|
Now let's tackle the issue of apologetics. I appreciated MacGregor's ability to ask deep questions of his listeners and draw out their beliefs kindly and insightfully, revealing their inconsistencies (sometimes insistently) in a way that caused them to think instead of becoming defensive. We would all like to represent God in this way! What attitudes, character qualities, etc. do you think are key to mastering this approach? Is this something everyone can learn to do?
Every believer can be like MacGregor because the Holy Spirit bears the fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. The Spirit of Christ indwells us, and Jesus was a man “full of grace and truth.” As we live and speak the gospel and give an answer to critics, the indwelling Spirit renders us people of grace and truth.
|
I used to be a complete jerk about this sort of stuff. At that time in my life my goal was to win arguments. I would get mad at the other person's refusal to bow before clear reason. Sick, sinful ego was bound up in all of that for me. I feel nauseous and embarrassed now as I think back to episodes years ago.
Somewhere along the way the Lord's ongoing work in my life began to manifest a little. His love worked through me, and I came to love His images regardless of whether they had become children of God or not. As Jesus renovated more of me, I privileged the worth and dignity of His images, and felt a strong desire to listen to them, to learn their stories.
These days I think listening–really listening–to people, Christian and non-Christian, is essential. Often my conversation partners end up wanting to listen to me, too, and we can talk about scripts that lead to misery and despair vis-à-vis God's Script that leads to joy and real life.
I agree that listening is absolutely key!
It's unclear what your view is on evidential apologetics. At first, MacGregor comes out strongly against it (and deflects Lauren's factual objections), saying it's not effective with people outside the faith and only leads to frustration and anger. But later, he does answer some of Lauren's questions regarding the Bible (transmission, etc.). Do you think there's a place for giving evidence, and if so, when?
Some of the terms and concepts in apologetics that Christians debate have a variety of connotations, and so while I may demur at one particular usage of a term, I may affirm other connotations of the same term. In past experience I've encountered some evidentialists who seemingly (to me) put reason over the Christian faith, and submitted the Scriptures to outside tests of verification. That sort of evidentialism does not strike me as in accord with setting apart Christ as Lord over all. For this variety of evidentialist, one's faith seemingly depends upon evidence.
When asked to give answers, depending on a number of contingencies in a particular situation, I will articulate evidences that commend the faith. While I don't believe the Christian faith depends upon evidence, evidence can commend the faith in a limited way.
When I converse with individuals, they are 'always already' engaged in thinking and living out stories that relate to God, even if they are running away from Him. However, to what extent the Holy Spirit may be at work in the person's life is naturally opaque to me–I cannot see what the Spirit is doing in a person's life. As I understand Scripture, a person “in Adam” suffers from what Martin Luther termed “the bondage of the will.” Such a person, in classic Reformed theology, is dead in his/her sins. But God, who is rich in mercy, makes us alive. That regenerating work is the work of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the miracle of Spirit regeneration, one does not have a saving knowledge of Christ. What I’ve seen in experience, which comports with my understanding of Scripture, is that evidences for the Christian faith make sense to those formerly “in Adam” whom the Spirit has now made alive “in Christ.”
In Common Grounds, Brad thinks he can break Lauren's sneering objections with his evidence. Lauren is palpably angry at Christians and Christianity, angry to the point of hatred. Lauren is little different from Caiaphas, the High Priest of Israel in Jesus' day, who acknowledged the miracle of Lazarus' raising from the dead and responded by calling for Jesus' death. Jesus could raise the dead in front of Lauren and she would reject Him. Because evidence would bounce off of Lauren, MacGregor intercepts Brad's attempts to crush her with evidence.
The Scriptures are self-attesting and so presenting what the Scriptures say about themselves is desirable. This is what MacGregor and Brad do at the end of chapter 9.
MacGregor says that discussing evidence is useless because “there are no brute facts”–we see everything through the lens of our worldview. Are you saying that our interpretation and acceptance of facts depends on our lens (something I agree with to a certain extent) but that there remain facts we can comprehend together and discuss, or that there is no starting point for discussion at all because, for all practical purposes, we live in separate realities?
This is a harder question. It might be helpful for me to mention the context of MacGregor's discussion of stories with Brad, Lauren and Jarrod–MacGregor is talking about special revelation in the context of the knowledge of God. I would want to think more about specific matters of knowledge that don’t pertain to the knowledge of God before I made any assertions about knowing things besides God.
Are you saying, then, that discussion of God is a special case because of the spiritual state of those who have not been regenerated?
While I anticipate severe criticism from philosophers…yes. I think the knowledge of God, while possessed by all images of God is also suppressed by all images of God, and unless and until the Spirit of God regenerates an image he/she cannot know God as the Scriptures state. However, in other spheres of knowing regeneration is not requisite for knowing. As you say, the knowledge of God is a special case.
What MacGregor didn't explicitly say, but what was in the mind of the author, were the evidences for the Resurrection. On occasions I have heard apologists claim that the “brute facts” of the Resurrection rendered it a certain truth. They have said varying forms of, “If people will only be reasonable….” then the facts about the Resurrection would result in faith. Probably many evidentialists would not say such phrases, but I have heard them from the lips of some evidentialists.
At one level I agree with the phrases–I do think the evidences and arguments for the Resurrection commend its truth. But I've experienced non-Christian debaters depicting a number of possible and plausible scenarios that didn’t include the Resurrection. MacGregor was implicitly alluding to this–that the facts about the Resurrection are interpreted facts and through one lens the facts point to the Resurrection. Through other lenses non-Resurrection scenarios are possible from the same facts.
Possible, maybe; but more reasonable given all the facts available?
To me the Resurrection seems more reasonable given all the facts available. But I've listened to some highly intelligent, reasonable people who thought the Resurrection scenario less reasonable than other scenarios, given all the facts available. I didn't find them persuasive, nor did they find me so.
Again, I think the Holy Spirit's work is necessary to bring about faith, and that facts can't do this alone, but I think evidences have more impact than you might think in showing a person that Christianity could possibly be true and opening up the way for that person to investigate it more seriously. Secondly, I think it's possible to convince someone that the resurrection occurred even if it's not possible to convince him to submit to Jesus (only the Holy Spirit can do that!) I can even give an example of this: Pinchas Lapide, a Jewish man, wrote this book on the resurrection, having been convinced by the evidence that it occurred, though he has not responded with faith. So it would seem that evidences may bounce off in terms of faith (if the Holy Spirit chooses), but they could still convince someone intellectually. I think that in order to be honoring to God, we ought to present these truths to others as well (in the right context, of course) and then leave the results in the hands of the Holy Spirit. But I do appreciate your saying that you think the arguments for the resurrection commend its truth! If the resurrection really occurred, then the evidence should point in that direction.
Amy, that's interesting about the Pinchas Lapide book. I’m not familiar with him but it sounds like a fascinating work to read.
In countless discussions that I've had with non-believers, their rejection of the Resurrection was related to their rejection of Jesus as God and Lord. While I would not, especially with your citation of the Lapide book, assert that one could not accept the Resurrection while still rejecting Christ, it does seem an uncommon coupling of beliefs.
Would you say that you support using evidence to answer people's questions while not expecting those evidences to lead people to faith apart from the Spirit's work?
If someone asks me a direct question, especially if s/he repeats it, I believe that treating that image of God with dignity, respect and love requires that I answer it in good faith. I may preface my response with some words about neutrality and assessments of reasonableness being dependent upon one's worldview's standards of reason, but I would try to give good faith answers to specific questions.
In my time in campus ministry at Harvard, though, I was shocked to learn that almost every student who articulated intellectual objections to the faith did not ultimately have intellectual objections to Christianity. As best as I could tell, two did. That's two out of over 400 conversations in three years. It took me a while to clue in and wake up to the fact that the students who articulated intellectual objections almost always were animated by personal, experiential factors. The intellectual objections were, upon probing, after-the-fact defenses sourced in personal suffering or desire to evade normative ethical demands.
It's hilarious to think back to my days at Harvard, bristling with memorized facts about numbers of copies of the New Testament and the proximity in date of the earliest copy to the original first century documents. I deployed these 'compelling' facts to students who still mourned the loss of a baby brother, who still bore the scars of an outrageous aunt who shoved Jesus down the student's throat, who still asked why his mom had run off with a priest.
Harvard student: …So, as I was saying, I don't know. I just don't know if I can believe in the kind of God who would allow my mom to abandon us and go live with that priest.
Me: Yes, but the Resurrection really happened. According to Roman sources, if a legionnaire fell asleep on his watch he would be put to death. Therefore, there's no way the Roman squad of soldiers fell asleep and Jesus' body was stolen.
Harvard student: Um….can I go now?
Me: But what about the number of copies of the New Testament?! Over 25,000 fragmen….
Someone should have slapped me.
Heh, heh…I think this demonstrates well the need to draw a person out regarding his beliefs and why he holds them in order to address his actual objections clearly–whether they're emotional or intellectual. Thanks, Glenn! More tomorrow….
[Read the entire interview: Part I / Part II / Part III / Part IV]
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Interviews, Main Page, Theology 
3 Comments »
I was at the local Christian bookstore just now and saw this. Is anyone else disturbed by this? Or, even worse, this? At least they had the decency to call them “book covers” instead of “Bible covers” (not so, here), but whom are they kidding? We all know what they're made for. I left feeling a little sick. Am I overreacting? It doesn't really bother me to see Bob and Larry on a Bible cover, so why is this so unsettling? Possibly it's because this is the secular film industry trying to cash in on my love for Narnia and for Jesus, putting them together where they don't belong. Narnia bows to the Bible and would be terribly embarrassed to be its flashy party coat. This just cheapens both, and they both deserve better.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Miscellaneous 6 Comments »
December 14, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
closeAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Beliefnet recently posted an interview with Richard Dawkins called “The Problem with God.” It is a fascinating discussion, and I highly recommend reading the whole thing. Briefly, I find the following problems in Dawkins' responses:
1) Overlooking epistemological issues. He says, “I would want them to believe whatever evidence leads them to; I would want them to look at the evidence, judge it on its merits, not accept things because of internal revelation or faith, but purely on the basis of evidence.” Is this possible? Dawkins fails to acknowledge the difficulty of how one interprets data and evidence. He is being far too simplistic here.
2) Inconsistent appeal to authority. While we cannot accept things by revelation or faith, he admits that he accepts things from other scientists: “Not everybody can evaluate all evidence; we can’t evaluate the evidence for quantum physics. So it does have to be a certain amount of taking things on trust. I have to take what physicists say on trust, for example, because I'm a biologist. But science [has] a system of appraisal, of peer review, so that I trust the physics community to get their act together in a way that I know from the inside.” So, Dawkins still accepts some things as true because others tell him that they are true. These truth claims are supported by an appeal to authority (in this case, scientific expertise). Amazingly, in the next sentence, he says, “I wish people would put their trust in evidence, not in faith, revelation, tradition, or authority.” Does he not see the inconsistency here? The difference is not one between authority and evidence; the difference is one of between type(s) of authority.
3) A misunderstanding of science. When asked, “There are intelligent people who have been taught good science and evolution, and who may choose to believe in something religious that may seem to fly in the face of science. What do you make of that?” He replies: “It’s certainly hard to know what to make of it. I think it’s a betrayal of science. I think they have a religious agenda which, for reasons best known to themselves, they elevate above science.” Here, he fails to recognize the philosophical basis of science and falsely equates science with naturalism and materialism.
4) A theological naiveness. Answering a question on Intelligent Design, he says, ” … it doesn’t explain where the designer comes from. If they’re going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs—'these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?'–well, if they’re so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.” All one has to do is to differentiate between contingent and necessary (incontingent) beings. This kind of question makes me wonder how much he reads or interacts with those who differ with him.
Again, these are just some quick thoughts. But they do point to some fundamental flaws in the thinking of atheists like Dawkins. I only wish that the interviewer was willing to challenge Dawkins more on some of his answers!
Posted in Main Page, Science 8 Comments »
|
For the next few days, I'll be posting an interview with author and friend of this blog Glenn Lucke regarding his book, Common Grounds. This should be an interesting discussion about truly living the faith and sharing it with others, so stay tuned!
Glenn, thanks for the interview. We enjoy your interactions on this site and want to congratulate you on finishing a book with your co-author, Ben Young. This interview is sure to lead to some interesting discussion in the next few days! I found much that was inspiring in Common Grounds and a couple of things I'm unclear about, so I'm looking forward to hearing you expand on your work.
|
Amy, thank you for reading the book and for inviting me to do this interview. I love the A-Team blog and I subscribe to your blog feed, which helps me keep up with you all as you dig into a great variety of subjects. All to say, this is fun for me to interact with you and the A-Team this way. I hope some day we can all get-together live, perhaps at the next God Blog Conference.
That would be great!
I'll push you a little on our possible disagreements later, but for now, let's start at the beginning. In Common Grounds, I think you did an excellent job of painting a picture of the glory and sovereignty of God in a way that is quite moving. Thank you! There were parts that moved me to tears and worship. I see a few different applications for this book–an example of how to tell others about God, a call to integrate our doctrine with our lives, and an argument for uniting our heads with our hearts. What was your purpose (or purposes) in writing this book and what prompted you to write it?
My primary purpose in writing this book was to entice young-in-their-faith believers to learn the Christian story, to get “thick” in their knowledge and experience of Christ, and thus to live the Christian story robustly in the scrum of daily life.
My secondary purpose was to depict a way of engaging non-believers in a winsome manner that is predicated on genuinely loving and listening.
You chose to explore doctrines about God in the context of a narrative. Why did you choose this format?
Ben Young (my co-author) and I discussed how there are multitudes of young-in-their-faith believers who would like to know and live out more of their Christian faith, but they are very busy professionals and lack time and even a map of where to go. We realized that a straightforward, didactic prose book of Christian teachings would probably not motivate lots of young adults to read it.
However, Ben and I knew that young adults were hungry for teachings if the teachings could be presented in an interesting manner. Ben had preached a remarkable series of messages for over a year on the essential teachings of the Christian faith. What began as a gathering intended for a small core of leaders at the church exploded as well over a thousand young adults flocked to learn.
So we knew there was hunger to learn Christian teachings and we suspected that a didactic prose book of teachings would not satiate that hunger. So, I suggested that we use Plato's dialogue genre and tell a story involving young professionals at different stages in their faith journey.
I did appreciate your presenting doctrine for what it really is–a knowledge about who God is, affecting every aspect of our lives. You did a good job of showing its beauty–or rather, His beauty!
The story centers around four characters. Three are Christians: the professor, MacGregor, who's leading us through the discussion about God; Brad, who is mostly about head knowledge of God; and Jarrod, whose Christian life centers on emotion and experience. The fourth character, Lauren, is not a Christian. You've certainly covered all the bases here! Are these the types of people you're hoping to reach? Whom do you see benefiting from reading this book, and how do you envision it being read (Christians, non-Christians, alone, in groups, etc.)?
From the beginning Ben and I hoped that small groups would read Common Grounds in community. There's a small group discussion guide at the end of the book and I wrote a far more detailed study guide for free download at the blog (here).
There's give and take in a small group discussion. Participants can take the dialogue and Scripture from a chapter and go in whatever direction that is most pertinent to their lives. They can explore notions that they find hard to accept, like how 9/11 relates to God’s sovereignty.
Without question the most substantive and enthusiastic feedback I have received has been from small groups around the country. They love it. Every group I've heard from talks about “getting” how Christian teachings relate to their daily lives. A few emails from small group members have told me about new hunger to learn their faith. That's what Ben and I love to hear.
In terms of people we're trying to reach, we're basically hoping to entice young professionals who have hearts for Jesus but for whatever reason are still “thin” in their knowledge and experience of Jesus. We know a slew of professionals who are cutting edge in their knowledge and experience in their careers, but have left their Christian faith at a middle school level.
There are consequences to that. If we are going to live the Christian story robustly, amidst and against the scripts of the world, we are going to have to know the Christian story.
MacGregor is hoping to bring the other three characters who are currently in different corners to some sort of middle. They're each in need of a deeper relationship with God in their own way. Could you describe the Christian life to which you are hoping to lead people through his words?
I could, but I don't want to give away too much from Books 3-5! In Book 3 Professor MacGregor begins unfolding to Brad, Lauren and Jarrod what it looks like to live the Kingdom of God in contemporary society.
Herman Ridderbos (The Coming of the Kingdom) and Richard Pratt (professor at Reformed Theological Seminary-Orlando and the teacher of my life) have helped me to understand the now and not yet of the Kingdom, and my studies of both Scripture and sociology have helped me see that the Kingdom is not spiritual only–it is material and social as well. So broadly speaking, that is the Christian life that I'm hoping to depict to readers. The specific, particular aspects of that will come through the characters' lives and dialogue in Books 3-5.
Could you briefly tell us the doctrines you cover in this book and the ones you hope to cover in the rest of the series?
In Common Grounds Professor MacGregor starts conversations about the nature of God, how God's sovereignty relates to everyday life, including events like 9/11, how God communicates with people through Creation and how God communicates with people through Scripture and Jesus Himself.
In Book 2 MacGregor will explore what the Christian story has to say about the nature and worth of humans, sin and the Fall, and how Jesus, as Fully God and Fully Man, is our mediator to redeem and renew us into the New Humanity.
In Book 3 the changes in the characters' lives bring to the fore redemption, baptism and the Lord's Supper, sanctification, and how these relate to the Kingdom now and not yet.
Lest I give away too much, I think it's best not to specify the teachings of Books 4 and 5.
All right, we'll let you have your mystery! We'll continue this tomorrow on the subject of apologetics.
[Read the entire interview: Part I / Part II / Part III / Part IV]
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Interviews, Main Page, Theology No Comments »
December 12, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
New research continues to show the serious psychological trauma of abortion on mothers. EarthTimes.org reports on the latest research in “The mental baggage of abortion lasts years.” Here is the opening paragraph:
It is public knowledge that losing a baby is amongst the most traumatic experiences a woman can go through. It is even believed that this mother-baby connection lasts beyond the womb, with the mother's tie to her child being instinctive. Now a study by Norwegian researchers from the University of Oslo provides evidence that a choice to lose a baby is more painful than the natural loss of a baby even five years after.
So, the loss of a baby through miscarriage appears to be less traumatic for the mother than the ending of a baby's life through abortion.
(The abstract of their research is also available online, along with the provisional article.)
Are these results surprising?
Hardly. Nevertheless, they once again show the ongoing harm of abortion. I pray that God will continue to open the hearts and minds of people around the world to end this barbaric practice!
Posted in Ethics, Main Page 9 Comments »
December 11, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Things are heating up…
Now Time magazine is reporting on the debate: “The Fight Before Christmas” (HT: Justin Taylor).
Tom Ascol also has a great follow-up post: “What Christmas Church Closings Indicate.”
His conclusion is worth quoting:
The kind of reasoning that is coming out in defense of church closings has more in common with the world and its ways than it does with the Bible. And this is further evidence of how far American evangelicalism has fallen away from basic, biblical Christianity. At some point, like Machen did in the early 20th century with liberalism, we are going to be forced to admit that what passes under the banner of evangelicalism simply is not Christian, no matter how many Christian trappings are retained.
Our only hope is reformation and revival.
Amen!
Posted in Culture, Main Page 11 Comments »
In honor of the opening of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, I have an interesting question to pose to you all. Those of us who read the Chronicles of Narnia while growing up in the U.S. encountered a strange, foreign food in the first book of the series. What the heck was Turkish Delight? All we knew was that it was the most wonderful and most tempting of all foods, and each of us imagined something a little different as we read the story. I recently realized that the way I envisioned this treat was rather like the exquisite delicacy known as Orange Chicken from Panda Express (though I knew not the wonders of Panda at the time)–steaming clumps of savory, delicious meat. One of my sisters saw a chicken pot pie, and the other, Bordeaux truffles. I’m certain this says something about us all, but I’m not sure what….
Luckily, I did not know Turkish Delight to be the rose-flavored gelatin that it actually turned out to be…a horrible fact I discovered on a trip to England in 1994:
SCENE: London. The Underground at Bayswater Station.
ME: Wow! This vending machine has Turkish Delight! I can’t believe it! I’ll finally know what it tastes like! It’s…um…oh…where’s the garbage can…?
Anyway, I thought it would be fun to ask you the question: what was your Turkish Delight like? And if you’d like to take a stab at what you think this says about you, that should make this all the more interesting!
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous 10 Comments »
December 9, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Since people may wish to see the film before reading a review, I've only posted the review on my Lewis blog. Read it here.
Posted in Main Page, Movie Reviews, Roger's Posts No Comments »
December 8, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
As most of you already know, the first movie in the Chronicles of Narnia series, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, is being heavily marketed toward Christians. But how far is too far?
The Philadelphia Inquirer released “Hyping 'Narnia' to Christians” last Sunday. This article says,
Walt Disney Pictures is so eager for churches to turn out audiences for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which opens Friday, that it's offering a free trip to London – and $1,000 cash – to the winner of its big promotional sermon contest.
The only catch is that the sermons must mention Narnia, based on the hugely popular children's books about four British children who walk through an uncle's magic armoire into an enchanted kingdom.
In response, Philip Ryken (Senior Pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, PA) posted the following:
Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Walt Disney Pictures is offering a free trip to London and a thousand dollars in cash to the winner of its promotional sermon contest. To qualify, a sermon has to mention Disney's new Narnia film. So welcome to a new medium of marketing: the sermo-mercial. It would seem that something more than Aslan is on the move. I wonder: Would mentioning the film while decrying the absurdity of the promotion qualify one's sermon for the contest?
Christianity Today also commented on this idea in their blog, asking: Did Disney Pay For Your Sermon?
Of course, there is nothing wrong with using Lewis' fictional works as illustrations and examples in sermons. What is alarming is that businesses are apparently willing to exploit preaching to advertise and sell their products.
Regardless, do you know what I find most interesting? That there is really no reason for businesses to pay churches to sell their stuff at all. How many churches do you know of that have already placed “announcements” (known as ads in other publications) about Narnia in their newsletters and bulletins?
Do we still recognize the church as the body of Christ? Or are we now simply seen as consumers?
Posted in Culture, Main Page 3 Comments »
December 8, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
If you are familiar with much of the blogosphere at all, then you already know the following: numerous churches across the country are canceling their services on Christmas day.
CNN.com has actually run a front page story on it, “Some megachurches closing on Christmas.”
With many others, I lament any church that would decide against corporately worshiping Jesus Christ on the Lord's Day, especially on a day that is supposed to be dedicated to His incarnation!
Here are a few blog entries discussing this phenomenon (in no particular order):
Additionally, the Boar's Head Tavern is having quite a bit of discussion on this issue. Of course, I do not normally recommend some of these blogs. Nevertheless, I believe that if they are read with a discerning and critical mind, then we can gain insight from them.
Frankly, I find little to add to the discussion at this point. I simply pray that our churches will return to sanity and rediscover a biblical and robust doctrine of the church (ecclesiology).
Posted in Culture, Main Page No Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments