The Son and the Crescent - Christianity Today magazine - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com

The Son and the Crescent - Christianity Today magazine - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com:

"Last year, representatives from several prominent mission agencies, both national and expatriate, met to compare notes about the progress of their respective ministries in one Muslim-majority country. (The country's name is withheld for security reasons.) The representatives rejoiced that more than 1,000 'fellowships,' as they call them, have been established for people from Muslim backgrounds. In fact, many of the fellowships had already planted new fellowships, and those fellowships had planted still more. Many thousands of Muslims in this nation alone, then, had found faith in Jesus.

Several of these fellowships can be traced back to small networks of Muslims who had encountered Christ and in turn began sharing with family and friends what they had discovered. In one case, a middle-aged working mother had inductively studied a new translation of the Bible for a few years. Among other language choices, the translation she used did not refer to Jesus as the 'Son of God,' due to confused and angry reactions from Muslims who mistakenly believe this phrase means that the Father engaged in sexual relations with Mary. To avoid this misunderstanding, the new translation called Jesus 'the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God.' ..."

I have some mixed feelings about this.

On one hand I believe the Scriptures need to be translated accurately and they should be a standard against which all theology is measured.

On the other hand, I remember the story of Apollos, who had heard the Good News and was preaching in the synagogue. His theological understanding was not quite what it could have been. It was Priscilla and Aquila who privately taught him "more adequately" what the Scriptures had to say. The result was that Apollos became an important leader in the first century Church, as well as a colleague of Paul.

It sounds like this translation may remove a major stumbling block to the hearing and understanding of the Gospel in that part of the world. There are still many factors that inhibit the preaching of the Good News, but it seems that small groups of Christians are spreading in these countries, much like the spread of the early Church.

There will be time enough to teach these new Christians more adequately, but in the meantime is the "Beloved Son who comes from the God" so inadequate that these people would be better off not hearing the Good News? I don't think so.

Calvin's Institutes

I mentioned on my Facebook page that I was going to be bored during the enforced leisure of my convalescence from foot surgery earlier this week. Beau Weston (The Gruntled Center) advised me to read Calvin. I decided to give it a try, since the full text of the Institutes of the Christian Religion is on my laptop. And besides, "Calvin" is my middle name....

It wasn't long (like the second paragraph) before I read this:

"... For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. ..."

Very thought provoking and a mirror that I would rather not look into. But, I'm afraid I'm going to have to.

Bell's Appeal -- Ministry to Young Adults

The Christian Century:

"When Rob Bell walks on stage at Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan, the 38-year-old sports chic black glasses and black jeans with a wide, white 1970s belt. His geeky, affable presence and energized speaking style warm up the room quickly and signal a seasoned performer. After you hear Bell speak, it's not surprising to learn that his childhood hero was David Letterman or that when he was a student at Wheaton College in the 1980s, he was lead singer in a band called '__Ton Bundle' (the blank space allowed band members to change the band's name by adding various adjectives). ..."

A small intergenerational group at my congregation is watching a series of short videos produced by Rob Bell. These 10-15 minute segments provide much in the way of discussion starters. The series is published under the NOOMA name, a phonetic spelling of the Greek work pneuma (πνεύμα), which means spirit or breath.

This article goes on to describe Bell's background and theology as it relates to his ministry in Grand Rapids Michigan as well as his ministry on the road.

Schooled by the Psalms | Christianity Today

Schooled by the Psalms | Christianity Today:

"...I came to pour out my heart to God and discovered there wasn't much to pour out. It would be years before I understood why I saw prayer in the same way I saw the Psalms at that time—only as a tool to help me ask God for what I wanted. The problem was that I wanted so little! What I didn't understand was that learning to pray was learning to desire the things God wants to give, and then asking him for them. ...

"Here is a good (and somewhat lengthy) piece by Ben Patterson, a campus pastor.

It is certainly appropriate for this Reformation Sunday, celebrating the 491st anniversary of Martin Luther's issuance of his Ninety-Five Theses. A listing of these debate points challenging the prevailing teachings of the Church can be found on Wikisource.

More Thoughts on "The Shack"

I have read a number of reviews of The Shack, and while most have been favorable (or at least tolerant), some have condemned this treatment of how God might reveal himself to a struggling person in this day. I want to address three of the criticisms I have read:

God is never described in the Bible using feminine imagery -- Not true. The Psalms in several places use the illustration of the Lord sheltering someone beneath his wings. This is a behavior usually associated with the female bird. See Psalms 17:8-9; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4. I'll admit that these are ambiguous, and the astute reader will note that I used the male possessive pronoun in relation to the Lord. That's just how I relate to God. But one only needs to go the the New Testament to see a clear and unambiguous reference to Jesus using feminine imagery to describe what he longed to do:

^{Mt 23:37} "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

God never appears to humans except in the form of the Son and no one can see the face of God and live -- Here Scripture can get pretty ambiguous. With whom did Abraham converse at his encampment near the trees of Mamre? (Genesis 18:1-33) The references go back and forth between three men and the Lord. The word translated as "Lord" is God's proper name, YHWH. In any event, the Lord spoke to Abraham, and Sarah overhead at least a part of the conversation (and found it amusing). In another part of Genesis, Jacob spends the night on the bank of the Jabbok river wrestling with "a man", who is identified in this story as being God. Jacob makes it clear what he saw:

^{Ge 32:30} So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

God no longer reveals himself except through Scripture -- This is a tough one. Of course God reveals himself though Scripture. This is a key and essential tenet of the reformed faith, and the most important source of my knowledge of who God is and what he requires of me. But I am personally convinced that the Lord works directly with individuals when it suits God to do so. But opening the door to ongoing revelation and epiphany also provides a lot of opportunity for mischief or even downright heresy. One one hand, a person who feels they have had a direct revelation from the Lord might decide that he or she has no need of Scripture or the instruction of spiritual leaders or the fellowship of other Christians. But on the other hand, to claim that God no longer interacts with people except through Scripture and the teachings of the Church denies the reality that many have experienced in their lives. Does God physically manifest himself to people today? I don't know for certain, but would not bother me if there were "road to Damascus" experiences today.

When I wrote my earlier comments about The Shack, I believed that it was a bit heterodox, but not heretical. I still hold that opinion. If I had a criticism of the book, it would be its harshness toward organized religion. I know first-hand how the "organized church" can be a support in trying times, and it is hard for me to imagine a world with no religion.

The Only Hope for Monsters | Christianity Today

The Only Hope for Monsters | Christianity Today:

"... Imagine my horror five years ago when I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I realized that a real live thing had taken residence in my body—an 'alien' that was trying to kill me. Thankfully, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation brought a halt to the monster's plans. But as dreadful as that experience was, I've since come to believe that an even more malevolent creature grows unabated in my soul. ..."

Kay Warren writes a thoughtful account of her trip to Rwanda, where she expected to see and recognize those who were complicit in the genocide of 1994. She found instead people much like herself, facing the same day-to-day problems she faced in the US. They loved their families, worshipped the Lord -- and some, no doubt, were caught up in the wave of evil that took over Rwanda nearly 15 years ago.

She realized that she had to deal with the evil within before she could presume to judge the evil in another place. Only through seeking God's forgiveness and realizing that without Him we are without hope can we help provide hope to others who, like ourselves, are imprisoned by evil.

C.S. Lewis called it "the illusion of self-sufficiency" in The Problem of Pain. It is called "the sin of independence" in The Shack, which I recently read. These ideas both have to do with the danger of going it alone. When the pain within is unacknowledged and unaddressed, there is little that we can do about the pain around us, except perhaps to add to it.

But in allowing God to shepherd us though our pain, we can overcome its effects and become free to love each other as ourselves.

The Shack -- Initial Impressions

I had heard of The Shack a few months ago, but did not feel impelled to go out and buy it. A week ago a friend recommended it and I put it on my mental "to do" list. Friday I was at Barnes and Noble doing my regular browse-the-shelves thing, and I found myself walking past the religion books and saw the book. I pulled it from the shelf and added it to Susan's choice and began reading it at around 7:30pm Saturday evening. About 1:30am Sunday morning I read the last few lines, closed the book, and went to sleep.

The Shack proved to be a moving story and one I could not easily put off, once I reached a certain point. If you are looking for traditional theology explaining how a just God can allow evil, then this book will disappoint. If you are willing to let yourself view God in some non-traditional ways then give it a try.

In many ways, this is the Book of Job written for the 21st century. I saw a smattering of C.S. Lewis scattered here and there, but mostly this was an account of what might happen if a grief-paralyzed man had an opportunity to question God. There are twists and turns even up to the last page, but it was, for me, a moving account of how God might interact with even me.

One piece of theology expressed in this book (paraphrased) is in the protagonist's asking if all roads led to God. The answer was no, most roads lead nowhere -- but there are no roads that God would not take to reach those whom he loves. And that casts far wider a net than most of us can imagine.

Barring Yahweh | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Barring Yahweh | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction:

"Observant Jews have traditionally not used the name Yahweh, refusing to pronounce the so-called proper name of God out of respect, or to be sure they do not misuse it. Now neither will Roman Catholics, at least in their worship services.

'In recent years the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel's proper name,' said a June letter from the Vatican. 'As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, it was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: Adonai, which means 'Lord.'' In August, U.S. bishops were directed to remove Yahweh from songs and prayers.

Protestants should be following their lead, said Carol Bechtel, professor of Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan. 'It's always left me baffled and perplexed and embarrassed that we sprinkle our hymns with that name,' she said. 'Whether or not there are Jewish brothers and sisters in earshot, the most obvious reason to avoid using the proper and more personal name of God in the Old Testament is simply respect for God.' ..."

An interesting theological dilemma...

Do we go with the familiarity that goes along with knowing God in the flesh, or do we keep our distance?

I have to admit that I have never been comfortable using "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" in conversation or prayer. But I haven't gone so far as some who abbreviate God as "G-d". I tend to use "Lord" (which is how the NIV generally denotes the Hebrew consonants YHWH), and I tend to use "Jesus" instead of "Christ."

Why -- Jesus became one of us, and it somehow somehow seems right to call him by his given name rather than his title. I am conflicted about how to refer to the Lord, though. Jesus called him "Abba" or "Daddy", but it is hard to imagine being on a first-name basis with the Creator. I admit it isn't quite rational, but it is the way I feel.

In any case, the reasons given by Carol Bechtel regarding causing offense to our Jewish brothers and sisters is reason ehough to exercise a little sensitivity to others.

The End of the PCUSA? Revisited

The End of the PCUSA? Revisited:

"I just became aware of a couple of major changes in exegesis exams of the Presbyterian Church (USA). I want to offer some comments on these changes. This may seem like a detour from my series on The End of the PCUSA? Revisited, but, in fact, it is not. The changes in the grading of the exegesis exam illustrate why the PC(USA) is struggling to stay alive."

This is part 15 of a lengthy series written by Mark Roberts, a Presbyterian minister currently serving in Texas. While he has many misgivings about the future of the PC(USA), he is certainly no rabble-rouser or demagogue. His opinions are expressed well and he documents his assertions.

In this piece, he notes a recent statement by the Presbyteries' Cooperative Committee on Examinations regarding a change in the way the exegesis exam will be evaluated. A pdf of these changes can be obtained here.

The upshot seems to be that (1) demonstrating a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is not a requirement to pass the examination (although students are given the opportunity to demonstrate such knowledge) and (2) students will be asked to offer a "faithful interpretation" of the passage rather than the "principal meaning".

This seems a little odd to me, especially given the Presbyterian Church's long emphasis on an educated clergy. Is there no longer a "principal meaning" to be had? I cannot read Hebrew or Greek, but I have grown to expect that Presbyterian ministers can and do read the original languages of Scripture. At the very least, they should be able check translations and offer some the nuances of how the original words expressed things. I don't expect every sermon to cover all the possible shades of meaning or to go into an arcane discussion of why a particular word was used instead of another, more common word. But I do find it useful to know that some of Jesus' illustrations involved clever word plays, or that Psalm 119 is written in the form of an acrostic.

I guess the bottom line is that as Reformed Christians, we are firmly anchored in the Word of God, and we believe that "The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duties God requires of man" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 3). This presupposes that Scripture has meaning, which for the most part, can be objectively understood. If we do away with objective exegesis, then we risk losing our ability to call ourselves Reformed, or worse, reformable.

The Holy Spirit and the Third Commandment

A week ago I read some comments by a former official of the PC(USA) concerning her belief that the Holy Spirit moved through the 218th General Assembly guiding the commissioners into taking the actions they did. Such pronouncements are quite common from all sides of the Presbyterian Church. At the risk of appearing cynical, it seems that the Holy Spirit is invariably on the side of the prevailing faction.

This point of view has bothered me for many years, and it seems to bother me more and more by the year. Perhaps it is because it has become more common? Or perhaps my sense of who God is (and isn't) has been refined over the years.

In any event, for a General Assembly that adopted Micah 6:8 as its theme, it seems that claiming the Holy Spirit's endorsement of one's agenda is not by any stretch "walking humbly with your God."

Jim Wallis, in the introduction to God's Politics, has this to say:

"...Abraham Lincoln had it right. Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God's blessing and endorsement for all our national policies and practices--saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, as Lincoln put it, we should worry earnestly whether we are on God's side. ..."

Wallis, who can irritate me as well as occasionally inspire me, has it correct here. This attitude, though, must not be limited to the political realm. It needs to characterize our interactions and deliberations in the PC(USA). Lincoln, who did not quite fall into a neat religious category, nonetheless knew and understood Scripture in a way that is not often seen today. His Second Inaugural Address seems to me to be a model of "walking humbly with God", and one of its apparent sources was a handwritten note by Lincoln dating from 1862. This excerpt from that note is particularly revealing:

"The will of God prevails — In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect this. ..."

And this brings me to what seems to give me the most trouble with claiming God's imprimatur on our decisions: If we believe that the Scriptures are "the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church Universal and God's word to [us]" (and every elder, deacon and minister has affirmed this), then can it be possible that the Holy Spirit would lead us to reject Scripture? That would certainly be a "house divided against itself", to use another Scriptural reference commonly associated with Lincoln (Matthew 12:25).

Presbyterian Bloggers: Viva! La Reformation!

Presbyterian Bloggers: Viva! La Reformation!:

"A current news article from the denomination’s own press service refers to Bruce Reyes-Chow, Gradye Parsons, and Linda Valentine as our top three leaders.

And all the while, I thought that our top three leaders in the Reformed tradition were the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ..."

Stushie from Presbyterian Bloggers had this to say today (and a couple paragraphs more). If you are interested, the original article to which Stushie referred was properly quoted.

He acknowledges that he might be nit-picking, but this is a fairly large nit and one worthy of discussion. Thanks, Stushie, for pointing this out.

What is a "Fundamentalist"

I received my June 2008 copy of Christianity Today on Saturday and, while reading the letters to the editor, I noticed this response by Tim Stafford to a letter questioning an article he had written:

"Fundamentalism as I used the term is belief plus attitude. Fundamentalists draw much of their self-identity from warning against those who don't agree with them. Thus, you can speak of liberal fundamentalists, environmental fundamentalists, free-market fundamentalists, and so on. Among Christians, such attitudes led to the rise of evangelicalism, which tried to hold to biblical fundamentals in the 1940s and '50s while maintaining a more welcoming, positive attitude toward those outside. ..." -- Christianity Today, June 2008, pp 8-9

I have to agree fully with Tim Stafford here. Evidently Stafford used the word "fundamentalist" 17 times: 3 times in a positive way, twice in a neutral way, and 12 times in a negative way. Tim Stafford's original article was about Philip Yancy's crisis of faith brought on by fundamentalism at its worst, that breakdown of usage is understandable.

When a belief system feels it needs to devote a significant amount of time toward attacking people with different beliefs, it raises questions about their ability to actually defend what it is they believe.

The Lord does not require Christians to run inference; He can take care of himself. What he DOES require is for us to do justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with Him (Micah 6:8 paraphrased). In this general set of principles can be found, I think, the ability to tell the Good News in a clear and cogent manner and to defend our beliefs in a loving, yet firm fashion.

To be sure, it would be hard to discuss Martin Luther with out some passing reference to indulgences. Or much of Reformed theology without make some sort of comparison between differing beliefs among Christians. How one makes such comparisons can be positive or destructive. Or, in other words, a discussion or a harangue.

Which is more likely to serve the Lord?

The Evangelical Manifesto

The Evangelical Manifesto:

"An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for. It has been drafted and published by a representative group of Evangelical leaders who do not claim to speak for all Evangelicals, but who invite all other Evangelicals to stand with them and help clarify what Evangelical means in light of “confusions within and the consternation without” the movement. As the Manifesto states, the signers are not out to attack or exclude anyone, but to rally and to call for reform. ..."

Well, the Manifesto was released today and the list of signatories has a number of names I recognize, and a whole lot I don't. Not surprising to me is the fact that a lot of the names that come to mind when I think of people who confuse politics and theology were NOT on the list of signatories as they now stand.

There have been lukewarm reactions from some sources, such as Murky Manifesto: Evangelical Statement Repudiates Theocracy – Sort Of, from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, but by and large a Google search of the topic shows a lot of interest in this work.

The web site linked above has PDF files of the manifesto and a study guide, and provides an opportunity for those who have read and agree with the document to add their names to the list of signatories.

It will take me a while to wade through the 20 pages, but I may add my own name. Or not. We'll see...

Scholars say resurrection misunderstood by Christian faithful

Scholars say resurrection misunderstood by Christian faithful:

"On Easter Sunday, Christians proclaimed the message at the heart of their faith - 'He is risen' - and affirmed the hope that God will raise all the dead at the end of time.

But this belief is deeply misunderstood, say scholars from varied faith traditions who have been trying to clear up the confusion in several recent books.

'We are troubled by the gap between the views on these things of the general public and the findings of contemporary scholarship,' said Kevin Madigan and Jon Levenson, authors of the upcoming book, 'Resurrection, The Power of God for Christians and Jews.'

The book traces the overlooked Jewish roots of the Christian belief in resurrection, and builds on that history to challenge the idea that resurrection simply means life after death. To the authors, being raised up has a physical element, not just a spiritual one. ..."

It seems that, along with the usual "Easter Surprises", there have been a number of well-written, informative and fair treatments of the Resurrection -- one of the core beliefs of Christianity. Rachel Zoll, AP religion writer, has provided readers with an interesting history of resurrection beliefs in Christianity and Judaism, and how they have shaped the spiritual lives af their respective adherents.

Heaven Is Not Our Home | Christianity Today

Heaven Is Not Our Home | Christianity Today :

"There is no agreement in the church today about what happens to people when they die. Yet the New Testament is crystal clear on the matter: In a classic passage, Paul speaks of 'the redemption of our bodies' (Rom. 8:23). There is no room for doubt as to what he means: God's people are promised a new type of bodily existence, the fulfillment and redemption of our present bodily life. The rest of the early Christian writings, where they address the subject, are completely in tune with this.

The traditional picture of people going to either heaven or hell as a one-stage, postmortem journey represents a serious distortion and diminution of the Christian hope. Bodily resurrection is not just one odd bit of that hope. It is the element that gives shape and meaning to the rest of the story of God's ultimate purposes. If we squeeze it to the margins, as many have done by implication, or indeed, if we leave it out altogether, as some have done quite explicitly, we don't just lose an extra feature, like buying a car that happens not to have electrically operated mirrors. We lose the central engine, which drives it and gives every other component its reason for working. ..."

Interesting article...

Has the 'notion of sin' been lost? - USATODAY.com

Has the 'notion of sin' been lost? - USATODAY.com:

"Is sin dead? No, not by a long shot. Yet as Easter approaches, some pastors and theologians worry: How can Christians celebrate Jesus' atonement for their sins and the promise of eternal life in his resurrection if they don't recognize themselves as sinners? ..."

Personally, I was a little put off by the flippancy of this article, but truth can be found in many places, if you listen for it.

This first paragraph of the longer article cut quickly to the heart of why theology matters. I have often said that the Resurrection is where I dig in my heels and refuse to yield an inch, but in reality the Resurrection is dependent upon a lot of other things to which, intellectually, I must also give my assent.

Jesus' death on the cross was an atonement. For what? My sins. I am a sinner "prone to evil and slothful in good" and can make no claim that I am worthy in the absence of Christ's atonement. If I accept that Jesus was God in the flesh, then I find myself dealing with the Incarnation. And once I have come to grips with both the beginning and end of Jesus' earthly life, then I need to deal with everything in between.

All this because I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead....

Kansas.com | 03/20/2008 | Resurrection is key to Christian faith

Kansas.com | 03/20/2008 | Resurrection is key to Christian faith:

"Americans are a religious people. About 90 percent of us believe in some form of God.

For many who are Christian, Easter is the most important celebration of all. The Apostle Paul summed up why in a letter to the Corinthians: 'If there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised,' he wrote. 'And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.'

Because the Resurrection is the centerpiece of Christianity, it has naturally become a target of naysayers. It's something believers should be accustomed to, but not discouraged by. ..."

I remember fondly the Wichita Eagle (or Beagle, as we nicknamed it) from the years I lived in Kansas. They have published a good piece here summarizing the centrality of the Resurrection to Christian faith.

How early Christians grappled to accept the idea that Jesus returned from the dead. - By Larry Hurtado - Slate Magazine

How early Christians grappled to accept the idea that Jesus returned from the dead. - By Larry Hurtado - Slate Magazine:

"Easter Sunday represents the foundational claim of Christian faith, the highest day of the Christian year as celebration of Jesus' resurrection. But many Christians are unsure what the claim that Jesus had been raised to new life after being crucified actually means—while non-Christians often find the whole idea of resurrection bemusing and even ridiculous. ..."

Slate, which actually tends to have fair coverage of religious issues, has posted an interesting article about the various ways Christians have viewed the Resurrection.

Larry Hurtado, who is a professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), provides a short scholarly history of resurrection attitudes over the years. The brief quotation above gives a flavor of the entire article, which is well worth reading.

No Room in the What? | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

No Room in the What? | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction:

"I am here to tamper with a masterpiece, or better said, to share with you a rather different reading of Luke 2:1-7, one solidly grounded in the facts, but nowhere represented in Christmas carols and pageants. I must tell you that I have heard endless sermons on how there was 'no room in the inn' and how it was typical of a cold, fallen world to cast the holy family and Jesus out into the cold, and so on, often preached with great fervor but producing no ferment at all.

We've heard it countless times before. We've all been inoculated with a slight case of Christmas, preventing us from getting the real thing, or in this case, from reading these texts in a more historical way. The problem with the Christmas-pageant version is, this is not at all likely to be what Luke intends to tell us in this much beloved and belabored Christmas tale."

Ben Witherington provides a really interesting interpretation of on of the staples of the Christmas story. When one remembers all the sermons preached on how there was no room at the inn, and that the baby Jesus was born in a barn with all the animals and so forth, it is really difficult to even consider an alternative interpretation. You just don't mess with tradition. Or hymns. Or anything else that people have gotten used to.

But Ben Witherington makes a good case for Jesus being born not in a stranger's barn, but in the home of a kinsman (after all, Joseph had relatives in Bethlehem). Considering the architecture of the day, it would not be unexpected that the family's livestock would be located at the back of a house built onto a cave opening. If Joseph and Mary were late getting into town, then the guest rooms might have been taken already.

Why not? Certainly much of the "theology" that is portrayed by Christmas carols is a little suspect from the nature of the tree travelers who brought the gifts, to the timing of the event. This more modern discussion of the events does nothing to minimize the Incarnation. It really doesn't change on central fact of the birth of Jesus and that was it was to an ordinary woman who was chosen to be the human mother of the Son of God. And considering another interpretation of Scripture than what we all grew up with does not erase the wonder we feel at Christmas that God, in His love for us, would become flesh and live with us as a human.

Postcard from San Diego: Fighting 'Bibliolatry' at the Evangelical Theological Society | Liveblog | Christianity Today

Postcard from San Diego: Fighting 'Bibliolatry' at the Evangelical Theological Society | Liveblog | Christianity Today:

"While the ballroom sessions of the first day of the Evangelical Theological Society meeting had more attendees, no session was as packed as J.P. Moreland’s “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It.” While the average breakout session seems to be attended by fewer than 50 people, easily more than 200 packed the room to hear Moreland’s talk, with dozens standing and more listening outside the door.

It’s little wonder why so many people attended. ETS membership has only two doctrinal requirements: you must affirm the Trinity and the inerrancy of Scripture. The first part has not been controversial of late, but the second was the focus of the society’s recent fight over open theism and was named as a reason why Francis Beckwith could not remain as ETS president after his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

In short, to accuse evangelicals of over-commitment to the Bible at ETS would be like accusing environmentalists of talking too much about climate change at a Sierra Club meeting. But Moreland, who has gained some prominence as a philosopher and apologist, wasn’t pulling any punches. ..."

The title of this interesting blog posting by Ted Olsen from Christianity Today caught my eye. As a member of a denomination that has its roots in the Reformation, I know that Scripture is a key revelation of God. As an elder I have already publicly affirmed that I believe that "... the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments [are], by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God's Word to [me]."

So, having heard from a variety of sources in and out of the PC(USA) that the Scriptures are inherently the words of humans, and thus not to be taken as "gospel", I had to wonder if we were going to see a debate within evangelical circles as to whether or not the Scriptures are the standard that has brought the Church intact through nearly 2000 years of pressure and persecution. (I should note unequivocally that the PC(USA) in its confessions stands clearly with the Reformation, and thus I consider my denomination to be squarely within the Evangelical tradition.)

So what was Moreland driving at in his presentation? Well, he holds that there is truth to be learned outside Scripture (to indulge in, perhaps, an oversimplification. He makes a good case, using archaeology as a vehicle for showing how the Bible can point us in a particular direction, but the observations on the ground can add much to the accounts in Scripture. The point here is that one cannot limit oneself to searching for truth only in scripture, and I have to agree.

I also concede that there are difficult passages such as First Samuel 6:19, where different translations, using different textual sources come up with a different numbers. Did the Lord strike down 70 men or 50,070 men? Does it really make a difference theologically?

Olsen quotes Moreland as suggesting that, when faced with trying to engage secularism, evangelicals retreated into "private language games and increasingly detailed minutiae" instead of coming to grips with the world outside Scripture. This, in many ways, echoes Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, in which Noll details the rise and fall of intellectual evangelicism.

All in all, I don't see anything here that threatens a good reformed understanding of Scripture. The search for truth can take us down many roads, but the Scriptures remain the standard by which all truth is measured. I will still be suspicious of any purported truth that requires me to reject any portion of Scripture, but I will always be willing to engage in discussion about how to interpret Scripture.

And that is what sola scriptura means to me.