1) Manchester Orchestra - Mean everything to nothing
2) As Cities Burn - Hell or High water
3) TV on the radio - Return to cookie mountain / Dear Science
4) M. Ward - Hold Time
5) The Devil Wears Prada - With roots above and branches below
6) Niel Yong - Fork in the road
7) Phoenix - Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix
8) Leona Naess - Thirteens
9) Kari Jobe - I'm singing
10) Gavin Degraw -Free
11) The Decemberists - The hazard of Love
12) Jon Foreman - Winter ep
13) Andrew Bird - Noble Beast
14) Animal Collective - Merriweather post pavilion
15) Yeah Yeah Yeahs - It's Blitz!
Friday, April 24, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
More from the great emergence
"The new Christianity of the great emergence must discover some authority base or delivery system and/or governing agency of its own. It must formulate – and soon – something other than Luther’s sola scriptura which, although used so well by the Great Reformation originally, is now seen as hopelessly outmoded or insufficient, even after it is, as here, spurred up and re-couched in more current sensibilities.”
My Response:
"The Bible will stand. No critic will." -John Piper
Friday, April 17, 2009
the great emergence
I am reading Phyllis Tickle's 'the great emergence' and I don't like it. I think she is confusing and writes in circles. She spends half of her book "considering... a few of the major cultural shifts in the twentieth century that have determined the religious and ecclesial perspectives out of which emergents are working" leaving the reader grasping for an understanding or working definition of what the Great Emergence actually is. There is no doubt an emergence is happening but she does no more than to point to 500 year hinge periods that she defines as rummage sales. She seems quite content to leave the reader lost with a bucket of knowledge filled with interconnected historical events.
"The reformation's understanding of scripture as it had been taught by Protestantism for almost five centuries will be dead. That is not to say that Scripture as the base of authority is dead. What the protestant tradition has taught about the nature of the authority will be either dead or in mortal need of reconfiguration. And that kind of summation is agonizing for the surrounding culture in general. In particular, it is agonizing for the individual lives that have been built upon it." Pg. 101
I think there may be some truth in this statement but not in the way she intends it.
The ever true hymn from Edward Mote:
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
he go above of my head to live with your father
Nothing seems to make me laugh quite as hard as cat videos on youtube and David Sedaris! I was in my bedroom the other night and I was reading this story out of Me Talk Pretty One Day and I started laughing so hard I was crying! Sedaris writes about living with his boyfriend in France and this particular story is from a French class that he attended in Paris. The students have to try to explain Easter to a Muslim student in French! So in honor of Lent and the preparation for Easter enjoy!
"And what does one do on Easter? Would anyone like to tell us?"
The Italian nanny was attempting to answer the question when the Moroccan student interrupted, shouting, "Excuse me, but what's an Easter?"
Despite her having grown up in a Muslim country, it seemed she might have heard it mentioned once or twice, but no. "I mean it," she said. "I have no idea what you people are talking about."
The teacher then called upon the rest of us to explain.
The Poles led the charge to the best of their ability. "It is," said one, "a party for the little boy of God who call his self Jesus and . . . oh, shit."
She faltered, and her fellow countryman came to her aid.
"He call his self Jesus, and then he be die one day on two . . . morsels of . . . lumber."
The rest of the class jumped in, offering bits of information that would have given the pope an aneurysm.
"He die one day, and then he go above of my head to live with your father."
"He weared the long hair, and after he died, the first day he come back here for to say hello to the peoples."
"He nice, the Jesus."
"He make the good things, and on the Easter we be sad because somebody makes him dead today."
Part of the problem had to do with grammar. Simple nouns such as cross and resurrection were beyond our grasp, let alone such complicated reflexive phrases as "To give of yourself your only begotten son." Faced with the challenge of explaining the cornerstone of Christianity, we did what any self-respecting group of people might do. We talked about food instead.
"Easter is a party for to eat of the lamb," the Italian nanny explained. "One, too, may eat of the chocolate."
"And who brings the chocolate?" the teacher asked.
I knew the word, and so I raised my hand, saying, "The Rabbit of Easter. He bring of the chocolate."
My classmates reacted as though I'd attributed the delivery to the Antichrist. They were mortified.
"A rabbit?" The teacher, assuming I'd used the wrong word, positioned her index fingers on top of her head, wiggling them as though they were ears. "You mean one of these? A rabbit rabbit?"
"Well, sure," I said. "He come in the night when one sleep on a bed. With a hand he have the basket and foods."
The teacher sadly shook her head, as if this explained everything that was wrong with my country. "No, no," she said. "Here in France the chocolate is brought by the big bell that flies in from Rome."
I called for a time-out. "But how do the bell know where you live?"
"Well," she said, "how does a rabbit?"
It was a decent point, but at least a rabbit has eyes. That's a start. Rabbits move from place to place, while most bells can only go back and forth--and they can't even do that on their own power. On top of that, the Easter Bunny has character; he's someone you'd like to meet and shake hands with. A bell has all the personality of a cast-iron skillet. It's like saying that come Christmas, a magic dustpan flies in from the North Pole, led by eight flying cinder blocks. Who wants to stay up all night so they can see a bell? And why fly one in from Rome when they've got more bells than they know what to do with right here in Paris? That's the most implausible aspect of the whole story, as there's no way the bells of France would allow a foreign worker to fly in and take their jobs. That Roman bell would be lucky to get work cleaning up after a French bell's dog--and even then he'd need papers. It just didn't add up.
Nothing we said was of any help to the Moroccan student. A dead man with long hair supposedly living with her father, a leg of lamb served with palm fronds and chocolate. Confused and disgusted, she shrugged her massive shoulders and turned her attention back to the comic book she kept hidden beneath her binder. I wondered then if, without the language barrier, my classmates and I could have done a better job making sense of Christianity, an idea that sounds pretty far-fetched to begin with.
In communicating any religious belief, the operative word is faith, a concept illustrated by our very presence in that classroom. Why bother struggling with the grammar lessons of a six-year-old if each of us didn't believe that, against all reason, we might eventually improve? If I could hope to one day carry on a fluent conversation, it was a relatively short leap to believing that a rabbit might visit my home in the middle of the night, leaving behind a handful of chocolate kisses and a carton of menthol cigarettes. So why stop there? If I could believe in myself, why not give other improbabilities the benefit of the doubt? I accepted the idea that an omniscient God had cast me in his own image and that he watched over me and guided me from one place to the next. The virgin birth, the resurrection, and the countless miracles--my heart expanded to encompass all the wonders and possibilities of the universe.
A bell, though, that's f#@*%! up.
"And what does one do on Easter? Would anyone like to tell us?"
The Italian nanny was attempting to answer the question when the Moroccan student interrupted, shouting, "Excuse me, but what's an Easter?"
Despite her having grown up in a Muslim country, it seemed she might have heard it mentioned once or twice, but no. "I mean it," she said. "I have no idea what you people are talking about."
The teacher then called upon the rest of us to explain.
The Poles led the charge to the best of their ability. "It is," said one, "a party for the little boy of God who call his self Jesus and . . . oh, shit."
She faltered, and her fellow countryman came to her aid.
"He call his self Jesus, and then he be die one day on two . . . morsels of . . . lumber."
The rest of the class jumped in, offering bits of information that would have given the pope an aneurysm.
"He die one day, and then he go above of my head to live with your father."
"He weared the long hair, and after he died, the first day he come back here for to say hello to the peoples."
"He nice, the Jesus."
"He make the good things, and on the Easter we be sad because somebody makes him dead today."
Part of the problem had to do with grammar. Simple nouns such as cross and resurrection were beyond our grasp, let alone such complicated reflexive phrases as "To give of yourself your only begotten son." Faced with the challenge of explaining the cornerstone of Christianity, we did what any self-respecting group of people might do. We talked about food instead.
"Easter is a party for to eat of the lamb," the Italian nanny explained. "One, too, may eat of the chocolate."
"And who brings the chocolate?" the teacher asked.
I knew the word, and so I raised my hand, saying, "The Rabbit of Easter. He bring of the chocolate."
My classmates reacted as though I'd attributed the delivery to the Antichrist. They were mortified.
"A rabbit?" The teacher, assuming I'd used the wrong word, positioned her index fingers on top of her head, wiggling them as though they were ears. "You mean one of these? A rabbit rabbit?"
"Well, sure," I said. "He come in the night when one sleep on a bed. With a hand he have the basket and foods."
The teacher sadly shook her head, as if this explained everything that was wrong with my country. "No, no," she said. "Here in France the chocolate is brought by the big bell that flies in from Rome."
I called for a time-out. "But how do the bell know where you live?"
"Well," she said, "how does a rabbit?"
It was a decent point, but at least a rabbit has eyes. That's a start. Rabbits move from place to place, while most bells can only go back and forth--and they can't even do that on their own power. On top of that, the Easter Bunny has character; he's someone you'd like to meet and shake hands with. A bell has all the personality of a cast-iron skillet. It's like saying that come Christmas, a magic dustpan flies in from the North Pole, led by eight flying cinder blocks. Who wants to stay up all night so they can see a bell? And why fly one in from Rome when they've got more bells than they know what to do with right here in Paris? That's the most implausible aspect of the whole story, as there's no way the bells of France would allow a foreign worker to fly in and take their jobs. That Roman bell would be lucky to get work cleaning up after a French bell's dog--and even then he'd need papers. It just didn't add up.
Nothing we said was of any help to the Moroccan student. A dead man with long hair supposedly living with her father, a leg of lamb served with palm fronds and chocolate. Confused and disgusted, she shrugged her massive shoulders and turned her attention back to the comic book she kept hidden beneath her binder. I wondered then if, without the language barrier, my classmates and I could have done a better job making sense of Christianity, an idea that sounds pretty far-fetched to begin with.
In communicating any religious belief, the operative word is faith, a concept illustrated by our very presence in that classroom. Why bother struggling with the grammar lessons of a six-year-old if each of us didn't believe that, against all reason, we might eventually improve? If I could hope to one day carry on a fluent conversation, it was a relatively short leap to believing that a rabbit might visit my home in the middle of the night, leaving behind a handful of chocolate kisses and a carton of menthol cigarettes. So why stop there? If I could believe in myself, why not give other improbabilities the benefit of the doubt? I accepted the idea that an omniscient God had cast me in his own image and that he watched over me and guided me from one place to the next. The virgin birth, the resurrection, and the countless miracles--my heart expanded to encompass all the wonders and possibilities of the universe.
A bell, though, that's f#@*%! up.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Engaging and disagreeing with people smarter than me.
So I am going to a lecture by N.T. Wright tonight and needless to say I am very excited. He is currently at my Seminary teaching some doctoral classes. N.T. Wright is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and he is one of the foremost New Testament Scholars. He’s a huge voice in Church at large and a positive one most of the time. His current most popular book is Surprised by Hope where he has a lot of engaging and helpful insights into the reality of Heaven and Hell. Increasingly I am growing more cautious and critical of what I accept and believe. (A positive thing I think) What I mean to say is, that a few years ago if I were to pick up a Christian book I would have most likely assumed that what was written was truth and thus biblically sound. Maybe this was just ignorance or the lacking of knowledge or skill to dissent with, what I consider in some cases, superior minds. I am not saying I would have swallowed any normal Jacks writings but those of legitimate scholarly and pastoral writers.
I guess it hit me last year when I was in Cambridge and I was rereading Mere Christianity for a course on Lewis. A little background, I have loved C.S. Lewis from before I could read! Once I rediscovered his writings in high school I realized he wrote more than stories about Lions and mice. I pretty much spent two years of high school reading Lewis’ apologetic and theological works. The thought had honestly never occurred to me that I could disagree with what he was writing. The last year while reading Mere Christianity (a beautiful book – that came out of a serious of broadcasts from WWII) I realized that I didn’t agree with a lot of what Lewis was writing. I guess had two great shocks that day while sitting in a coffee shop. The first was that it was ok for me to disagree with somebody, no matter how much I respected them. The second shock was that I was capable of dissenting on a scholarly level. It was scary and encouraging to realize that I was capable to be and have my own mind. I guess that is when I started taking my potential as a student and teacher (in a broad sense).
Anyway I say all this because I am really excited about going to see N.T. Wright tonight. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him; I mean I have been using some of his books for recourses for my earliest writings in undergrad. It’s really refreshing to use resources of people who aren’t dead sometimes. The point of this entry is to state that I know I may not agree with everything Wright says tonight but I thank God that he has granted me the ability to go tonight and have an open mind and take in what he says and weigh it against the knowledge that has been granted to me from above (not in a Gnostic sense but a Holy Spirit/Biblical sense).
John Piper, as the three people who read this blog know, is somewhat my pastoral hero! Not many people have the chops/bravery to write like he does, let alone to write a book disagreeing with someone as notable as N.T. Wright. Piper wrote a book called, The future of Justification: a response to N.T. Wright. Piper mostly takes issue with Wright’s stance on Justification. In an interview Piper responded with this:
"N.T. Wright says things like we will be justified in the last day on the basis of the whole life lived. Now he may not mean what that sounds like it means. But it sounds like it means, and will be taken to mean, what Roman Catholicism really says it means, namely that justification is our becoming righteous ourselves, so that our acts of obedience are part of the ground by which God accepts us.
What I want to say is that at the moment when we put our childlike faith in Jesus Christ, he became our punishment and our obedience. That is, at that moment he became the obedience required for God to be totally for us.
Therefore, the very thing that N.T. Wright and others are wanting to accomplish, namely an engaged, bold, loving, sacrificial, mission-oriented church will cease to be that, just like the mainline churches have ceased to be dynamic forces in the world, because they threw away the essence of certain crucial doctrines. You don’t see it now, because N.T. Wright himself is such a good embodiment of engagement, but I’m saying that some of the things he says have the trajectory that if they’re followed out, are going to in fact undermine the very thing he wants to accomplish, namely, a sacrificially loving church.
So that’s what’s at stake. It’s a huge issue for me, and I hope the book will have some influence on him to get him to say some things better and more clearly. And I hope it will have influence on those who are reading him, so that they are not as inclined to follow his way of thinking about justification as they might have been."
I am excited about tonight!
I guess it hit me last year when I was in Cambridge and I was rereading Mere Christianity for a course on Lewis. A little background, I have loved C.S. Lewis from before I could read! Once I rediscovered his writings in high school I realized he wrote more than stories about Lions and mice. I pretty much spent two years of high school reading Lewis’ apologetic and theological works. The thought had honestly never occurred to me that I could disagree with what he was writing. The last year while reading Mere Christianity (a beautiful book – that came out of a serious of broadcasts from WWII) I realized that I didn’t agree with a lot of what Lewis was writing. I guess had two great shocks that day while sitting in a coffee shop. The first was that it was ok for me to disagree with somebody, no matter how much I respected them. The second shock was that I was capable of dissenting on a scholarly level. It was scary and encouraging to realize that I was capable to be and have my own mind. I guess that is when I started taking my potential as a student and teacher (in a broad sense).
Anyway I say all this because I am really excited about going to see N.T. Wright tonight. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him; I mean I have been using some of his books for recourses for my earliest writings in undergrad. It’s really refreshing to use resources of people who aren’t dead sometimes. The point of this entry is to state that I know I may not agree with everything Wright says tonight but I thank God that he has granted me the ability to go tonight and have an open mind and take in what he says and weigh it against the knowledge that has been granted to me from above (not in a Gnostic sense but a Holy Spirit/Biblical sense).
John Piper, as the three people who read this blog know, is somewhat my pastoral hero! Not many people have the chops/bravery to write like he does, let alone to write a book disagreeing with someone as notable as N.T. Wright. Piper wrote a book called, The future of Justification: a response to N.T. Wright. Piper mostly takes issue with Wright’s stance on Justification. In an interview Piper responded with this:
"N.T. Wright says things like we will be justified in the last day on the basis of the whole life lived. Now he may not mean what that sounds like it means. But it sounds like it means, and will be taken to mean, what Roman Catholicism really says it means, namely that justification is our becoming righteous ourselves, so that our acts of obedience are part of the ground by which God accepts us.
What I want to say is that at the moment when we put our childlike faith in Jesus Christ, he became our punishment and our obedience. That is, at that moment he became the obedience required for God to be totally for us.
Therefore, the very thing that N.T. Wright and others are wanting to accomplish, namely an engaged, bold, loving, sacrificial, mission-oriented church will cease to be that, just like the mainline churches have ceased to be dynamic forces in the world, because they threw away the essence of certain crucial doctrines. You don’t see it now, because N.T. Wright himself is such a good embodiment of engagement, but I’m saying that some of the things he says have the trajectory that if they’re followed out, are going to in fact undermine the very thing he wants to accomplish, namely, a sacrificially loving church.
So that’s what’s at stake. It’s a huge issue for me, and I hope the book will have some influence on him to get him to say some things better and more clearly. And I hope it will have influence on those who are reading him, so that they are not as inclined to follow his way of thinking about justification as they might have been."
I am excited about tonight!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
