This Blog Has Moved

This blog as moved.

Read more at THEOGRAFF.com

Follow me on NetworkedBlogs

Celebrating the Legacy of Clark Pinnock

Clark Pinnock went on to be with the Lord. He was a tremendously important voice in evangelical theology, and a wonderful man as well. On my independently-hosted blog (BeingTC.com), I have written about 3 Lessons I Learned From Clark Pinnock since his passing, and about his Condition and Convictions when he made public his battle with alzheimer's.

Several others have written about Dr. Pinnock. Here is a short list:

Christianity Today
Greg Boyd
T. J. Oord
James K. A. Smith

Watch Greg Boyd's Address to the University of Rhode Island!

Greg Boyd's address begins at 1:01:00

The Future of Openness? A Review of Creation Made Free

In 2007, I was exploring Greg Boyd's newly launched ministry website when I stumbled upon an upcoming conference he was scheduled to attend on the site's calendar page. The event was called the "Open Theology and Science" seminar and it was to take place in mere weeks just outside Boston (where I live) at Eastern Nazarene College. I was ecstatic! I immediately scoured the ENC website for more information. To my delight, the school's website housed a complete description of the event including a schedule of the public debates and lectures that were to be held, along with a complete list of the conference participants. The list read like an Open theology hall of fame! The dream team of the Open View would all be there: Pinnock, Polkinghorne, Sanders, Hasker, Basinger, Rice, Boyd… I could hardly believe my eyes.

I counted down the days like a kid waiting for Christmas and attended every second of every publicly held event with what Joshua Tom calls "nerdy glee." I met and spoke with many of the Openness scholars I'd admired for years at the point, and continue to admire to this day. For a theology geek like me, it was tantamount to meeting rock stars. My wife and friends teased me mercilessly about my giddiness.

While I primarily attended the conference for the theology, I couldn't help but marvel at the presentations given on Open theology's potential to propel forward a deeper, more meaningful dialog with the sciences. That Openness made sense of the Bible was enough for me to affirm the view, but its capacity to bridge the unnecessary cultural divide between biblical Christian faith and serious scientific research only magnified its value for me.

However, I was a bit confused by the presence of Process theists at the conference, and wondered if I had been mistaken in my conviction that Openness was quite distinct from Process. Having vigorously defended Openness from the accusation by classical theists that it is 'Process in disguise', I felt slightly betrayed. Were Open View proponents compromising their distinctiveness? At several points throughout the public events I was assured this was not the case by the Open theists with whom I spoke, but a lingering twinge of suspicion remained.

It was a great privilege to meet the conference organizers Karl Giberson and Thomas Jay Oord, and to witness the miracle of an evangelical denominational college that did not feel threatened by either dialog with science nor theological frameworks often maligned amidst groups like the ETS. I gained a great deal of respect for the Nazarenes as a results and retain it to this day.

Both the 2007 and 2008 Open Theology and Science seminars are what gave birth to this book and have sparked this important dialogue between the theological and scientific communities.

I encourage you to check out my review of this seminal work in this field at my independently-hosted blog (BeingTC.com): bit.ly/cmf-review

The Condition and Convictions of Clark Pinnock

Today, some very sad news has been made public. Clark Pinnock has permitted friends to share that he is suffering from middle stage Alzheimer’s disease.

Clark Pinnock is a living legend and hero for young theological scholars who seek to have a conversant and relevant theology while modeling Christ-like patience and humility in theological discourse. I am in Dr. Pinnock's debt and pray that I can cultivate the sorts of internal resources of peace he has when I face criticism.

On my independently-hosted blog (BeingTC.com), I discuss what Dr. Pinnock's life and work has meant to me.

The Condition and Convictions of Clark Pinnock - bit.ly/pinnock

4 'Boydisms' to Live By

Greg Boyd is a fantastic teacher. He is as cerebral as it gets. How many American evangelical pastors do you know who regularly bring up quantum physics in their sermons? And Boyd's vita humbles Christian scholars living in even the highest of ivory towers. Princeton, Yale, over a dozen books (many best-sellers) are just a sampling. In fact, Boyd is so brilliant, he interrupts himself from writing books that will change Christian theology forever to write other books that will change Christian theology forever.

But Boyd's brilliance is not what makes him a fantastic teacher. Brilliance alone never made anyone a fantastic teacher. More often than not, geniuses like Boyd are terrible teachers. They are so 'in their own heads' they can't effectively communicate with us non-geniuses. They lack the capacity to translate complex and esoteric concepts into 'layman's terms'. This is precisely what makes Boyd a fantastic teacher. I've been reading and listening to Boyd for 10 years now, and to this day I am regularly floored by how easy he makes it look to teach a diverse crowd of church-goers and seekers theological truths the best of minds grapple with their entire lives. It is the true mark of a gifted teacher surrendered to the Spirit.

In particular, I find it amazing how pastor Greg (who my wife and I call "GB") can concentrate the most profound and central biblical truths into 'bite-sized' phrases packed with meaning that stick with me years after I first hear them. In this post, I'd like to present just 4 of these 'Boydisms' for your edification. Each one has served to deepen my faith in Jesus and I pray that they will have the same impact on you.

1. "Ascribing Unsurpassable Worth"

Granted, this one is a mouthful. But when you understand all that this phrase encapsulates, it seems a lot more compact. This phrase comes from a common teaching of Boyd's that because we believe Christ laid down his life by allowing himself to be crucified to redeem the world (including every human being), we also believe this act signifies the value God places on our lives collectively and individually. In essence, God thought you and I, Americans and Iraqis, worthy of his own Son's blood. And Jesus, knowing the cost, willingly went to the cross, demonstrating how valuable we are to him.

Boyd takes this truth and applies it in such a practical way, that I can't help but think of it daily. Boyd instructs us to apply this truth to our practice of faith by "ascribing unsurpassable worth" to all those we meet, whether they are friends or enemies.

In sermons, I have heard Boyd describe his practice of this principal in difficult situations. I have heard him describe encounters with belligerent and hateful individuals, and how in the moment he reminded himself that Christ died for that person, ascribing unsurpassable worth to his or her life. In that very moment he committed himself to "agreeing with God" that this person has unsurpassable worth.

I must confess that in the moment I do not always "agree with God" about the unsurpassable worth of individuals who hurt me or make themselves my enemies. I have to admit that Boyd's words haunt me as the Spirit convicts me saying: "As I have loved you, so should you love others."

I challenge you: the next time you are faced with a difficult situation: someone has made themselves your enemy, or hurt you. Zoom out from the intensity of the moment, and remind yourself that Christ ascribed unsurpassable worth to this person, and it is our calling as kingdom-people to "agree with God" about them.

2. "Calvary-like Love"

This phrase is so simple that it's hard to believe I've never heard any other preacher, teacher, author, or speaker use it. Boyd regularly uses this phrase to describe how followers of Christ are called to love others---including our enemies. He teaches that our love is to be self-sacrificial love, just as Christ's love was for us on the cross.

"We know love by this, that Christ laid down his life for us. Hence, we ought to lay down our lives for another."
- I Jn. 3.16

"If anyone is to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
- Mt. 16.24; Mk. 8. 34; Lk. 9.23

3. "Power-under"

In 2007, Greg Boyd's book, Myth of a Christian Nation was published. In it, he contrasts the way in which the kingdoms of the world (all empires, governments, nations, territories, etc.) exercise power with the way in which followers of Christ are called to exercise power. Boyd argues that the kingdom of God is altogether distinct from the kingdoms of the world and operates in fundamentally different ways.

Perhaps needless to say, scholars have been thinking, writing, debating this subject for centuries (and millennia). However, I think I'm correct in saying no other scholar has accurately and masterfully reduced their contrast to twin two-word phrases: "Power-over" and "Power-under."

With the phrase "power-over," Boyd teaches that all the kingdoms of the world throughout history and around the globe have all operated under the fundamental belief that justice, peace, order are created and sustained by exerting the kingdom's will over its subjects or its enemies. This is what one could call the power of the sword. Even if someone says, "No, democracies like the US use the rule of law." This too is an exercise of the State's will over that of its citizens.

Boyd contrasts "power-over" with "power-under." With this phrase, he describes the power by which followers of Christ are called to reflect the kingdom of God. By committing to non-participation in the cyclical violence of this world's kingdoms---that only begets more violence, we exercise "power-under." By serving with the love of Christ the least in our society---those rejected, dehumanized, cast out---we expose the evil powers that fuel oppression and exploitation. This is also exercising "power-under." When we are weak, God is strong. God's power is perfected in our weakness.

4. "Get your Life from God"

Like vampires, we emotionally, spiritually feed on something else for our life, our strength. We human beings need something outside ourselves to define us---a source of identity, something that ascribes worth to us. This void in our souls leads us to find all manner of life-sources.

Many people spend their lives trying to amass wealth because they derive their life from the amount of money they have in the bank. Many others spend their lives trying to find someone who will love them romantically because they derive their life from being desirable to another. The list of sources from which human beings derive life is endless. Even Christians can fall victim to this trap when they find themselves getting their life from the rightness of their doctrine or their legalistic adherence to moral codes. These too are meaningless.

With this simple phrase, Boyd reminds us that scripture loudly declares Jesus Christ is the one true source of life. All other sources are poison. He reminds Christians (including me) to guard our hearts against deriving worth, significance, value from the things of this world. The apostle Paul explains it in this way,

"But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."
- Phil. 3.7-11

All new blog: BeingTC.com - One Blog to Rule them All!!!

While I intend to continue posting theological thoughts and news here, I have created an independently hosted blog at www.BeingTC.com that will reflect more of my life holistically. I am not only a theological-thinker, or hip hop head. Like you, my life is multi-faceted. This blog is my attempt to chronicle my de-compartmentalized life and thoughts. Check it out!

The Battle for Expression

This sneak peek at an upcoming documentary captured my attention. I never knew that there was a movement of middle-aged white men zealously devoted to vandalizing vandalism ...but that doesn't mean I'm surprised. The lengths to which humans will go to preserve their delusions of control never cease to amaze me.

Vigilante Vigilante Preview Clip from max good on Vimeo.

The Cat and the Toaster: Living System Ministry

I haven't posted anything in a while. For that, I apologize. I will do better.

One of the reasons I have been more occupied than usual has been a particularly demanding course I'm taking in my program at the Center for Urban Ministerial Education which deals with Systems Thinking as it relates to urban ministry. Of the courses I've taken in this program, it is perhaps the most practical. I find myself wanting to instantly apply what I'm learning.

The central theme of the course is a concept developed by the teaching team called "Living System Ministry" or LSM for short. LSM is what is taught in Dr. Doug Hall's new book, The Cat and the Toaster: Living System Ministry in a Technological Age. While it is difficult to encapsulate all that Living System Ministry teaches in a single example, the cat and toaster analogy is a good introduction.

Hall uses a cat and a toaster as an illustrative contrast. On the one hand, a toaster is a mechanical and simple system. The parts of the system can be taken apart, examined, and put back together without resistance from the system itself. On the other hand, a cat is a complex, living system. All the parts of a cat work together and are interdependent upon one another. The parts of a cat cannot be easily taken apart and put back together. Not only that, but a cat has defensive, resistive systems.

The point is, cities have long been engaged as if they are simple, mechanical systems---toasters. With the illusion that cause and effect are closely related in time and space, ministries have employed linear thinking and have operated counter-productively. In contrast to this conventional thinking, Hall proposes that cities are complex, living systems---like cats---and must be engaged as such.

I've been very encouraged by what I'm learning in Dr. Hall's class though the teaching team, and I encourage anyone who is thinking about engaging in urban ministry to look into LSM. I also encourage those interested in LSM to check out ToasterCat.org

Good with or without God

I normally don't fuss with nontheists like those at the United Coalition of Reason, because in many ways I can sympathize with their skepticism. In a world like ours today, I can understand why nontheism would be attractive to people who exalt reason to the highest place. In our culture, faith is often associated with extremism, hate, and ignorance.

However, these ads popping up all over the subways here in Boston are obnoxious. So, I felt compelled to respond with an ad of my own.

It's almost as if these nontheists intend to imply that millions of people can't be wrong. But this is not as wise an argument as they might presume. If vast numbers make a solid argument, the billions of religious believers around the world would put the argument for faith far out in front.

E.T. & God

The Vatican is interested in knowing whether it is possible scientists will discover other intelligent life in the universe.

CNN covered the story and asked some interesting questions.

One question this search evokes is: What would the discovery of extra-terrestrial life mean for Christianity?

Gary Bates, of Creation MInistries International, is quoted by CNN as saying,

"My theological perspective is that E.T. life would actually make a mockery of the very reason Christ came to die for our sins, for our redemption."

Likewise, Father Funes, head of the Vatican Observatory, was asked for his thoughts and this is what was reported by the Catholic News Service:

"When asked whether God would have to be incarnated elsewhere if there were intelligent life on another planet, Father Funes recalled the parable of the lost sheep.

God's incarnation in Jesus Christ was a singular and 'unique event not only in human history but in the history of the universe and the cosmos,' he said."

So, what are your thoughts?

What would E.T. mean for your faith?

Would the discovery of other life in the universe adversely affect the message of the Gospel delivered in God's word?

Must humanity be unique in the universe?

FlashForward and the Openness of the Future

My friend Jimi hipped me to the existence of a new TV series called "FlashForward." When he explained the premise, I was so immediately interested that I am now caught up in the season after only one night (which is at episode 7 as of this post).

Here is a summary of the show's premise from Wikipedia:

A mysterious event causes everyone on the planet to simultaneously lose consciousness for 137 seconds, during which people see what appear to be visions of their lives approximately six months in the future - a global “flash forward”. A team of Los Angeles FBI agents, led by Stanford Wedeck (Vance) and spearheaded by Mark Benford (Fiennes), begin the process of determining what happened, why, and whether it will happen again. Benford contributes a unique perspective on the investigation; in his flashforward, he saw the results of six months of investigation that he had done on the flashforward event, and he and his team use those clues to recreate the investigation.

The team investigates a number of events related to the flash forward, including "Suspect Zero," who did not lose consciousness during the event, the sinister "D. Gibbons", and a similar mass loss of consciousness in Somalia in 1991. Meanwhile, personal revelations contained within the flashforwards occupy the personal lives of the principal characters. Mark Benford sees his alcoholism relapsing, his wife sees herself with another man, and other characters grapple with similarly unexpected or surprising revelations in their flashes forward.

Determinism and Freedom are rarely as overtly and prominently featured in a television series as they are on FlashForward. It is also equally (if not more) rare that a philosophical subject such as this is combined with such excellent writing and acting.

So far, while it is clear many of the characters hold a fatalistic view of the future, it is obvious that the openness of the future is a given in the FlashForward universe---as it should be.

In the most recent episode, a character speaks of the future saying this:

"[The future] is no longer going to unfold as I had feared. My gift to you is release from… the feeling that you're no longer in control. The future is unwritten. Make the most of it."

I'll continue to watch and perhaps write more updates of any significant developments.

White Jesus Wrote the Constitution

There is so much wrong with this painting, I hardly know where to begin. To address only a fraction of its mistakes, misrepresentations, and theological inaccuracies would require a blog series I honestly don't have time to write. But I couldn't resist the urge to publicly condemn this painting as the nationalistic idolatry that it is, in contrast to the true faith of Jesus-followers all over the world. Here are just three things I'd like to point out:

1) White Jesus

The artist who painted this painting, answers what he calls "liberal criticism" on the page where the painting is displayed. The first criticism he addresses is the depiction of Jesus as European/Caucasian. He responds,

"I don't pretend to know what Christ looks like. As I stated in my interview, I wanted to create an image that would be instantly recognizable as Jesus. I am not painting an anthropological Jesus. Nobody would recognize him if I painted him that way."

This is so poor an excuse for this categorical fallacy, it does not even deserve to be considered a response. The entire painting is a political statement, complete with crying supreme court justices and "heroic" soldiers. Yet, he claims his reasoning behind intentionally misrepresenting Jesus' human ethnicity is merely for "recognition." He is clearly deluded or deceptive. Furthermore, there is no lack of evidence for Jesus' human ethnicity in the Bible, nor his physical features. Is there really any debate among Christians whether or not Jesus was a Palestinian Jew? Further still, would not a man with darker, more Middle Eastern facial features, dressed in white and gold robes and with a glowing halo REALLY be unrecognizable as Jesus??

2) "Founding Fathers"

Like so many ignorant American Christians, this artist also believes the myth that the United States was founded by Christians. This is patently false and has been so thoroughly refuted it should not need to be brought up again! Right-wing conservative evangelicals in America are among the worst at rewriting history to have them in it. Its like when someone from High School remembers you but you don't remember them, and they say you were good friends. Its sad really.

3) War, Violence and Jesus

Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of this painting is congruent with one of the most disturbing aspects of Americanized Christianity. This is its endorsement and advocacy for violence and war, often even invoking Christ's name. The artist here honors several soldiers who represent those who fought and killed in wars ranging from the Revolutionary War against Britain to the Vietnam War. (The absence of a representative for Gulf War and Iraq Veterans is highly conspicuous.) The glorification of war by conservative Christians in America is nothing new nor is it particularly surprising. However, what does strike me as very telling, is the artist depiction of the Civil War soldier crying. The caption explains that this is the only war where "brother fought against brother." This is very telling because, of course, the Revolutionary War was fought against a "Christian nation" …Britain. So, here, the author betrays his deep-seated view that in his mind brotherhood is derived from common citizenship in an earthly kingdom as opposed to the citizenship in God's kingdom that redemption supplies in Christ. The Colonial soldiers who were professing Christians and killed fellow professing Christians from Britain didn't kill their brothers. They just killed enemies. By contrast, white, slave-holding Southerners who did not profess Christ but killed Northern soldiers who also did not profess Christ as Lord, killed their brothers because of their common American-ness. Interesting, isn't it?

Space and time does not permit me to conduct as thorough a refutation of all this painting's errors (both theologically and historically) as I would like. But suffice to say this painting is a clear representation of the Americanized and bastardized "Christianity" that is imagined all too often by conservative evangelicals in this country. It is not based on Scripture and it is nationalistic idolatry.

PS - Shout out to Greg Boyd for exposing this painting on his blog

Peace.

Vince Campbell Further Debunks the Myth of Christianity as "Western Religion"

I was so very proud to see my friend and former CUME comrade Vince Campbell featured on Prof. Soong-Chan Rah's blog recently. Vince flew through the program at CUME and went on to Princeton and is now working toward a PhD at Catholic University. I can't wait to start seeing his writing published!

In this particular post, Vince provides some brief but poignant glimpses of African Christian history. I strongly recommend not only reading this piece but keeping an eye out for Vince in the coming years as a powerful and important emerging voice!

John Piper: Weather Oracle

Wednesday, tornadoes caused a great deal of damage in the Twin Cities (where both John Piper and Greg Boyd pastor churches.) As we have seen in the past, these two pastors often have very different interpretations of events that occur in their proverbial backyard. This event is no different. Informed by either his deterministic theological framework (as is the case for Piper), or by his open theological framework (as is the case for Boyd), each pastor arrives at very different conclusions regarding the tornadoes' destruction-causing touchdowns.

What does make this disaster different (at least for Piper) is the tornadoes' appearance during the conference of the Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America (ELCA). Due to the fact that one of the issues the ELCA was slated to discuss was the denomination's stance on homosexuality, Piper boldly claims the destructive storms are God's work. Calling it "Providence" (with a capital P), Piper "ventures an interpretation."

According to Piper,

"The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin."

Thankfully, Greg Boyd responded to Piper's post today on his blog. Boyd's response brings a much-needed rational, Christ-centered perspective to the incident. Boyd makes several very important points that are important for us to read.

You can read Boyd's response HERE.

Crosswalk.com Apparently Allows Only Ignorant Comments

Dr. Soong-Chan Rah was recently interviewed about his book The Next Evangelicalism by Crosswalk.com. When I read the comments left by "readers," I was amazed by the level of ignorance they display. One commenter's remarks particularly caught my attention. He calls himself "metaphysicalmike," and this is the comment he left:

"This is like our Constitution is a living and breathing document - wrong. The Bible is not either. I have been a member of many churches and have yet to find one that is really directing itself to be a captive white church. Some of the churches have tried to attract non-whites to the church by offering alternative services and Sunday school classes, etc., but without a minority minister it doesn't seem to work. This article misses the mark. It is not the evangelism that misses the target, but the fact that the cultures are different and as in regular life society the two have not yet meshed into one society, but are made up of many small ones each with distinct differences. Further this article only seems to point out that there are differences, but not what can be done to change the system. Without the constructive part of the criticism showing what needs to be done and how it can be done does not offer much other than criticism which detracts further from bringing the groups together."

While the comment by "metaphysicalmike" has been allowed to remain visible for over a week, my comments posted last night were immediately removed.

"@metaphysicalmike: Your comment is alarmingly ignorant and defensive. Why Rah's thesis concerning the church evokes from you the need to share your political bent is beyond odd. And even though it is grossly off-topic, you are flatly wrong about the Bible. Hebrews tells us explicitly that the Scriptures are "living and active." However, what is worse is, when you arrive back at the relevant topic of Rah's book, you clearly demonstrate you are not a bit more informed. You assume you can judge Rah's thesis based on this single interview alone. You obviously have not touched the book, let alone read it, but yet you consider yourself qualified to condemn it. This is a sad mistake.

Moreover, you display a seriously unfortunate lack of understanding of the New Testament. There have been few cultures in recorded history with less in common than the Hebrews and the Hellenists, yet it is the overwhelming testimony of Scripture that God's mission was to unite the disparate peoples of the first-century in Christ. So much so that Paul's journeys and exploits to do this very thing make up the majority of the these 27 books.

Are we any different? Has the mission of God ceased since Acts? Is not God's redemptive purpose still to call out from among all the nations one bride of Christ? Or do you supposed that the scene in heaven which John describes omits the necessary segregating compartments of God's throne-room? Are American Christians exempt from the duty of all believers to reflect the heavenly worshipping reality that it is God's dream to manifest?

One third of _The Next Evangelicalism_ is devoted to strategies for combating the rift between American Christians of diverse ethnicity. Three chapters. Since you have not actually read the book, you wouldn't know that."

I have written to Crosswalk.com and will update this blog post if I get a response:

"Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing regarding comments that have been removed and allowed to remain on a recent interview conducted by and posted on Crosswalk.com. The interview was with Dr. Soong-Chan Rah, author of _The Next Evangelicalism_. Several comments left by readers are ignorant and unhelpful to anyone, yet they are allowed to remain. However, comments I posted addressing and correcting their ignorance were removed.

If Crosswalk.com desires to be a place where people are free to post ridiculous, and unhelpful comments, while also censoring those of us who actually have read Dr. Rah's book, then Crosswalk.com will not be a place that attracts and keeps an intelligent and helpful readership.

Please either remove the ignorance that is currently displayed or repost the comments I left addressing and correcting the ignorance.

T. C. Moore"

The "New Chosen" and Corruption: Calvinism, the C-Street House, and The Family

For 10 years now, I have challenged Calvinists on the unbiblical doctrines they espouse. Many, many times I have expressed my concerns about the psychological affect Calvinistic doctrine can have on a person's thinking and subsequently their choices. Despite all the evidence, Calvinists routinely deny the presence of any danger whatsoever. That is why I find this story coming out of Washington D. C. so incredible fascinating.

The American public at large is only just now becoming fully aware of the influence a small but incredibly powerful "Christian" Fundamentalist group has on conservative politicians in Washington. The group is called "The Family" and they are the group that runs the now-famous "C-Street House."

Author Jeff Sharlet, who is a contributing editor to both Harper's and Rolling Stone, is interviewed in this article for the Las Vegas Sun. The part that interests me the most, due to my habit of carefully examining theological claims, are the Calvinistic doctrines this group and it's members espouse. The Family, and subsequently dozens of powerful conservative politicians, hold Calvinistic "Christian" doctrines that are astonishingly offensive. And never before has the affect of this thinking been as clearly displayed as it has in the conduct of this group's adherents. Almost without exception, the "Christian," Fundamentalist, conservative politicians who have lived at this house, have all been involved in sex scandals recently. Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford are just two names among a long list.

I pose the question to you readers, "Can Thinking You are Chosen by God Corrupt Your Mind?"

Here are some excerpts from the article:

"The Family began with this idea that God does not work through churches but rather through those whom The Family calls the “New Chosen.” They believe they’re chosen by God. They can’t be expected to pray with the rest of us. They need to pray in private with people of equal status."

"Doug Coe, David Coe’s father and leader of The Family fellowship going back to the mid ’60s, likes to call The Family 'The Christian Mafia.' I knew Coe when I was part of The Family. He explained what it means to be a chosen politician.

Talking to another man, he said, 'Let me explain to you the concept of ‘chosen.’ Suppose I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?'

The man says, 'You would think I was awful, a monster.'

And Doug Coe said, 'No, I would not, because you’re chosen, and when you’re chosen, the normal rules don’t apply.' "

"[The Family is] a group that regularly invokes as leadership models Hitler, Stalin and Mao, whom Doug Coe said are three men who understood the New Testament best in the 20th century.

[David Coe] means that they are evil men, but what they understood is that the New Testament is not about love, mercy, justice, forgiveness. It’s about power."

"Doug Coe in one presentation talked about Nazi Germany and the allegiance many Germans had to the Nazis. He said it was something of a role model for the approach that Family members need to have to their organization."

"The [Family] began during the Great Depression because the founder thought that God came to him and revealed a vision that the New Deal was satanically inspired and that Christianity was getting it wrong for 2000 years by focusing on the poor, the weak, the suffering.

He said God came one night in April 1935 and said, 'I want you to be a minister to not the down and out, but the up and out,' he called them, the powerful. And God’s going to choose a few powerful people, he’ll work through those people, and those people will distribute the blessings to the rest of us."

HERE is the link to the full article.

And please be sure to check out Jeff Sharlet's new book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power - HERE

Response to Tiffany Orr - On Calvinism and Holy Hip Hop

Today, I plugged the keywords "Calvinism" and "Holy Hip Hop" into Google's search engine. To my surprise, in the very first hit I read my name. Who could be writing about me? Tiffany Orr is the answer. Tiffany Orr, who I know nothing about, took it upon herself to critique my Facebook notes on Calvinism and Holy Hip Hop.

Click HERE to read her piece

And here is my response:

Orr,

I stumbled across your critique of my Facebook notes about Calvinism and Holy Hip Hop and let's just say, I'm not impressed.

First, it's important when critiquing someone's writing to *ACTUALLY* read what they've written. Since you have set yourself up as an "examiner," I expected to read a half-way thorough examination. What I read instead was a poorly thought-out and executed internet flame with more mistakes and staw man arguments than I would expect to find in a fifth-grade book report.

Your title, for example, with a question mark following "Ministers of the Gospel" implies someone has made the assertion that Calvinist HHH artists are not ministers of the gospel. Who made such an argument? Did you read a different set of Facebook notes about Calvinism and Holy Hip Hop written by a different T. C. Moore? Because no such argument was ever made. In fact, the *EXACT OPPOSITE* statement was made emphatically!

"Artists like The Ambassador are incredibly gifted by God and I am confident they are having a powerful impact on people through their music and ministries. I do not want anything I am about to write to be misconstrued as an attack on these men and women of God. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Deuce and any of the other artists I will reference in this note or part II."

Did you miss that part? Or did you even read the notes at all? Obviously, if you did in fact read the notes, your comprehension skills need improvement.

Not to mention, you never actually argue that Calvinist HHH artists are in fact ministers of the Gospel. So, I am forced to conclude it is still a open question in your mind.

Second, you say, "Moore said he began to be alarmed by all the Calvinist theology Holy Hip Hoppers were espousing. And gee, even some Holy Hip Hop artists, such as the Ambassador, even have degrees in theology."

Did you read an argument against getting theology degrees in these notes? Can you imagine a reason why a seminary student like myself would be arguing *AGAINST* ministers getting theology degrees? Your lack of coherence here is astounding.

Third, you say, "... those who preach Calvinism are preaching the theology of the oppressed."

I'm not even sure how you got this point so very wrong. I'm genuinely stumped. The note does not say Calvinists are preaching the theology of the oppressed. The note says Calvinism is *NOT* the theology of the oppressed. That is why the heading of that section is: "Calvinism is Not the Theology of the Oppressed." And the point of the section is that Calvinism supports oppression, reinforcing systems of oppression. Again, actually reading the piece you are attempting to critique would prevent most of these amateur errors.

(Another tidbit of advice for a budding "examiner" ...examine the headings of a piece carefully, they are usually important.)

Fourth: "I don’t know why Moore wants to beat down Holy Hip Hop artists for expanding on the scriptures in an informed way."

The word you were looking for is "expounding." Biblical scholars "expound" on the Scriptures, they don't "expand" them. Unless of course you meant to imply that they are adding to the word their own biased opinions. In which case, they should indeed be rebuked. In the future, if, as it appears, you have no concept of what goes into biblical exegesis, it would be more wise to say nothing.

"...the Bible clearly illustrates the idea of Election. Ephesians 1 is just one of the chapters in the Bible that deals with the issue."

Yes, Eph. 1 discusses election, and it is so clear that theologians have only been debating this doctrine for hundreds of years. I'm sure they are all so grateful that you've finally put the entire misunderstanding to rest. Where was *YOUR* theology degree from again?

And finally, the kicker...

"What is so wrong with God electing people to pain, misery, exploitation, and despair?"

Hmmmm, let's see. How about, for starters, God is not evil. Remember that whole thing about the God of the Bible being pure, holy, and righteous? ...thats it.

You might be confusing the God of the Bible with another biblical figure called Satan. You cited Jesus' healing ministry as evidence of God's election of people to pain. Are you sure? Peter disagrees with you. He proclaimed Jesus "healed all that were oppressed of the devil," not God. (Acts 10.38)

"I think Moore has a problem with God’s justice."

Orr, what do you know about God's justice? You claim God want's people to be in poverty. Perhaps you have never experienced true poverty and that is why it is a matter you can treat so callously while ignoring the biblical truth about justice. What follows is a mere sampling of the dozens of passages that teach oppression of the poor is injustice that God abhors!

"I know that the LORD secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy." - Ps. 140.12

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." - Prov. 29.7

"If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still." - Ecc. 5.8

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless." - Is. 10.1-2

"This is what the LORD says: "For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name." - Amos 2.6-7

"For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts." - Amos 5.12

Orr, I am deeply saddened that you have so blindly accepted Calvinism and defend it so very ignorantly. I strongly recommend that in the future, you not weigh in on matters of which you clearly demonstrate you have no grasp.

~T. C.

"Taken" by His love - Guest post by Osheta Moore

So, TC and I are big movie people. Well, more him than me. I use movies as a sleep aid. I'm asleep by the middle and instantly wake up at the credits. It drives TC crazy. So I make it a habit to put on my PJs, drink a glass of milk and cuddle on the couch with a blanket whenever he pops a DVD in. Not really, it's not intentional, it's just we have two very different tastes in movies. He loves a script driven movie with either lots of action or thought provoking plot lines. Combine the two and it will leave an impression on him. The Matrix I would say is one of his favorite movies and our daughter is named Trinity partly because of it. I on the other hand, love a good romance. I love seeing the journey a man and woman take together as they explore their love for one another and how that loves leave an indelible mark on their lives. I love seeing the workaholic wall street tycoon get a second chance at love through an angel's intervention. I love seeing the immature shopaholic find her purpose while learning to discern between love that is reciprocal and nourishing and love that is conditional on receiving the minimum payment due on the line of credit. For me, a movie is a sort of escape. I see so much of the ugliness in the world, that I really want to be reminded that there is beauty, that there is laughter, that there is joy, that there is love. But, two nights ago I chose to watch a movie that wasn't a romance or even a comedy. Two nights ago, I got a 90 minute look at the sex trafficking industry. I saw women objectified. I saw men with callous, evil hearts. I saw families grieve. I saw a father's relentless mission. And I saw my Heavenly Father's passion for his daughters.

To preface this, TC has been gone for 5 days generating support at his home church in IL and spending time with family. So, when he said "Babe, you've got to watch this movie with me!" I was all over it. Anything to sit next to him for a while after being apart for several days! When I saw the trailer for "Taken" I immediately knew that I wanted to see it. But in the trailer it shows a woman alone in her house getting taken by scary black-clad men. So I, knowing my low tolerance for anything too violent or haunting decided to put the movie out of my mind. The movie is about a CIA agent who retires to spend more time with his 16 year old daughter named Kim, whom he had spent little time with as a little girl because of his profession. She talks him into signing a consent form for her to go to Paris under the guise of an educational summer trip. Really the girl was planning on following U2 across Europe! So her dad finds out, make extra rules for her to follow while there (call when she gets there, give him the phone number to where she will be staying etc. )because he knows the underbelly of Paris and wants to protect his daughter. Well, her and her friend meet a charming and sexy-accented hottie at the airport, divulge too much information about their situation they tell him they are alone in an apartment and gives him the apartment number. All the while, the charming hottie is actually bait for beautiful American women. The girls get taken (hence the movie title) by a Ukrainian sex trafficking organization and Kim's father goes on a rampage through Paris to rescue his daughter.

As I was watching the movie it really hit a nerve with me. Not so much because of the despicable sex trade industry. That's horrible and it angers me just thinking about it. I have a friend who is passionate about bringing awareness and being the light of Christ in this dark corner of humanity and I am blown away by her. So I went into this movie with a little bit of preparation for that aspect of the movie. I was not prepared to see the gospel in that movie. I saw a woman's fear of her Heavenly Father, a woman's rejection of her Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Father's plan to redeem his daughter.

Kim, has a general distrust of her dad. He wasn't around very much when she was a child and when he was around she carried a significant fear with her. She says in the beginning of the movie, she always wanted to ask him what he really does that takes him away from her so often. When her dad drew her out on that, she tells him it's because she is afraid she wouldn't like the answer. So there's an element of wanting to know him, but feeling as if he is unknowable that he's maybe too dangerous to know, or that she'll be disappointed with what she finds. She also has a mother and step father that feed her distrust, by making sly comments and by treating him with disdain in her presence. And I immediately thought of all the women in the world that are believing lies about God. That as a young girl looked up at the beauty of the stars and knew there was Someone who made them and she knew that Someone made those stars for her. A love offering from a Daddy to his daughter. And her heart was glad. But as the enemy worked out his plan, the stars were shrouded by the fog of deception. One by one she lost sight of the stars and all she saw was nothingness. Black, empty void and hope was lost. Maybe she still believes the stars are there, but not the Creator. And so, fear and distrust become her new companions. She begins to believe that God doesn't love her because this bad thing happened or this good thing didn't happen. She begins to believe God is angry with her because she once believed but now struggles, and she's too afraid to ask him the truth. She begins to believe that her worth is in her body because that's real, that's tangible, the sensations are physical and really what does a deity that you can't see have to offer in comparison? In Kim I saw a woman completely ignorant to the powerhouse of a father sitting next to her in the car and I wonder how often I forget the ardent love of my Father and the resourcefulness that rests in His hands.

Because of her deep distrust of her dad she pays no attention to his cautions. She doesn't call her dad and she's not truly apologetic when he asks her why she's not following the rules. She pulls the standard, "you're ruining my life and you don't want me to have fun" teen bit. She's self-centered and unaware of how fragile her comfortable reality is. Until she is taken. She is taken into a world where sex sells, where it's not personal it's business, and where her only hope in staying alive is up to the man pumping her body with heroin who hopefully doesn't accidentally give her an overdose. She's turned into an addict and plans are made to violate her innocence and it's all because of her rejection of her father's care. And I think back in my life where I pulled the, " you want ruin my fun God" card and I had fun. Short-lived but costly fun. Fun that sometimes cost me relationships and fun that cost me my innocence. Fun that as I look back was an infection masquerading as a cure. Watching Kim, my mind filled with images of women armed with anger and accusations for the Lord turning away from the Lamb to cuddle with the wolf.

But because of who he is her dad goes to rescue her. Bryan Mills-the father, is a CIA agent with an arsenal of skills, experience, and instinct. He goes through the blackest pit of Paris to find and rescue his daughter. There is a French official who is Bryan's friend, and we later find out that he's working with the Ukrainians. He urges him to be quiet and to better yet leave the country. He asks Bryan to not make a mess. Oh, but make a mess he does. And I thought of Jesus. Jesus who John says was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus, God in the flesh who came to earth to in effect make a mess and get messy. He came to shake up preconceived notions of the Messiah. He came to reveal the Father to a people who had come to view him as only their Judge or their distant Creator. He came to mess up the destructive construct of the world that sin introduced. And he got messy. He comforted the unloved and unlovable. He accepted the pariah. He championed the oppressed. Jesus being fully God. Fully divine and without sin, he made touching the unclean both physically and spiritually the bedrock of his ministry.

Jesus came and He took no heed to social or religious mores. What... talk to a Samaritan woman who is shacking up to show her she has worth to me? I'm there. What... there's a woman caught in the act of adultery and some self righteous dudes want to use her to trap me when all I see when I look at her is the most beautiful work of my hand? I got this. What...a woman wants to spend time with me to learn and let me love on her and you're trying to get her go bake some bread? Let her enjoy the better portion. What...in order to restore mankind to me I must empty myself and subject myself to death- even death on a Roman cross? Not my will by Thine.

Redemption is messy. Bryan Mills ignored his friends plea and made a mess and hugely crippled the sex trade industry in Paris. Jesus ignored the Pharisees, Sadducees, and even his family's' plea to not make a mess and he through his death he overcame sin and through his resurrection he overcame death and his relentless pursuit to reveal the Father to us is crippling the plans of the enemy. Because of Who he is and because of who we are to him he made a mess.

There's a scene at the end where the father gets through the last obstacle to his daughter and she's standing there in her prostitution garb and she says, "daddy? you came for me". And of course Bryan takes Kim into his arms and comforts her. I was a mess inside when I saw that. I was a mess because I know there were times when my Daddy came for me. There were times when he sent someone to remind me of His love or His Holy Spirit reminds me of a scripture or when I get a small glimpse of His passion for me when I interact with my kids and i think, "wow...you came for me? I haven't picked up my Bible in days and... you came for me? I have sinned in my anger and... you came for me? I have carried bitterness in my heart like a talisman and... you came for me? I'm struggling with trusting you when everything in my life tells me you just don't care anymore and today...you came for me"

So, in watching a very action packed 90 minutes I couldn't help but look pass the explosions and the gun fights and see the story of redemption. The driving force behind the movie is a father's love for his daughter which was a very dim reflection of the Heavenly Father's love for us. So where are you? Are you disillusioned because the stars no longer shine bright? Ask God to remove the lies and his Truth will shine forth and light up your sky. Are you rejecting His will for your life that comes from a place of deep, true, pure love? Stop. Ask God for a bigger perspective. Repent and let Him teach you how to live a fulfilling life. Are you standing in the middle of the room and the sin from your past is hanging from you like cheap lace? Run into His arms, cry into His chest and let Him love you back to wholeness. Allow yourself to be taken by His love.

Push, Knowing, and the Future: Determinism and Openness in Two Recent Sci-Fi Films [Warning: Spoilers!]

This summer, Summit Entertainment released two sci-fi thrillers that are similar in many ways, but different in one major respect. Both films are action-packed and laced with impressive CGI. Both films are set in present day among seemingly ordinary people who turn out to either possess remarkable abilities or to have been chosen for a unique purpose. But these two films deal with the nature of the future in diametrically opposing ways. In this brief Note, I'd like to explore the fundamental difference between the way in which the future is depicted in each film and provide commentary on why I believe one film represents the classical view of future determinism and the other represents the biblical view of future openness.

Knowing and Future Determinism

Starring Nick Cage, Knowing is about a professor of astrophysics at MIT who does not believe the future is predetermined. The professor's conviction of the randomness of the universe, and the pain that can often result, stems from the sudden and tragic loss of his wife shortly before we enter the story. Nick Cage's character also has a son, a sister, and religious background he has long-since shunned due to some ambiguous conflict with this preacher father.

The prof's presupposition of randomness is put to the test when a 50 year-old time capsule is unearthed at his son's school housing a cryptic code penned by a gifted and misunderstood schoolgirl. When his son suggests the sequence might be a mathematical puzzle of some kind, Cage's inebriated character cannot resist the temptation to analyze them in search of meaning and purpose. With a few short keystrokes in Google's search field, the prof finds that most of the numbers are the exact dates of major world disasters along with the precise number of casualties. In classic thriller fashion, he reaches out to a close friend who of course thinks he's crazy. (Who saw that coming?) When the prof realizes that three of the dates has not happened yet, he watches the 24-hour cable news cycle for breaking reports of catastrophe on the day when the present disaster is predicted. However, the disaster does not immediately present itself.

Running late picking up his son, the prof finds himself stuck in traffic at the exact coordinates of the disaster predicted for that day. Wondering how a simple traffic accident can produce 81 fatalities, he exits his vehicle just as a plane crash lands in the field next to the highway. Cage's character runs to the wreckage throwing blankets on survivors still in flames and performing CPR on some who are injured.

This brings me to why Knowing represents the motif of future determinism. No matter what the professor does, in the Knowing universe his actions can have no effect on the predetermined dates, coordinates, or number of causalities these disaster will produce. Though he takes desperate measures placing his own life in danger, he is ultimately impotent to prevent even a single person from dying. In the Knowing universe, there is a higher, transcendent power that knows precisely how these events will play out without contingency of any kind. Even though he receives "warning," he is still left to conclude he is powerless. All power of determination is left in the hands of the otherworldly transcendent power(s).

[Sidenote: Knowing goes to great lengths to present biblical faith as phenomenological mythology. Without giving too much away, I will say that biblical imagery/concepts are replaced by science fiction imagery/concepts. Whether or not the writers and/or producers intend to demean biblical faith is unclear, but skeptics and unbelievers will certainly have any preconception that 'Christians are simple' reinforced.]

In summary, the universe of Knowing is a closed one. What will be, will be. There is nothing human beings can do to effect the outcomes of the future. Ultimately, we are powerless and at the mercy of the transcendent power(s) that is/are controlling our lives. This, I submit, is also the conclusion of one prominent branch of Christian theology. Namely, it is that branch of Christian theology that has sought, since Augustine, to synthesize the biblical narrative with Greek (particularly Platonic) metaphysics. Calvin belongs to this tradition as well as the Reformed churches. This theological tradition accepts no future contingencies viewing the future instead as entirely certain, set, determined. Some within this tradition differ on precisely how and by whom the future is determined, but all agree that the future is not alterable nor populated by any real possibilities.

Push and Future Openness

Push stars Chris Evans, who is perhaps most famous for playing Johnny Storm in the 2005 live-action version of Fantastic Four, and Dakota Fanning, who is famous for starring in everything from Man on Fire opposite Denzel to the Charlotte's Web opposite a CGI-enhanced piglet. In the Push universe, there are people hidden among the general population endowed with extraordinary abilities a la X-men, Heroes, etc. etc. And just as in all other "special abilities" sci-fi franchises, there is of course the now obligatory, clandestine agency bent on either eliminating these 'supers' or exploiting their power.

The plot of Push isn't nearly as attention-keeping as Knowing's so I won't bore you with it's details. Suffice to say, while eluding capture by the sinister captain of the shadowy bureau (who is himself a super), the unlikely pair (Evans and Fanning) must find a syringe filled with a double-whammy drug concoction that either magnifies it's recipient's powers or kills them.

What I want to highlight instead of the this film's lackluster plot, is the way in which it depicts the nature of the future. Those supers with the ability to see the future, if only in glimpses, understand the future in a fundamentally different way from Knowing. For example, at the very beginning of the movie, Fanning's character says,

"Right now the future I see is not so great. The good news is, the future is always changing."

The sentiment that the future is composed at least in part of possibilities or contingencies, as opposed to unchangeable certainties, is an on-going theme in the film. As the characters track down the syringe, the choices they make effect the future outcomes "Watchers" see in their predictive visions. Each choice changes the future that could or could not happen.

I submit that the way in which Push depicts the future is more in line with the portrait of the future the bible paints. Scripture teaches that our choices have significance for future outcomes. What we choose today and tomorrow we grow to become. If we pray or not changes the future. If we share our witness with others changes the future. If we exercise faith or not changes the future. Scripture shows us that God has imparted significant responsibility to human beings to co-create the future with him. As his agents and co-laborers in the world, we shape the future for his kingdom purposes with our choices. A person doomed to destruction can be redeemed. There is hope when the future is not set in stone.