False Alarm: Dangerous Preachers and Authors

I just got off the phone with a dear brother who is concerned about my theology. He has read some of my posts on a particular forum and have followed my blogging.

We talked about Joel Osteen who I think paints a incomplete and inadequate picture of the life and call of the Church. However, unlike my friend, I don’t think he’s poisonous. Unfortunately its true, Osteen preaches a message that embodies the American dream as if that equates to the message of Christ in scripture. Yet hearing his explanations and reasons as to why his message is more earthward than heavenward helps me put him in proper perspective. Simply put, Osteen’s message is fashioned to a crowd that may know they are citizens of heaven but do not know how to live like Christian citizens on earth. In a nutshell, what I hear Osteen preach is hope, encouragement and inspiration–the same stuff we hear our parents and mentors saying to us.

We talked about Peter Enns and his “unorthodoxy” via his so called controversial book. See http://cdero.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/bible-monopolybible-monopoly

Unlike my friend, I don’t think Enns’ incarnational paradigm undermines the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. Enns is doing a great service among conservative Christians and liberal Christians by interacting with the extra biblical data that is out there that is in need of being synthesized by evangelicals as well as the broader Christian community. Asserting that pagan sources provided the structure and shape of parts of scripture is not a denial of the divine inspiration of scripture nor its inerrancy.

We briefly touched on Walter Brueggemann whom I highly respect as a scholar and theologian. Again, I am suppose to treat people like Brueggemann as dangerous people?

What my friendly phone conversation boils down to is differences and disagreements. It is fine to disagree with Enns’ incarnational paradigm. It is ok to disagree with some of Brueggemann’s conclusions. But calling these men and people alike dangerous is nothing more then causing a false alarm.

When I think of the word dangerous, I think of the bubonic plague, violent armed criminals, taking a stroll around my neighborhood at certain times of the day, guns, knives, bullets, using an electric saw, etc.

Sorry, Brueggemann, Osteen, and Enns do not strike me as dangerous people. perhaps my detractors would say that the pen is mightier than the sword. If so, then perhaps dangerous is the wrong word. What is really meant is that such preachers and authors are a threat to the Biblical monopolization and religious control a person or group is trying to maintain.

Jesus Camp: Is it the truth or good editing at work?

I am currently taking a class called, Film, Culture and Theology. It has been quite rewarding. There are many things that go into film that viewers are not readily aware of such as camera angles, the impact of lighting and shade, the juxtaposition of scenes, cutting, transitions, the use of irony, even the effect of the soundtrack etc.

My first class on film was four years ago and in that class, I learned that when ever there is editing involved, the film is sure to be bias only presenting half-truths to no truth but never the whole truth.

The documentary, Jesus camp, shown here http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00118/atheist/jesus-camp/#comment

is no exception. The film is the finished product of a film crew that presents children as being brainwashed by Church leaders and parents into joining the religious right. In a nutshell, the film characterizes the Churches, parents, and children in the film as a dangerous religious political movement. Mike Papantonio, a Christian radio host, is the resistant to the movement.

That being said, let me be clear that I am not down with religious right evangelicals nor do I support their cause. My intentions here is to make readers aware of the impact of film and, while keeping in mind how each component of making a film shapes and impacts its viewers, help them raise relevant questions about what they are watching.

A few observations about the art of the film

-the suspenseful almost scary music in the background adds to the film’s objective which is to show how kids are being brainwashed.

-The location is key. The film location is Devil’s Lake, North Dakota. The name of the location is intentional. Furthermore, its in Middletown America. The scene evokes images of places where militia cell groups are formed and trained.

-The focus on kids gives off the impression of innocence and vulnerability. The assumption is that these kids are but puddy in the hands of adults.

-The use of American flags and slogans of “God bless America” help to drive home the idea that what is being filmed is a political movement rather than a moral and ethical movement.

Other observations

The film does a great job at showing how indeed the children in the film are being conditioned into believing in certain values. Question: Is being conditioned into belief wrong? Are we not all conditioned into believing in things? In light of the film, what are we to do as Christians with Israel circumcising their children and teaching them at an early age the Torah? What about Proverbs?

Also, notice how on their website http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/ they describe the Churches and parents as “training grounds” for children. This is an interpretation and thus their point of view.

Again, I am not endorsing the religious right but bringing attention to the bias nature of film, encouraging viewers to see that everyone has a point of view–especially when we are dealing with film where editing and directing is heavily involved in the process.

Added info: One thing that characterizes the Religious Right is the emphasis of national sins such as the acceptance of homosexuality, abortion and divorce, at the expense of omitting other national sins such as racism, violence, discrimination, materialism, etc.

The Great Awakening: Calvinism, Race, Slavery, and Jonathan Edwards

A couple of weeks ago I was engaged in a forum debate surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright honoring nation of Islam’s leader Luis Farrakhan. The discussion actually centered around the article at the following site.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-mentor-gives-farrakhan-his-award

What was the issue? How can a Christian honor a racist man like Luis Farrakhan? Even though I pointed out that Luis Farrakhan was being honored for his community service in down trodden Black communities, the lynching continued.

I then saw a double standard. The same people ridiculing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for honoring a man who they perceived as an evil racist man (Luis Farrakhan), cherished another man whom was perceived as a not so bad man–the puritan Johnathan Edwards, a man who was a slave owner. A man who was racist. Unfortunately, the revealing of a double standard did not calm the raging mob. They quickly defended their man-of-honor attempting to justify his ownership of slaves. Talk about a double standard!!! see debate here:

http://www.hcr.fm/forum/showthread.php?t=27520&highlight=jeremiah+wright

Now, Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist. According to Kevin Jackson [ see his blog at http://seekadoo.blogspot.com/2008/03/theology-and-slave-trade-i-was-recently.html] the Calvinism of men like Jonathan Edwards helped them to accept slavery. He says that “Calvinists of the era were more likely to support the institution slavery…” because of their view of God’s sovereignty. The way things are is because God wants them that way thus bringing glory to God (Jackson).

Now in order to be fair about this Jackson’s assessment, you should all know that according to his blog, he is committed to Arminian Theology thus he may have an axe to grind against Calvinists. But besides that, did the Calvinism of the men of that era blind them from seeing the evils of slavery? Any Thoughts? Resources?

When Christian Hip Hop was Poor and Lowly

I remember when Christian Hip Hop was a ministerial movement. Today it consist of money making monopolies.

I remember when Christian hip hop was a poor community. Today it is a prospering commodity.

I remember when Christian hip hop aimed to see converts to Christ. Today it is more concerned with making concerts for the Church.

I remember when putting out a full length LP was to get it into people’s hands as an evangelistic tool. Today they are pressed up to reach the charts and collect sound scans.

I remember when Christian hip hop was unified under the person of Jesus Christ. Today it is unified under the current hot Christian emcee on the mic.

I remember when souls were on every Christian hip hop connoisseur’s mind. Today it is the dollar signs.

I remember when Christian hip hop carried it’s cross and endured thorny treatment. Today Christian hip hop has gotten use to the red carpet treatment.

I remember Christian hip hop without the myspace.com, the record labels, the elaborate websites, the email blasts, the E-cards, the award ceremonies, the exclusive interviews…

I remember when Christian Hip Hop was beats, rhymes, and the testimony of the saints witnessing God turn two turn tables and a microphone into a feast of prophetic words that fed thousands. Today it relies on the next biggest technological / marketing advancement that manages only to feed fanatic frenzy.

I remember when Christian hip hop was viewed with missionary value. Today it has more monetary value.

I remember when Christian hip hop was not one’s bread and butter but a platform to advertise the mind and ways of Christ while grinding else where to make a living. Today it is a means of living and thus, people do Christian hip hop to live rather than live to do Christian hip hop.

What I remember is but a memory. Today it is consumed in the experience of something else.

May God have mercy and grace and may God restore our purpose and aims as a missional movement. May God make us a team again rather than a competition where each man/woman is for him/herself.

May we carry the cross again and release ourselves from carrying the burden to sell, sell, sell.

May we invest in people’s lives rather than invest in more album release parties, tours, advertisements, music videos…..

Biblical Authority: Reflection on Job

“The real issues of biblical authority and interpretation are not likely to be settled by erudite cognitive formulation or by appeal to classic settlements, but live beneath such contention in often unrecognized and uncriticized ways that are deeply powerful, especially if rooted (as they may be for most of us) amid hurt, anger, or anxiety.”-anonymous

An example of the above quote is found in the book of Job. Out of the “hurt, anger, and anxiety” that Job underwent was a new discovery of interpretation and authority of God’s word that no previous formulation of it could have ever bared on Job’s soul.

The story in the book of Job opens up with introducing the focal figure of the story–Job. We quickly are introduced to a man who was “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.”(Job 1:1).

If you was a Jew reading this wisdom literature, you would approve of Job’s discription on the basis of his material wealth and prosperity. After all, the covenant of blessing and cursing was the theological framework that governed Jewish thought (see Duet. 28:3-14). To think other than within this theological grid would be heretical.

However, as the story unfolds the Jew is disturbed by a shocking discovery–a violent shaking of his/her theological framework. You see, Job, an upright man, undergoes a series of curses and looses all of his wealth and prosperity. Inevitably the only explanation to Job’s calamity is that someone has violated God’s laws. In fact, this was the case within the text which clearly demonstrated by the consensus of Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, towards the end of the book.

The book is packed with multiple moving points but the point identified here is simple: the multi-wonder of God is too much to be contained by theological formulations whether man-made or divine. It is as if God refuses to be a replica of man-made theological categories or even contained by that which is divinely revealed and inspired. Satan’s proposition that Job does not fear God for nothing (Job 1:9) sets up one of the books major themes–the fear of God.

Something like the fear of God is something that cannot be hammered down or figured out merely through words. The fear of God is to be experienced and it is learned through disturbing circumstances such as the calamity that Job experienced.

Job’s openness to hearing God anew (Job 42:1-6) in spite of previous understandings that governed his faith towards God showed that Job truly “feared God for nothing” (see the parallel with the story of Abraham in Gen. 22:1-12).

True divine authority and interpretation is not as easy as man-made formulations nor is it contained by any consensus. Both issues, God’s authority and interpretation, are always moving and expanding through life circumstances and situations. Stories like Job are a reminder of just how authoritative God’s word is and how inconclusive the interpretations of God’s word are.

Bible Monopoly

No, its not a game, Bible Monopoly is played in real life and unfortunately among highly respected Bible teachers. Bible monopoly is the view that the Bible is solely understood by a person or a specific group. It is synonymous to what the religious leaders (Pharisees and Scribes) during Jesus’ time were doing with Judaism resulting in a lack of understanding of God’s word.

An example of Bible monopoly is Paul Helm’s review of Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.

See other reviews and Enns’ response at http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/01/enns-vs-helm-vs-beale.html

Characteristics of Bible Monopoly in Paul Helm’s Review:

• An unwillingness to deal with the plural complexity of interpretation
• A failure to wrestle with the difficult matters of Biblical scholarship
• A failure to see the provisional nature of scripture
• An obsession with turning honest interaction with extra Biblical data into an evil foe of orthodoxy
• A tendency to use past theologians (the one’s they agree with) as the standard of Biblical interpretation

The five characteristics found in Bible monopolizers derived from Helm’s review are all symptoms of treating the Bible as a sacred book of answers rather than a sacred book that leave readers with more questions. If the the Bible is just a book of answers then it makes sense why some of it’s readers think they have completely arrived at a full grasp of God’s holy writ, hence the idea of the Bible being provisional sounds ludicrous to them. How can the Bible be provisional if Christians have it all figured out (tongue-in-cheek)?

The point of the Bible is not so that it can be treated like a handbook, a systematic theological commentary, or like an encyclopedia. The Bible is not a book that is to be read like a syllogism. If so, then that will explain why many seem to have a relationship with the book rather than with its Author. If the Bible is a book of answers, then there is no need to consult its Author since everything you need is right there in the book. On the contrary, the Bible’s aim is to lead readers to it’s grand Author. It is meant to shock you, to leave you dumbfounded and bombard you with questions ( about the text, about God, about yourself, etc) that may never be settled, yet your trust in God and reverence of His holiness will grow. The Bible’s ultimate goal is to draw you to God not draw you to the plurality of its readers (John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John Gill, me, etc).

Bible readers may consult past and present commentators and interact with various interpretations, frameworks, and models, but such people and things are not the authority of scripture that is to be reverenced–an authority that is discovered by each reader and through a long-term process. <——the remedy to Bible monopoly.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Letter to NY Times.

 Interesting letter from the man himself…

http://takepoliticalaction.org/2008/03/25/jeremiah-wrights-response-to-first-obama-flap/

A Celebration of New Life

Today among Christian gatherings you will hear emphatically that “Jesus is alive!”

Yes He is is. Truly Jesus is alive.

Part of what makes Jesus being alive fascinating and amazing is that Jesus was dead, Jesus was unjustly punished, Jesus was betrayed. He felt the powers of sin, felt the oppression of injustice, underwent the feeling of loneliness. He tasted a world riddled with brutality, bitterness, and unbelief.

For 30 plus years Jesus experienced the plight of the poor, the power of ethnocentrism, the pollution of political and religious might, the prosperity of wickedness. Jesus sensed the destruction of the monopolizing of faith by the religious authorities–the scribes and pharisees.

Jesus, a prophet, was rejected by his own people, a people despising sacred words that disrupts, discomforts, and destroys divisive walls, walls created to keep the status quo.

Jesus, a King, was hailed with insult, crowned with mockery, and clothed with shame and embarrassment.

Jesus, a High Priest, became the victim of a conspirator who also was a high priest.

The words “Jesus is alive” are breath taking, or rather, breath giving. His resurrection proceeded after the experience of being forsaken by friends and family. He was even forsaken by His own heavenly Father.

Ultimately, “Jesus is alive” means that sins were paid for, yokes were broken, and freedom was proclaimed.

Today, a Christian undoubtedly is reflecting on what ” Jesus is alive” means to him or her. The Christian is thinking of his or her salvation which is composed of Christ life, death, and new life.

But “Jesus is Alive” means more than its impact on individuals. It means more than receiving new bodies.

Christ’s new life (His resurrected life) is the antithesis of death, injustice, the monopolizing of faith, loneliness, institutional oppression, religious control, brutality, unbelief, bitterness, etc.

The New Life celebrated today in Jesus Christ and in our own lives is not just a celebration of what is to come (awaiting our complete deliverance) but celebrating that which have already came:

the power of life over death, the power of love over hate, the power of peace over violence, the power of joy over grief, the power of change over control, the power of hope over hopelessness and helplessness, the power of prosperity over poverty, the power of boldness over fear, the power of people over corrupt institutions as seen through the power of the post-resurrection Church over the power of Rome.

Indeed, Jesus is alive!!! Alive and well and thus Fear not for it is Jesus Christ who has conquered this world of often dreadfulness. What ever your circumstances are, don’t fret, Jesus is alive! What ever you are facing in your life that tries to steal your joy, don’t fret, Jesus is alive! Live another day, face your circumstances and situations. Help those who feel helpless, encourage those who are weak for Jesus is alive!!!

Glory! Glory! Praise Jesus our New Life!

Jeremiah Wright a Modern Latter Prophet

The previous post was one of Jeremiah’s sermons in its entirety. Today is a link (at the end of the post) to another Wright sermon in its entirety, the one that has been referred to as the, “God Damn America Sermon.” In its context, you will see clearly how this modern day prophet’s name has been dragged through mud, just like all the prophets of scripture. The prophets in the Bible were largely despised since their messages were not so sweet and often called for institutional change.

The Latter prophets, which include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and in grouping them, The Twelve Prophets, were poet preachers who directed their sermons at social issues. They, long before the Pope and the Vatican, addressed and challenged social sins.

Consider the woe against relying on military strength rather than on the Lord in Isaiah 31:1-32:20

Here is an excerpt:

What sorrow awaits those who look to Egypt for help,
trusting their horses, chariots, and charioteers
and depending on the strength of human armies
instead of looking to the Lord,
the Holy One of Israel.
2 In his wisdom, the Lord will send great disaster;
he will not change his mind.
He will rise against the wicked
and against their helpers.
3 For these Egyptians are mere humans, not God!
Their horses are puny flesh, not mighty spirits!

Sounds a lot like Wright’s word against America’s trust in military might.

What about the book of Amos where many of Amos’ sermons were directed at Israel for their unjust treatment of people?

Amos 2:6-7, 12

This is what the Lord says: “The people of Israel have sinned again and again,
and I will not let them go unpunished!
They sell honorable people for silver
and poor people for a pair of sandals.
7 They trample helpless people in the dust
and shove the oppressed out of the way.

12 “But you caused the Nazirites to sin by making them drink wine,
and you commanded the prophets, ‘Shut up!’

Amos 5:7

You twist justice, making it a bitter pill for the oppressed.
You treat the righteous like dirt.

American evangelicalism and America in general see issues like racism, injustice, etc, as individually oriented rather than also corporately and societally oriented. This outlook is foreign to the Biblical prophet’s outlook of addressing individual responsibility as well as corporate responsibility.

Furthermore, the books of the Latter prophets/preachers are trans-generational in nature. In other words, they are meant to be read by people far removed from the preacher’s original context. Therefore they are meant to be read in light of our own context. In more ways than one, the past world of the prophets is a picture of Jeremiah Wright’s present world, your world, and my world.

Listen to Wright’s sermon and pay attention to the images that Wright uses to drive his message home.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cgod-damn-america%e2%80%9d-sermon/

Jeremiah’s Full Sermon

---

http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008…-to-rev-j.html

This is the sermon from where Jeremiah’s remarks about America chickens coming to roost was taken out of context from.

This sermon was given on September 16, 2001. The reason why I post it is because it is only right to understand the excerpt from this sermon in its context.

People, lets understand rather than underhand.