Brian McLaren and His "New" Version of Christianity (Which, as it turns out, isn't that new, at all)

Another day, another dollar, another soon-to-be-forgotten attempt to make Christianity more politically correct.

Brian McLaren has written a book titled "A New Kind of Christianity - Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith" which seeks to make adjustments to the Christian message so that it is more acceptable to modern people. Among other things, he does not want to think of Jesus as a sacrifice, but as a victim. (This is not too unusual; many groups that seek to change Christianity do so by saying that Jesus did not want to be crucified. Since that's sort of the whole point of the Bible, you can see what problems are created.)

The notion of this being a "new" idea is laughable. People like Oprah and the Unitarian types have been trying for ages to convince believers that traditional Christianity should be forgotten and replaced with something more acceptable to the masses. The problem is, when you take away or hide parts of a religion, you are not making adjustments to it - you are leaving it and starting a new one.

I wouldn't dream of asking a Tibetan Monk to stop searching for Nirvana and start praying the Rosary as a "new" form of his old religion. In the same way, Brian McLaren should be honest and tell us that he's promoting a religion that is antithetical to the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible that the church has always held to. This "new" Christianity is something other than Christianity and it is an insult to ask people to change their conviction just because they don't suit you.

In my "new" version of Christianity, we will follow the floating Ganesh. Wait...what do you mean, someone already thought of that? No, I'm not talking about Hinduism, I'm certain this is Christianity. It's not like this stuff is set in stone or anything...

Do you think I would visit a local Bahá'í Temple and ask them to adjust their religion to my ideals in order to make people like me more comfortable? No, I would consider that to be rude and disrespectful. No one would put up with that, but since Christians are the designated punching bag for American commentary, no one really cares about respecting Christian faith.

If you don't like Christianity, Brian McLaren, just say so. Because it isn't the sort of thing that can be changed.

Machine Guns - A Questionable Approach to Evangelism

Recently, some people in Fort Worth, Tx, heard the sounds of machine gun fire coming from a religious leader cruising around on an assault vehicle. Sounds pretty scary, but it was Paige Patterson's way of encouraging the students of Southwestern Baptist Seminary to minister to their surrounding neighborhood. Needless to say, this is a questionable approach.

I couldn't possibly phrase this any better than my colleague, John Gram, who covered this over at Bad Theology 101:

I want you to think about what an absolutely awful image of the gospel this sent to everyone involved.

Most importantly, I want you to think about those living in the neighborhood around the seminary! And don't tell me that this was a private ceremony and that I'm taking this out of context. They published it themselves, for goodness sake! WHAT IN THE WORLD must it convey to non-Christians living around campus who hear about some lunatic firing off a .50 caliber -- .50 CALIBER! -- weapon and talking about how an army of seminary students will soon descend upon their neighborhood to convert them to Christianity?...

...what if you heard about the mosque in your neighborhood firing off weapons and talking about taking your neighborhood for Allah? How would you react?

We wouldn't tolerate that type of behavior from other religious groups, so we shouldn't do this sort of thing ourselves. It's hard to be taken seriously as a Southern Baptist, let's not give our opponents more ammunition. (You can read the rest of Bad Theology 101 here.)

The Health Care Bill and America's Stand Against Abortion

By now you know that the House just passed the well known health care bill with 219 votes. This morning it was certain that congress did not have the votes, but a handful of representatives decided to switch sides and push it along. Why?

The final obstacle to passage was cleared a few hours before the vote, when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The president issued an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.

Some of you are thankful for the passing of this bill, while others are upset about it. I try to keep politics out of my blog (these days) since it's not right to mix faith and politics unnecessarily, but let's be sure to keep in mind what a stand was made today concerning the rights of unborn children.

It was close. Really close. A few more votes the other way and we would have allowed the federal government to kill unborn babies with our tax dollars through this bill (I'd rather fund orphanages). While some have been insisting that abortion is a woman's right, others have maintained that an unborn person has the right to live; the passing of today's bill shows a victory for the champions of unborn babies (even if it's bittersweet for those who oppose the bill). Today, we saw career politicians who were willing to break with party lines against a popular president in order to make a stand. No matter how this plays out in your own personal politics, lets remember that it was a very close call for the unborn. Today was a victory for them - and it very nearly went the other way.

The 2010 DBU Paideia Conference - Part 2: Student Papers

(Click here for part one.)

The heart of the Paideia Conference is the student papers where topics of from all fields of scholarship are discussed. (If you don't believe me, check out my post from last year when I attended lectures ranging from theoretical mental states in alternate realities to medieval literary theory.) This year's selection was excellent and I had a pretty hard time choosing which papers to attend.

My old friend, Mark Boone, gave an excellent discussion on Plato and theology. Obviously, Plato wasn't a theologian, but many Christian philosophers embrace his ideas and Mark was able to explain why.

Renea McKenzie (who writes an excellent blog over at ReneaMac.com) gave a lecture on two of Shakespeare's works ('King Lear' and 'A Winter's Tale') in order to show how the two complimented one another. Renea doesn't write about this sort of thing on her website all that often, but she has a graduate degree in this field and it really showed. She's pictured here chatting with James K.A. Smith, our keynote speaker.

Brent Stevens discussed Darwin's theories of evolution from a biographical standpoint. We had to agree to disagree about the implications of Darwinism (I'm always afraid they're going to ban me from Q&A time) but I was very impressed with his use of primary sources. Rather than quoting books about Darwin he was using Darwin's letters and other documents to get as close to the source as possible.

My friend Natalie Stilwell discussed authority in the Catholic church. Does that sound boring, to you? Well, no one is riveted to hear about church hierarchy, but Natalie gave this paper because there are so many misunderstandings about the subject. Do Catholics think you will go to Hell if you read Harry Potter since the Pope doesn't like it? What happens if the Vatican screws up and makes a theological mistake - does it nullify the whole religion? Natalie discussed these commonly misunderstood issues with us and cleared up much confusion.

NERD ALERT! Many of us showed up to hear Kevin Neece discuss Star Trek. This TV show (particularly The Next Generation) gave our culture the best representation of a humanist vision that we have. What if mankind worked together to see what we could accomplish? Gene Roddenberry thought that Star Trek was a good idea of what humanity would be like if we could share such a vision. Kevin used this to explain the ideals of humanity and remind us that being people of faith is not merely about being spiritually minded, but it is also about taking care of our earthly responsibilities. Then I asked him to speak in Klingon. He did. I was impressed. This lecture was easily the highlight of my day.

During Kevin's lecture I sat next to this computer; I used to work in the IT department at DBU and I'm pretty sure I built this computer...

Scott Perry discussed the sacrament as seen in medieval stories when it confronted monstrosities in different forms. I've read a lot about the sacraments in the middle ages, but I've never heard anyone discuss them in literature like this. It was very interesting and Scott was able to answer some pretty tough questions that came at the end of his discussion.

Yours truly delivered a paper about Augustine and some of his peculiar views on predestination that were ignored and covered up by the church. I assumed I would just be putting people to sleep, but it was a well received paper. (Last year I gave the lamest paper in the history of academic conferences, and I was determined to do a better job this time.)

That's it for this year's Paideia Conference at Dallas Baptist University. This conference is always one of the highlights of my year and Dr. David Naugle really outdoes himself every year with the organization and leadership of these events. Thanks everyone who attended!

How to Make an Academy Award Winning Film.

My review of the Paideia Conference is on hold because I saw this video and wanted to post it.  (It's great being my own boss!  Oh, wait, this blog doesn't make money...)  It makes fun of every type of movie that I can't stand while being funny and creative in its own right.  Which types of films and I talking about?  You'll see.

The 2010 DBU Paideia Conference - Part 1 Tom Kimmell & James K. A. Smith

Every Paideia Conference begins with a concert, and every year I wonder if I feel like traveling across the metroplex in rush hour to get there - but I always do. This year's musician was Tom Kimmell and he made it well worth my time. (I hate traffic, so that's not a compliment to be taken lightly.)

From the moment his show began I felt like I was really in the presence of a great American songwriter. (Which is appropriate, since he has written songs for famous musicians like Waylon Jennings and Johnny Cash.) His music tells stories in the beautiful songwriting craft that is so hard to find in musicians today. (I don't think it's too cynical to say that the craft mastered by people like Paul Simon and Bob Dylan seems to be lost.) Tom told stories, read poems (I liked the one about the cat), and charmed all of us with his humor and his excellent musicianship. I really felt like I had seen the last of a certain type of musician. It's very difficult to find people like Tom Kimmell anymore, and seeing him in concert was a real privilege.

Our speaker for the entire weekend was James K. A. Smith, who is a proponent of something called 'Radical Orthodoxy.' (I haven't studied radical orthodoxy much, but I hope that it turns out to be something I like, because it's a much cooler name than "fundamentalism" or "supralapsarianism." It's about time someone gave one of these things a good name.)

That light behind him didn't come on until he raised his hand like that. True story.

Smith told us about a lot things. He's the kind of guy who can show you scenes from indie films in between discussions of Heidegger and Derrida in order to make sense out of modern theology. Very cool stuff. He was very approachable and loved answering questions from the audience on a variety of subjects with each lecture. Also, according to this discussion of Augustine (written by Smith and Dr. David Naugle - the guy who organizes these conferences) it appears that Smith and I read some of the same books.

Pictured: Radical Orthodoxy.

Smith's views are very relevant. They address issues that Christians are asking today and Smith himself is a person people enjoy knowing. But most importantly, I didn't throw anything at him when he insulted my Dallas Cowboys. That means a lot. (Although, I didn't promise not to pick on him through the photo captions on my blog. No one is safe...)

Very few people can open their cupboard and find the honorary coffee mug we give our keynote speakers; we'd better not see those things on Ebay.

(Click here to read part 2!)

Responding to the 'Bibles for Porn' Movement

Christians are outraged on the campus of the University of Texas at San Antonio, after an atheist group held an event encouraging students to trade in their Bibles, Korans, and other religious texts for pornography. Members of the group, Atheist Agenda, say their "Smut for Smut" campaign aims to call attention to violence and "misogyny" in the holy books. "You are better off having porn, which isn't nearly as smutty," one member said. Is this a harmless PR stunt, or a blatantly offensive cheap shot at religion? [Link]

I'm tired of seeing my fellow believers try to stop things like this. Yes, this is a dumb and silly movement, but getting publicly upset over it is not helpful. These people want church goers to whine and complain because they know there is nothing anyone can do about it. Gripe all you want, these types will merely rub your face in the fact that you can't stop them. In fact, this sort of thing would get much less news if we would just ignore it. (I realize the irony of saying this while I talk about it on my blog, so don't bother pointing that out.)

A few months ago, PETA launched an ad that featured a naked woman holding a cross as if she were an angel (no, I'm not going to link to it...); it's unlikely anyone would have noticed another racy PETA ad if certain Christian groups hadn't made a fuss about it. The media went out of their way to look for people who were complaining about this just to make news out of it, and PETA was counting on that reaction in order to get their advertisement seen by a broader audience.

Don't be the rube. Next time you see someone launching an anti-Christian crusade just ignore it. Respond by showing love to them when you see them, and don't play into their hands by griping about it. If you show them love (or, if you had simply been nice to them in the first place) they will think twice about railing against people who are their friends. That is how you combat this sort of thing - not through whining.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
-Romans 12:17-21

Do Nudists Colonies Have Churches? I'm Afraid So...

While cruising through the headlines at the End Times Tavern, I came across this gem: "At Ivor Church Clothing is Optional."

The last time I read something like that I was studying the Fourth Crusade.

This church exists in a nudist colony in Virgina and is known as the only nudist church in the state. I've personally never understood nudist colonies, but I've had friends who thought it would be marvelous to wander around unrestricted by clothes. I made sure to inform these people that their time had not yet come. But I digress.

According to the pastor:

"Some of the biggest moments in Jesus' life he was naked," Pastor Allen Parker said. "When he was born he was naked, when he was crucified he was naked and when he arose he left his clothes in the tomb and he was naked. If God made us that way, how can that be wrong?"

Pastor Allen says the congregation is a family-oriented one and is very involved in helping others.

"On second thought, don't pass the offering plate - just hold on to it." (This is a picture from the Whitetail Nudist Colony's website; I probably shouldn't have included it. On the other hand, it's funny to think about teenagers searching for images from nudist colonies and finding this. Ha ha ha, kids, take that!)

Despite the oddness of the nudist colony, this place seems legit. No, I'm not going there, but American nudist colonies are known for being respectable places. I can't think of anything wrong with people being naked just for the heck of it in a good environment. (Like it matters, I bet you're still trying to adjust the page so that you don't have to look at that picture; I know I am.)

There's a video at the link - but I was afraid to watch it.