• Theological landscape today and how it has changed over his lifetime
• The Emergent Movement
• Open Theism
• Westminster Theological Seminary (including Norman Shepherd)
• Federal Vision
• Worship Wars
• Women’s Ordination
• New Perspective

I consider John Frame a man of immense wisdom and sharp theological acumen. I wish that he would finish his book series and in general, write more!

If human beings were morally perfect, I would not be writing this article. But alas the tendency to destroy our relationships lies deep within us like a cancerous tumor. So the solution is easy, right? We simply find the right scalpel and cut out the tumor so that we can always treat people with love, kindness, patience, gentleness, and forgiveness. And once their tumors are likewise removed, they also will treat us lovingly.

But where do we find such a moral blade? And what surgeon’s skillful hand can use it to remove the entire tumor…Certainly God is the surgeon, the truth of the Bible is the scalpel, and God’s Spirit working within us is the hand that removes the tumor of our evil and leaves us with only moral purity with which to treat Him and others.

While the ultimate fulfillment of this surgery will not happen this side of heaven, Earle answers the question “So what do we do in the meantime” and that is the content for the article. He discusses:

• God is sovereign and in control.
• While we are not morally perfect people (in this lifetime), we are changed people.
• Certain qualities must be our quest as we work on relationships within a Christian context.

I would encourage you to read the entire article.

MSC seeks to promote an accurate understanding of the Bible’s teaching, conformity to that truth, and uncompromised commitment to biblical Christianity as a philosophy of life…(1) To help Christians learn to study the Bible...(2) To study and explain the biblical gospel…(3) To explore and promote a Christian worldview

I would encourage you to check out the various articles on their site. In addition, MSC is part of a larger organization, the Gutenberg Community which includes the Gutenberg College and The Art Project. Wes Hurd runs the Art Project and his goals are very similar to Makio Fujimura’s IAM ministry.

Some of the staff have also written books. Two in particular have impacted my life and I highly recommend them:
The Most Real Being: A Biblical and Philosophical Defense of Divine Determinism and Righteous Sinners.

The apparent conflict between free will and divine sovereignty has perplexed Christians for ages. Dr. Crabtree proposes a biblically-based and philosophically sound theory of divine determinism that affirms both free will and divine sovereignty.

“These chapters handle problems that constantly trouble and sometimes derail Christians in the main evangelical stream. On faith, failure, wisdom, works, perseverence under pressure, assurance despite shortcomings, and much more, Ron Julian gives truthful teaching to both believers and those who counsel them… Biblically exact and pastorally profound, this book is a gem!”
—J.I. Packer, professor of theology, Regent College

“I am with you alway.”

Matthew 28:20

It is well there is One who is ever the same, and who is ever with us. It is well there is one stable rock amidst the billows of the sea of life. O my soul, set not thine affections upon rusting, moth-eaten, decaying treasures, but set thine heart upon him who abides forever faithful to thee. Build not thine house upon the moving quicksands of a deceitful world, but found thy hopes upon this rock, which, amid descending rain and roaring floods, shall stand immovably secure. My soul, I charge thee, lay up thy treasure in the only secure cabinet; store thy jewels where thou canst never lose them. Put thine all in Christ; set all thine affections on his person, all thy hope in his merit, all thy trust in his efficacious blood, all thy joy in his presence, and so thou mayest laugh at loss, and defy destruction. Remember that all the flowers in the world’s garden fade by turns, and the day cometh when nothing will be left but the black, cold earth. Death’s black extinguisher must soon put out thy candle. Oh! how sweet to have sunlight when the candle is gone! The dark flood must soon roll between thee and all thou hast; then wed thine heart to him who will never leave thee; trust thyself with him who will go with thee through the black and surging current of death’s stream, and who will land thee safely on the celestial shore, and make thee sit with him in heavenly places forever. Go, sorrowing son of affliction, tell thy secrets to the Friend who sticketh closer than a brother. Trust all thy concerns with him who never can be taken from thee, who will never leave thee, and who will never let thee leave him, even “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” “Lo, I am with you alway,” is enough for my soul to live upon, let who will forsake me.

Mark Roberts wrote 2 pieces on why he signed the document. Mark says:

Okay, then, so why did I sign this statement? I signed because An Evangelical Manifesto expresses many of my concerns and convictions about the interplay of Christian faith and politics.

For example, according to the Manifesto Summary:

To be Evangelical is to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the good news of Jesus. Fundamentalism was world-denying and politically disengaged at its outset, but Evangelicals have made a distinguished contribution to politics . . . (ES, p. 3).

Evangelicals are often lumped in with Fundamentalists in the secular media. But these two movements, though sharing some things in common, differ widely on the extent to which Christians should be engaged with the world, politically, intellectually, and culturally. Fundamentalists tend to be separated from the world, while Evangelicals believe we are called to be “in but not of the world.”

Joe Carter (Evangelical Outpost) wrote some preliminary thoughts:

The one major quibble I have is not necessarily with the document but with it’s chief drafter. Os Guiness is quoted in USA Today as saying:

“Our problem is not mislabeling by the press or rebranding because we have a bad image,” said Os Guinness, an evangelical scholar and a drafter of the document, which was released in Washington. “The problem is reality. Much of evangelicalism is not evangelical.”

With all due respect to Guinness, this is foolishness. No doubt much of evangelicalism is not evangelical (or even Christian) but that has little to do with the perception people have about the term “evangelical” being used as a synonym with right-wing politics. That blame can indeed be placed squarely on the shoulders of the media.

Doug Wilson chimes in:

But if this manifesto were a twenty-days-to-a-smoke-free-tomorrow, the arm patch worked just great for sixteen days. Couldn’t have worked better. But then Joe Evangelical lit up three cigars all at the same time. On page sixteen, I began to encounter clouds of smoke like the following:

“In a society as religiously diverse as America today, no one faith should be normative for the entire society, yet there should be room for the free expression of faith in the public square.”

“We are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society.”

“In contrast to these extremes, our commitment is to a civil public square — a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free from other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others.”

In short, in this manifesto, there is a clear desire for religious liberty in the public square, but no religious law over the public square. But that leads to the obvious question, what law is over the public square?

Justin Taylor has a good summary of other blogs responding:

The following is not a complete round-up. Just some posts that have caught my eye with regard to the Evangelical Manifesto released yesterday. As far as I can tell, the substance of the document has largely been ignored by the mainstream press.

But recently a new approach has been taken on hell, and a number of prominent Christian leaders from across the country are trying to get the government involved. Their mission: destroy hell completely and then no one can go there. ..pastors have proposed a plan of action that includes three basic steps. First, the military will construct devices able to drill down through the earth until hell is reached. Secondly, a series of nuclear blasts will be set off to destroy the overall infrastructure of hell. Finally, hell will be inundated with liquid nitrogen, essentially freezing hell over.

I have known Pete for 29 years including being mentored by him (he was my IVCF campus staff), being married by him (to my lovely wife Barbara), worshiping at his church, and helping launch the Emotionally healthy Church Organization (the organization’s first outside executive, working on the first workbook with Pete and Dan Shin, and assisting his writing the second book by reviewing and providing comments on each section).

I highly recommend the books, his blog, and the EHC web site.  They will provide valuable resources to pastors and lay people.

He provides a good summary of the main thesis of the book. Enjoy!

A recent book on the missional church argues that we need to “reinvent the church” in “revolutionary” ways so that we can “incarnate the gospel within a specific cultural context. I found one example of such a church on the Internet, a congregation in Florida whose very name is Relevant.

Relevant is a casual, contemporary, Christian church designed specifically for college students, urban professionals and young families. Relevant feels that it’s their responsibility to “clear the way” for you to come to church. They want you to be able to experience the great music, encouraging messages, friendly people and enjoyable atmosphere that are a part of Relevant. I suppose. This church, like many others, is no doubt making a difference in the lives of “urban professionals” and “young families” in large part because it appears to be relevant…Put the liturgical church in this context, and it’s easy to see why liturgy is a stumbling block to many. It doesn’t sound relevant.

As one who truly appreciates liturgy, I can see why more evangelicals are yearning for the “ancient” in worship. Liturgy does not “try to be relevant” to this generation – Its forms originated in a long-ago era. The liturgy draws us into worship that transcends our time and place. As Calvin taught (Alexander Schmemman is also a good source), when the liturgy begins, we are transported before the throne of God and our worship is with the Angels, Arch-Angels, and all the heavenly host (the believers of all time).

Out liturgy needs to include both word and sacrament through the power of the Spirit. If we focus predominantly on the word and relegate the sacraments to the back burner, or focus predominantly on the sacraments as God’s primary means of grace and the word becomes nothing more than good advice, then in either case we have missed the true value of both the word and the sacraments. In most evangelical churches, the former problem is more likely to occur – the sacraments only get the barest of attention and one is considered nothing more than a memorial.

I like what the author says:

In this regard, the liturgy is more relevant than we can imagine, because it’s a place where God is taken seriously, and therefore where we are taken seriously. A liturgical service is by no means the only service that does this, but it is a form of worship that is especially suited to not getting distracted. The liturgy, from beginning to end, is not about meeting our needs. The liturgy is about God.

It’s not even about God-as-the-fulfiller-of-our-need-for-spiritual-meaning. It’s about God as he is himself: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not about our blessedness but his. The liturgy immediately signals that our needs are not nearly as relevant as we imagine. There is something infinitely more worthy of our attention—something, someone, who lies outside the self.

I believe all the participants in the debate had high points, and low points. Prager was not as interested in the rigid format of the debate, but his abundant talk radio interview skills gave him a true edge in rhetorical and audience connectedness. From a cogency standpoint, though, I thought Prager was mildly disappointing. I have alluded already to the concerns I had with Dinesh, but I do believe he won the debate. He was scholarly, clear, and effective. If Dinesh chooses to surround himself with a greater theological and philosophical acumen, he will continue to grow as a first-rate apologist. He presently does better in the arenas of sociological and historical argument for the faith than he does the epistemological, but I believe that is evolving (no pun intended). As for Hitchens, I have to be fair when I say that he can not exactly win a debate, when to do so would mean “proving a negative.” He is a gifted writer, a historical genius, and a moderately talented philosopher. I already know that his atheism is deeply rooted in ethical and personal objections (his strong dislike of God, primarily), and not genuine metaphysical obstacles. I will pray for him. You should too. His is a problem of worldview. Any attempt to argue him into conversion is futile. Period.

One point of agreement and disagreement with the above paragraph. I disagree that Dinesh won the debate. I agree that if DInesh continues to “evolve” in the theological arena, he will become a much more polished apologist.