Needing a good pulpit ESV

I'm in love with the ESV and have been working hard to make it an authorized translation within the emerging orthodox Anglican consensus in America. (I'm opposed by its translation of the offices of ministry - diakonai, presbyter, and episckopoi - and its lack of consistent publishing with the Apocrypha. But I think these can and will be overcome.)

Anyway, Boomer in the Pew is giving one away. I hope to win it.

iMonk on aspects of our traditions

Internet Monk has a great new segment called Liturgical Gangstas (featuring pastors from different traditions, including Eastern Orthodox, Southern Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) and has them dialogue on a common question. This week's post is about strengths in the tradition that people miss, and weaknesses in the tradition that are easy to overlook.

It's a good read. And if you don't read it, Dr. Stephen Colbert may put you on notice.

Can we get this for blogging?

Thank you, XKCD!!!

baRak Star

I couldn't resist.


h/t Tim Phillips at Gairney Bridge.

Loquacious Liberals and Progressive Pottymouth Presbyterians

Matthew Sheffield, a writer for the Poli-Tech side of the Washington Post, experimentally confirms what most folks know from first-hand experience.

Progressives are Pottymouths.

What kills me is how they want to regulate our speech to make it as non-offensive to their pet constituency as possible. But when it comes to standards of relatively-common decency, they can fly off the handle with impunity.

What's worse is when you see it tumbling from the lips of those whose speech should be bound to a higher standard than common decency or the Constitution.

More on Makers and Takers

More on Pete Schweizer's Makers and Takers that explodes the myths of liberalism as the path to enlightened compassion.

Kengor: I suppose that of all the charges against liberals in the subtitle, the one that liberals will probably protest most vehemently is the point on materialism. And in their defense, Peter, I must say that I’ve seen some pretty darned materialistic conservatives.

Schweizer: Well remember, in all of this we are talking about tendencies. Not all conservatives are one way and not all liberals are the other. That said, the research really does indicate that liberals value money more than conservatives. After health, they are more likely to consider it the most important thing in their life. And they are more likely to say that there is no wrong way to make money. I think this actually makes sense when you look at modern liberalism. After all, what do liberals use as their measure of justice and equality? Income, or money! This is the reason I believe that modern liberals are also much more likely to be envious of other peoples’ success. They are constantly looking at the money yardstick.

This strikes me as consistent with my own experience. In seminary, we would do all of these consciousness exercises that were meant to exorcise our consciences of racism. It always focused on outcomes, with little attention being given to the complex of behaviors that served to synergize the admittedly bad hand given to many people. And it always seemed to come down to a "that's not fair" trump...as if equality of possessions were a Biblical value.

As a side note, while the libs were talking about racial justice, they never seemed to hang out with the black folks on campus. Sure...go to a rally,sign a petition, start an initiative, have a discussion, etc...but invite them over for dinner? My wife and I made it a point of our ministry to try to cook once for everyone who moved onto campus (and for many who never did). So many of the black single mothers were shocked that we would invite them to our homes - not only because my reputation preceded me, but also because no one had done this for them. They would tell me about how lonely they felt on campus because everyone seemed to be cheering them on from the bleachers, but no one got down to run beside them. A food pantry would be opened, monies would be set aside, but to actually sit down with them and eat - or listen to their struggles just seemed too much.

It is a shame that this should happen in any church setting - liberal or conservative. We've erected a barrier of professionalism that keeps us from getting our hands dirty. Then we abandon others through rhetoric of the self-determination and autonomy and anti-colonial / patronization need to leave them in squalor until some government comes along to give folks help they need. But I'll note this as well - at the more conservative (and thus, presumably, racist, bigoted, exclusionary, etc.) seminary across the street there was always a healthy interaction between racial ethnic groups. People sat together in the cafeteria with their Bibles open or played frisbee on the lawn. There were more per capita, as well. Funny how that "unity in Christ" thing trumps the pathetic results of group politics.

Kengor: How does the giving of Barack Obama measure up to, say, George W. Bush, or the nefarious Dick Cheney?

Schweizer: Obama, like John Kerry or Al Gore, has traditionally given a very small portion of his income to charity, approximately 1 percent. Bush gives 10 percent or more on a regular basis. In 2005, Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity—and got criticized for it! I also went back and looked at the numbers for Ronald Reagan and FDR. Reagan gave nearly twice as much as FDR did during the height of the Great Depression.

Kengor: But doesn’t Obama care more than Dick Cheney?

Schweizer: Supposedly. At least that is what he tells us. And liberals tell us that in surveys, too. They are much more likely to say that they “feel close” to the poor. The problem is it kind of ends at the feeling part.

Again, backed up in my own experience - but I'm glad (if that's even the right word) to see that it generalizes to the larger population. I think James had something to say about this, as well... It looks like activism / advocacy without works (personal integration of this ideal) is also dead.

Read the whole interview here.

Certainty

Anybody else getting tired of the bloggers who like to pretend that persons with DOCTRINAL theological convictions are mouth-breathing morons? Well, rejoice...demotivational posters are coming to a blog near you.

New Wineskins Reflections

First, I want to thank the good Presbyterians of Cuero, TX. Your benevolence towards me will not be forgotten. It was such a time of refreshing and reconnecting with my call to the ministry of the Word that I can hardly express my gratitude. It was also good to meet your pastor and so many other blogging friends. I was able to pray with them, break bread with them, and smoke with them!

Second, I want to thank Gerrit Dawson for submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit in departing from his assigned text to focus on John 18. I believe God spoke encouragement directly to my presbytery situation through that text (see around time sig 48:00). It was also exactly my experience in seminary (and here).

Third, John Shuck has started blogging about New Wineskins. Great. He says that when representative bodies decide on taking an action, then we should accept that action and obey its mandates* even if we disagree (and choose to work for change). I think it's the height of irony that a man who endorses those in willful direct violation of our constitutional standards should turn around and tell the Reformed Evangelicals of our denomination to tow the line or lose your property. Ironic...but far from surprising.

* "I think it is great that you advocate for change. I do, too. We have the best process available to enact change. Whether or not people agree or disagree with the Theological Task Force report or whatever, it was passed by a representative body. It is very different to work for change and go with the process even when your vote is not in the majority from not getting your way and then trashing the place on your way out."

Towards a Theology of Invective

Michael Bauman has lots of good thoughts. Here's a snippet from his work on a theology of invective:

We Christians rightly recognize Christ as the very embodiment of love. But Christ was no bleeding heart, and He was no invertebrate. The “gentle Jesus meek and mild” never existed. He is a nineteenth and twentieth century fiction. The historical Jesus was another matter altogether. At various times, and when the situation demanded, the real Jesus publicly denounced sinners as snakes, dogs, foxes, hypocrites, fouled tombs and dirty dishes. He actually referred publicly to one of his chief disciples as Satan. So that his hearers would not miss his point, He sometimes referred to the objects of his most intense ridicule both by name and by position, and often face to face....

The objection raised by the invertebrates that Jesus spoke aggressively only to self-righteous Pharisees simply misses the point. Any sinner who rejects repentance, or any sinner who holds repentance at bay because he somehow believes it is not for him, is self-righteous.

See the rest here.

Who is obsessed?

Alan, a blogger who is posting over at Classical Presbyterian, accuses "conservatives" of being hung up on "the gay issue." He thinks that evangelicals have nothing better to do than file accusations against those who disobey their church's constitution. He thinks conservatives are just obsessed with gay issues to the exclusion of having any kind of life. I'm guessing Alan would not identify himself as a conservative.

However, by his own criteria, I would classify Alan as a closet conservative. Of course, I do so dispassionately because 5 out of the last 15 blog posts of his have to do with "the gay issue." Interestingly, world-renowned obsessive gay-basher Toby only manages to obsess over gays in 2 out of the last 15 of his posts with anything concerning gay issues (although you could argue that this one does as well).

Hey Toby...maybe the meds are working after all!