I’m honored that the New Epistles blog has been put on the “Top 50 Ecumenical Blogs” at Biblical Learning Blog (http://BibleCollege.org). I guess this means that I’m ecumenical…but what does “ecumenical” mean? Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines “ecumenical” as:
promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation.
However, there are different levels of ecumenism. On a basic level, ecumenism tries to overcome barriers to unify congregations through cooperative efforts to increase our understanding of one another’s religious/spiritual beliefs. This is where I’m at. I am all for this type of ecumenism because God calls us to enter into a true spirit of Christian unity.
On a much grand scale, ecumenism tries to unify the ecclesiastical structures of denominations in order to form one official worldwide church with the ultimate goal of achieving a single “organic union”. This type of ecumenism is not true ecumenism; rather, it is dictatorial and can even border on the tyrannical through a forced and artificial structure devoid of a true spirit of unity. My personal feelings toward this is that this oversteps the will of God (e.g., Tower of Babel in Genesis 11).
An inherent weakness or danger in this type of ecumenism is that our preferences for various and beautiful expressions of the Christian faith (e.g., biblical interpretation; worship styles; etc.) can easily be diminished, or even squashed, through a single organic union. Personally, I would much rather prefer to see a multiplicity of theologies and worship styles. This is natural to human nature because each person has different personalities, tastes, and ways of understanding religion and the world. Therefore, I think a multiplicity of Christian denominations, with a heart for true ecumenism, is the most desirable way for a “one holy catholic church”.
What is your view of ecumenism?
Here is a resourceful website Theology on the Web maintained by Rob Bradshaw. I came across it (HT: Jeff), surfed around and found a host of many other biblical and theological resources that has links to articles by many theologians (e.g., Tillich, Schaeffer, Rahner, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, etc. ). Some link only to books on Amazon but some link to numerous PDF articles like F.F. Bruce. Check it out.
Is the emerging church movement dead?
When the emerging church (EC) movement first caught my attention during seminary, I was impressed with a certain open-mindedness about it. As I learned more about it and about some of the people in this movement, I learned that were not as open-minded as I had initially thought. Some sectors of the EC had moved away from the core doctrines of the faith that I held as being essential to the faith; otherwise, Christianity would no longer be Christianity. The EC projected itself as a movement that was in constant rebellion against traditional Christianity. Almost everything the EC movement said was against the status quo and it identified itself as a new brand of Christianity that was “not like the others”. Although I do not consider myself traditional, I do not dislike tradition because it offers countless benefits for all Christians. My view of the EC movement eventually turned from positive to negative in a short period of time. Since then, I have never paid much further attention to the emerging church movement.
However, to the emerging church movement, I give credit for two main things I admired about it:
- For seeing traditional Christianity from a critical perspective. Much of traditional Christianity fails to see itself from an outsider’s point-of-view.
- For being open to making some positive changes to traditional Christianity.
HT: Out of Ur blog has a positive eulogy on the dead emerging church movement.
I have been looking forward to going the BreakForth (which is known for being the largest equipping and renewal conference in North America). This will be my first time going to BreakForth so I am really excited to learn new things while being blessed by the line-up of excellent speakers. It’s finally a time for a break from the hectic pace of congregational ministry. Due to a recent snow storm here in western Canada, the two congregations in which I serve ended up cancelling this Sunday service due to the snowstorm. Hopefully we won’t have snow while driving to Edmonton January 28 – February 1.
I was just doing a little inventory of how many books I managed to read since completing seminary in November 2008. From then until the end of 2009, my count of theological books read is 25. This was more than I had thought so I have to be happy with that.
My goal for this year of 2010 is to aim for 20 books. If I can manage 20, I’ll be happy, considering family and work is keeping me quite busy. How many books to you get to read in a year? What is your goal for 2010?
We’ve been hearing and watching so much about the tragic circumstances caused by an earthquake in Haiti. As Christians, we continue to pray for the people of Haiti, whom God’s loves so much:
Heavenly Father, we pray that survivors may receive the immediate necessities of water, food, medical aid and shelter. We pray that they may be able to receive the necessary practical and financial aid that people from other countries are bringing into this island nation. We pray that You may hear and answer our prayers for the people of Haiti.
Lord, in your mercy. Hear our prayer.
From our call to mission and evangelism, we also pray that through the good news of Jesus Christ, God would also do a good work in this nation. The gospel has the power to bring spiritual transformation to an entire nation. It is not the institutional church that is to bring change, rather, it is the good news of Christ that brings change into the hearts and lives of individuals and entire peoples. The Roman Catholic Church has been the official religion of Haiti but it has not been an agent of change. Haiti needs to receive the Christ’s gospel in a dynamic and powerful way, such that, it brings a personal-inner transformation to effect how they live and carry out their lives. We can pray that dysfunctional state institutions that have perpetuated poverty in Haiti be ended (see LWF-DWS statement). Spiritual darkness has a way of perpetuating dysfunction in the minds and hearts of people–it’s what we call the sin of a “generational curse”–which may be what televangelist Pat Robertson was trying to get at in his recent comment on CBN`s 700 Club.
The media has been playing a clip of his comment where he claims that historically, the Haitian people had made a pact with the devil in order to banish the French occupiers from Haiti (see Hatian history of Voodoo). From what out media portrays, Robertson may seem to have a foot-in-mouth disease but he is no dummy. He has read history books and understands the culture and history of peoples and nations. As people, especially with the media’s help, we can be quick to judge his comments–especially when we take just a bits and pieces from sound bites. But there may be some truth to what he is saying. I wanted to find research the history of Haiti and found that there is some truth to this. It makes me wonder if former dictator, François “Papa Doc” Duvalier, was involved in voodoo. Below is a brief excerpt from a recent article on Haiti’s dark history from the U.K. newspaper, Telegraph:
However, Haitians are just as likely to show extraordinary resilience and selflessness as they rally together and find consolation in Voodou. Haitians are 80 per cent Catholic and – so they say – 100 per cent Vodouist. Vodou (from the Dahomean vodu, “spirit” or “deity”) is a peaceable New World religion that marries elements of Catholicism with the rites and rituals of ancestral Africa.
For most Haitians, Vodou is the only way to rise above the misery of poverty and the devastation wreaked by hurricanes, mud slides, storms and now this humanitarian catastrophe. When a Haitian is possessed by a loa (spirit) he is taken out of himself and transformed. At night, Port-au-Prince is now said to flicker with candles, as swaying, homeless Haitians offer prayers to the loas in hope of deliverance….
Vodou also reflects the rage and ecstasy that threw off the shackles of slavery. On the night of August 15, 1791, a ceremony was held in the north of Haiti that marked the beginning of the revolt. A rain of burning cane straw, sweet-smelling, drifted over the plantations as the slaves set them ablaze. Toussaint L’Ouverture was said to have taken part in this Vodou-inspired uprising – proof that religion is not always an opium of the people, but a prelude to action. Read on…
South Korea, which was once extremely poor, was also known for its Shamanism, which is a demonically influenced form of spirituality. After the gospel of Jesus Christ was introduced to the South Koreans, through a period of decades, the nation went through a major spiritual revival. This spiritual revival transformed the minds of the people, which led to a complete transformation: politically, socially, culturally, and economically. God had blessed the Korean people with law and gospel, which brought honesty and accountability into government, and also brought economic and social freedoms. These things, along with a host of other factors, has led to its current economic prosperity. God has done this for the western world of Europe, North America and other liberal democracies around the world. I believe God can also do this for many countries currently wrought with poverty—including Haiti.
It’s been a while but I need to get back to blogging. I’ve been busy since Christmas and finally have some time to breath now.
Nijay Gupta posted his interview with Dr. Craig Keener, Professor of N.T. Theology at Palmer Theological Seminary (Pt.1 here and Pt.2 here) [Hat tip: Brian]. Prof. Craig Keener has a new commentary on Romans that I am considering adding to my list of future books to get. Romans is my favorite book for study. I currently have commentaries by Fitzmyer, and Schreiner and Dunn in electronic format. I thought about getting the new one by Jewett but that’s on the pricy side. However, I may consider getting Keener’s commentary because it’s concise. These days, time is more valuable and getting the important points quickly is more important to me these days.
A Christian view of environmentalism and climate change does not have to be anti-green; nor do we need to have unhealthy fear of big brother and government control. The environment is not about us. It is about God’s earth and God’s creation. Therefore, as Christians, we should approach environmentalism from a theo-centric and biblical perspective. From a biblical perspective of environmental stewardship, it is difficult not to be anthropocentric but the responsibility does rest on humankind because we are stewards, and not owners of God’s green earth. Scripture says:
“I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals.” (Gen. 1:28, GNT).
“You appointed them rulers over everything you made; you placed them over all creation: sheep and cattle, and the wild animals too; the birds and the fish and the creatures in the seas.” (Psalm 8:6-8, GNT)
If we reject human stewardship over the earth, we are rejecting God’s charge of humans over God’s creation. We are not owners but merely inhabitants and are allowed to share in God’s goodness of creation.
The Copenhagen U.N. Climate Change Conference 2009 is where climate change is now being discussed. Some conservative environmental policy organizations claim that greenhouse gases are not having a negative effect on global warming. Scientists say it does, while critics say it is unfounded. I have some reservations about the effects of greenhouse gases on global warming. At the same time, I also think that it could be a real possibility; however, like many people, I have reservations about the validity of scientific data. The criticism from environmental groups are not all unfounded, though some are based on data that’s cooked-up (e.g., Al Gore). So what we need is some real honesty and integrity of data from scientists.
President Barack Obama may have committed the United States to cut emissions beyond what realistically possible for U.S. industry. It will undoubtedly hurt businesses and their ability to compete in the world. But I wish all the best to American businesses. This may look good for Obama’s political reputation abroad but it will hurt him at home.
Canada is America’s largest source of crude oil and it’s main source today is Canada’s Alberta Oil Sands Project. An oil pipeline is currently being built half-hour from where I live, which will run all the way to Chicago. Alberta’s oil sands only produces 5% of Canada’s current greenhouse gas emissions, and only emitted 1.7% of the world’s greenhouse gases (in 2005), but it bears the brunt of lashes from environmentalists. I would agree that the effects of greenhouse gases is difficult to measure because some of the indicators of greenhouse emissions are not all scientifically proven, but there are other environmental factors that can be measured so it doesn’t have to be tied to greenhouse gases. We should also look at the air pollution and toxic emissions of cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic compounds (or PACs), emitted downstream into the Athabasca River near the oil sands (research paper released by the National Academy of Sciences-USA). There is a noticable difference upstream vs downstream. We can also pay attention to rising sea-levels, dying animals, sea creatures and plants. We still need to solve the problem of the receding Arctic icecap, the shrinking Rockies Glaciers, the disappearing salmon on the westcoast and the almost extinct cod in the eastern Maritime provinces.
Canada has a good reputation as a source of cleaner energy and has surged ahead of a lot of developed nations in some areas. However, the oil sands project has put Canada in the doghouse at Copenhagen. Businesses are doing the hard work of building solar arrays and wind farms and exporting clean energy to energy-hungry nations like the U.S. Canada the “true north strong and free” is clearly an energy superpower, and it’s energy and environmental policies are quite different from the “land of the free and the brave” in many ways. Canada’s energy consumption is probably no different from that of the U.S., but it’s clean-energy generation and energy efficiency has, and still is, improving against many industrialized nations like the China, and even the U.S.
It’s time to deal the facts and realities of what’s really happening around the world. China should not be let off the hook and should pay for the environmental degradation committed against its own land and against its own people. China should also pay full price for new environmental technology now being developed. Hey, they’re not poor and undeveloped anymore.
I don’t know if we can do much about the warming temperatures in Canada because that’s a worldwide problem that is not all of Canada’s responsibility so let’s not make Canada the scapegoat. Canada is already trying to do a decent job in greening the environment in comparison to other developed nations. I’m encouraged by Canada’s realistic effort to cut emissions by 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020 — a modest and more realistic target.
I watch Left Behind recently. Ever wonder how you should approach our preaching in a Christian culture that is dominated by Left Behind dispensational perspective? I have.
A conference back in 2005 sponsored by the Center for Excellence in Preaching at Calvin Theological Seminary, explored these urgent questions. This is my future reading. There were a number of big names: Fee, Platinga, Block, Beale. HT: Justin.
You may have noticed that I haven’t been around the blogosphere and interacting as much lately since my family came back from their trip overseas trip from Asia. I’ve been quite busy, and will be busy from now until the new year (Advent, Christmas) so I won’t be posting as frequently. But I will still be reading your blogs on my google reader to try to keep up with everyone.
I was just reading a very interesting blog post on Parchment and Pen (HT: TC & Joel) posted by Daniel Wallace (a dispensationalist at Dallas Theological Seminary) where there’s an excellent exchange of ideas and views. Wallace’s beef is with liberal theologians who regard themselves as open-minded but their behavior is less than open-minded when it comes to how they treat evangelical students. His statement is a little disheartening:
Many of the mainline liberal schools routinely reject applications to their doctoral programs from evangelical students who are more qualified than their liberal counterparts—solely because they’re evangelicals. And Dallas Seminary students especially have a tough time getting into primo institutes because of the stigma of coming from, yes, I’ll say it again—a dispensational school. One of my interns was earning his second master’s degree at a mainline school, even taking doctoral courses. He was head and shoulders above most of the doctoral students there. But when he applied for the PhD at the same school, he was rejected. His Dallas Seminary degree eliminated him.
This can be very infuriating to evangelicals. I agree, I think there is still a lot of prejudice at some or many liberal seminaries; and faculty do make it harder for evangelicals to get through a program at their seminaries. At the same time, there are many liberals who are not prejudiced against evangelicals. In fact, they like the evangelical perspective because it’s fresh and new to them. Evangelicals are able to hold to orthodox theology while being open to a critical view of biblical scholarship; while some liberals seem to have lost all their theological bearings and thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
Think about Bart Ehrman for a minute. What if his application to Princeton Theo. Seminary was rejected? Bart Ehrman was a hardcore evangelical who did his theological degree at Moody Bible Institute but later did his PhD at Princeton. Princeton was where his view of the bible changed 180 degrees. He no longer considers himself a Christian. That’s scary. I’ve always wondered what if Prof. Bart Ehrman hadn’t gone to Princeton?
Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church
Author: Michael Horton
Publisher: Baker Books (272 pages)
ISBN-10: 0801013186
ISBN-13: 978-0801013188
I wish to thank the fine people at Baker Books for sending me this review copy.
Has mainstream evangelicalism gone Pelagian and taken captive to consumerism, pragmatism, self-sufficiency, individualism, positive thinking, personal prosperity, and nationalism? Dr. Michael Horton thinks so. The author of Christless Christianity is Professor Dr. Michael Horton, Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary, California. Dr. Horton has good and accurate insights on the situation of popular mainstream evangelicalism. I agree with much of the opinions he has expressed. Mainstream evangelicalism is going in the wrong direction. We need to be Christ-centered, not human-centered. Otherwise, evangelical churches will see the same fate as most mainline churches.
I have read and reviewed another book of Dr. Horton’s, Introducing Covenant Theology, and gave him two thumbs up for that one. In Christless Christianity, Michael Horton takes an extremely critical approach and leads the reader through his critique of the less-than-desirable theologies in some of our mainstream evangelical Christian leaders. This is only the second book of Dr. Horton’s that I’ve read and I hope he has taken a more positive approach in his other books. I think the tone and the approach he takes is less-than desirable because it takes on a very condemnatory tone. I know that Dr. Horton is concerned about the state of today’s evangelical church. I am too. However, after you hear a person rant on and on about the same subject, it gets tiring after a while. This is how I feel about this book. This book is basically a rant against what’s going on in today’s misled evangelical Christianity and it feels far from being a book on theology.
I fully agree with Horton’s view of law and gospel, on the theology of the cross, and on the monogeristic position that we are helpless and cannot save ourselves. I have absolutely no disagreement with Horton on these theologies. However, I think he is picking on the wrong target. I am also glad he is speaking up against the false promises in today’s feel-good therapeutic and prosperity gospel theologies. Furthermore, I have never been a fan of Robert Schuller and prosperity gospel preacher Joel Osteen because I think their theology is wrong-headed. To be fair and just, I am coming to their defense because I think Dr. Horton has gone too far and is even unfair at times in his critique of them. He labels today’s mainstream evangelicals as “revivalists”. This is the wrong term to use. In chapter three’s “Smooth Talking and Christless Christianity”, the author basically spent most of the entire chapter critiquing Osteen’s teachings. Horton feels that Osteen is really a “positive thinking” Robert Schuller-type who shameless advocates a theology of glory, and is selling a gospel that teaches people how to be a success in life.
Another beef with this book is that it misleads the reader into thinking that most of our modern-day evangelicals are spouting a message that humans are sinless and do not need Christ to save us from our sins. That is simply not true. Many, if not most, evangelicals do preach on the seriousness of our sins, some times a little too much. Many accurately divide law and gospel. Moreover, other than our traditional-orthodox evangelical protestants, some of the mainstream evangelical churches are likely the last remaining bastions where law and gospel is still proclaimed and rightly taught rather than the wrong-headed antinomian approach.
Revivalist preachers like Charles Finney, whom Dr. Horton harshly criticized, was painted as a Pelagian, or at best, a semi-Pelagian who was fixated on human self-will. Horton says of Finney:
“Where American Transcendentalism and Romanticism (the nineteenth century’s equivalent of the New Age movement) attracted Boston’s intellectuals, Charles Finney and his revivalistic legacy represents “an alternative Romanticism,” a popular version of self-reliance and inner experience, “taking up where Transcendentalism left off.”… And revivalism in its own way was popularizing this distinctly American religion on the frontier… Efficiency was the rule for success in religion as in business, and ever since evangelicals have judged new movements by whether they “work” in terms of subjective experience and moral transformation.” (p. 52).
Finney’s sermons were anointed by God’s Holy Spirit and his messages have brought a deep conviction of sin and were used by God to lead many souls to salvation or recommit their lives to Christ. On the contrary, it was not popular but it brought a conviction to many souls, as did the sermons of John Wesley. Finney’s and Wesley’s sermons have encouraged many to live their lives to the glory of God. People with an Augustinian-bent can believe that the human will can play a part in the sanctification process but not in justification. Sanctification is the only place where synergism is active in the Christian’s life. However, what many of our pro-Augustinian Calvinists (and Lutherans included) misinterpret about “revivalist” evangelical preachers is that when they put the emphasis on how the human will plays a big part in the sanctification process of the Christian, they also assume that evangelicals are saying that it also has a part in justification. There are many mainstream evangelicals who do not see the power of human will playing a part in one’s salvation.
At times, in one’s zeal for evangelism, a revivalist’s plea to the sinner to accept Christ comes across as decision-theology. I have to admit that some evangelicals who are theologically untrained do give the wrong impression that it is in the power of one’s will that enables one to choose salvation. However, we should not allow our theology to blind us to the point where we deny that the human will does exist and can have a part in the life of a Christian.
I believe that one can choose to reject God’s sanctification process due to our curved-inward nature that is hopelessly inclined toward sin, selfishness and self-idolatry. However, our human will to say “Yes” to God’s salvation is made possible only through God’s gift. Before I was theologically trained myself, I did not realize this important piece of theology, so, I can sympathize with some of my friends who ignorantly teach this to parishioners in evangelical churches. Some of it may just be an issue of semantics but some of it is definitely due to a wrong understanding in theology.
The author also took the approach of trying to teach what unorthodox Christianity is like rather than what orthodox Christianity is supposed to be like. Have you heard the analogy of how to recognize a genuine dollar bill from a counterfeit? When one wants to teach someone how to recognize a counterfeit $100 dollar bill from a genuine one, the teacher should have the student should learn what characteristics makes a genuine $100 dollar bill, not what makes a fake one. The student is not able to learn effectively from studying a counterfeit one. If you enjoy what seems like endless ranting about what is wrong with today’s evangelical church, you will enjoy this book; but if you want to learn about what is authentic evangelical theology, I would suggest you find another book.
Horton labels preachers like Osteen as semi-Pelagian New Age teachers. Some of today’s teachers may be self-deceived but they are not as dark as Professor Michael Horton would seem to portray. I wish more theologians as theologically astute as Dr. Horton could write books that help us to properly understand evangelical theology rather than continuously rant about what is not genuinely evangelical. It would just be more edifying to the entire body of Christ.
There are very few books that I have reviewed and had to stop before reaching the end. This is only the second one ever because I could not endure the negative tone. It is not easy to read. However, I did manage to review this one but not the other. Please do not misunderstand my intentions for this review and commentary, for which I give the book a thumbs down. Christless Christianity is available from Amazon for $13.59 in hardcover.
There are now websites that give people the opportunity to make anonymous online confessions about their sins. Just do a Google search on “confessions online” and see for yourself (Warning: some may be veryexplicit). There’s nobody on the other end who tells you that your sins are forgiven. So why confess anonymously? Does this way of confessing our sins give us a cathartic release of guilt? Regarding these types of online confessions, Dr. Michael Horton says in his book Christless Christianity:
“in a therapeutic worldview, there is no sin and guilt to be forgiven by God but only burdens and feelings of guilt for failing to live up to the expectations of oneself and other human beings. In other words, for Christianity there is objective guilt and justification; in moralistic therapy there is only subjective guilt and a cathartic release simply by telling someone else about it.”
Personally, I can understand why a person may feel a need to confess their sins or wrongdoings to someone–whether to a real person or anonymously. I see why the Roman Catholic practice allows a person to feel a sense of a release of guilt when they confess privately to a real live priest.
Is confessing to a live priest more real than making anonymous confessions online where they are only read by people who don’t know you and don’t really care about your sins? How would this be different from confession before God? And does this way of confessing guilt allow one to be forgive by God?
I’m interested in your sources of news. In this internet age, I still get my news from traditional sources like TV and radio but also read news from websites. I don’t get my news from any single source on a regular basis but seem to jump from one source to the next—very sporadically and irregularly.
Overall and not in any particular order, my top news sources seem to be (excluding blogs):
- CNN (U.S.)
- CTV (regional-Canada)
- BBC (international)
- Local conservative talk-radio on AM
- Christianity Today
What are your top sources of news, excluding blogs?
Nick Norelli posted links to Michael L. Brown’s radio program Line of Fire on Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I have previously heard him in person years ago and enjoy his passion for Christ. I love listening to theological concepts like these being thrashed around. It can shake up our comfortable theology.
