by means of the scientific method.

Christians have faith that God created all that exists, and we find ample evidence in the order, complexity, and beauty of the universe in support of that faith. The question of creation, however, is not merely an intellectual one. Along with the notion that God created comes the thought that God created for a purpose, and that ultimately what God knows about both our lives and his purposes creates accountability for us, as well as the realization that the One who made us best understands how we should live. That accountability and submission to God's wisdom and purposes, which are ultimately sources of joy for those who accept them, are also the ultimate reasons for much -- some would say all -- unbelief. The first sins in the garden were committed in response to a claim that Adam and Eve could be like God, and ever since humanity has desired to have things our own way.

God, as our Creator, has the ultimate say about what our lives should be. To live in the light of his purposes brings freedom and joy. Resisting Him is both temporally and eternally destructive.

This is the latest in my series of posts on the Apostle's Creed. For my previous post, which includes links to all of the others, see here.

God the Father Almighty

Parents frequently teach their children a prayer that begins, "God is great. God is good."

Those words are simple enough for children, but they are also profound. They capture two important aspects of the character of God. He is great -- that is, he is almighty, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is also good -- great in mercy and kindness, a Father and friend to those who are His.

Healthy Christianity maintains thoughts of God's greatness and goodness in a careful balance. Unfortunately, that balance is frequently not maintained, and that lack of balance has at times seriously harmed those who grew up under it. If God is seen as great, but not good, he may be seen as harsh, distant, irrelevant, and an object of unhealthy fear (I say unhealthy, because there is a healthy kind of fear of God).

If God is seen as good, but not great, He is seen as a sort of kindly old man -- good hearted, but not terribly helpful or relevant to life.

Fortunately, the true God is both great and good. God is described in the Bible as a Father, a Friend, and as one who knows how to give good gifts to His children. He is merciful and full of grace. Believers can call upon Him with familial love and approach Him boldly because of what Christ has done in our behalf.

He is also the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

Isaiah Chapter 40, which is addressed to hurting people who have fallen under God's judgment, is one of the most eloquent in all of the Bible describing God's goodness and greatness. Following is a quick laundry list of what we learn about God in this chapter. Read it for yourself, and you may find great joy in meditating on these thoughts about God:

• He speaks through Isaiah words of comfort and tenderness to a people who have gone through a period of judgment because of sin (vv. 1, 2).
• His glory will be revealed to all mankind (v. 5).
• His Word stands forever (v. 8).
• His presence is a reason to proclaim good tidings (v. 9)
• He is the Sovereign Lord who comes with power (v. 10)
• He gathers his flock in His arms and carries them close to His heart (v. 11)
• He has measured the waters and the Heavens with His hand (v. 12).
• His mind is beyond our understanding or counsel (vv. 13, 14).
• Nations are like a drop in the bucket and islands are like fine dust compared to Him (vv. 15-17).
• He is beyond comparison and cannot be worshipped by means of any physical image (v. 18-20).
• His throne is the earth and people are as small as grasshoppers next to Him (v. 22-24).
• He has no equal and has created all things. He is Holy (v. 25-26).
• He is the everlasting God who never gets tired (vv. 28).
• He gives strength to weary and weak people (v. 29).
• To those who hope in Him, He gives renewed strength to soar on wings of eagles, run and not grow weary, and walk and not be faint.

Those who do not know such a God should fear one of such power. Those who know Him should find comfort and confidence in God's goodness and greatness.

This is the fourth in my series of posts on the Apostle's Creed. The others can be found here, here, and here.

A Higher View of Jesus

He calls it a rant and invites readers to ignore it, but the Evangelical Outpost pens a post that would benefit every believer.

The flimsy disagreements of several commenters at that site perhaps reveal the sad state of American evangelicalism.

I Admit It: I Am the AntiChrist

For all of those strange people concerned about this date being 6/6/06, I can alleviate your concerns. I am guilty. I am the anti-Christ. Here's the proof: if you are trying to find me in a company phone directory, and enter into the phone keypad the first three letters of the name "Monroe," you will have entered 6-6-6.

This could hurt my status as a religion blogger.

What about the Emergent Church

Bill Hobbs has an interesting post in which he provides a lengthy excerpt from an article on the "emergent church movement." Although I have been aware of that movement for some time, I have not delved deeply into it due to my sense of ambivalence about it. The excerpt that Mr. Hobbs provides emphasizes both the positives and negatives that contribute to my indifference regarding the significance or value of this movement.

Positively, the movement is being described as one that is Christocentric, focused on worship, and that is seeking to energetically involve disciples in service to their communities. These emphases correct deficiencies that have tended to characterize both the "traditional" churches of the mid and late 20th century and the "contemporary" churches that have tried to supplant them. Such churches have all too frequently turned out to be self-centered in worship and other emphases and overly programmatic in their orientations.

On the other hand, the movement is described as "fueled by postmodern philosophical perspectives," engaged in narrative theology and indifferent to doctrine, and "more at home with blogs than books."

Given postmodernism's indifference regarding truth, it will be interesting to see how attempts to join it with Christian belief play out. Early returns are not encouraging, as all too frequently those who claim to be informing their faith are instead inundating it with those philosophical suppositions. Indifference to doctrine has been a problem, not a characteristic, of modern evangelical Christianity. Indifference to doctrine does not mean that there are no doctrines, and narrative theology is always refracted through the doctrinal lenses of the reader. Everyone believes in doctrines -- Christian or otherwise. The question is not whether we have doctrines, but it is whether we are aware of them and thoughtful about them.

Finally, the reliance of the emergent church on new media is not necessarily a positive. One of the strengths of the movement has been its rediscovery of early Christian forms. Every major movement of the church in American history has suffered from its parochialism and lack of connectedness to Christian traditions. Forsaking deeper reading than what is provided through blogs risks the development of the emergent church becoming atrophied by that narrowness.

In which case, the emergent church will not be a movement: it will be just a fad.

I Believe (Part II)

The Apostle's Creed begins, ""I believe in God, the Father Almighty,the Creator of heaven and earth,and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord...." In this post, I want to focus on the word "believe." Faith is a very important concept for Christians (the most frequent name for Christians in the Bible is "believers"), but it is a very misunderstood one.

In the original language of the New Testament, the words "believe" and "faith" come from the same root word, with "believe" being the verb form of the root and "faith" the noun form. I once heard a preacher on television make much ado about the fact that he was going to do more than just "believe" something: he was going to "faith it." However, there was really no point to that kind of statement, since biblically belief and faith are the same thing. As I am sure this gentleman had not studied Greek, perhaps he should be forgiven this little display of ignorance.

Perhaps.

The word "faith" is also used frequently in popular culture -- sometimes with religious overtones -- in ways that differ markedly from the biblical conception of faith. Probably the most common popular use of the word makes faith to mean something along the lines of positive thinking or stubborn optimism. While those may be good things, they are not Christian faith. In addition, they have less foundation than biblical faith. I am reminded of a Celine Dion song from a few years ago: "Don't give up on your faith. Love comes to those who believe it." That sounds wonderful. Where does that confidence come from. With her voice rising in a joy not justified by the hollow words, she concludes, "That's the way it is."

That was good for Walter Cronkite talking about what had already made news, but its not much of a foundation for faith. Fortunately, Christian faith rests on much more.

When defining faith, the most common verse that Christians turn to is Hebrews 11:1 -- "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." That passage goes on to describe Old Testament figures who manifested faith. For example, Noah built an ark based on God's command even though he had never seen anything that warranted such an effort. Abram left his home and set out for a new country he had never seen, because ultimately he looked for a land "whose builder and founder is God."

With those introductory thoughts in mind, here are a few statements concerning the nature of Christian faith:

• Faith is not merely intellectual assent. In that sense, the modern way of using the word "believe" is not always helpful. Faith involves the intellect, the emotions, and the will. It is not merely a matter of deciding that certain things are true, but it is about trusting in those things for our eternal salvation.
• Faith is both a human responsibility (Acts 16:31) and a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8).
• Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive concepts. Christian belief is not based on philosophical rationalism, as Christians ultimately rest their faith in God's self-revelation found generally in creation and conscience and specifically in the words of the Bible and in the living Word, Jesus Christ. However, reason and revelation are not in opposition. Christian belief is both internally coherent and externally consistent. Talk about faith as though it is a leap into darkness involves theological constructs that are not consistent with Christianity.
• Faith in the Bible always has an object: faith in God, God's promises, Christ, the finished work of Christ, and so forth. Thus, faith is not merely positive thinking. It involves trust in who God is or what he does and provides.
• Because faith always has God or His work as its object, faith is not found by looking inward, but by looking up. To have faith is not to find a great internal resource -- it is to find that we have a great God in whom we can confidently rest.
• The Bible teaches that salvation comes by faith alone. As such, the Christian message to outsiders is not to reform their lives: it is to be reconciled to God by repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ.
• While salvation is by faith alone, the faith that saves is never alone. When I was younger and didn't know better, I used to say that human works have nothing to do with salvation. It is true that we are in no way justified by our deeds; however, saving faith inevitably produces a changed heart and life (see Ephesians 2:10).
• Faith is not merely the response that initiates a person into the family of God; it characterizes the life of the believer throughout.

As this has become a long post, I think I should stop. I have benefited from writing it, and I hope someone gains something from reading it.

"I Believe"

The Apostle's Creed begins with the words, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty,the Creator of heaven and earth,and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord...." These opening phrases contain much that will take us several posts to work through. Today, I will begin with just the first two of those words: "I believe."

How much can you say about that? Well, it turns out a great deal.

First, it may seem curious that the Creed begins with the statement of an individual ("I"), even though it is most often recited by a group in a church. Yet, this is entirely appropriate. Christianity is both personal and communal, and the Bible describes the Spirit of God specially inhabiting both the individual believer and the gathered church. Thus, while faith should be expressed corporately, it also should be declared by persons who are trusting in and adhering to that faith individually. This is poignantly occurring when church members join together in expressing the individual faith that binds them to God and also joins them to one another.

Second, it has been said that much of what it means to be a Christian is understood in pronouns: God is not just "the Lord;" He is "My Lord." Christ is not merely "the Savior;" He is "My Savior." Of course, this is not intended to be self-centered, as though I am saying that God belongs to me. It is rather the opposite: I belong to God, and in belonging to Him I can find the greatest joys of life. Christian belief includes propositional truths, but it is not merely a set of propositions. These truths tell us of Christ, to whom we have entrusted our life and souls, and with whom we shall enjoy eternal fellowship.

Finally, many people misunderstand the notion of Christianity (or religion generally) being a personal matter. Christianity is personal, but not in the sense of it being private -- which it must never be. For a person who believes, Christianity has implications for every aspect of life. However, Christianity is personal in the sense of being individual. My faith in Christ is not a matter of birth, family affiliation, or of the willing of another. Rather, faith is a gift of God to an individual.

Which brings us to the second word: "believe." That one will have to wait for the next post. And, I promise I will not take the entire Creed one word at a time.

Upcoming: a Series of Posts on the Apostle's Creed

I am going to begin a series of posts on the Apostle's Creed. The words of the creed are as follows:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into Hades.
The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

The Apostle's Creed was not actually written by the Apostles. Composed in the second century A.D., it is so named because it is an apt summary of the basic teachings of the Apostles. In fact, for nearly two millenia, the Apostle's Creed has provided a basic definition of what it means to be orthodox. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Protestant Christians disagree over a great deal, but historically they all would agree with the basic statements formulated in this creed.

Those readers who know me as a Baptist might be surprised that I am choosing to expound on the creed. Both conservative and liberal Baptist leaders commonly tell their flocks that Baptists are not a creedal people. Those who do so simply do not know Baptist history. Though Baptist confessionalism has been on the decline for the last two centuries, Baptists historically have made use of creedal confessions of faith and have taught their children using catechisms. Indeed, the loss of their usage has resulted in the growing ignorance of basic Christian teaching that is all too frequent in Baptist churches today. It is an indictment on Baptist churches that all too frequently their teens, having grown up in church, leave it without any real understanding of what it is they are leaving behind.

Baptists, like all other Protestants, do not regard this or any other creed as being authoritative. However, creeds may be instructive tools regarding the teaching of Scripture. Although many people in Baptist pews who don't know their history would likely revolt, their churches would actually benefit if their ministers would use the creed as a part of worship.

The statements in the Apostle's Creed are deceptively simple. Their exposition could fill volumes. I will deal with them in a dozen or so posts -- I hope in a manner that will be both theologically instructive and devotional for anyone that comes across them.

The Bible in Public Schools

The Tennessean has an article today discussing the fact that the Bible is taught in a few history or literature courses in public high schools in Tennessee. Although the usually reliable first amendment scholar Charles Haynes says that the practice is inappropriate, there really should be nothing controversial about teaching the Bible in such a manner. Whatever one's views of the Christian religion, the Bible is a text that has had tremendous influence over western civilization and western culture, and a basic understanding of it is a legitimate public school enterprise for that reason.

That being said, I doubt that very many public school teachers are qualified to teach such a course, which would require both an understanding of ancient middle eastern culture and the ability to read the Bible from a historical/literary approach -- an approach that is also used, by the way, by the best of evangelical theologians and pastors (that is, not very many). However, the teacher who is referenced in the article, Mike Brown, appears to be handling the course appropriately and competently.

Mr. Haynes counters that some Christians may be offended to learn that there are multiple interpretations of the Bible. As a Christian, as long as the text is treated with an appropriate academic demeanor, I say, "Who cares?" There are multiple interpretations of most, if not all, aspects of history and of literary texts. If we are to have that level of sensitivity, then we will have to eliminate all course work. The study of the Bible is an academic subject, and not just a devotional one.

Show Me the Money

I have been involved in a lot of funerals over the years, but have never seen this in an obituary:

"Expressions of sympathy may take the form of contributions to the family."

Out of respect for the deceased, I won't link to the obituary or provide the name or city.