42

The feminization of the church - a modern day fix

Some gems in here (plus some bits that might male you laugh): Women In Ministry » The feminization of the church - a modern day fix.

[Update: leaving the typo of "male" instead of "make" because it amuses me]

The oldest injustice

Although I scan it, I don't often write about God's Politics: A Blog by Jim Wallis & Friends mainly I guess because there are so mnay posts there I struggle to keep up.

Anyway, today a post by Eugene Cho caught my eye:

In every culture and in every part of the world, this injustice is present. What is the oldest injustice in the world?

It is the way that “we” view, treat, and oppress women.

It is a great post that I commend to you: Oppression of Women: The Oldest Injustice in Human History

Included in it is a quote from an email Eugene received from a woman after a sermon he preached, here is part of it:

But at one point today, you said, “Women, you were created equal to men in the image of God.” I mainly write because I don’t know if you realize how powerful that statement was. I don’t know if you realized what it would feel like to hear that statement coming from a man — what it would mean to me, and possibly to other individual women and men. You didn’t even say it to me individually … I have never been told by a man, Christian or not, that I am equal to him. I have never been told by a man that I am equal to him. And equal in that we are both created in the image of God … I cried all the way home. How is it that I’ve never been told by a male person that I am equal to him? That I am equally beautiful and broken? That we are both created in the image of God?

I have a mixed response. Part of me wants to leap for joy and praise God that someone heard a Christian message that had such a deep impact. Another part of me wants to crawl into a hole and cry because it had taken so long for that woman to hear that message.

I thank God for the ministry of Eugene and I pray that I too may point people to the life, hope, freedom, justice, mercy, compassion, peace, healing and joy that knowing God can bring them no matter what their gender, ethnicity, culture, sexuality, ...

unchristian

In unchristian, Matthew comments on his reading of unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity… and Why It Matters by David Kinnaman.

He notes that Christianity is perceived (I guess with a US focus) as

1. Hypocritical, that Christians try to portray themselves as morally superior, with a polished image that is inaccurate, and that churches convey an image that they exist only for virtuous and pure people.
2. Too focused on getting converts, and not actually caring about people or loving people as they are. Instead, people feel treated only like targets for conversion and (often rightly) question Christians’ motives in interaction with them.
3. Antihomosexual, bigoted and fixated on “curing” homosexuals while also leveraging political solutions against them.
4. Sheltered, old-fashioned, and out of touch with reality, preferring simplistic solutions and answers to a genuinely complex reality.
5. Too political, overly motivated by a political agenda that puts personal beliefs and preferences above valuing others, preferring to represent issues and fight over them instead of engaging in dialogue and working with others to find workable and acceptable solutions to real problems.
6. Judgmental, not honest about attitudes and perspectives about others, and it is doubted whether Christians really love people as we say we do, at least those who disagree with us.

Matthew's thoughts on these are well worth reading.

I wonder to what extent the UK is different from the US and how other parts of Europe would fare.

I also wonder what people are doing about this?

The kind of faith we want

Adrian Warnock quotes a South African New Frontiers leader

Do you want that kind of faith that pleases God ...  and violently advances the kingdom of God?

My response. Absolutely not.

My prayer is that we can learn from the Word, from Christ himself to renounce violence as he did. To learn from him that his kingdom is one of peace, mercy, compassion, love, faithfulness and hope where violence has no place.

Talk of violently advancing  the kingdom of God has no place whatsoever in Christian teaching. Not only is it not of the kingdom but in today's climate it is positively dangerous. We only have to think about how many terrorists has believed they were advancing the kingdom of God.

To be as fair as possible here is a fuller quote to judge context.

"The Word will bring you faith. Romans 10:17 makes this one crystal clear. Do you want that kind of faith that pleases God, causes the impossible to become the possible, moves mountains, destroys satanic strongholds, and violently advances the kingdom of God? It comes from hearing and hearing and hearing and hearing the things that God has to say!

From: P-J Smyth - E-books and Sermons From a Newfrontiers Church in Johannesburg.

Oh and by the way we could also discuss much else about the use of this text. For example it separates Jesus and the Bible in an unhelpful way (one that is incompatible with the prologue to John's gospel as one example). It also does not support the central point that he is trying to make (that it is the word that brings faith). See Romans 10:17:

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

The "word about Christ" here cannot mean the Bible. The context surrounding it makes that clear, plus of course there is the minor detail that the Bible was not yet available (you have to take the very earliest possible dates of the gospels to believe any had even been written, given the lack of interest in any of the details of the life of Jesus it seems unlikely Paul was reading them).

Instead the focus is on faith coming from hearing about Christ. Hearing rather than reading.

No I won't be rushing to read this book or listen to these sermons (at least not to help me grow in faith).

Circuit Mens breakfast

It is now 3:10am and in 20mins I will be driving five men from the Nene Valley Circuit away for a Circuit mens breakfast with a difference.

We are off to the Whitechapel Mission in London to cook breakfast for up to 200 people who are homeless.

Note five because that is all that is needed rather than all that is available.

The car is packed with clothing, food and toiletries from people all over the circuit.

Sadly it is rather foggy so not expecting a nice journey.

I will be back for the opening service of the 24/7 prayer room in Thrapston at 2pm.

[Update] 1:10pm

Back home. Cooked breakfast for 120. Busy but good time.

The end of Adrian Warnock on Penal Substitution

So today we have (at last) reached the end of another series by Adrian Warnock that attacks Steve Chalke.

When you start critiquing a series that is in progress there is always the worry that the best arguments will come last, that you will look a fool for standing against the start of the series because the end is totally convincing.

I want to thank Adrian for not embarrassing me in that way.

He has been very careful to save no arguments of any substance at all for the last two posts of this series. So if you were expecting Steve Chalke's Further Arguments Against Penal Substitution to actually contain a rebuttal of a range of extra arguments by Steve then you are going to be disappointed. In fact it reminds my of a large firework display set to music where the fireworks run out just as the most dramatic music for the climax to the show starts.

I would rebute the arguments in Adrians post, but there aren't any to rebute. Just waffle and an amusing misreading of Steve Chalke. Steve apparently wrote:

So, whilst I applaud these attempts to manufacture a kind of “penal substitution theory lite”—some of which will, no doubt, be presented in other contributions to this book—in my view, what we need is not a reworking but a renunciation”

Adrian seems to struggle with the meaning of applaud as he writes:

Chalke and I do agree on at least one thing. PSA should not be softened.

No Adrian, read the sentence again, look up applaud in a dictionary and realise that Steve does not believe that PSA should not be softened. He believes that it should be completely rejected as while people are doing good work to reform it the job is impossible.

Adrian's other post is Steve Chalke and Neglect of the Resurrection which could be titled "Steve is right on the neglect of the resurrection by all evangelicals except me (Adrian), so buy my new book".  Of course you need to remember that this book on the resurrection is being written by someone who stands almost entirely alone in believing that God killed Jesus: "Did God Kill Jesus?" Am I Really Alone?.

I will be getting a copy of Zondervan's The Atonement Debate so hopefully we can get a fuller picture of the other chapters and pick out a little more balanced view of Steve's chapter.

Boundaries That Protect

I left some comments on Role Calling: Boundaries That Protect Your Marriage but they seem to have not made it through moderation. So here are some thoughts.

Boundaries are vital, but they need to be there to protect more than your marriage! They need to protect all people involved in a situation.

I am concerned that several of the rules suggested in the post are not appropriate. The key concerns relate to confidentiality and discipline. Others relate to significant oversights and a perception of a dead rule based life

Much of the time it is important that people know that what they say will be treated in confidence. I cannot offer someone a confidential hearing and then discuss it with my spouse. Churches will learn very quickly if their confidences are respected by their minister, if the spouse knows things that were told to the minister in confidence then the trust relationship breaks down very quickly and it is very hard to recover from.

This is related to the issue of discipline. The spouse is not (generally) a paid member of staff, they are not covered by insurance. As they are not employed they are not covered by the disciplinary processes of the Church. People can say things to me knowing that I am under the discipline of the church, within its supervision. If I pass these onto my spouse they are no longer held within that authority and process. Nobody is accountable, nobody is protected.

Finally the whole set of rules make the huge assumption that everyone is only heterosexual. In other words a male minister only needs special rules for relationships with women and vica versa. That does not happen to bear much similarity with the world (even if many wish it were so).

Anyway a few comments on parts of some of the specific rules.

1. We will not ride alone in a car with a person of the opposite sex. Okay, yes, I will ride alone with my mom, but you know what I mean. I heard Dr. Daniel Akin say to a bunch of pastors, "You will never have an affair if you are never alone with another woman."

If we quickly move on from the incorrect assumption that all pastors/ministers are male.

This rule is not practicable in a setting such as ours. I totally agree caution is needed in being alone but the nature of the work in this setting means it is inevitable. So instead we put in place safeguards (visibility, supervision etc).

I also want to challenge at least a little the model of humanity that underpins this rule. It seems to be a view that will lead to a very impoverished life.

2. We will not counsel someone of the opposite sex behind closed doors

a) I remain unconvinced that ministers/pastors should be counsellors (in the full sense)

b) Something more like "We will remain visible when with only one person." This seems to reflect reality (glass partitions) and avoids some clearly wrong situations that meet the rule (being upstairs in a home where there are bedrooms but thinking it is ok because the doors are open).

3. I copy my wife on e-mails to women

Absolutely not. This breaks confidentiality and puts my spouse in a very difficult situation where they will know things they should not know. Instead the church should have proper supervision, confidentiality and privacy policies and procedures.

4. I tell my wife about conversations that I have with women over the phone. I lead a care group for our college ministry, so occasionally a college girl will call to speak with me. I try to not be on the phone long and direct all counseling to my bride.

Absolutely not. I wonder if this comes from a world where there are few women in the workplace. I speak to women on the phone all the time (funeral directors, headteachers, marriage registrars, mayors, organists, the chair of our district, local preachers, Church Members, people wanting funerals/baptisms/weddings...).

Neither I nor my spouse offer full counselling (not part of our calls or gifting and not part of the role of a Methodist Minister).

5. I have a weekly accountability meeting with a friend who is willing to ask me any hard questions. My wife walks with a close friend 2 to 3 days a week, so she also has regular accountability.

I agree but would go further I believe that paid staff should have professional supervision, reflective practice groups and spiritual direction provided and paid for by the Church.

Sorry but I got bored with the rules at that point. Some people obviously have a lot more time on their hands than we do. The thought of Jane's reaction to a suggestion she edit Cycling Weekly before I read it or sit and watch the same films as me is very amusing (not that I am going to make the suggestion - far too dangerous). Not quite sure how I could do any work for half the day when Jane is out at work herself if I could not use the internet - on the other hand maybe it could be a good excuse to slow down a lot.

Sub-Biblical arguments against Steve Chalke

I wonder if you were wondering if I would do it again. Well the answer is yes, my excuse is that Adrian has done it again: THE ATONEMENT DEBATE - Steve Chalke Argues Against Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

This time we see Adrian's breath been taken away by Steve's audacity in using the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the New Testament.

Chalke sidesteps the issue of the wrath of God by attempting to remove the issue of the sacrifices of the Old Testament from the discussion

Well no. What in fact happens is that Adrian again tries to change the definition of Evangelical by claiming that infallibility is part of the definition. Sorry to keep doing this to you Adrian, but again check the Evangelical Alliance definition and you will discover infallible isn't there.

Then Adrian does several of those sub-biblical tricks we have come to expect.

First he ignores Scripture, missing out the parts that don't support his point. Try Amos 5:21-22, 24
    ²¹ "I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
       I cannot stand your assemblies.

    ²² Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
       I will not accept them.
       Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
       I will have no regard for them.

    ²³ Away with the noise of your songs!
       I will not listen to the music of your harps.

    ²⁴ But let justice roll on like a river,
       righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Or Hosea 6:6
    For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
       and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings.

Or Isaiah 1:11,17
    ¹¹ "The multitude of your sacrifices—
       what are they to me?" says the LORD.
       "I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
       of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
       I have no pleasure
       in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
...
    ¹⁷ learn to do right!
       Seek justice,
       encourage the oppressed.
       Defend the cause of the fatherless,
       plead the case of the widow.

Second, he ignores context and culture. In particularly what were the sacrifices for and how did they work (see J Denny Weaver "The Nonviolent Atonement" 2001 p58). Many sacrifices were fellowship offerings, for thanksgiving and celebration. The sacrifices included grain and for the worst offences sacrifice was not used but a scapegoat.

Thirdly, he misses any alternative interpretations for example simply note that in Hebrews Jesus is the High Priest ie the one who makes the offering not the one who is offered - in fact it is a self-offering. Again J Denny Weaver has plenty of properly cited evidence for a different reading of Hebrews to Adrian's simplisitc noticing the word sacrifice and taking that into Penal Substitution. Sadly for Adrian even the texts he chooses do not support his own case. Hebrews 9:26 makes it clear that we are talking about a self sacrifice not a punishment applied by God.

Near the start of his post Adrian writes:

One of my major concerns about this whole debate is what a rejection of PSA does to our view of the Bible.

Absolutely it challenges a simplisitic partial reading of Scripture in favour of a thorough and respectful dialogue with the whole of Scripture - a truely evangelical approach to scripture. What a wonderful idea that is, for me the wonder of opening up models of atonement and considering others besides Penal Substitution is that we find new ways of understanding God that are far more in tune with Jesus the Son of God as revealed in Scripture. Go on try it, I promise the view on this side of the fence is fantastic. What a wonderful loving God we serve!

News catchup

Lots of News from Raunds Methodist Church and the Nene Valley Circuit.

New Superintendent: Rev Peter McNeill will be joining the circuit on 1st September 2009 as Superintendent (subject to conference and wot not). Very much looking forward to working with Peter (who I met for lunch on Saturday) and his fiancée Julie. Peter is coming from the Southampton Circuit where his appointment has been divided between circuit ministry and University Chaplaincy.

No Sunday Service in Raunds on 23rd November. We are all going by coach to the National Methodist Youth Conference for morning worship as some of the young people from our church and circuit are leading the worship.

Raunds Town Carol Celebration: We have been busy ion discussions with the other Churches, Council, Temperance Band and Chamber of Commerce. We are delighted that the Town Carol Service will now take place in the Town Square at 4:15pm on December 7th just before the Christmas Lights are turned on. The Temperance Band will be playing.

CAP Money Course in Raunds. Raunds Methodist Church are working with the Surestart Childrens Centre to run a CAP Money Course in raunds in their building on Tuesday afternoons.Three sessions starting 20th January at 1pm.

Raunds Churches Christmas Card: Reminder to self, got to get done this week - eek!

[Updated] Corrected date of Carol Service - thanks Olive!

The problem of one way streets

In a comment (42: Back on form: disagreeing) "Blue, with a hint of amber" asks if I would let Adrian 'Do the ''Why did Jesus die?" talk on your Alpha Course?'

I have answered in quite a long comment but it reminds me that we live in a one way street and Adrian sees himself as a traffic cop keeping it that way.  What do I mean?

• I have no problem with Adrian calling himself an evangelical BUT Adrian has many problems with me calling myself an Evangelical.
• I recognise the ministry of pastors within New Frontiers and I will work with them BUT Adrian does not recognise the ministry of women Methodist Ministers and groups he supports (Together for the Gospel) will not work with them. My understanding is that NFI is mixed on the issue, it seems some pastors will work with ministers who are women from denominations but others won't.
• In every theological debate over the years Adrian has taken an exclusive position. He decides that traffic from positions he does not agree with will not be allowed along the street. I have tried to consistently do the opposite, I do not believe or accept many of Adrian's theological positions but I have tried to never exclude him from any part of the Christian community because of our differences.

So friends from NFI (Adrian, Bwahoa, Phil, Bluefish etc) what about it? Can you answer Adrian's question as I have?

how closely can we work together with people who vehemently disagree with us?

Are you going to let us in and along the street? Or is your Christianity all one way?

Development is not evangelical and other arguments of straw

I have discovered yet another reason why I am not an evangelical using the Adrian Warnock formula (motto: evangelicals are Christians who agree with me).

It all becomes clear when you read his latest diatribe on atonement: THE ATONEMENT DEBATE - Steve Chalke Confirms He Does Not Believe in Penal Substitution.

An underlying message is: You are not an evangelical if your faith develops especially if your understanding changes at all.

I could suggest some slogans:

• Evangelicals don't change
• Warning you are entering a no thinking zone
• I used to be an evangelical but then I changed my views on whether bread should be sliced or not

This comes from Adrian's paragraph that attempts to tear apart Tom Wright and Steve Chalke. He tries to build something out of nothing by not recognising that all our views change and develop, we do not always present ourselves in exactly the same way. Adrian seems to be trying to drive a wedge between them by ignoring that fact that all our understanding is provisional and that those who think and reflect on their understanding of God will move onward in their theology. It appears that Adrian thinks such reflection and development is wrong.

One comment by Adrian "To be honest, sometimes Wright can be hard to fathom and it takes great patience to dissect him fully" reminded me of someone else. Ah yes 2 Peter 3:15-16:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Remember that at this point Adrian is struggling for arguments. He has tried to claim that Steve Chalke cannot be an evangelical because he does not believe in penal substitution BUT that argument fails. The Evangelical Alliance (in their basis of faith, in their historical summary of what an evangelical is and in the book he is reviewing [see 42: Back on form: defining evangelical]) are consistent that Penal Substitution is not part of the definition however much Adrian wants it to be.

So now Adrian is hunting around for other reasons. Here we have had multiple arguments of straw.

• Steve used powerful imagery ("cosmic child abuse") in presenting arguments against penal substitution. Solution: attack the language while ignoring the argument.
• Steve may or may not agree with Tom Wright on Penal Substitution. Solution: Accuse them of changing their thinking. Accuse Tom Wright of being difficult to fully understand (a terrible offence because of course everything about the creator of the universe is plain and simple - well as long as you don't actually think about it).
• He disagrees with a book Adrian likes. Solution tell everyone they must buy this book, pretend it answers all their questions. Make sure it is a thick book that is hard to get hold of and ignore the powerful critiques of it. Note I have read Pierced for our Transgressions, I wrote quite a few posts on it and totally agree with Tom Wright that it is “deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical”. Interestingly enough in his post Adrian comments on how well John Piper dissects Tom Wright, interesting because I dissected John Pipers forward to Pierced for our transgressions in detail: 42: PFOT: The Foreword by John Piper and 42: PFOT: The Foreword part 2 it uses scripture in a way that I can only describe as bizarre.
• Knowing that you hold an extreme view, ignore that and instead claim that almost everyone agrees with you "he then goes on to explain why he does not believe in PSA as almost everyone would define it." Of course be careful to to think about what a small subsection of society, of Christians, of protestants and even of evangelicals you actually mean by "almost everyone"
  

Tune in tomorrow because apparently there is more! Maybe we might even get a credible argument (please don't hold your breath - it could be dangerous).

Back on form: defining evangelical

One more post on Adrian's comment on: 42: Back on form through atonement. There Adrian wrote:

I think there is an interesting issue here about what is the definition of an evangelical

I don't agree and am going to respond first with a repost (see 42: Unattractive Restoration Confusion):

The "classic" view of what evangelicalism is. From the Evangelical Alliance: What is an Evangelical?.

Against this historical and theological background, the following five points, adapted from key studies of the movement by David Bebbington and Alister McGrath, represent a workable summary of Evangelical characteristics:

• Biblicism - Through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the God who is objectively 'there' has revealed universal and eternal truth to humankind in such a way that all can grasp it.
• Christocentrism - God's eternal Word became human in the historical man Jesus of Nazareth, who definitively reveals God to humanity.
• Crucicentrism - The good news of God's revelation in Christ is seen supremely in the cross, where atonement was made for people of every race, tribe and tongue.
• Conversionism - The truth of the eternal gospel must be appropriated in personal faith, which comes through repentance - that is, a discernible reorientation of the
  sinner's mind and heart towards God.
• Activism - Gospel truth must be demonstrated in evangelism and social service.

Secondly, Adrian's post makes clear that it is entirely deliberate that the Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith does not explicitly mention Penal Substitution.

So no I do not think there is anything interesting at all in trying to change the commonly accepted understanding of evangelical in order to fit with Adrian's own view.

Thank you Josephine

Today was one of those days I dread.

Yes I had to go to the Dentist for some work to be done (2 fillings).

But now I would like to thank Josephine because she pumped so many injections into me that I did not feel a thing. In fact I think I must have dozed off during the process as I was vaguely aware at one point of a tap on my cheek and I thought I heard her say "Shall we wake him up?".

It might not be the mark of a good preacher to have people doze off, but for a dentist I don't think you can get much better!

Back on form: disagreeing

Adrian has commented on 42: Back on form through atonement. His comment includes:

how closely can we work together with people who vehemently disagree with us.

I suggest taking the example of Jesus. Consider:

• the variety among his disciples. For example on the issue of responding to the Roman occupation, he had collaborators (tax collectors) and those supporting terrorism (Simon the Zealot). Clearly they would have violently disagreed on issues.
• the sermon on the mount, we see no hint of disengagement from our enemies - presumably they would count amongst those we really, really strongly disagree with :-) Instead we are to love them.
• the relationship between Jews and Samaritans, whole cultures locked into a cycle of strong disagreement and rejection. In response to that see John 4 (Woman at the well) and Luke 10 (Good Samaritan).
• the way Jesus continues to respond to the questioning from the Pharisees and Sadducees. Sure he disagreed with them, sure he knew they were trying to trap him, sure he warned people about them. But through all that he continued to engage with them, demonstrating through his answers a better way.

In particular I want to refer to Matthew 18:15-19, I have mentioned this passage before. Some Mennonites led a day on conflict resolution during my training. One particular aspect has stuck with me. Towards the end (verses 16 & 17) when someone is doing wrong and has not listened or changed throughout the process then you are to tell the Church and treat them as you would a pagan or tax collector.

Now that bit is the crunch. Treat them as you would a pagan or tax collector. Explicitly Adrian's response matches the religious authorities of the time and those throughout most of Christendom ie if they won't listen then tell the Church and cut them off, have nothing more to do with them (in Adrian's terms stop working with those that we violently disagree with - like Steve Chalke).

BUT the passage is Jesus speaking. When Jesus says "Treat them as you would a pagan or tax collector" obviously we are to understand "Treat them as I [Jesus] would a pagan or tax collector". How does Jesus treat pagans and tax collectors? Try the story of Zaccheus - Jesus invites himself to the houses of pagans and tax collectors, he eats with them (and gets the religious authorities really hot under the collar by doing so - "He even eats with tax collectors and sinners").

So Adrian, let us take a Jesus model for deciding how closely we should work with those with whom we vehemently disagree with. Therefore a challenge. How many of those who stand against Penal Substitution have you invited to your home to eat with? How many have you sought out and asked to share fellowship with? How many have you been to and asked to pray with, to worship with?

In my own experience this is a regular occurrence in Church ministry. Take, as one example, a friend of mine, the local Catholic Priest. We very vehemently disagree on a number of issues (role of women, homosexuality, authority of the Church as three examples). But we still delight in working together, in publ;ic and private. We share leading groups in Thrapston and Raunds (with all the other local churches). We both know that in any meeting we can simply ask the other to lead some prayers at a moments notice and relax in trusting the other. We share meals together, we discuss these issues and many others. We seek to support and encourage each other in our ministries both privately and publicly.

The point is not to say that either of us are special, or unique but that this is the normal working out of Christian faith, of attempting to show (even if in a very limited way) the grace that God has already shown us. The nature of blogging all to often hides this, encouraging people to move to the extremes in order to boost their stats (been there, done that, got the tshirt).

Birds Eye: Birds Hands

I have been following PhotoshopDisasters for a week or two, it provides for some entertainment (particularly the comments - people get all stressed at the most amazing things). Anyway I thought Birds Eye: Birds Hands was a pretty good disaster (look at the lady's right arm and hands for the most obvious problem).

Back on form through atonement

I have been fairly quiet on the blogging front for a while so what better way to work my way back into form by vehemently disagreeing with Adrian Warnock.

I have just read adrianwarnock.com: Update on Steve Chalke and The Atonement Debate and suggest taking tablets for your blood pressure would be a good idea before reading it :-)

Adrian is critiquing a book published by Zondervan called "The Atonement Debate", I find the tone of the post rather depressing and frustrating.

To be honest, when I heard this book was going to be “cool-headed” I was already concerned about it. I'm not sure the atonement is a subject that it's possible to be terribly cool about. That's because another word for cool is lukewarm. Jesus hates us to be lukewarm about crucial issues, even threatening to spit the lukewarm from his mouth (Revelation 3).

For a start I think it would be helpful if Adrian stuck to a more standard understanding of the common expression "cool-headed". It does not mean lukewarm, it means calm, collected and in this context thoughtful and the result of considered reflection. To equate that to a Church that has lost it's zeal and fire for God and for kingdom values is ridiculous. After a period of calm following strong disagreement the very last thing needed is Adrian trying to stir things up in this way.

I much prefer interacting with someone who is either hot or cold about important issues like this.

Dave's cynical interpretation. I get many more hits on my blog when I stir things up than when I reflect calmly.

I can't see how people who really believe either of those two positions can just agree to disagree and work together as fellow evangelicals.

Wow this Gospel of reconciliation is a pretty weak and feeble thing isn't it. Not very impressive at all. Adrian believes that without accepting his understanding of the Cross the gospel is nothing at all. Yet his understanding of the reconciliation between us and God achieved through the cross is not enough to motivate him to attempt reconciliation over a point of doctrine. Who exactly does this gospel encourage Adrian to work for reconciliation with?

In his final paragraph Adrian recognises that this book is written to help evangelicals understand the debate and then move on. His response is commit himself to wrecking that in future posts.

Well thank-you very much Adrian, I am sure we are all grateful for your attempts to break up reconciliation between evangelical Christians.

[Update] Corrected some English - I blame a visit to the dentist for my inability to form coherent sentences.

10 ways to amuse a geek

10 ways to amuse a geek made me laugh.

Good News

After very pointed comments recently from my Mother-in-law and adopted honorary Mother-in-law (Sylvia C) I have been focusing a little attention on my weight and have joined a gym.

Today I took one of their personal fitness evaluations. They used some very fancy scales which apparently electrocuted me while measuring lots of different things, maybe I am already dead because I didn't feel a thing.

Anyway I have a page of results that say I officially not in too bad shape. According to something I have the body of a 41 year old (not bad for approaching 44) - maybe I was virtual for the first 3 years.

It is interesting to note that some BMI calculations had told me I was obese and should weigh about the same as the weight of my bones according to this test. Something must be wrong, either with these fancy tests or with people that think to become healthy I should be reduced to just a skeleton (I could understand some of my congregations thinking that I would be less trouble as a skeleton - maybe they have influence over the BMI recomendations).

Until this afternoon my target was to lose 1.5kg per month for 14 months. However, that would leave me with a total weight of bones + 5.5kg. I must say that 5.5kg does not sound like very much for brain, heart, skin and hair let alone any muscle or other bits I might need. For the minute I will aim for a 1.5kg reductiuon each month for 7 months which will take me back to a weight I can nearly remember being at :-) Then we can see if my bones have also become significantly lighter leaving scope for weight lose in easier ways than cutting out ribs.

All in all I left feeling somewhat better than before, which is good.

A switched on President- elect

Just look at this set of photos of Obama and family on results night: Election Night 11-04-08 - a set on Flickr. Talk about tuned into technology.

Flickr set of behind the scenes photos of Obama watching election results - Boing Boing.

Change.gov

I am very impressed by Change.gov. The speed it has been made available and the potential for a new way of doing business is great.

Hat tip: Change.gov - Boing Boing.