My theological worldview

I know this survey only had a few questions and some of them were "leading," but it looks about right to me. What does it say about you?

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 93% Neo orthodox 86% Charismatic/Pentecostal 75% Roman Catholic 64% Reformed Evangelical 61% Emergent/Postmodern 57% Fundamentalist 57% Classical Liberal 46% Modern Liberal 21% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

that link should take you here:
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870

Whatever happened to God the Father in our Worship?

Here is an interesting paper that I just finished reading. The author is a member of the Methodist Church of Britain and is raising the alarm about the loss of solid Trinitarian theology in corporate worship. She cites three very different streams as having contributed to this loss: 1) the Evangelical revivals of the last 300 years, 2) Feminism, and 3) Postmodern cultural assumptions. Except for a few questions I wanted to ask her when I thought she was “swinging too far the other way,” I thought this was an excellent and thought provoking essay.

It is posted at the following website and is called “Whatever happened to the Father: the Jesus Heresy in modern worship:”

http://www.gbod.org/worship/default.asp?loc_id=1062,1065&act=nav_loc

Darwin's Dogmatic Defenders

An Austrian Roman Catholic Cardinal, Christoph Schoenborn, called for common sense in the debate over "Intelligent Design," and so he was summarily accused of trying teach the first chapter of Gensis as science in elementary schools and has been branded a "simpleton."

Of course, teaching a literal reading of Genesis 1 as if it was a scientific theory is not at all what he was calling for, but simply for taking Intelligent Design's critiques of Darwinism more seriously.

Read More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051120/sc_nm/religion_evolution_cardinal_dc

It has been suggested by some with regard to the current debates about "Intelligent Design" that critics of this theory, who have dismissed it as "6 Day Creationism," are in fact doing just that: dismissing it (by means of some derogatory label) without actually learning about it. Could it be that in certain segments of academia (in some biology departments where individuals have built their entire careers on certain philosophical committments perhaps?) there is a dogmatic or ideological censorship and dismissal of anything that challenges the status quo? I can certainly concieve of why some may have a vested interest in doing so.

If the dogmatic materialist-Darwinists are correct, what have they to fear from a little bit more discussion? What have they to fear from open and honest criticism?

It almost seems that some of our top scientists are approaching the issue of "Intelligent Design" with their eyes squeezed tight shut, and their hands over their ears screaming "it's not science! it's religion!" at the top of their lungs. But I am not sure if that will further the cause of learning more about our world.

Good article: Evangelicals and moral accountability

Here is an interesting article for people (or perhaps I should say "persons") who, like me, consider themselves Evangelical Christians. The author suggests that we have learned truncated forms of the Christian faith that leave us unprepared for rigorous Holy living and serious, daily self examination. This may be a more broad generalization of a diverse people than I am ready to make (just yet), but I think it is, at the very least, a good article to read and ponder:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/011/27.88.html

My, haven't we "Progressed"?

The "sexual revolution" that happened in the mid-20th Century was supposed to liberate women from patriarchal oppression and to give women and everyone else sexual "freedom." Gone were the bad old days of taboos and Victorian rigidity, and just around the corner, was a veritable new Eden. A new era of freedom and equality was beginning.

But I wonder if freedom and equality is really what we got? It is true (and good) that much of the institutional hindrance for women, as it was codified in the laws, was torn down.

But I wonder if the decline of traditional (read "Christian") attitudes towards sex -- as having its proper place within a covenanted marriage relationship -- may have created new and more insidious forms of bondage for (espeicially) women.

Perhaps a recent example can begin to illustrate what I am "getting at". We all recently heard about yet another scandal involving Abercrombie and Fitch's products. (It is interesting how many different items you run across if you search the web for "Abercrombie" and "scandal" or "controversy," but that is another issue)

A recent T-shirt line aimed at young women (let us keep in mind that Abercrombie's market is primarily teenagers and high school students) featured such enlightening slogans as "Who needs brains when you have these!" written across the chest, or "I'd look great on you."
See link for more if you haven't heard about it:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-chifitch1103,0,3539255.story?coll=ny-homepage-mezz

I wonder how much better off our sisters and daughters are now that they understand that their bodies (not their brains) are their tickets to influence (do you remember "The Apprentice"?). That is the new, sexually liberated, progressive, American way, after all. Or perhaps, in case a young woman cannot afford a risky augmentation surgery (or if her parents do not "love" her enough to give her one), then she could try "brains" as plan B? But the best way to be a woman is to be a sex object.

Perhaps I am just over-reacting? Perhaps I just don't realize that young, impressionable teenage girls are strong enough in their self-image and their committments to chatisty (for the sake of their own physical, emotional, and spiritual welfare) not to be influenced at all by billions and billions of dollars spent on putting near-naked swimsuit models on the cover of every magazine, "romantic" one-night-stands in every movie, and catchy slogans on every T-shirt.

The "Christian ethic" boils down to putting the true welfare of others above the desires of the self. We learn this ethic from Jesus' life and death. We call this "love." (this is not to be confused with another word that is both spelled and pronouned the same, but may sometimes have the opposite meaning, and is used in every pop song known to man).

So the Christian ethic of love (welfare of others before the desires of self) has always said that it is better for people, both men and women, to enjoy sex as the cement of a marriage relationship, the source of new life, and as an analogy for the sort of intimacy God desires with his people. Christian love sees the support and security of the traditional family as the best protection from the emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual destruction that something so powerful as sex can cause if it is used in inappropriate ways (and I think we all know something about this).

I realize that these ideas have been at the center of intense debate within our society, and I think it is good for people to stop and really think and talk (and LISTEN) about these things.
It once was said that "For the Christian, freedom does not mean freedom from restrictions so much as the freedom of embracing love." How might this sort of love change the converstation, I wonder?