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!