Early End to Daylight Savings Time in Rome? Pope Rolls Back the Clock Early, Declaring Protestant Congregations Not Churches

This has been an important week for the Church, the Roman Catholic Church that is. Or, as Pope Benedict XVI would have it, the only Church. Reiterating the view he promulgated in 2000 in Dominus Iesus, writing then as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he headed the Vatican ministry for Doctrine, the restatement dubs Protestant congregations merely "ecclesial communities."A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his early work had caused "no little distress". But it added: "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

According to Benedict, since we Protestants do not have apostolic succession, we lack the sacramental preisthood and have therefore not preserved the "genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery."

The fact that this declaration came just days following the decision to reinstate the Latin Mass raised speculation that the new pope sought to turn back the clock to before Vatican II, of which he was an observer as a young priest. The Vatican insists that the Pope was attempting to correct liberal misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the justifiably famous council.

In recent years evangelical theologians have attempted to take advantage of changes in Catholic theology to propose new grounds for cooperation. Many implications of the highly vaunted New Perspective on Paul, so popular in the academy, also comports well with renewed approaches to Christian consensus, if not full organizational union. The movement known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together, for example, produced a document in 1994, signed or endorsed by evangelical's such as Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson, Richard Land of the SBC, Campus Crusade's Bill Bright, Rchard Mouw of Fuller, and Pat Robertson. It was strongly opposed by others such as Sproul and MacArthur.

The declaration ended:

Nearly two thousand years after it began, and nearly five hundred years after the divisions of the Reformation era, the Christian mission to the world is vibrantly alive and assertive. We do not know, we cannot know, what the Lord of history has in store for the Third Millennium. It may be the springtime of world missions and great Christian expansion. It may be the way of the cross marked by persecution and apparent marginalization. In different places and times, it will likely be both. Or it may be that Our Lord will return tomorrow. We do know that his promise is sure, that we are enlisted for the duration, and that we are in this together. We do know that we must affirm and hope and search and contend and witness together, for we belong not to ourselves but to him who has purchased us by the blood of the cross. We do know that this is a time of opportunity-and, if of opportunity, then of responsibility-for Evangelicals and Catholics to be Christians together in a way that helps prepare the world for the coming of him to whom belongs the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever. Amen.

If the Pope intends to settle the matter definitively, does this mean that ecclesiastical rapprochement between Catholics and Protestants has been either ruled out entirely or back burnered? And what of the theological work that led to the ECT? Was it misbegotten or based upon a misunderstanding of the trajectory of Roman Catholic theology? We shall see.

For some years, proponents of ECT type dialogue have been snickering at people like Sproul and MacArthur for their "gross misunderstanding" of contemporary Catholic theology and and changes in RC views of justification that supposedly position them much closer to evangelical Protestantism. Could it be that the ECT evangelicals have been talking to the liberal Catholics and that normative catholicism never veered very much from its Council of Trent anathemas? In light of Benedict's pronouncement as a Cardinal in 2000, reaffirmed now as the Pope, might there still be some value in proclaiming the Reformation's sola fide in contrast to the Roman understanding of justification?

"Dahlberg Peace Prize" for Transformation Ministries' Board? Do I Hear an Amen? Or Maybe Just a Surgeon's Saw?

Several friends in other regions have always been quite gracious about claiming their Baptist kin in Transformation Ministries as still part of the "framily." However, judging by a response to one of my recent posts, they may be in the minority in their generosity toward TM among American Baptists. Evidently the left likens their left-coast kin to a gangrenous limb lopped off to the relief of just about everyone. Writing in response to my post, one always sharp and thoughtful reader, Amill-presup (although not himself hailing from the theological left), wrote:

God bless those ministers for staying... for not leaving the ABC in their part of the country to become a "spiritual Netherlands." BTW, your description of how the "Transformation Ministries" annual meeting was like "a sigh of relief" couldn't be more fitting for this ABC biennial that just ended. Having finally lost some of the most contentious, least Baptistic among us was like removing an infected limb before the infection could spread. It was painful and it will be difficult to adjust. But we're already moving ahead.

Since Dr. Salico and his board in Transformation Ministries is responsible for producing such a collective "sigh of relief" by voluntarily removing their spiritually necrotic and "contentious, least Baptistic" selves from the body politic of the ABCUSA, perhaps they deserve the coveted "Dahlberg Peace Prize"??? Afterall, "removing an infected limb before the infection could spread" has purportedly brought great relief and peace to the now unified ABC. In fact, Amill-presup seems to believe that the ABC lives in the millennial state now as the absence of PSW/TM, however "painful", has made true eschatological peace in the ABC a reality at last.

Wait a minute! Salico and crew can't receive the Dahlberg prize. They are no longer in the amputated-limbed family. Maybe the "surgeons" over at AWAB deserve the award for precipitating the removal of the infected PSW limb from the body in the first place?

Just a thought. Never mind. BTW - in the over-the-top metaphor game, last year an Executive Minister spoke of TM's withdrawal as a spiritual pruning along the lines of John 15! Hey, I couldn't make this stuff up.

More seriously, I am truly glad that the ABC senses a collective relief over the absence of TM. Amill-presup testifies to part of what I had hoped would happen as TM separated itself from the larger body. Honestly, my prayer was that other regions might follow TM in their departure. However, whether TM goes alone or with others, my argument all along was that it was time to wish each other peace and to pursue our differing visions for future ministry without rancor and disruptiveness.

The kind of grinding conflict and hard feelings so effectively alluded to in Amill-presup's reply, were both enervating to the spirit and destructive to forward movement in both TM and Valley Forge. The centennial celebration with the CBF sounds as if it got things off to a very good start for ABCUSA. What a blessed way to ease past the loss of a significant region! The additional numbers at the Biennial and sense of transdenominational cooperation contributed to high spirits and helped create a spirit and the promise of momentum into the future.

Sounds as if the Lord intends to bless both Barnabas and Paul this time too! Amen! Dr. Medley is a kind and gentle man who means well. He deserves a break! TM similarly seeks to honor the Lord and be faithful to his leading. Dr. Salico has also earned the peace he currently enjoys.

Looks like a win-win to me.

Disclaimer: Not being a part of the TM board until recently, I deserve no part of any awards, prizes, honorifics, or general good-stuff commendations flowing to the PSW (now TM) board for their wisdom in cutting off the offending member (i.e., themselves) from the body of the ABC.

More Thoughts on the Theology of My T-Shirt

Here are a few more scattered thoughts on the "theology of my t-shirt" posting below.

In recent decades evangelicals have flirted with the attractions of openness theology (e.g., Sanders, Pinnock, and Boyd), the so-called "new perspective" on Paul with its challenge to the heart of the Reformation, and very sophisticated arguments in favor of Arminianism (e.g., Witherington).

My problem with Arminianism is that it denies that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. As an authoritative interpreter of the movement from within, J.K. Grider, argued in Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology:

Many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach that what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition.
Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive those who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs."

Such a view was later to be known as the "governmental theory of the atonement" and had its fullest expression in Arminius' student, lawyer-theologian Hugo Grotius. A good (i.e., well-taught and consistent) Arminian would actually have theological problems with Billy Graham campaigns, as Grider himself admits, because "workers are often taught to counsel people that Christ paid the penalty for their sins." Such notions are anathema to the true Arminian.

Dealing with these issues in a forthright way, evangelical theogian J.I. Packer wrote a powerful introduction to the 1958 reprint of John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

"Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind - election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit - as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, all who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that man's salvation is secured by any of them.

The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation, the other as man's own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it.

Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the 'five points', as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the areas in which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance."

For those struggling with the issue, I commend both Owen's masterful polemic (in the best sense of the term) and Packer's introduction to it.

Owen leads the reader down a primrose path. For what and for whom did Jesus die? If for all the sins of all people, then he must have died for the sin of unbelief? In which case, all people must be saved. If not, then perhaps he died for all of the sins of some of the people (i.e., the elect)? Arminianism has Jesus dying in order to make salvation merely a possibility. In fact, to them he did not necessarily save anyone.

Packer opines, "It is safe to say that no comparable exposition of the work of redemption as planned and executed by the Triune Jehovah has ever been done since Owen published his. None has been needed....[N]obody has a right to dismiss the doctrine of the limitedness, or particularity, of atonement as a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic until he has refuted Owen's proof that it is part of the uniform biblical presentation of redemption, clearly taught in plain text after plain text. And nobody has done that yet."

For Reformed thinkers, Jesus did die for our sins. As Karl Barth put it, hyper (υπερ) is the most important word in the Greek New Testament since Christ died "for" our sin. And, as a Baptist, I count it an honor that proponents of Reformed theology among Baptists have included notables such as Spurgeon, Boyce, Broadus, Manly, Mell, Howell, Johnson, Mallary, B.H. Carroll, with more recent advocates such as Ascol, Mohler, and Piper. And, from the non-baptist ranks can be named folks like MacArthur, Packer, and Sproul.

Against those who argue that a belief in the sovereignty of God will kill evangelism, it should be noted that until recently, much evangelism and lasting revival (other than Wesley) was associated with Reformed ministries (e.g., Edwards, Whitfield, Spurgeon, 19th Century Southern Baptists, etc.). In fact, if you move beyond the level of mere tracts (e.g., the Four Spiritual Laws) to systematic training programs, one of the most effective tools for decades has been Evangelism Explosion by the Reformed pastor, James Kennedy!

In the final analysis, we do have "free will." We can "choose" to exalt the sovereignty of God's will or argue for the sovereignty of the human will.

Being just a plain and simple Baptist preacher . . . I pick God.

The Theology of My T-Shirt: A Little Laugh While Looking Through the Glass Darkly

My favorite t-shirt sports a message on the front and another on the back (see above). In fact, I like it so much that my wardrobe includes two of them! After people do a double-take, if they know any theology, it produces at least a smile of recognition.

Yes, we DO see through a glass darkly. Regardless of whether we identify more with the Calvinists or the Arminians, we must all admit that our clarity of vision has been obscured by sin, historical distance, the problem of particularity, and a host of other impediments to spiritual and intellectual occular clarity.

Calvinists are famous for their Jesuit-like logic, as penetrating as it is relentless. Whole libraries have been written on why post-Reformation scholasticism took Calvin into cul-de-sacs unintended by the Magisterial Reformer. Similarly, Arminians probably do not believe much of what Jacob Harmenszoon (aka Jacobus Arminius) was getting at either.

So, asking the question, "Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian?" might be about as useful at times as asking whether you have quit beating your wife. I confess that the themes of Calvin regarding the glorious sovereignty of God, the total inability of humankind, the triumph of grace, and the promise of perseverance speak to me more deeply and with greater evocative power than the words of my Arminian sisters and brothers. Maybe it's just me. But, in the dark night of the soul, I want a God who is sovereign, sure-footed, and who never slumbers walking by my side through the fearsome uncertainties of life.

During seminary one of my profs told the story of a time in his pastorate when a widow looked up into his eyes at the graveside and cried, "Why?" His answer? "God is standing here beside us now and he's wondering the same thing."

And, while it does not impact the epistemology or the hermeneutics of the matter, I wanted to shout: NO THANKS! An image of a deity so constrained and limited that he neither knows the future nor can guarantee that his plans will reach fruition does nothing for us in our deepest need.

When suffering a family crisis a couple of years ago, my heart was so overwhelmed with inconsolable pain that I participated in three "at-fault" automobile accidents within a one month period (how would you like to be my insurance agent?). What finally gave me comfort was not a self-help book of five easy steps to overcoming depression, nor a meditation that God was busy figuring out how my free choices were going to impact his ultimate will. Rather, my soul revived while listening to a fifteen part MP3 series on the Providence of God by R.C. Sproul. Only by focusing on God and his sovereign will was I able to return to a semblance of normalcy again.

So, while my shirt sports the Arminian message on the back, it is the Calvinist affirmation on the front that keeps me moving forward.

ABC General Board Hears Report from California Pastor Joseph H. DeRoulhac

This update came from the American Baptist News Service today. It describes a report the General Board heard about the progress of the new American Baptist Congregations of the Southwest and Hawaii.

Also in Thursday’s session, board members heard a presentation by Dr. Joseph H. DeRoulhac of the First Baptist Church of Redlands, Calif., about the new American Baptist Congregations of the Southwest and Hawaii. The new group includes churches that wish to remain with ABCUSA, following the withdrawal of the Pacific Southwest (PSW) region from the national body to form a new organization. DeRoulhac said that, of the 250 churches in the former PSW region, 40 have formally withdrawn from ABCUSA, and 50 have indicated they wish to remain with ABCUSA. Many other churches are in a process of “sorting out” their relationships, he said.

Joe is a friend of mine, a brilliant scholar (PhD in Social Ethics from USC), a committed American Baptist, an unusually fair person, and a great defender of most things left of center (including progressive views on various social issues such as homosexuality). Other than the large predominately African-American First Institutional Baptist Church of Phoenix, pastored by Dr. Warren H. Stewart, Sr., Redlands is one of the larger churches in the fellowship of the new ABC of the Southwest and Hawaii.

It would be interesting to see who the 50 congregations are that have indicated a desire to remain with ABCUSA. The national VF establishment has reportedly used some fairly "persuasive" strong-arm tactics to pressure ethnic churches to stay with the ABCUSA. Similarly, the entreaties coming from the ABC of LA have pushed hard, sometimes reportedly blurring the distinctions between truth and falsehood in a zeal to recruit American Baptist congregations for the cause.

I would not be surprised if the bulk of churches staying with the ABCUSA have a record of inadequate or non-existent mission support. Notable exceptions to this prediction would be Pasadena FBC (where I served as a preaching interim for almost a year and one half and where Drs. Bob Campbell, David Scholar, Glenn Stassen, and Bob Meye hold membership) and DeRoulhac's Redlands, both very strong mission-giving churches.

ABC General Board Honors Pastors Who Thumbed Nose at Transformation Ministries

According to the ABNS, the General Board of the ABCUSA took time in their meetings this week to honor pastors who have elected to "remain American Baptist following the withdrawal of the Pacific Southwest region." Those honored for "standing firmly in solidarity with the family" or "thumbing their noses at the former PSW" (depending upon your perspective) will be participating in forming a new region in the southwest, tentatively known as American Baptist Congregations of the Southwest and Hawaii.

"The honoring of pastors and congregations in the new group marked the denomination’s effort to encourage congregations that chose to remain American Baptist following the withdrawal of the Pacific Southwest region a few months ago. Pastors honored with their congregations were Dr. Alonso A. Cooper, University Avenue Baptist Church, San Diego; the Rev. Stanley A. Crews, Monte Vista Baptist Church, Phoenix, Ariz.; Dr. Joseph H. DeRoulhac, First Baptist Church, Redlands, Calif.; Dr. William E. Godwin, University Baptist Church, Palm Desert, Calif.; the Rev. José T. Guerra and the Rev. Chuck Shawver, Living Hope Baptist Church, Bakersfield, Calif.; the Rev. W. James Kilinsky, One in Christ Church, National City, Calif.; and Dr. Warren H. Stewart, Sr., First Institutional Baptist Church, Phoenix" (ABNS, June 25, 2007).

Some of these pastors are dear friends of mine, others represent respected colleagues of longstanding tenure. People of good will and conviction will reach different conclusions on controversial subjects. However, as a lifelong American Baptist, my conscience allowed no other course than to go with my region, Transformation Ministries (formerly known as the ABCPSW), against the VF establishment.

We will let the judgment in the eschaton sort out which side did the right thing.

"God is NOT Great"??? - Hitchens vs. Hitchens

What can be said about a book proclaiming with absolute certainty that religion, all religion, is bad, wrong, pernicious, and dangerous? How do you respond to the elegant rant of a writer so angry that he attempts to suggest that religion is child abuse? That faith of any kind represents nothing more than a stupid illusion?

In his recent God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Twelve Books, 2007), influential author, pundit, and commentator Christopher Hitchens advances all of these points in the short compass of 288 pages. Ranging from “religion kills” to “the metaphysical claims of religion are false” to “the tawdriness of the miraculous and the decline of hell,” Hitchens spares no superlative in denigrating belief in God.

Recently, however, a review came out that deserves to be noted. Who better to take on Hitchens’ biographically saturated rant against God than his brother Peter? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=459427&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source=

“For all I know, Christopher is absolutely right – my prayers are pointless and a meaningless oblivion awaits. But if he is right, what a dispiriting, lowering truth it is,” writes Peter.

However, he moves beyond this observation to opine that the pogrom against God being advocated by brother Christopher will not only abolish religion, but conscience as well.

“We are in the process – encouraged by Christopher – of abolishing religion, and so of abolishing conscience, too. It is one of his favourite jibes that a world ruled by faith is like North Korea, a place where all is known and all is ordered.

On the contrary, North Korea is the precise opposite of a land governed by conscience. It is a country governed by men who do not believe in God or conscience, where nobody can be trusted to make his own choices, and where the State decides for the people what is right and what is wrong. And it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought. If you do not worship God, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush. In which case, God help you.

Peter Hitchens reminds us of the serpent’s seduction: "Ye shall be as gods." These, Peter finds, may “be the most important words in the whole Bible.”

Take the enticing satanic advice, and you arrive, quite quickly, at revolutionary terror, at the invention of the atom bomb, at the torture chamber and the building of concentration camps for those unteachable morons who do not share your vision of a just world.

Indeed. God help us every one, even Christopher Hitchens.

"I am both Muslim and Christian" - Huh???

The Seattle Times featured an interesting story about an Episcopal priest who is also a devout Muslim. With a Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Seminary in New York, her bishop finds the combination “exciting.”

The pastor in question, the Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding, seems quite sincere and earnest in our search for God. My point is not to besmirch either her integrity nor her sincerity. Nor do I want to speak against the value of respectful interfaith dialogue. However, the reactions by her ecclesiastical authorities raise all kinds of questions about the uniqueness of the Christian faith and Christ's exclusive claims.

In our world of designer religion and Burger King faith (i.e., "Have it your way"), why not cobble together your own concoction of this and that? Who cares what normative Christianity means. If it doesn't "mean" that to me, it doesn't matter.

So, in this case: "she graduated from Brown University, earned master's degrees from two seminaries and received her Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City." If you reject the trinitarian form of Christian faith, deny the deity of Christ, deny original sin, relegate Christianity to just another ideology (i.e., the "world religion of privilege"), and put yourself in a position to "hear" God's voice calling you into a non-Christian faith ("when God gives you an invitation, you don't turn it down"), why not play on both sides of the street?

Sortof reminds me of the old joke about a person who was dying who summoned a priest, a rabbi, and a Muslim cleric to his bedside to pray . . . just to keep his "bases covered."

I wonder what her New Testament PhD dissertation topic was at Union?

Probably NOT Johannine lit . . .
After all, John keeps telling us that Jesus is the "one and only" . . .

* One and only God - John 1:1-18
* One and only Way - John 14:6
* One and only Savior - 1 John 5:6-12

Evidently John's vision of the uniqueness of Christ and the exclusivity of his truth claims brooks no rivals, even ones sporting a star and crescent.

My guess is that her dissertation was probably not Greek grammar either . . .

After all, Karl Barth always liked to say that υπερ ("for") was the most important word in the New Testament, as in Gal 1:4 where Paul says that the Lord Jesus Christ "gave himself for our sins."

Maybe she wrote on the "Meaning of και in Jude," or "Radical Feminist Trajectories in the Third Search for the Historical Jesus," or "Templates for Feminist Reader Response Hermeneutics in a Context of a World Religion of Privilege" or even "The Origin of the Aspirate with Special Emphasis on the Distinction Between Spiritus Asper and Spiritus Lenis in Ancient Greek During a Time of Increasing De-aspiration (Psilosis)."

Regardless of the topic of her research, one can hardly reconcile the thought of two seminary degrees and a PhD in New Testament being used to justify a synthesis of Christianity and Islam. If the theology of John does not persuade a scholar to believe in the singular truth claims of Jesus Christ, what about the author of Hebrews? Virtually the entire book shouts out the superiority of Jesus Christ to all other powers, authorities, and rivals.

Yet, at the heart of it, I found it particularly telling that her bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he "accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting."

Exciting? A ride on the "Scream" or "Superman the Escape" at Six Flags is "exciting." The syncretistic mish mash of mixing Christianity and Islam is "heretical," a "betrayal" of Christ, or "stomach turning" at least. What is with a bishop who can only gush at the "possibilities"???

Also of note, Redding's announcement, first made through a story in her diocese's newspaper, hasn't caused much controversy yet, according to the bishop. YIKES! Like the old tale of St. John in the bath house hearing that the heretic Cerinthus had arrived . . . perhaps we should all run screaming from the scene lest the Lord cause the house to fall in on us.

And MSNBC's Keith Olbermann says that John MacArthur is "runner up" for "worst person in the world" for suggesting that God may have finally given America "over" to our own depravity? Sheesh! If the theology professed by Redding and her bishop are indicative of contemporary Christianity in America, MacArthur erred on the side of understatement.

Read The Seattle Times piece for yourself:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html

Karl Barth on "Our Father"

On this Father's Day, I thought it might be appropriate to revisit a meditation by Karl Barth on a portion of the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father." Whether or not you are a dad, whether or not you had a father who was in any way adequate in his role, consider the complete adequacy of our heavenly Father.

We are bidden to pray. This presupposes everything that has been said above about prayer in general. But this is the important point : we are told to pray : Our Father who art in heaven. It is Jesus Christ who bids us call on God and address him as our Father; Jesus Christ who is the Son of God, who has made himself our brother and makes us his brothers. He takes us with him, to make us his companions, and places us at his side, so that we may live and act as his brothers and members of his body. He says to us, 'Follow me.'

The 'Our Father' is not just any form of prayer to be used by anyone, no matter who; it presupposes 'us': Our Father; one who is a Father to us in a unique way. This 'us' derives from Jesus Christ's command to follow him; it implies that the man who prays is in communion with Jesus Christ and dwells in the brotherhood of the sons of God. Jesus Christ calls, allows, commands man to be joined with him, more especially in his intercession with God, his Father. Jesus Christ calls us, commands us, allows us to speak with him to God, to pray his prayer with him, to be united with him in the Lord's Prayer, and thus to adore God, to pray to God and to praise him with one voice and one soul in union with Christ himself.

This 'us', moreover, means that the man who prays is in communion with all those who are in his company and who, like him, are bidden to pray; who have received the same call, the same command, the same permission to pray at Christ's side. We pray 'Our Father' in the fellowship of that company, that congregation which we call the Church (the ecclesia).

But while we are in communion with the saints, the ecclesia of those who are gathered together by Jesus Christ, we are also in communion with those who, perhaps, do not pray as yet but for whom Christ prays, since he prays for all mankind. Mankind is the object of his intercession and we, therefore, enter into this communion with all mankind. When Christians pray, they are, so to speak, substitutes for all those who do not pray; and, in this sense, they are in communion with them, in the same way as Jesus Christ has made himself one with sinful man and lost humanity.

Our Father: thou who hast begotten us, brought us into being by thy Word and thy Spirit; thou who art our Father because thou hast created us, the Lord of the Covenant which thou hast been pleased to make with man, thou in whom and with whom our life began, and in whom it finds its completion.

Our Father :on whom our whole existence in time and eternity depends; God the Father, whose glory is our inheritance, whom we may freely approach, like children to their father!

Our Father, thou who by nature art always ready to hear us and to answer us. But we constantly forget it.... We may deny God, but he can never forget us or deny us. The Father, by his very nature, is faithful; he is high above us for ever and his good will towards us can never change.

That is what God is to us. But we must admit that we have no right to address him thus, to be his children or to approach him in this way. He is our Father and we are his children in virtue of the natural relationship which exists between him and Jesus Christ, in virtue of that fatherhood and that sonship which actually existed in the person of Jesus Christ, and which have reality for us in him. We are his children and he is our Father in virtue of that new birth accomplished at Christmas, on Good Friday and at Easter, and made effective at our baptism. A new birth, that is to say, a completely new order of being, a life entirely different from what our human potentialities or merits could produce.

God our Father means our merciful Father; we ourselves are and always will be prodigal sons who can claim no rights save the one given to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

This does not imply any diminution of what has been said about the divine fatherhood. The splendour and the certainty, the very greatness and majesty of our Father are manifested in the fact that we stand before him without power or worth, without real faith and with empty hands. And yet, in Christ, we are God's children. We can contribute nothing whatever of our own to make the reality of that sonship more certain : divine reality alone is the fulness of all reality.

Jesus Christ is the source and the warrant for the divine Fatherhood and our sonship; for this reason that fatherhood and that sonship are incomparably superior to all the relationships among ourselves which we denote by the terms father, son, children. These human relationships are not the original of which the other could be the image or symbol. The true and original fatherhood and sonship subsist in the bonds which God has created between himself and us. Anything that exists among us is only the image of that original sonship. When we call God our Father, we are not using symbols, but are experiencing the full reality of the words 'father' and 'son'.

"Prayer and Preaching," by Karl Barth

Dr. John MacArthur = 2nd "Worst Person in the World"??? Really? For Preaching Paul's Romans???

Wowie, zowie! Take one left leaning interest group ("Media Matters"), add one angry television commentator (Keith Olbermann), fold in one John MacArthur sermon for the National Day of Prayer, and rebroadcast it on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program and what do you have?

On the June 8 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Bill O'Reilly "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Olbermann noted, "reacting to the arrest in the abduction and murder of the Kansas teenager Kelsey Smith . . . Additionally, Olbermann declared John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, "runner-up" for the category.

From the June 8 edition of MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: The runner-up, Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, whose sermon, broadcast by those fine, tolerant folks who work for the Father Coughlin of the 21st century, James Dobson, says that because America has, quote, "illicit sex, adultery, every form or immorality", and, quote, "you know a society has been abandoned by God when it celebrates lesbian sex," therefore, quote, "God would be just in any calamity that he brought on us", including, quote, "the destruction of an entire city." Just let God speak for himself, pal.

John MacArthur runner up for "worst person in the world" for an expositional sermon on Romans 1 saying that perhaps America has been "given over" by God? MacArthur's "authoritative" (some would say "authoritarian") tone of voice rubs me the wrong way at times. But, yikes! Second worst person in the world????

Don't know about you all, but I listened to that sermon and found it sobering. Candidly, Keith Olbermann probably never heard of MacArthur prior to the piece in Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/items/200706070007?f=h_latest. Still, we have come a long way since the days of Jonathan Edwards when a biblical sermon could excite the masses and be used to help instigate a revival. Nowadays, a fairly traditional exposition of a portion of Paul's great epistle, coupled with some rather typical application, yields an apoplectic rant.

Part 1 - http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp?bcd=6/4/2007

Part 2 - http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp?bcd=6/5/2007

Godspeed Mrs. Graham!

According to the AP, Ruth Graham, the ailing wife of evangelist Billy Graham, fell into a coma Wednesday morning and appears to be close to death, a family spokesman said. "She appears to be entering the final stages of life," said Larry Ross, Graham's personal spokesman.

In a display of his signature grace, Dr. Billy Graham observed: "Ruth is my soul mate and best friend, and I cannot imagine living a single day without her by my side," Graham said. "I am more in love with her today than when we first met over 65 years ago as students at Wheaton College."

Graham's summary comment captures the Christian hope well when he said: "She is close to going home."

Join me in praying for the Graham family. More than most, they have paid a steep price for Billy's ministry. May the Lord bless them richly as he walks with them through the valley of the shadow of death.

Lessons in Dying from the Master

Frequently I have carped about coverage in the Los Angeles Times. However, in this instance, the accolades could not be more fervent or sincere. The Times offered a valuable lesson on dying and Christian hope in a June 5, 2007 piece, "'Rejoice always': a lesson in dying." Recounting the inspirational account of Dr. David Scholer's living with terminable cancer, reporter Connie Kang captures all of the right emphases as she recounts Scholer's trust in the Lord in the midst of his five year bout with matastatic cancer of the colon and lungs.

I know David as an internationally renowned New Testament scholar and as a friend. For nearly a year and a half, it was my privilege to serve as preaching interim in the church in Pasadena where he and his devoted wife, Jeannette, are members. If you want to see how the mainstream media can sometimes get a story right, click on the following link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-scholer5jun05,0,1943101.story?coll=la-home-center

More on the Creationist Movement

Henry Morris, who passed away little more than a year ago, enjoyed the title of father of the "modern" young-earth creationist movement. His 1961 book, The Genesis Flood (co-authored with Old Testament scholar John Whitcomb), launched a reconsideration of the evidence for the age of the earth among evangelicals. His explanation depended on a catastrophic worldwide flood.

Unfortunately, as with most pioneers, many of his views and explanations sound strained, fanciful, and even quaint today. It was common, for example, for young-earth creationists to say that God created light "in transit" from distant stars or to rely upon a "canopy" theory for the volume of water prior to the flood.

Since then, the work Morris inspired has moved into the realm of peer reviewed scientific research of some sophistication. It used to be said with disdain that most "creation" scientists were metallurgists or hydraulics engineers, not geologists, astrophysicists, or biologists. No longer. A group of young-Earth researchers calling their project RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) investigated radioactive dating methods and worked to develop alternative young-Earth explanations.

The RATE study began as a joint collaborative effort between the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society and Answers in Genesis. Their work with radio dating was more than a little interesting. RATE physicist Dr. Russ Humphreys, for example, reported on measurements of helium diffusion (leaking) from zircon crystals. Helium, one of the most "slippery" elements, is created as a byproduct of radioactive decay, but also leaks out of the crystals. If the zircons were billions of years old, there should be very little helium left since it would have had plenty of time to diffuse away. However, the RATE researchers found that a tremendous amount of helium remained in the zircons—consistent with an age of about 6,000 years.

In addition to Morris' organization, the Institute for Creation Research, in Santee, California, Answers in Genesis has emerged as a major player in the creationist movement. Led by Australian-born Ken Ham, AIG just this week opened its state-of-the-art $27 million museum near the Cincinnati airport debt free (see prior blog).

Where ICR focuses on graduate education and the production of more technical materials, AIG looks to the "retail" side of creationism. With a full slate of energetic speakers, dozens of DVDs, and curricular materials for both church and home-schooling use, Ham's communicators blanket the country, popularizing creationism and defending the Bible, using presuppositionalist apologetics. AIG has recently added several new PhDs in biology (cf. Purdom from Ohio State), astrophysics (cf. Lisle from University of Colorado at Boulder), and other specialists to their roster of speakers and developers of resource material.

For the movement as a whole, a new "RATE" style research project is being pulled together involving the genetic side of the issue of evolution. I recently heard a tenured Cornell University geneticist lecture on the "improbability" if not "impossibility" of evolution based on information theory and mutation within the human genome.

And, I have not even touched upon the progressive (old-earth) creationism of people like Hugh Ross. His arguments dovetail quite well with the secular Intelligent Design movement which has resurrected Paley's old watchmaker argument from design in the form of Behe's irreducible complexity. The ID folks, technically a non-religious alternative, disdain the ICR and Answers in Genesis crowd almost as much as the Darwinists do. Yet, their work has been making waves in the area of building a case for a Creator, and the impossibility of "chance" as a viable explanation for the world we see around us.

Creationism, whether of the Ken Ham (young-earth) or Hugh Ross (old-earth) variety, has attracted its share of critics. The opening of the Creation Museum was met with vocal pickets and even an airplane towing an anti-Christian message. Several organizations (including DefCon and it's "campaign to defend the constitution")have argued that AIG has a moral responsibility to disclaim that the Creation Museum has anything to do with empirical facts, merely out-dated and fanciful beliefs. One commentator even likened the museum to cigarette advertising, opining that both should be banned for the same reason! And, despite the fact that AIG built its facility entirely with private funds, some have raised the issue of violation of "church and state." The Los Angeles Times dismissed Ham's museum in colorful prose as "yabba dabba science."

Still, amid the din of the critics, Answers in Genesis and other similar organizations continue their efforts. In both the secular ("intelligent design") and explicitly Christian forms (either old-earth or young-earth) creationism has changed radically since the primitive days of Morris in 1961.

In other words, right or wrong, this "ain't your father's" creationism any longer. In terms of sophistication, scientific acumen, research, and argumentation, it has moved "light years" from its origins little more than 45 years ago. Standing on the shoulders of pioneers such as Morris, a new generation of scholars from the fields of apologetics and the sciences is beginning to challenge evolutionary assumptions just as a growing majority of evangelical and mainline Biblical scholars have made peace with Darwin!

"As for me and my house" . . . laugh if you must, but I stand with the creationists (both old and new earth types) against the mechanistic Darwinians and their god, Chance. Bottom line: I am a creationist and make common cause with other creationists, regardless of their view of the antiquity of the universe.

Creation Museum Opens Amid Criticism

The venerable Los Angeles Times has already pronounced the effort, “Yabba-dabba science” in a May 24 editorial. Condemned as a “60,000-square-foot menace to 21st century scientific advancement” by critics, Answers in Genesis unveils its $27 million Creation Museum this weekend in the Cincinnati suburb of Petersburg, KY.

Designed to present a “young earth” creationist model of human origins, the facility was designed to incorporate the latest in high-tech sensory experience. It even boasts recreations of Noah’s ark, animatronic dinosaurs, and a movie theater with seats that shake, all designed by some of the same people behind the attractions at Universal Studios in Florida.

The museum has drawn objections from a coalition of scientists and organizations, including the Campaign to Defend the Constitution (http://www.defconamerica.org/) , or DEFCON, a Washington-based group that says it seeks to combat the political influence of religious conservatives. In a May 24 conference call with reporters, those opponents said the museum is presenting a distorted view of evolution and the earth’s history.

In an ABC interview, Eugenie C. Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education (http://www.natcenscied.org/), an Oakland, Calif.-based organization that supports the teaching of evolution, called the museum a “creationist’s Disneyland.”

Even Christian authors have weighed in, decrying the project. One of the Baptist blog sites (dominated by seminary educated clergy) was full of naysayers and skeptics. “Don't know that I'd call it a ‘Christian’ museum any more than I'd call Left Behind ‘Christian’ fiction." “I had no idea there were so many people out there to who actually believe in and accept such a strange cosmology--enough to completely pay for a place like that!” “It's astonishing to me that people believe this stuff, but P.T. Barnum's axiom still holds true.”

Despite criticism that the Creation Museum will put Christianity back a hundred years (or at least until the Scopes trial of 1925), AIG founder Ken Ham sees it differently. Answers in Genesis claims:

"The Creation Museum will be upfront that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice, and in every area it touches upon.

We’ll begin the Museum experience by showing that “facts” don’t speak for themselves. There aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. We’ll then explore why the Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.

After that, we'll take guests on a journey through a visual presentation of the history of the world, based on the “7 C’s of History”: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation. Throughout this family-friendly experience, guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history."
(http://creationmuseum.org/about)

According to an ABC News poll, 60 percent of Americans believe God created the world in six days. So do theologians Al Mohler and R.C. Sproul. Before dismissing it out-of-hand, visit the AIG web site for yourself (http://www.answersingenesis.org/). Browse around in the articles and online books and see if the arguments and evidence challenge some of your own ideas about cosmology and the Bible.

Medley Moves to Restructure Ecumenical Office

VALLEY FORGE, PA (ABNS 05/23/07) -- General Secretary, A. Roy Medley, announced today a future restructuring of the ecumenical office of the denomination. The restructuring will draw more upon the Committee on Christian Unity of the denomination and other leaders in fulfilling ABCUSA’s ongoing commitment to dialogue and cooperation with other Christian communions and organizations.

As a result of the restructuring, the Rev. Rothang Chhangte will leave her position on September 4, 2007. She will continue to represent American Baptists on the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. Rev. Medley said, “This is a critical position to which Rothang was elected last year. As American Baptists it gives us an opportunity to continue to shape the future of this ecumenical organization, especially as it seeks to each out to evangelicals and Pentecostals. Rothang has distinguished herself by her contributions to the WCC Decade to Overcome Violence, and her work in interfaith relations.”

During her tenure Rothang has been instrumental in:

The formation of the WCC US Young Adult Task force
Service on the Interim Steering Committee of Christian Churches Together that brought together Mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, historic African-American churches and the Roman Catholic Church
Renewing and building closer ties with Church of the Brethren
Giving leadership to the formulation of ABC Policy Statement on Interreligious Prejudice

Speaking of her service, Rothang said, "I am grateful for the opportunity to have served as your American Baptist representative at ecumenical gatherings and meetings. I thank God for the opportunity to work towards building reconciliation and healing in God's oikumene, household. It has been a spiritually enriching journey for me. The prayer of Jesus in John 17 that "all may be one so that the world might know and believe," has become an ever more urgent calling in my life. I look to forward to discovering new ways of living this prayer in my life."

The Rev. Jerrod Hugenot, chair of the General Board Committee on Christian Unity, has said of Rothang, "Deep ecumenical relationships are formed by grace and openness. Rev. Chhangte models these values well in her faith and ministry. We are grateful for her work representing and articulating the American Baptist voice within ecumenical, intra-Baptist, and interfaith councils, forums, and other gatherings which promote religion as a source of hope and common good rather than exclusion and schism."

In the restructuring, Ms. Iris Cobb will provide administrative assistance to Dr. Medley and the Committee on Christian Unity. Iris has extensive experience in this role from her previous work with the Rev. Dr. Cheryl Wade, who served on ABCUSA’s team of Ecumenical Officers.

ABCUSA’s ecumenical relations include the Baptist World Alliance, the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, and most recently, Christian Churches Together.
http://www.abc-usa.org/news/2007/20070523a.htm

Having served on committees with Rothang over the years, I know her as a diligent and pleasant person. During her tenure as the chief ecumenical officer for the ABC she won plaudits from the left for her advocacy of causes dear to the more ecumenical wing of the denomination and criticism from some conservatives. A few traditionalists have suggested that they were dissatisfied with answers she gave to their questioning of her remarks quoted in an IRD publication regarding evangelicals and the issue of salvation through Christ alone. My guess is that as in the case of many Valley Forge staff reductions, money has been a major factor.

Blessings on your new endeavors, Rothang!