August 11, 2010

Well, I’ve been away from blogging for several weeks now. I went on vacation — back to North Carolina and then to the mountains — and I just sort of forgot about blogging. Anyway, I’ll get back into it. For now, here are some noteworthy articles related to the recent resurgence of interest in homosexual unions/marriage.

“Gay Marriage” by Carl Trueman, Westminster Theological Seminary

“For people like myself, now in middle age, dislike of homosexuality came with the territory; our reasons for opposing it were more to do with our own cultural backgrounds than with any biblical argumentation.  Our opinions on the issue may have happened to coincide at points with biblical teaching, but that was more by accident than design.   We were basically bigots and we needed to change.”

“Those evangelical leaders, academics and evangelical institutions that prize their place at the table and their invitations to appear on `serious’ television programs, and who enjoy being asked to offer their opinion to the wider culture had better be prepared to make a choice.  As I have said before in this column, we are not far from the place where to oppose homosexuality will be regarded as in the same moral bracket as white supremacy.”

“The End of Marriage in Scandinavia” by Stanley Kurtz

This is a rather long article on the social scientific data related to the Scandinavian separation of marriage and procreation, a separation which has encouraged the normativity of homosexual and multi-sexual relationships. Here is an excerpt:

“Kari Moxnes, a feminist sociologist specializing in divorce, is one of the most prominent of Norway’s newly emerging group of public social scientists. As a scholar who sees both marriage and at-home motherhood as inherently oppressive to women, Moxnes is a proponent of nonmarital cohabitation and parenthood. In 1993, as the Norwegian legislature was debating gay marriage, Moxnes published an article, “Det tomme ekteskap” (“Empty Marriage”), in the influential liberal paper Dagbladet. She argued that Norwegian gay marriage was a sign of marriage’s growing emptiness, not its strength. Although Moxnes spoke in favor of gay marriage, she treated its creation as a (welcome) death knell for marriage itself. Moxnes identified homosexuals–with their experience in forging relationships unencumbered by children–as social pioneers in the separation of marriage from parenthood. In recognizing homosexual relationships, Moxnes said, society was ratifying the division of marriage from parenthood that had spurred the rise of out-of-wedlock births to begin with.”

“So What? How Does Homosexual Marriage Affect Me?” by R. Scott Clark, Westminster Seminary California

“Not only is the term “parent” being re-defined but, of course, the basic natural definition of “family” is necessarily being re-defined to include homosexual marriages and homosexual parenting. This is not an insistence upon small nuclear families as a definition of marriage but it is an insistence that family and marriage have something to do with objective, natural reality. I understand that the way we often think of “family” as a small nuclear unit is the product of modern social forces and even of marketing and mass media but the older idea of family (including extended family and even, if we go back to the classical and biblical periods, of household servants) was grounded in the nature of things. The redefinition of “family” to include units that are contrary to the nature of things is much more an act of radical nominalism (we can call things anything because there’s no intrinsic connection between names and things) and voluntarism (the human will is ultimate) and a denial of the very existence of nature.”

Also, I am happy to see that Wesley Hill’s book on celibate homosexuality is to be released in a few weeks: Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. You should read this article by Hill if you have not already. Here are my reflections related to his article.

Sweet justice!

June 23, 2010

In the 91st minute, USA scores their second goal but the only “official” goal of the match, advancing to the round of 16 and winning their group!

‘Lost’ and theodicy

April 5, 2010

I’m catching-up on the last couple episodes of Lost. This last season has completely exceeded my expectations. It is amazing that a major network drama, with some of the highest ratings of all time, is built completely around the big themes of theodicy. The question of free will, the problem of evil, the hiddenness of God — all of this has converged in this last season and is given explicit expression through, more or less, biblical motifs.

So, I am curious why, among the dozens of theology blogs on my Google Reader, nobody is giving due attention to Lost, with the exception of some Catholic podcasts. Theology students are ignoring the most explicitly theological television show ever produced.

Back Soon

December 11, 2009

This time of the year is just too busy to do any real blogging, so I’ll be back in January.

I imagine that a lot of people will be making “the best of the 2000’s” lists…best books, movies, etc. from the last decade. I won’t do any lists, but I will say: Movies, by and large, sucked. This was the decade for television. Lost, Battlestar Galactica [BSG], Band of Brothers, and Firefly have had the best writers and producers working in popular film, whether television or movies. Lost and BSG deserve special notice for having the greatest range of characters, with the most realism of virtue and vice, that I’ve ever seen, whether on television or in a movie. And the use of mystery (Lost) and philosophy (BSG), combined with a generous amount of religious references and themes, makes these shows especially worth watching. Meanwhile, the mainstream movie industry mirrors the creative intelligence and moral depth of a pornographer.


March 29, 2009

National Cathedral_Episcopal

The Episcopal Church (TEC) is not doing so well, to put it mildly. An alarming report from the House of Deputies Committee on the State of the Church (HT: David Ould) has this to say:

“To quote Dr. Kirk Hadaway: ‘The age structure of The Episcopal Church suggests an average of forty thousand deaths and twenty-one thousand births, or a natural decline of 19,000 members per year,’ a population larger than most dioceses. The advanced—and still advancing—age of our membership, combined with our low birth rate, means that we lose the equivalent of one diocese per year.”

That’s about as dire as it gets. On top of that, the net loss in active membership each year over the last several years has been about 35,000 to 40,000 persons. So, if 19,000 of this is due to “natural decline,” the rest — about half — are people just leaving.

The good news is that some pretty churches will soon be available for purchase.

Calvin preaching

I have to say I was rather surprised to see this: Time magazine has named Calvinism as one of “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.”

As far as the mainstream press goes, it does a pretty good job. It is very heartening, and strange, to see a movement generated by theology in the media. I’ve had my share of criticisms of aspects of this “new Calvinism,” but it comes as an internal critic who genuinely wants the best in Reformed theology to leaven the Church.

I especially like that the article mentions the influence of this Calvinism in contemporary worship. Time cites David Crowder. You could also add everyone else involved with Passion (Charlie Hall, Chris Tomlin, Steve Fee, etc.) which has been heavily influenced by John Piper and like-minded ministers. Most of these worship artists are not full-fledged Calvinists, but the influence is obvious and very welcome.


March 11, 2009


Christianity Today finally offers some sanity in response to all the hoopla surrounding Michael Spencer’s posts (and publication in the Christian Science Monitor) on “The Coming Evangelical Collapse” (which I criticized here).

Professor John Stackhouse (Regent College) takes aim at Chris Tomlin’s worship songs. He selects the weaker of Tomlin’s songs and offers a lot of pedantic criticisms, but I agree with him on the whole. Tomlin is no Wesley or Watts, lacking their imagery and analogical skill. But, to be fair, Wesley and Watts wrote some pretty pathetic hymns as well, which just happen to no longer be sung.

Art Boulet directs us to James McGrath’s review of G. K. Beale’s The Errosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism. Here is the conclusion, which I love:

“Inerrancy is a zombie concept that has remarkably persisted for decades in spite of long having died the death of a thousand qualifications. The only hope for Beale and other supporters of the doctrine is that no one will ask the sorts of awkward questions or point out the awkward evidence that we’ve only scratched the surface of here. But I am persuaded that those days are gone, perhaps not for an older generation of conservative Christians, but for that which is growing up today. And if the stalwarts of the old guard want to protect their flocks from inconvenient truths, it will take not just sending them to Evangelical schools, but somehow censoring their internet access as well, not to mention protecting them from looking at the Bible’s actual contents too closely. And once conservative Evangelicalism shows itself to be able to persist only under that sort of totalitarian regime, its downfall is assured. The Bible tells me so.”



Time magazine has noted that Chris Tomlin is the “most often sung artist anywhere,” with millions of worshipers singing his songs every week in churches across the world. The Baptist Standard has a nice piece on Tomlin here. I have been a very appreciative fan of Tomlin since his beginning days with Passion, and I happily saw him in concert a few weeks ago (as I posted here). We should all be thankful that God has called such an artist to proclaim his holiness and that the Church has, in large numbers, appropriated his music. Tomlin is, of course, one among many other artists in a larger trend toward authentic hymnody, in contemporary form, for the ekklesia.

Christian bloggers are experts at criticizing the Church, so it is nice to offer a clear instance of genuine health and an amelioration for the whole.


Existentialism makes people feel smart. You don’t have to be particularly smart, and certainly not particularly well-read, but if you are one of the few enlightened ones who perceive the blind absurd competing with our illusions of optimism — then you are a cut above.

That’s how I psychoanalyze the rationale behind the Academy’s nominations for the Oscars, especially in the last few years. What makes this year’s nominees particularly interesting is not the movie nominees themselves (needless to say, a Jerry Bruckheimer film is not nominated), but that the one undeniably intelligent and, moreover, existential movie of the year — The Dark Knight — did not receive a nomination for best picture, best screenplay, or even best producer. It is truly incomprehensible. I can’t understand it except that the Academy simply will not recognize brilliance if the masses love it. It is as if popularity is a litmus test and the Academy knows that the masses cannot recognize excellence. There is surely no other explanation.

Or maybe The Dark Knight was too intelligent for the Academy. Maybe they just didn’t get it. Most of what passes for existentialism in the cinema is not actually dealing with authentic existential themes of moral dilemma. The “moral” as a serious category has long-been rejected by the artistic intelligentsia that forms the Academy. So when the Joker tries to reveal the absurd telos of created reality, linking this to evil as blind mechanistic forces — maybe that just went over the heads of the Academy. The masses may not know, either, what I just said, but they do, in general, take morality and its grounding (meta-ethics) seriously. The average person, I suspect, grasped the moral profundity in The Dark Knight, along with the cool action sequences. The Dark Knight took seriously that humans cannot be treated as means in a relative utility, even if such an ethic ultimately requires a hope beyond the absurd that runs adjacent with fallen humanity. There has never been a movie that dealt with these themes with the precision and power of The Dark Knight.

We should all protest the Oscars this year and not watch (of course, there has never been much reason to watch). The Best Motion Picture this past year was The Dark Knight, and everyone knows it. The Oscars have gotten it right in the past, a lot of times actually — Rebecca, My Fair Lady, The Godfather I and II, Rocky, Chariots of Fire, Amadeus, The Silence of the Lambs, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, to name a few. It is a shame they will fail to add The Dark Knight to that list.

Rest in Peace

January 8, 2009

Open Skies

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009

During the early semesters of my undergraduate studies, a close friend of mine introduced me to First Things. We would read and discuss the articles, and both of us (he, a confessional Presbyterian, and myself, a devout Baptist) were freed from the limitations of our heritage. Christian scholars were more than just exegetes; they were scientists, philosophers, social theorists, and so on. Strange as it may sound, FT played no small role in saving our faith; otherwise, we would have been overwhelmed by the coherence and interpretive power of the secular narrative, a mechanistic existence presupposed in our coursework.

So, there’s my little tribute to a man who changed my life. Thank you, Fr. Neuhaus.

Here is Joseph Bottum’s announcement of the death.