3 Articles: Anglicans, Atheists, and Baptists

Here are some articles that I wanted to feature on Gloria Deo with a more complete commentary, but just haven't had the time.  Nevertheless, they will likely be interesting to some of you readers.

1) The Anglican choir of Westminster Abbey is travelling to Rome to sing for the Pope.  Actually they sang with a Vatican choir at Vespers last night and a Pontifical Mass today, which is the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul (and my birthday).  Liturgically, Anglicans are quite similar to Roman Catholics, and musically Anglicans are (in my opinion) the jewel of all Christendom.  This sort of ecumenism - actually praying and worshiping together and sharing our in our liturgical treasures together is every bit as important as joint theological statements for the growth of ecumenical unity throughout God's one holy church. 
------------
2) This next one is a bit old now, but I couldn't let it pass without comment:  Atheists "Rally for Reason" and are urged to mock religious believers.  Rather than advocating being logical and reasonable, Richard Dawkins seems to be advocating a smear campaign religious people that wields appeals to emotion and logical fallacies rather than actual reasoning.  Anyone else find the irony of all this disturbing?  Excerpt below:

Thousands of atheists showed up at the National Mall Saturday for what they believe will be a game-changing event for secularists. Though the Reason Rally was billed as a celebration of reason and a "coming out" event for atheists, as opposed to an anti-religion one, some viewed it as the latter.

"They said it wasn't going to be anti-God but all the signs are. So it doesn't fit because they're really not rallying for reason. They just say they are," said Tom Gilson, a writer and missions strategist.

Richard Dawkins, author of the best-selling The God Delusion, was the most anticipated and well-known speaker at the rally.  In his brief address, Dawkins encouraged fellow atheists to ridicule those who claim to be religious.

I can't help but wonder if Richard Dawkins is simply an angry person.  I wonder if he is aware that new research (see the book How God Changes Your Brain) suggests that religious practices of deep prayer and meditation can help build compassion?  There may be another sad irony there.
------------
3) Finally, I recently heard that, in the days leading up to the meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in New Orleans the on-going debate between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist factions of the SBC has flaired up to the point of heresy charges being hurled by the Calvinst side against a statement issued by some of the non-Calvinists. 

The statement opposing Calvinism states that:
"We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will."  Calvinist Baptists have charged that this is an example of (semi-)Pelagianism, which was condemned as a heresy by the ancient church (though these Baptists depart from the ancient church on quite a number of issues and it is interesting that they would turn to the early fathers as authoritative in their opposition to the other group).

Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, denies the charge.

"We are obviously not semi-Pelagians," Patterson said. "We do believe that the entire human race is badly affected by the fall of Adam. However, we don't follow the Reformed view that man is so crippled by the fall that he has no choice."

Patterson didn't assist in the framing of the document, but was one of six former SBC presidents and two SBC seminary presidents to affirm it.

I've tried to be a bit more careful in tossing around the charge of "heresy" myself, though I certainly recognize the very real danger that heresy represents to the health, mission, and unity of the church.  It seems to me that the statement above does at least sound like it could be some kind of Semi-Pelagianism, which is heretical, or at least slipping that way. 

Now many of my Methodist readers might be surprised to read this and think "But don't we believe that humans have free will as well?"  Actually, Wesleyan theology completely agrees with Calvin (and Luther and St. Augustine) on this point: our will is completely broken and corrupted by Original Sin.  However, where Calvin thought this situation required that God should choose for us who would receive salvation and who would not (predestination), Wesley emphasized that we, because our wills are corrupted, require the aid of God's "prevenient grace" - the strengthening grace of God that is given to every person to allow us, ins pite of sin-sick wills, to choose freely whether to submit to or even to reject the Gospel summons that Christ gives to every person.  You might say we believe in grace-enabled free choice, but not in a naturally free will.

As part of this whole theological debate within the SBC I can report that the SBC did "affirm" the use of the Sinners' Prayer, that some (especially Calvinist) Baptists argued was part of an unBiblical folk religion that developed in American Evangelicalism.  I would add (along with Calvin, actually) that what Jesus gave us according to the Bible to initiate us into him was not "the Sinners' Prayer" but actually the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion (see Rom. 6 and John 6, for example). 

I would, however, also point out that the Sinners' Prayer - in its most basic form - can be a legitimate form of piety that does have some Biblical precedents (such as Luke 18:13 and Mark 10:48) and, like these passages, closely resembles what the Eastern Christian Tradition calls "The Jesus Prayer" ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God: Have mercy upon me, a sinner. Amen.") which I frequently use in my own praying.  The Jesus Prayer, unlike The Sinners' Prayer, is one that we must return to again and again: it is not intended as a "one time conversion" prayer but a prayer for continuous aid from the Savior, and continuous conversion and conformity to him.

Review: C.S. Lewis Bible

After a year or so of debating it in my mind, I finally broke down and purchased The C.S. Lewis Bible (leather-bound edition).  When the project first came out, I thought "Ugh...Surely, not another niche Bible...Well, at least it's C.S. Lewis this time..."  Despite my potential misgivings about this "niche Bible", I often found myself thumbing through it in bookstores as I prepared for upcoming sermons and on more than one occasion I discovered a wonderful quote or nugget of wisdom that I wanted to share with my congregation. 

What can I say about the C.S. Lewis Bible?  Well first of all, this is a devotional Bible and NOT a Study Bible.  A great many pages have no notes at all, whereas a good Study Bible will have notes on most every page, nor are there introductions to the various Biblical books.  The quotations from Lewis generally give spiritual insight or helpful questions for reflection and are keyed to specific passages of Scripture, but (unlike a Study Bible) do not give much information about the original writers or historical contexts of the various books of the Bible.  

Pros:
Lewis:
The quotes from Lewis are either small "quote boxes" inserted into the text (in a different color and font) with a single thought from Lewis, or they are longer excerpts from his works generally at the top or bottom of a page.  The selections are brimming over with spiritual insight and (so far), they really have been the sort of quotations that send me back to the Biblical text itself, pondering its depths, rather than simply leaving me admiring Lewis.  While Lewis is only one thinker, which is a potential drawback (see below), one strength of his work is his deep familiarity with the larger tradition that had come before him.  His own ideas are filled with the thoughts of older saints and teachers.

Essays:
There are a couple of complete essays about Lewis and reading the Bible with Lewis at the beginning of the text, plus a short essay on reading the Bible from Lewis himself at the end.  These are all quite thought-provoking and give a sense of the intent of the editors in putting together this project.

Translation:
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is one of the very few translations that has been approved for use by Catholic, and Protestant, and Orthodox churches.  It follows in the great King James and Revised Standard translation stream (that Lewis himself used) and preserves at least some of the literary quality of those venerable previous translations.  

Presentation:
The leather-bound edition is very handsome, and the page layouts, even the fonts are also quite pleasing to the eye.  The beauty of the presentation itself is, I believe, something Lewis himself would have appreciated about this project. 

Concordance:
Always nice to have in any Bible, I would say.

Cons:
Lewis:
As with any study Bible or devotional Bible, we know that the notes on the text are something far less than the Word of God.  It is perhaps especially important to be aware of that in cases (like this one) where all the notes represent the perspective of a single man: Lewis has his own theological idiosyncrasies and oddities as well as brilliant insights.  Still, if you are interested in this Bible at all, you probably (like me) are quite eager to get more from Mr. Lewis (and there is quite a bit to be had here in an easily accessible format).   

Translation:
Though Lewis did acknowledge the need for modern Bible translations, I cannot help but agree with some critics who have suggested that Lewis himself would not be a particularly enthusiastic fan of the NRSV.  As a literary scholar he was very sensitive about the use of language and the layers of meaning contained in a single word or phrase.  This is why I expect he would have found some of the NRSV's non-traditional wording (especially with some prophetic passages as well as with the sometimes clumsy attempts to "gender-neutralize"  pronouns) along with the translators' occasionally odd or counter-intuitive word choices to be a bit off-putting.  Though it is for the most part a solid translation (and one that I use frequently), at times one gets the feeling that the NRSV translators were going out of their way to differentiate themselves from the KJV and RSV wording, and when this occurs it almost always results in a weaker or less elegant translation. 

No maps:
Yeah, what is up with that?

Overall:
On the whole I am very happy with this Bible which has indeed exceeded my expectations.  I expect this will be my "go to" Bible for devotional reading for a long time to come.  I would give it a 4.5 or perhaps even 5 out of 5 stars if I was giving a numerical rating, and would certainly recommend it to others.

Nance's Graduation

The video below is the graduation ceremony of Duke Divinity School from last month.  My own brother, William Nance Hixon, was among the graduates and he will be appointed by the bishop of Mississippi to serve as pastor of a Methodist church in Natchez.  We are all very proud. 

I've been wanting to attend a worship service at Duke Chapel for a long time, perhaps a decade, and was glad to be there for that reason as well.  As far as The United Methodist Church goes, this is about as "high liturgy" as it gets.  The worship leader and Master of Ceremonies was United Methodist elder and theologian Richard Hays and the preacher is Sam Wells, out-going Dean of Duke Chapel, whose sermon was very good. 

"The Bible versus the traditions of men"

I once had a conversation with a very outspoken non-denominational believer at a party who was very critical of Roman Catholicism (the denominational affiliation of most of the people at the party) and any other "tradition-based churches."  Citing Matthew 15:1-9, she proclaimed wanted the simple word of God and not "human traditions." 

That is a criticism that is often leveled at the more liturgical churches, from Methodists and Lutherans to Catholics and Orthodox - and no doubt it sometimes is a needed corrective that we need to hear and consider without becoming defensive.  Yet it is worth pointing out that even "non-traditional" churches actually receive many things simply on the authority of the Church's tradition alone.  I attempted to engage this person at the party on the question of how she knew which books belong in the Old and New Testaments - if her non-denominational church had audaciously done the research to come up with its own canon on its own authority or if they simply received what was handed down to them by the people of the church, since it was the early church that decided which books belong in the Bible, and the Bible itself nowhere gives us a list.  That line of conversation did not last too long.

I also suspect, however, that some of our "traditions of men" in the historic churches are actually quite a bit more Bible-based than is often assumed.  In the Anglican tradition (out of which the Methodist movement sprang), almost every word of the Prayerbook Liturgy is borrowed from the Bible, and (by tradition) much longer passages of the Bible are typically read in these services than in the non-liturgical churches.

Since the Reformation there has been a tradition that we teach our children to memorize the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 as summaries of Christian prayer and the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule as summaries of Christian morality (all passages of Scripture so far), and then we teach the Apostles' Creed as a summary of Chrisitan belief.  It is here that our "non-traditional" Christians might say, "Ah, see how they teach the traditions of men and not the word of God as doctrine, just as Jesus warned."  But this is simply wrong.  The Early Church Fathers very carefully assembled the Creeds to summarize the same faith that is also taught in the Bible and the Fathers of the Reformation continued to accept the Creeds precisely because these creeds "may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture" as Anglican Article of Religion VIII puts it.

I ran across the chart below at the Lutheran blog Cyber Brethren that gives a Scriptural warrant for every phrase of the Apostle's Creed.  As is pointed out on that original blog post, this chart was originally photocopied from a 17th Century Lutheran work and quite often does not use the obvious proof texts that we might think to use for any given line.  (Note: I've changed a word or two and added a couple of texts as well)

I believe (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 4:5)

In God (Deut. 6:4 1 Cor. 8:6)

The Father (Psalm 89:27; Matthew 7:11)

Almighty (Genesis 7:1; 2 Cor. 6:18)

Maker of heaven and earth (Psalm 33:6; John 5:17)

And in Jesus ( Zech 9:9; Matthew 1:21)

Christ (Daniel 9:24; John 3:34)

His only (Zechariah 13:7; John 1:14)

Son (Psalm 2:7; Matthew 16:16)

Our Lord ( Jeremiah 23:6; John 20:28)

Who was conceived (Jeremiah 31:22; Luke 1:31)

By the Holy Spirit (Daniel 2:45; Matthew 1:20)

Born ( Isaiah 9:6; John 1:14)

Of the Virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:43)

Suffered (Isaiah 50:6; Luke 23:25)

Under Pontius Pilate (Psalm 2:2; Luke 18:32)

Was crucified (Psalm 22:17; John 3:14)

Died (Daniel 9:26; Rom. 5:8)

And was buried ( Isaiah 53:9; John 12:24)

Descended to the dead/Hades (Psalm 16:10/Acts 2:28; Ephesians 4:9/1Peter 3:19)

And on the third day (Hosea 6:2; Matthew 26:32; Acts 10:40-41)

He rose again from the dead (Isaiah 63:1; 2 Timothy 2:8)

Ascended into heaven (Psalm 68:19; Col. 2:15)

And sits at the right hand of the God the Father Almighty (Psalm 110:1; Mark 16:19)

From thence he will come (Isaiah 66:15; Acts 1:11)

To judge (Wisdom of Solomon 6:6; Acts 17:31)

The living and the dead (Daniel 12:2; 1 Cor. 15:51)

I believe in the Holy Spirit (Zechariah 12:10; John 15:26)

The holy (Psalm 45:14; Ephesians 5:26)

catholic/universal Church (Psalm 22:26; Matthew 16:18)

The communion of saints (Exodus 19:5; Ephesians 4:3)

The forgiveness of sins (Psalm 32:1; Acts 10:43)

The resurrection of the body (Isaiah 66:14; John 5:28)

And the life everlasting (Psalm 16:11; 1 Peter 1:4)

Amen! (Psalm 72:19; 2 Cor. 1:20)

Snow White and the Huntsman

This weekend I watched, and thoroughly enjoyed, the new movie "Snow White and the Huntsman."  One of the better fantasy films to come out in recent years, it was at times reminiscent of "The Chronicles of Narnia" films and the 80's fantasy classic "Excalibur," or even "The Princess Bride."  This review does contain some vague spoilers.

Fantasy fans will not doubt like this film: If you enjoy watching a cavalry charge of knights in shinning armor, their colorful banners snapping in the wind; or a castle seige that hangs upon the heroism of some stout little dwarves; or sweeping vistas of a mystic land (filmed in the UK), or fantasy characters trying to fight off a surprise attack from a giant troll (with an interesting take on an old tale), then you will probably enjoy this movie.  The "Mirror on the wall" scenes are pretty eerie but imaginative as well.

On a spiritual level, there were certainly some notable elements in this film: there were at least some suggestions that Snow White and her family are Christians such as the numerous bishops present for her father's wedding scene and Snow White herself whispering The Lord's Prayer before she escapes from prison.  In fact, you might argue that the film at least implies that her "spirituality" is one reason for her purity and ability to overcome the evil queen.  Plus there is a "power in the blood" theme running through the movie as well with Snow White as a Christ figure (she even dies and returns to life, though this in and of itself doesn't seem to accomplish too much).

The film also, much like Lewis's work, portrays and invites us to that almost inarticulate desire for the Presence of the Creator and for the New Creation he brings, in one scene in particular.  Within the green "sanctuary forest" that has avoided the general decay of nature that is seen everywhere else in the realm, there is a notable stirring among the many animals as beams of light fall down on a place - a giant "tree of life," actually, where Snow White receives a blessing from one whom the dwarves quite excitedly refer to simply as "Him."  With the forest was coming to life around them, one of the dwarves smiles and said, "Yes, it's Him!"  I quite expected to see Aslan the Lion walk from behind a rock, but this good power (whatever he is) manifests Himself as a huge White Hart or Stag.  The Hart later bursts into a swarm of white butterflies when this moment of almost palpable holiness and blessing is disturbed by the forces of evil.

There is plenty of material in this film to explore about the meaning of love or of beauty, and selfishness versus compassion.  In fact Snow White's compassion and purity actually overcomes a monster and save the heros in one scene, when she looks deep into its eyes and some of her compassion "rubs off on it," so that it decides to back down from the fight.  She has a contageous spirit of goodness about her in the film.  Snow White even seems to feel genuine sorrow for her nemesis as well - I half expected her to offer words of forgiveness to the evil queen in the end.  So this was certainly not the blustering rage of so many American "revenge flicks", where the only way to overcome monsters is to kill them, or the final moments of your nemesis' defeat are best spent saying things like "That's for my family!" (which Snow White indeed could have said), not shedding a tear of pity for your enemy.  Christianity Today's review is here.

Like the fantasy classic Excalibur (based on the Arthurian legend), and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, this film ties the prosperity of the realm - even nature itself within the realm - to the health, strength, and righteousness of the sovereign.  It is one more pop-cultural expression of a collective yearning that, I believe, is ultimately for the healing Reign of Christ over all things.  We somehow know in our bones that when the right king is in charge, things will be made right (and it is immediately evident that our democratically elected politicians do not fit the bill).  Thus we are overjoyed to see Aragorn finally crowned at the conclusion of "The Return of the King," and so it is also with Snow White's coronation in this movie. 

All-in-all, I do expect to watch this one again.  It has some action, violence, scary images and some black magic that is gross (involving bloody animal insides and whatnot), so concerned parents should take seriously the PG-13 rating.  The costumes, visuals, and music are all excellent.

Women, ministry, marriage and the Bible

Why do Methodists (and Nazarenes, and Assemblies of God Christians, and others) ordain women and allow them to teach in church?  Isn't that against the Bible?  That is a question that many sincere (and not necessarily hostile) Bible-believing Christians have asked of us as a denomination and too often the answer they are given is something like "Because we believe in equality" - a secular answer based on the American political ethic given to a theological question looking for a Biblical response.  Such a response begs the question of whether our position even has any Biblical support at all, or whether we are competent to articulate a Biblical reason why we do what we do.

On the other hand I worry that many people who come of age in our contemporary, egalitarian, sexually-liberated Western world reject the Bible in part because they believe that it teaches repressive ideas about family and sexuality that are bad for women. Sadly, some Christian (and Jewish, and other religious) groups have reinforced this notion by insisting that women, if they are to please God, must live with a second-class status when compared to men.

I believe it also happens that well-meaning people, even many who consider themselves committed Christians or even clergy, become (perhaps even unconciously) uncomfortable with the idea of submitting to the Bible's teachings - or at least to the supposedly objectionable teachings on marriage, sex, and family. At this point, the cultural assumptions (which may or may not have themselves been critically examined) have taken on more practical ethical authority than the Scripture for such a person. This practical "veto" power over the Bible will look tempting when we approach other difficult issues surrounding sexual morality or the proper use of money and power. The theological Pandora's box has been opened and the consequences are disastrous, particularly for Protestants (for if we undercut Biblical authority, then there is no common authority left to unify our faith community).
There are a number of serious questions floating around here: questions about what the Bible (properly interpreted) or the Church does and does not teach, as well as cultural teachings and assumptions about what truly is good for holistic human flourishing, for men, women, and children.

Does the Bible prescribe a repressive form of patriarchy?  Or is there no essential conflict between Biblical authority and the valuing of women?  If men and women have equal value in the sight of God does that  necessarily mean that both men and women may be ordained ministers in his church?  To this I would say not necessarily, any more than equal value in God's sight gives both the "right" carry for 9 months and give birth to children - but I would add that there are also, at the least, some good arguments to be made from the Bible (not simply from secular values) in favor of women pastors.  This is what some "conservative Bible-thumping" Holiness, Pentecostal, and Evangelical churches have been arguing for years; here is one good example.

With these questions in the air, enter the 7-minute Seminary, a new project from Asbury Theological Seminary. While I'm not so sure about that title since "seminary" in the fullest sense is not something that can be done "in a hurry;" I am very excited about short videos that give us a thoughtful, charitable, and insightful discussion of the Bible's teachings for our lives from scholars who are theologically orthodox and deeply committed to a very high view of Biblical authority. The first one is a discussion of family roles and women in ministry from Ben Witherington III, a world-class New Testament scholar from Asbury Seminary, the broadly Methodist/Wesleyan and evangelical school. Check it out: