The Shack in Review

Stephen Shields, in another of his very helpful reviews and compendiums of what other people are saying on the internet, offers Some Thoughts on The Shack:

As of today, The Shack has been #1 on the New York Times Bestseller List for 36 straight weeks. At the time of this writing, The Shack was the #6 best-selling book of all categories on Amazon.com.

I cannot remember when I've finished a book and then promptly began it a second time the very next day, but that's exactly what I did with The Shack a couple of weeks ago. I finished my second reading of the book a few days ago.

I found the book to be quite powerful. Realizing that the book is controversial, I nevertheless am giving the book a qualified recommendation and am encouraging my friends to read it discerningly.

Some of the critiques that one reads of Young's work are theological. I do not believe it's invalid to criticize the theology behind a creative piece of fiction, but I do think it's unrealistic to expect comprehensive systematic theology from such a work. Some things are simply not addressed in a work of fiction that we would expect to be addressed in systematics. And so I'm hesitant to agree with those critiques that have foundation in a charge of incompleteness. Nevertheless, I did find theological shortcomings in the book and also appreciated other aspects of the work.

I did not agree with all of the comments in the book regarding authority and hierarchy. I got the impression from reading The Shack that all hierarchy is an unmitigated wrong. I, on the other hand, believe loving authority is not only legitimate on earth but that we also see it in the Godhead (in distinction from what Sarayu claims on p. 122).

I also was not sure what Young was getting at when he had Jesus say that He did not wish for folks to become Christians (p. 182). I have no problem with anyone saying that organized Christianity does not always equal true Christianity, but Jesus comments here seemed to be overstatement.

One critique of The Shack is that it promotes Ultimate Reconciliation (UR). When I read the book, I wondered about this myself. My feeling is that the book had the flavor of Ultimate Reconciliation. Moreoever, Young's story collaborator Wayne Jacobsen in his article Is THE SHACK Heresy? asserts earlier drafts of the the book did reflect William P. Young's leanings toward Ultimate Reconciliation at that time.

However, Jacobsen writes, "While some of that was in earlier versions because of the author’s partiality at the time to some aspects of what people call UR, I made it clear at the outset that I didn’t embrace UR as sound teaching and didn’t want to be involved in a project that promoted it." However, Jacobsen also implies in his article that the collaborative process itself had an affect on Young's theological views including, it would seem, any predispositions Young had toward UR. And I believe Young when I heard him say emphatically in interviews that he believes in Hell.

Regarding the critique that the book does not accurately convey the Trinity, for myself I was not looking for it to definitively portray the Trinity. It's a work of creative fiction and clearly the author took some liberties. When I have taught theology I have told my students that the day that I explain the Trinity to them in such a way that they go, "Ok, now I get it! That makes perfect sense" that is the day that they can be assured that I have no idea what I'm talking about. We should not be shocked that our finite minds cannot completely comprehend the One Who is infinite. And I felt that there was a definite tension in Young's portrayal of the Trinity that was consistent with the mystery of "God in three persons." But do I think Young got it right? No, of course not. But I do feel that he gave an interesting portrait of God.

One aspect of the book I appreciated was the honest treatment of the most difficult theological question encapsulated in Mackenzie's terrible tragedy: Why would a loving, all-powerful being allow six-year-old Missy to be brutally murdered? I was satisfied that Young did not attempt to provide a definitive theodicy but that in the book the author gave some hints toward an answer that had to do with humanity's freedom to choose. I personally believe that a completely satisfying theodicy is not possible this side of the Jordan. I appreciated that Young did not wrap this theological problem up in a artificially contrived bow.

But perhaps the aspect of the book I appreciated the most was the portrayal of God's personal involvement with Mack. I do believe that God's omnipotence implies his ability to deal with each of his creatures with loving individuality. It was moving to see Young's portrayal of this.

And so I found the book helpfully provocative but I am sensitive to, and in some cases sympathetic with, those who might critique its theology in places. I am also open to being shown that I have missed theological deficiencies in the book that should be highlighted.

But all these concerns expressed, I cautiously recommend The Shack as one way to helpfully challenge our paradigm of God in a way that might lead to a fuller understanding of Him.

Other Information Available Online About The Shack:

• You can learn more about William P. Young here.
  
  
• See a video of William P Young sharing the story behind the story.
  
  
• Mark Driscoll on The Shack (mostly critical)
  
  
• Wayne Jacobsen: Is The Shack Heresy? (mostly favorable)
  
  Jacobsen is an author who was one of Young's collaborators on the story and co-founded Windblown Media that publishes the book.
  
  
• Tim Challies' Review of The Shack (pdf) (mostly critical)
  
  
• Al Mohler on The Shack (audio) (mostly critical)
  
  
• Greg Boyd on The Shack (mostly favorable)
  
  
• Christianity Today Review: Fiction for the Faith-Starved by Cindy Crosby (mostly favorable)

---
Thanks, Stephen, for this helpful post!
-Bob
_

Byron Borger Gives Us a Shout-Out

Integrate: When Faith and Work Meet is coming up in a week and a half, and Byron Borger is writing about it at Hearts and Minds.

AND... He is offering a 20% Off Special!!

Check it Out:
InteGratE and Books on Work
_

A Comma or a Period?

Is God Still Speaking? And How Do We Know We Are Hearing God's Voice?

I’ve been intrigued by the promotional campaign, “God is Still Speaking,” which features a giant “Comma.” At the Still Speaking Store, you can buy banners, posters, apparel, party supplies, pens, and more with the Still Speaking logo.

This is the United Church of Christ's reaction to the conservative evangelical belief that God has already spoken in his Word, the Bible. It is a counter to the phrase often heard in conservative circles, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Period. Period. Period.

I have to admit that the "that settles it" approach is a very simple and narrow way of thinking about how God interacts with us. It is truncated and anemic. It is not a fully-formed theology of understanding how we interact with God’s Spirit as we are formed by the teaching of the Bible.

Most evangelicals believe that God does indeed still speak. At varying degrees, evangelicals believe in prophesy for today. At varying degrees, we believe that God speaks in and through culture and circumstances. At varying degrees, we believe that theology is a constant science of connecting the Bible to our contemporary culture and circumstance.

Admittedly, we evangelicals have a sad history of not being humble in our theological convictions. We tend to come to some theological conclusion and then draw a heavy line in the sand saying, "This is orthodoxy and can never change." But when we do this, it causes strife and division within our own community, creating new denominations based on every new line drawn in the sand. A new line is drawn, and a new denomination is born. Some Christians attempt to embrace the phrase, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity,” but we mostly fail miserably at it, for we all have different definitions of “essential” and “non-essential.”

I am sympathetic to the UCC’s new catch-phrase, “God is Still Speaking,” but I am also wary of it. The statement that accompanies the comma campaign is “No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you're welcome here.” In other words (and I don’t think I’m being presumptuous with this), if you are openly gay and want to continue in your lifestyle, the United Church of Christ can be your home.

The UCC is capitalizing on the fact that evangelical churches are known as not being welcoming to homosexuals. This is granted. It is also sad. Evangelical churches have struggled with balancing their proclamation of the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality with living out the Bible’s calling to welcome all sinners into the loving and transforming community of the Church.

But what the UCC is saying is that they have definitively heard the voice of God on this issue – that God is “still speaking,” and has said that homosexuality is not a sin after all.

I want to embrace the idea that “God is Still Speaking,” but I want to be sure that what we are hearing is not our own fallen notions of right and wrong, or worse yet, the voice of the deceiver, Satan.

How do we discern that what we are hearing is actually God speaking?

The only controls that I can think of are these: Scripture, Tradition, and Community – all working together in the on-going work of understanding what God is saying to us in our contemporary culture and circumstances.

Some who claim to be Christians put all their marbles in the bag of “Scripture” and disregard what the Church has always believed (ignoring tradition) and neglecting interacting with other members of the community of believers. This creates all-new ideas about the Bible's teaching and often results in division and strange and novel doctrines.

Others who claim to be Christians put all their marbles in the bag of “Tradition” and ignore that, often, their church tradition rubs against the Scriptures. The Bible can take a backseat to what the church's leadership says is doctrine, in spite of no solid biblical teaching on the tradition.

The UCC is putting all their marbles in the bag of “Community.” Since they, as a group, have decided that the loving thing to do is to never tell someone that homosexuality is a sin, then that trumps Scripture and Tradition.

This is a problem that I see rising up in the emerging church as well. We are not paying enough attention to all three controls for hearing God correctly. If we do not do so, we will fall into the same mistakes that have happened before.

And that is not very "emerging" at all!

Focus on the Family's THE TRUTH PROJECT

Does The Truth Project Have a Hidden Agenda? And If So, Is It Really Seeking "Truth?"

Many evangelical churches have been using Focus on the Family's new video curriculum, The Truth Project, taught by Dr. Del Tackett, in an attempt to educate their members in a Christian World View.

However, I think it would be wise for us to understand the manipulative slant that Focus on the Family gives in this video series.

Two bloggers that I just discovered take The Truth Project to task. Check out these insightful critiques of this series:

On not taking postmodernism seriously enough

This video highlights how unhelpful terms can be. "Postmodernism" according to Tackett is a false worldview that he groups next to "secular humanism," "Islam," among others. From my understandings, the philosophical foundations for this argument is not very accurate. Towards the end of the video the professor uses a chart which shows "Truth" on one side (what we're all after) and all the other "world views" on the other side throwing their lies at us, deceiving us. That is foundationalism. If we could just see those foundations, just weed out all the manipulations and half-truths and lies, we'd only be left with "truth." Tackett never addresses how we can do that when the only thing we have to work through are all those -isms and -ologies that shape our thinking.

On the nature of Man and God

His (Tackett's) discussion of sin was largely individualistic (our choices). His discussion of God was entirely individualistic (our own personal relationship). The remaining "pillars" that he sets out to address in the end of this series (economy, work, politics) are going to be malnourished because of this complete ignoring of the communal aspect of the essence of God: in theological jargon, a "functional trinitarian theology." This is where theology has moved in recent years, and to ignore it completely shows the reliance of antiquated, foundational modernistic philosophy underlying this entire video series.

On faith as it relates to science

The unfortunate aspect of the sessions are his insistently argumentative and combative tone when it comes to those to whom he disagrees - and in science he finds his enemy in Darwin. On several occasions, as he has throughout this series, he mocks and laughs at those who do not believe. If he had left the tone worshipful and awe-inspiring of the created order God has made . . . I would have nothing negative to say in regards to these two weeks. However, Tackett cannot leave it at that. He must deal with the "perniscious liars" who "manipulate truth" and are basically out to get us. I, again, cannot follow the rationale that gets him there. For Tackett, it's basically a black and white issue. God created everything (nearly, if not completey) literally as it is portrayed in the Bible. Anyone who sheds doubt on this fact is a pernicious liar and the Evil One has overtaken them. When you get through the two-week lesson you are led to believe that anyone who believes is evolution is completely ignorant and totally misled by the lies of the world. He, once again, builds up a strawman and blows him down.

On faith as it relates to history

I find it truly ironic that he accuses the "world" of myopia when that is exactly the problem I see inherent in his belief system in regards to history. He has a great moving moment in light of a painting of the Pilgrims and talks of the great sacrifices they made to follow what they thought of as God's will - coming to America, expanding the kingdom he even says. What a great people they were, following God's will even to the point of death from the elements. It's interesting that he determines that this is the meta-narrative, the guiding story and following of God's people that will lead no doubt to where he's headed with the session entitled the "Great American Experiment" looming. It was God's will that this nation was founded. Upon the great principles of God. Perhaps that discussion can be had in political circles - but NOT theological ones.

On how faith relates to work

I knew there would be some underlying agenda-driven points along the way. It met me squarely with this video on labor. Now, I do applaude the inclusion of this topic in the series. He is right that we too often do not speak of the place of labor in our theological framework. And for the first part of his video I felt he did a fair job of presenting a biblical perspective. Our role in work is rooted in God's working in the Genesis account. God worked. He created us to work. Work is not inherently evil. The Fall did affect work...
When he moves away from Genesis, however, he begins some hermentuetical gymnastics to make his right wing political ideology fit the Bible... Some of his statements and teachings in this series are downright misleading and un-biblical. I am flabergasted that he would spend 15 minutes of his hour long session on the gleanings passage and NEVER mention jubilee. Jesus reads from the text in Isaiah at the beginning of his ministry in Luke stating that he has come to fulfill this (in their hearing). Israel was intended to be built around the idea of redistrubtion of wealth - something he lists on the screen that the Bible teaches is a SIN! A sin! It is a biblical teaching! I'm not supporting socialism or anything like that . . . my point is that Tackett has allowed his culture to dictate his understanding of the text. The Bible does teach that this is a sin.

On "Culture" being evil and the enemy of Christianity

One of the first things the presenter does, and continues to do throughout the video, is refer to culture in a negative light. Culture is portrayed as "anti-God"... I think culture needs to be critiqued and looked at objectively, but it is neither good nor bad on its own. A demonizing of culture leads to an unhealthy view of those outside of the Christian subculture. This creates a fear response and often paranoia amongst many of the Christian populace.

On the purpose of Jesus' incarnation

At the beginning the presenter poses the question "Why did Jesus come into the World?" His "class" gave varied answers, many of which could be justified scripturally, but he stated that they were wrong (he might argue that they were wrong in reference to his particular scripture reference, but he never made that clear). He uses Jesus' statement in John to build his case. "In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37b
The video seeks to prove to the listener that Truth is the point of everything God ever did and that one is either for or against it. Much of his argument throughout the video relies on proof-texting. Henry Neufeld gives a good definition of proof-texting:

"By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances."

To discuss the scriptural reasons of why Jesus came would not have helped his argument. He wanted to divide everything into black and white terms. Therefore, other reasons were not mentioned and the answers of his class were dismissed.

Here are a couple of other reasons Jesus came: (these are just a few of the more blunt ones; inferred would be much longer)

• "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17
• "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst." 1 Timothy 1:15
• "Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrew 10:9-10
• "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." John 10:10
• "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."John 6:38
  

These scriptures, and others like them, do not lend themselves to drawing a line in the sand... The purpose of this video was to bifurcate (his word) humanity to those who follow the Truth (by his definition) and those who do not.

Have you seen The Truth Project? What have you thought of it?

Science Fiction - Religious Science

In the new issue of Christianity Today, the cover story is about Science Fiction and "how the genre draws us to its own views of redemption." The author, James A. Herrick, writes,

"Ironically, the universe that science stripped of the supernatural is being resupplied with deities and redemptive purposes by science fiction writers and moviemakers. Apparently, we cannot do without myths."

Having been a fan of the genre for most of my life, I am very in tune with this. And the future of Christian apologetics will need to address the counter-myths that our pop culture's sci-fi stories have created.

As Herrick says, pop culture is "now our most potent form of religious persuasion... Arguments against Christianity and in support of rival worldviews now arrive daily as embedded components of visual and written fiction. Pop-culture fiction, not academic nonfiction, is now the cutting edge of public discourse on spirituality."

I supported Obama, but not this...

As most of your know, I supported the election of Barack Obama during this past election. I felt that evangelicals could, in good conscience, vote for either Obama or McCain. For reasons why I felt evangelicals should vote for Obama, read this. For reasons why I felt evangelicals should vote for McCain, read this.

One of the main reasons that I said evangelicals should vote for McCain is that he has been consistently Pro-Life. I believe that a vast majority of Christians (of all denominations) who voted for McCain did so because of the abortion issue. For them, this crucial issue (protecting the lives of the unborn) trumped all other issues. While I did not agree that abortion was the single most important issue in this past election, I am sincerely sympathetic to this stand. After all, it is a devastating realization when one understands that there are over one million abortions each year. This is truly a travesty of justice.

So, I definitely believe that the center of the “Pro-Life” issue is a strong opposition to abortion. However, it also includes such issues as war, poverty, hunger, disease, an unjust legal system, and the environment. All these issues are a part of a holistic and consistent “Pro-Life” agenda. Therefore, Christians who see “Life” issues beyond the core issue of abortion law (i.e., Roe v. Wade) voted for Obama, believing that these many issues lead this way.

At the same time, it deeply troubled us that Obama was such an outspoken proponent of abortion-on-demand. We understand that he wants to honor a woman’s right to choose, because women have had their rights terribly trampled on for so very long. But we insist that women’s rights do not trump the unborns’ right to life. This is a difficult issue, but Christians, at our best, are a people who stand up for the needs of the oppressed and for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. We are to act for justice as we walk humbly with our God. The unborn are the most oppressed people in our society – their very lives are in danger due to an extremely unjust law in our land.

Prior to the election, Barack Obama spoke to Planned Parenthood (see the video below). He made a promise to them that they will expect him to keep. He said, “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”




For all the good that President Obama can do as an agent of change in our country, this one decision would be a devastating mistake.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections. FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions. FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions. Americans United for Life has analyzed FOCA and says that it is a “radical attempt to prematurely end debate over abortion.” Obama has said, time and time again, that he would like "to see an end to the culture wars." This is a very good suggestion, which Christians should embrace. We need to get past inflammatory rhetoric and partisan bickering. We need to seek cooperation as we seek the common good. However, with this issue, it seems that President Obama thinks that "ending the culture wars" means stopping debate in its tracks and forcefully eradicating every state and federal law on abortion — laws that the majority of Americans support. This is not open dialog and non-partisan politics. It is more of the same old partisan power-grabbing, only this time it's coming from the Left.

I oppose FOCA, which would establish the right to abortion as a fundamental right (like the right to free speech) and potentially wipe away every restriction on abortion nationwide. Please read the expert analysis by Americans United for Life (AUL) and sign the Fight FOCA petition at www.FightFOCA.com.

Fight the Freedom of Choice Act

"The Freedom of Choice Act," which Senator Obama has promised Planned Parenthood would be the first thing he would sign as President is dangerous legislation and it must be exposed.

Please help stop FOCA by signing the Fight FOCA Petition.

___

Fight FOCA Petition

I oppose the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), because:

• FOCA is a radical attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law;
• FOCA seeks to sweep aside existing, protective laws that I and the majority of Americans support;
• FOCA will prevent states from enacting protective measures in the future.

___

The Fight FOCA petition will be sent to key members of Congress upon the re-introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act in the 111th Congress, and to President-Elect Obama.

Gary Haugen and International Justice Mission featured in The New Yorker

International Justice Mission’s work is featured in the January 19 issue of The New Yorker – now available online and on newsstands.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Samantha Power spent more than two years researching IJM’s casework in four countries.

Power thoroughly investigates many facets of IJM President Gary Haugen’s life, the mission and diverse viewpoints on anti-trafficking methodology. Ultimately, she provides the powerful evidence – by citing compelling IJM casework examples – of the life-changing and far-reaching outcomes of the work that you make possible.

Read Power’s article and go behind the scenes of IJM’s work (pdf).

With a circulation of more than one million, The New Yorker is one of the nation’s most influential news sources, and the article unveils on the world’s stage IJM’s passion for, and commitment to, strengthening rule of law on behalf of the global poor.

-Pamela Livingston, Vice President, Communications, International Justice Mission

Missional Community - A Flowchart for a Church

Click on the image for an enlarged version.
See also: The Problems of Departmental Divisions in the Church

The Problems of Departmental Divisions in the Church

I’ve been thinking about how local churches are organized, and I found myself troubled by the divisions that have been made for ministry. We create departments for the major areas of ministry (for instance, our church has "Worship, Community, and Mission"). It has taken me a few days to figure out what’s been troubling me. Here it is…

When I think of the “Church” (that is, a local manifestation of God’s People, not the “church universal”), I think of the people who are set apart for a purpose: to be God’s redemptive community on earth, especially in a specific locale.

This people are a Missional Community, living in the midst of people and loving and serving them with a view to be a redemptive blessing in their lives. Our redemptive work is the proclamation of the Gospel to our culture.

This “incarnational view” of church informs what we should be doing with our local congregations. each church is to be the incarnation of the body of Christ for their local community. The ministry is to be indigenous to this community, made up of people in this community to reach people in this community with the good news of Christ.

So, what are we supposed to do? We are to be a “Missional Community.” It boils down to this.

So, when we split up (in a very modernist way) our ministry into separate spheres (Worship, Community, Mission, etc.), we are pulling apart that which needs to be a cohesive unit.

I cannot imagine “community” without it being “missional.” I cannot imagine “mission” without it being by a community and for a community. And I cannot imagine “worship” outside the definition of Romans 12:1, where our lives are lived out sacrificially for others, as our “spiritual act of worship.”

In my view, the departments of the church need to serve the one purpose of Missional Community. This will ruffle some feathers in our churches, but the church’s departments all feed the overall purpose: to create and sustain a Missional Community.

The “Worship Department” is really just those in charge of the musical portion of our gathering time, where we come together to praise God.

The “Proclamation Department” is really just those in charge of preaching the gospel of joining in the Missional Community of the Church and instructing those involved in the Missional Community how to live out that calling.

The “Global Missions Department” extends our mission beyond our locality to those areas of the world that need our help to be reached.

The “Kids,” “Youth,” and “College” Departments proclaims the gospel of joining in God’s Mission to the younger generations, giving them purpose for their lives.

The “Adult Department” nurtures in adults the yearning to be Missional in Community.

The “Care Department” intervenes when members of the Missional Community are hurting.

But the overall goal is to create a cohesive ministry of people working together to live out the gospel in the midst of the people we are trying to reach. When we are a Missional Community working for the redemption of all things for the blessing of those in our cities, we are being the incarnation of Christ for their sakes.

We need to think about the implications of isolating up our ministry into these three separate divisions: Worship, Community, and Mission.

This post is mirrored at Missional Tribe.

My Top 10 Albums of 2008

Here’s a list of my favorite albums that I first heard in 2008 (I say this because some of these albums predate 2008, but for me, they are 2008 albums because this is when I listened to them).

1. O.S.I. - Free

The second album from Kevin Moore (ex-Dream Theater keyboardist) and Jim Matheos (Fates Warning’s Guitarist) continues the excellence of their first album, yet they succeed in moving things forward.

Mike Portnoy (Dream Theater) returns to play the drums.

A very unique sound – they seamlessly mix electronics with symphonic prog with just a touch of metal.




2. Frost* - Milliontown

An extremely listenable symphonic progressive rock album. Melodies are the centerpiece, with progressive rock changes in time signatures. For fans of classic Genesis, a must.

Also, shades of latter-day Peter Gabriel, but more melodic.

Especially good is "The Other Me," and "Black Light Machine."

Frost* has just released a new album (Experiments in Mass Appeal), which is not nearly as impressive as this first offering.



3. Ayreon – 01011001

When you listen to one of Arjen Lucassen’s Ayreon albums, you are in for an amazing treat: It is like going to the theater and experiencing an epic science fiction movie.

He immerses you into a story with sound effects and hard-driving rock with influences from Pink Floyd, Genesis, Dream Theater, Alan Parsons, and Metallica, depending on the song you’re listening to.

And it all flows together in an amazing seamless story. Ayreon's best album remains The Human Equation, but this album is still an amazing accomplishment.



4. Genesis – Live from Cleveland

I got the actual recording of when I saw Genesis play at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland.

After all these years, Genesis still “have it.” The best band of all time. It was a remarkable concert.

The mass-market live album of this tour is called Genesis Live Over Europe 2007.



5. DeeExpus Project – Half Way Home

I was introduced to this band during a break at this past summer’s 3 Rivers Progressive Rock Festival by the organizer of NEARFest. He played it on his car’s stereo for a bunch of us who were tailgating between shows.

DeeExpus Project actually “out-porcupine-trees” Porcupine Tree with this album! (see #7 below)

"Greed" is the best song of the year. But "PTTee" (an ode to the greatness of Porcupine Tree, especially their album Deadwing, one of the best of all time) comes in a close second. Pointless Child is haunting and beautiful - with harmonies singing of a despairing relationship.



6. Coldplay – Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends

Coldplay is the best thing on the radio. Period.

This album establishes that with no doubt in my mind.

Legendary producer Brian Eno (former keyboardist for Roxy Music and producer for U2's "Joshua Tree") brought out the very best in the band.



7. Porcupine Tree – Fear of a Blank Planet

PT’s latest offering is another amazing display of Steven Wilson’s genius.

Porcupine Tree is the most popular prog band today ("Fear of a Blank Planet” debuted at #59 on the U.S. Billboard album chart), and there’s a reason for it: Excellence in writing, performance, engineering, and production. Wilson is the one of the best producers (and the band is filled with some of the best musicians) in the business.

This concept album speaks to the emptiness of suburban youth culture, very poignant and moving.


8. Simon Collins – U-Catastrophe

The son of Phil has arrived with this album.

Wow.
It’s like listening to Genesis for the 21st Century. Hard-driving epic rockers and heart-felt melodies.

Guest artists include dad Phil on a wonderful drum-duet instrumental piece (“The Big Bang”) that is worth the cost of the CD in and of itself, as well as Genesis guitarist Steve Hackett on the excellent “Fast Forward the Future.”



9. Red – End of Silence

Who says Christian artists are lame?

Red’s “End of Silence” silences those critics.

This is as good as any hard rock going today, and with deeper meaning.



10. Neal Morse – Lifeline

Neal’s latest offering is vintage Morse (the former leader of Spock’s Beard, he left after the excellent album, "Snow").

The best parts are when he lets out all the stops with epic Prog songs, like “So Many Roads” which tells the story of how we have so many choices in life – either to walk with God or away from God.

The title track tells the story of Neal's life of seeking fame and fortune but God broke in and threw him a "lifeline." It's a Cliff's Notes version of the story he told on "Testimony."

The Emerging Church: Swinging the Pendulum too Far?

Is Right Practice the Antidote to Easy Belief-ism?

Michael Wittmer’s first book is one of my favorites of all time. In Heaven is a Place on Earth, Wittmer maps out a biblical worldview by combining a proper understanding of the imago Dei with the biblical story of Creation-Fall-Redemption.

His follow-up book is called Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus is not Enough. In it, he tries to strike a balance between conservative evangelicalism and the emerging church. His premise is that the evangelicalism of the 20th Century pressed too far one way, and that “postmodern innovators” (his term for the leaders in the emerging church movement) are overreacting by swinging the pendulum too far the other way. He states that his book is a “friendly warning” to the postmodern innovators of the emerging church. He states,

“I am thankful for their emphasis on authentic Christian living. Their vision for what the church can become is both exhilarating and challenging. My only concern, and the point I will press in this book, is that their quest to correct abuses of previous generations must not lead them to err on the opposite extreme. Perhaps our parents overemphasized right belief more than good behavior, but that must not become an excuse to teach good behavior at the expense of right belief. If we continue down this road, it may not be long until our liberal method leads to liberal conclusions. Authentic Christianity demands our head, heart, and hands. Our labor for Christ flows from our love for him, which can arise only when we know and think rightly about him. Genuine Christians never stop serving, because they never stop loving, and they never stop loving, because they never stop believing.” (pp. 19-20)

Wittmer’s book is a welcome addition to the conversation. Whereas D.A. Carson’s book Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church was poorly researched and reactionary without truly understanding the movement, Wittmer is actually conversant with the emerging church. He understands it, and thus he can authentically deal with one of the major issues for evangelicals who want to embrace the emerging church: The tension between belief and practice.

Evangelicals have placed a high emphasis on "believing in Jesus," and this “belief” has often (in a modernist world) been articulated as believing certain propositions about Jesus. According to many evangelical churches, if you can state that you believe that Jesus died for your sins and trust that he satisfied God’s wrath against those sins on the cross, you are “saved.” This is topped off with saying a “sinner’s prayer,” and an assurance that from now on, no matter what you do, you’re in… you are guaranteed your place in heaven.

The “postmodern innovators” of the emerging church have reacted to this by saying that Jesus is more interested in our actions than in what we can state to be truth. In Brian McLaren’s book The Last Word and the Word After That, the character Markus states that conservative Christians wrongly believe that “on judgment day, all God will care about is opening up our skulls and checking our brains…to see if we had the right notion of salvation by grace through faith in there somewhere.”

Wittmer states that McLaren’s answer to this incorrect understanding of faith is insufficient. Wittmer writes, “McLaren counters this extreme view by claiming that God judges people on the quality of their works rather than on what they believe.” (p. 35) Wittmer’s point: the postmodern innovators so underemphasize right belief and so overemphasize right ethics that they swing the pendulum too far the other way.

But does McLaren actually advocate “works righteousness?” No, he does not. In fact, McLaren very much advocates faith in the person of Jesus Christ. He has said, "I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God." (source) This is an excellent quote, and gets at the center of the issue.

The question that Mike Wittmer is going to have to deal with is this: Does faith in our knowledge about Jesus save us?

I believe it does not. I believe that faith in the person of Jesus is what delivers us.

But, here is where it gets very tricky: What basic facts do we need to “know” in order to place our faith in Jesus? This is what Wittmer gets into in his second chapter. Watch for my interaction with Mike Wittmer on this in an upcoming post.

Sign this Ecumenical Christian Letter to President-elect Obama

Support diplomatic efforts for a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians

I've added my signature to the following letter that is being sent to Barack Obama for his inauguration.


Ecumenical Christian Letter to President-elect Obama

Dear President-elect Obama,

As Christians of the Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox and Protestant traditions, we are united by a Biblical call to be peacemakers and a commitment to the two peoples of the Holy Land who yearn for a just peace. As Americans, we urge you, Mr. President, to make achievement of Israeli-Palestinian peace an immediate priority during your first year in office.

The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has gone on too long. It has caused untold suffering for both sides, created economic hardships, and provided a rallying cry for extremists.

As people of faith and hope, we believe peace is possible. Majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians continue to support a negotiated solution based on two secure and sovereign states as the best way to end this tragic conflict.

In order to achieve a durable peace, your Administration must provide sustained, high-level diplomatic leadership toward the clear goal of a final status agreement. Building on past discussions, we ask you to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make historic compromises necessary for peace.

Your commitment to working for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel can help strengthen U.S. security and improve stability and relationships throughout the Middle East. We believe that Jerusalem – home to two peoples and three religions – has the potential to become a powerful symbol of hope and coexistence for people across the region and the world.

We know the work for a just peace will not be easy. It will require great courage and resolve, but the risk of inaction is even greater. Without active U.S. engagement, political inertia and perpetuation of the unbearable status quo will make achievement of a two-state solution increasingly difficult.

Moreover, we are concerned about the negative impact a further delay will have on the Christian community in the Holy Land, whose numbers continue to decline.

We call on all Christians and people of goodwill to join us in praying for the peace of Jerusalem and in supporting vigorous U.S. diplomatic efforts to secure Middle East peace. Mr. President, as you take up the many challenges facing the United States and the global community, we urge you to work for a better future for all the children of Abraham in the land that is holy to us all.


Noted signatories include
Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, David Neff, Editor in Chief of Christianity Today, Stanley Noffsinger, General Secretary for the Church of the Brethren, Bishop Gregory Vaughn Palmer, President of The Council of Bishops for The United Methodist Church, Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly for the Presbyterian Church (USA), Metropolitan PHILIP (Saliba), Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, Chris Seiple, President of the Institute for Global Engagement, Ron Sider, President of Evangelicals for Social Action, Richard Stearns, President of World Vision, Jim Wallis, President of Sojourners.

The final letter, signed by Christian leaders and congregants from across the nation, will be delivered to President Obama during the time of inauguration. The last day to add your name is January 16, 2009.

Please add your name to the Christian Call for Holy Land Peace today and join your fellow American Christians in supporting vigorous diplomatic efforts to secure a just and lasting two-state solution.

I’m Baaa - aaack!

Some of what to expect here at Vanguard Church:




More on Integrating Faith and Work





Interactions with Mike Wittmer’s new book on the Emerging Church, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus is Not Enough










Interactions with Scot McKnight’s new book on biblical interpretation, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible











Check out (and maybe join!) the new network of missionally-minded people, Missional Tribe