LibraryThing is very cool. Add your library with ease, up to 200 volumes for free or get an unlimited lifetime membership for $10. Nice online resource.
(HT: JT, and a special hat tip to my greatest blogging friend of all time RB)
I saw someone at iMonk's site link to this meditation by Peter Leithart.
I have no studies to back me up, but I dare say that removing wine from the Lord's Supper has produced an increase rather than a decrease in drunkenness. If wine is merely excluded from the Christian diet, it takes on an aura of mystery, of transgression. When we drink wine at the Lord's Table, we receive it as a gift of God, and give thanks for it. At the Lord's table, we are not drunk with wine, but we receive wine while singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord.
The central solution to the sin of drunkenness is not tee-totalism. The central solution, the solution of Scripture, is to enjoy the wine of this table as a gift of God, and to come to this feast of wine not to be drunk with wine but to be filled – to be inebriated – with the Spirit.
Michael Spencer (the iMonk) has added his well-reasoned and biblical take on the SBTS Alcohol and Ministry Forum, which has been the topic of much discussion on Reformissionary.
Nickel Creek is brilliant. Seriously.
I have their first two CD's, which are fantastic. Three years later they finally put out number 3, and I think it's their best. These guys no longer fit clearly in a musical style, as if they ever really did. The closest is bluegrass, but it doesn't take long to realize they blast any "country" or "bluegrass" stereotypes out of the water. In my iTunes I classify them as "alternative bluegrass," and that's the best I can do.
Paste Magazine has a good article on them. CMT has the Nickel Creek Studio 330 Sessions, which means they have four video clip interviews with the band and four live songs performed. Fantastic introduction to Nickel Creek.
"When in Rome" is their first single. Very good song.
Where can a dead man go
The question with an answer only dead men know
But I'm gonna bet they never really feel at home
If they spent a lifetime learning
How to live in Rome
"Jealous of the Moon" is by far my favorite.
Why don't you call me, I could save you
Together we'll find a God we can pray to
That'll take you by the handI hate to see a friend of mine
Laughing out loud
When she's crying inside
But you've got your prideStarin' down the stars
Jealous of the moon
You wish you could fly
But you're stayin' where you are
There's nothin' you can do
If you're too scared to try
Drew Goodmanson has an interesting post that should give some perspective to emerging-type churches.
To make a Kingdom-impact on your local community and the world-at-large, you must move from Deconstruction to Kingdom Building.
[...]
If you are an emerging church, what is your identity? As I attend ‘postmodern’ or churches that would say they are ‘emerging’ they usually can tell me what they are not. We don’t have central leadership, we don’t sing old-school hymns, we don’t have traditional worship, we don’t…[fill in the blank]. In the long run, I don’t think you can rally too many people to this cause and anti-identity.
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has online audio from a forum on Alcohol and Ministry (right click and 'save as') or visit the resource section of the site (it's near the bottom). SBTS president Al Mohler and theology school dean Russ Moore are in dialogue on the issue. It's interesting to listen to, and it's more thoughtful than Jack Graham's article, but I think a very poor view of alcohol and ministry. Listen for yourself.
I will quote at times and explain in my own words at other times. I have taken care to be precise with quotes, but I can't claim inerrancy. :)
And let me start with this: if you want to discuss this in any detail or disagree with me, please listen to it start to finish. Reading my quotes doesn't give a feel to the whole thing, but I can't do everything.
Also, I like Al Mohler and Russ Moore. They have a heart for the Church, the SBC, their families, seminary students, and even bozos like me. So my responses are meant to be a response to the issues they raise and not directed at them personally.
It's obvious the issue of drinking alcohol is coming under question by students at Southern. At least 2-3 references are made to websites, weblogs, and bloggers. I know some of those guys read my blog or have one of their interns do so (wish I could tell you a little email story). I don't know if they mean me or not, but it doesn't matter. The truth is, where there is open discussion you can often find growing error that should be corrected as well as the rediscovery of truth that should be embraced. I think the discussion on alcohol on the web is freeing new generations to think biblically rather than traditionally or legalistically. But it seems pretty clear that bloggers like me are being responded to in this forum. So I think it's good to respond as well.
Okay, first, Mohler points out that the view that the Bible teaches total abstinence from alcohol is not biblically provable. Good to hear that. But then the rest of the talk is about showing how total abstinence from alcohol is best.
A bit into the forum, Mohler said...
We've all seen some of the websites and the weblogs and the kind of conversation that has been had about this, among people that we know, that have been, that are close friends. Let me tell you that I find a great deal of immaturity reflected there. It's all the sudden like we have a young generation trying to say, 'Hey we are so much smarter than our parents, uh, we are so much more mature and more liberated, we can enjoy these things, and now I'm going to recommend my favorite beer and my favorite wine to all of my friends.' And frankly I think it's sad, immature, and it's showy. It's the exact opposite of Paul's concern for unity in the church. This kind of ostentatious display of liberty is an adolescent display. And it's exactly what mature Christians should avoid.
Why is recommending a wine or beer showy and immature? That smacks of arrogance and condescension. I don't think he proved this point at all, and to call people immature without showing it is unhelpful ad hom. Stick to the issues.
Moore and Mohler try to tackle the issue of whether or not their view is encouraging Pharisaism (about 3/4 through the audio). Not very compelling. Notice how they actually try to claim fundamentalism for those who don't abstain! Mohler says...
And this is where sometimes fundamentalism, with its very restrictive list, forms a warped understanding of the gospel. And I'll tell you, this is one of my main concerns, and I'll just speak from the heart, and it's one of my main concerns for this generation of students. And so let me just speak paternally here for a moment. My concern is that you have fundamentalism with a restrictive list of "don'ts" and what we are seeing is a new kind of fundamentalism, a fundamentalism disguised as liberty, which has a new list of "do's." And it's nothing more than a reflexive, unthoughtful and I think unmotivated by love kind of response here, and I'm afraid it will wreck ministries in embryonic form.
I can assure you of this: if you are associated with the use of beverage alcohol, I think I dare exaggerate not to say that 99% of all doors of ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention will be closed to you. And I do not believe that is an exaggeration. And let me tell you why...you may think, 'That just shows high-bound and unthinking the Southern Baptist Convention is.' Why should the Southern Baptist Convention or a local church take a risk? Why should it be in the position of deciding whether this is a problem or not. I mean, you have to understand, why would the church take that on? So, I am very concerned about this generation, and that's one of the reasons why our integrity with the denomination, with our churches, requires that we not only have this policy, but that we talk about it, we teach it and we enforce it.
Where is someone demanding that people drink? That would be fundamentalism of "do's," but I haven't read anyone with this position. I think it just doesn't make sense, and is an attempt to get the harsh idea of fundamentalism off their back and put it on someone else.
Mohler is right about drinking and not getting jobs, but that doesn't mean the SBC position is right. It just means they are very effective at getting local church and parachurch adherence to their extra-biblical legalisms.
Russ Moore then continues in the same vein...
Dr. Mohler mentioned the weblogs that you often see (and so often I think this fundamentalism is exactly right) so often the message that is communicated is, 'Thank you Lord that I am not like my fundamentalist home church.' And you can hear in this 'jabbing of the eye' the prayer of the Pharisee and it is very, very destructive.
True enough, that we all struggle to be the Pharisee. Or maybe we should say, we all ARE the Pharisee. Guilty as charged, and running to the Cross.
But a wrong heart doesn't mean a wrongness on the issue of alcohol. It just means they have taken it too far. The Pharisees weren't always wrong in what they did, but in claiming their rightness in doing it. This is just a non-issue on alcohol and distracting. I can claim Mohler and Moore are Pharisees all day long (or liars, or whatever), but that doesn't mean they are right or wrong on alcohol consumption.
Closer to the end, Mohler told the story of going to lunch for a meeting with a group of evangelical leaders across denominational lines. If anywhere, this is the place for a Christian to show generosity to those who aren't compelled as he is about the issue of alcohol. But as a couple of leaders ordered beer with lunch, Mohler actually spoke up and asked a Lutheran pastor (friend of his) to not get a beer "so that sitting here in this Southern town where anyone can walk in and see this table, people do not then barrage me with phone calls associating me with drinking, which I'm not doing." He finished the story, "I could not allow my own personal integrity to be questioned, I would of had to have left the lunch."
But Jesus didn't have this take on alcohol or His reputation, and accordingly had His personal integrity dragged repeatedly through the mud because of who he associated with. Mohler seems to miss the point that alcohol isn't the point, people are. His reputation and SBTS' reputation isn't the point, people are. And when someone else's beer becomes an issue, there is something dramatically wrong.
Let me make this last point, because some (many?) will think this is such a secondary issue, and it isn't. This isn't about alcohol, it's about legalism. Alcohol is not an issue I will die on, but legalism of any kind is. It's not freedom for alcohol I'm calling for, but freedom from legalism which is deadly.
Honestly, I don't claim to be free of extra-biblical legalisms. I don't think I'm better than Mohler or Moore. But I do think they are wrong on this issue.
Baylor University Starbucks has pulled cup #43 with the quote from the homosexual novelist I discussed before.
Baylor Dining Services oversees two coffee shops. One of them has a scriptural reference in its title. The other was recently asked to remove a series of cups that some would argue "promote homosexuality."
Late last week, the Baylor Starbucks pulled about 500 cups with a quote by gay author Armistead Maupin after a faculty member complained.
(HT: Starbucks Gossip)
Interesting short audio clip (13 minutes) of Ken Myers talking with Eugene Peterson at Mars Hill Audio. Visit their site as well.
Doug Baker has written a new article in Baptist Press, "The Gospel at the Center." In it he works through emerging church issues and theology, Rob Bell and Brian McLaren, and finds it all pretty dangerous. Do you agree?
While no human being will ever be ableadequately to explain the mystery of the incarnation, the resurrection, or the Trinity, a “generous orthodoxy” (an idea taken from McLaren’s book by the same title) would never reframe these doctrines or others like them in such fluid terms so as to confuse others of their true meaning. In the end, this orthodoxy is not generous, but dangerous.
Joe Thorn responds to Jack Graham's "Total Abstinence" article in BP.
I believe the cure for drunkenness is not abstinence or moderation, but the gospel itself.
I don't think I posted this before...
I've been asked by Glenn Lucke to review his book (with Ben Young) Common Grounds: Conversations About Things That Matter Most, and I have the opportunity to preview review C.J. Mahaney's new one, Humility: True Greatness. I hope to read and review both here in the next couple of weeks.
I've been looking for this online ever since the new Christianity Today came out and I read it. Well, it's finally online. Donald Miller is interviewed by Stan Guthrie: "Finding God in Odd Places: There's more to faith than grids and logic, says Donald Miller." I think it's thought provoking. Here's the last section, but please go and read it all.
You are big on the experiential. How about truth?
Ultimately everything is purely experiential. If we could divide the complexity of our reality into grids and categories, God would have communicated through the Bible in grids and categories. There are mysteries that cannot be explained logically.
That isn't to say there isn't truth. I certainly believe there's absolute truth. My criticism is, however many years ago, that the Bible or Christian spirituality was changed out of an experiential [approach] into grids and logical kinds of thinking.
I think it's hurt our faith. I think it's hurt me. For instance, I had always grown up believing the Lord's Prayer was a list of philosophical paradigms that we'd check off. But when we actually read the text, we understand that Jesus is teaching us a dynamic new way to experience faith, that we will relate to God as a father. It wasn't until I understood that the dynamic of our faith is relational rather than logical that I started maturing in my faith.
Can't you bring them together?
Well, certainly you can.
"Rather than" is pretty stark.
It is very stark. But it's the language of our culture.
So you're overstating your case.
I'm overstating my case, because I don't feel like anybody will listen if I don't.
Scot McKnight is sick of Bic pens filling up our dumps, and has a great alternative: fountain pens.
Oh man. The SBC is just a delight. Joe Thorn finds a gem of an article by Jack Graham in today's Baptist Press on the need for total abstinence from alcohol. Uh, all that was sarcasm. This is a mess of an article.
I expect that Joe's post tomorrow will register on the Richter Scale. Look for it.
One of my new favorite CD's is In Motion by Copeland. Emo, sorta. Rock, kinda. Pop, a little bit. Harmony laden, emotion provoking, gentle but not cheesy. Brilliant vocals. I love it.
Reviews:
The true power of In Motion -- and the primary reason it is so solid -- lies in Copeland's ability to drag the listener along the gauntlet of their emotions with them.
It's tough to write a summary of an album like In Motion without sounding like they paid me to say it. But I absolutely love this album. ...It combines so many emotions into those songs; some may even be clichéd, but Copeland manages to put such a novel spin on them that they sound fresh and romantic. ...Many of the songs could be considered almost progressive indie. The guitars, when they appear on the album, are some of the best I've heard in a while. Aaron Marsh's voice is beyond underrated, and it's such a shame. He absolutely invigorates this album. In a sentence, you need to add Copeland's In Motion to your CD collection. I've been reviewing some awesome albums lately, but Copeland has managed to jump to the head of the pack. A well-deserved, and tough to achieve A+ for them.
Copeland’s In Motion wants to put its hands on love to hold it, define it, and put a name there for all to see.
...those actively searching for a band that can stalk your veins like a ghost … will probably find one of their new favorite bands.
Sovereign Grace Ministries is offering the first 50 bloggers who will review C.J. Mahaney's new book Humility: True Greatness, a free copy of the book.
You need to go to the SGM site, click the email button, give them some info, they will send you a pdf version, you read and review it, then you get the book sent to you in the mail for free.
