The Internet Monk Archives

Sundays with Michael Spencer: March 8, 2015

Note from CM: In 2015 we will mark five years since the death of Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk. Today, we continue our “Sundays with Michael” series with an excerpt from a post that was originally published in February 2005.

• • •

I don’t believe in inerrancy, a view of how scripture is inspired that means well, but just can’t get traction with me. My problems with inerrancy have been going on for a very long time, and I’ve heard it presented and taught by the best. It’s never sat well with me, probably because I have a lot of literary interest in the text of scripture, plus I don’t like to be bullied. I get a rash.

1. What the heck is it? It takes a major document to describe inerrancy.

2. The document in question contains the following paragraph (Chicago Statement on Inerrancy XIII):

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations

Excuse me, but did I just read that I am off the inerrancy hook if I can assert that the passage in question did not intend to come up to a particular standard of truth?

OK….I don’t believe the Bible was ever intended to be true in comparison to contemporary science, history, astronomy, geology, medicine, anatomy, psychology or the Bill James Baseball Abstract. Can I go to lunch now?

3. Inerrancy is asserted for the original autographs.

We don’t have them.

4. While the Bible is supposedly inerrant, none of those who interpret it are inerrant interpreters. That’s a problem. If there is a perfect compass, and you give it to a chimp, what have you got? A chimp with a compass.

5. Inerrancy is almost always tied up with things that really bother me: Young earth creationism, of course. Spiritual warfarism, where people with problem kids and screwed up marriages thing that Satan is in the house and/or in their head. Secret knowledge schemes, like What did Jesus eat? Diets. Conspiracy theories. Bible only Christian education. Lunacy like the Bible Codes. It goes on and on. Magic Bookies run amuck.

6. Inerrancy looks, smells and feels remarkably like a philosophical imposition on the Bible, going beyond what the Bible CAN say about itself, and forcing those of us who believe in the authority and truthfulness of the Bible to take a “loyalty oath” that goes beyond what should be said. Typical of evangelical attempts to show they are really really really really really right. Catholics do it with the Pope. Pentecostals with experience. Evangelicals with inerrancy.

It’s like a philosophical security system to keep everything safe. It’s been called Protestant Scholasticism, and I agree.

7. No major confession requires that you use the word “inerrancy”. Even the Southern Baptist Convention’s Faith and Message Statement avoids the exact word, and doesn’t harp on the concept. Reformation confessions don’t use it at all. We can live without it.

I’ve got news for you….but the Bible may be wrong on the resurrection. It may be wrong on lots of things. I don’t really have any way to inerrantly prove it one way or the other. And neither do you. At some point, you’ve got to accept it on faith, as do I. Accepting or not accepting the idea of inerrancy has little to do with whether or not I place my faith in Christ. In fact, I think inerrancy has a tendency to get in the way of our trusting Christ. We spend so much time sweating all these little inerrant details and trying to scientifically/historically “prove” the Bible that we can miss out on the entire point of the whole thing: Christ. Isn’t Christ enough? Why does it have to be Christ and inerrancy? Call me crazy, but I’m THANKFUL that the Bible doesn’t line up factually or theologically 100%. It would make it too easy to “stand pat” with my current understanding rather than having to spend a lifetime wrestling with scripture.

Saturday Ramblings, March 7, 2015

Hello, imonks, and welcome to the weekend. Let’s get ready to rraaaaaaaammmmmmbbbbblllllleeeeee……

The American Kennel Club has released its annual dog popularity ratings. For the 24th year in a row, the Labrador Retriever tops the list. Here are the top five (full list here).

Labrador Retriever
German Shepherd
Golden Retriever
Bulldog
Beagle

Wait, what? Bulldog? Beagle? Really? I’d vote Australian Shepherd, Golden Retriever, Labrador, Siberian Husky, and Border Collie. Now those are cool dogs. What do you think, imonks? Give us your top five in the comments.

And to honor the AKC king, I have randomly distributed some cute Labrador Retriever pictures in the post, starting now:

Continue reading “Saturday Ramblings, March 7, 2015”

Into the Wilderness…

Alex Colville - Horse and Train — Alex Colville – Horse and Train

I left a good church last month.

It was one of the hardest things I have ever had to do.

Why do I call it good? It was full of people whose hearts were in the right place. The leadership was comprised of quality individuals. It was a church that wasn’t satisfied with the status quo and was seeking to evangelize and disciple. The people there were welcoming, caring, and loving. The music was consistently well done. I was part of an awesome small group (the thing that made it hardest to leave). I could go on and on about the different things I liked about this church.

When we first came to the church eight years ago it felt like home almost immediately. I recall a conversation early on in our time at the church. “How long have you been at the church”, one lady asked. “About nine weeks”, I replied. “Wow!”, she said. “It seems like you have been here forever.”

I have chosen not to elaborate on the details about why I chose to leave, other than to say that over time the church and I started heading in different directions, both philosophically and theologically. Well-intentioned people don’t always agree. Two sets of people with the same goal might come up with very different approaches to achieving that goal. Christendom is full of examples of that. In the past, on this site, I have shared much of my theological and spiritual journey. I have formed some strong opinions about many things, and many of these opinions have come as a result of me changing my mind about something I once believed. I also know that a good percentage of the views that I now hold will ultimately be proven to be wrong, which make me very hesitant to criticize those with whom I disagree. Who am I to say that my ideas are right and others are wrong? Maybe both sets of ideas are right, or both wrong.

The divergence of opinion reached the point where I said to myself. “I no longer fit. I don’t belong here anymore.” It caused me no end of anguish when I came to that realization. It took another two years before I could bring myself to write a letter of resignation. I am not a person who wishes to sow discord or dissension, but when I saw the seeds of that creeping in, I knew it was time to leave. I tried to do it as gracefully as possible, but I know that some people were hurt by my actions, and I am truly sorry for that.

I am not convinced that I will find a church that is a better fit and I am not convinced I will find a better church.

Mea Culpa: Andy Stanley’s “Temple” Model

I spoke too soon. Like often happens, I heard something and filtered it through my own learning and experience. Then I responded to what I thought I heard. That is bad listening, something I abhor. Mea culpa.

Yesterday, in our open forum, the subject of Andy Stanley’s “temple model” came up. A commenter referenced this article and quoted from it. When I got home, I looked it up and read it more carefully. Then I went to North Point’s site and listened to the actual message. And then I realized I’d had the wrong idea about Stanley’s use of the temple metaphor.

I had assumed Andy Stanley was talking about how we “do” church. In the past, I have used the term “temple mentality” to describe a life that revolves around the church. It was a way for me to critique Christian separatism. Jesus said his followers should be “in” the world but not “of” the world. A temple mentality reverses that, so that many Christians take themselves “out” of the world while still having a lot of the world’s characteristics “in” them. I referenced a post I wrote several years ago which contained these words:

The problem with much contemporary American evangelicalism is that it has created an alternate “kingdom,” one which is OF the world but not IN the world (the opposite of what Jesus intended). The freedom and prosperity we enjoy in this country has allowed us to withdraw from meaningful interaction with our neighbors in the context of real life situations so that we might spend time in “Christian” pursuits.

Churches are organized to satisfy this centripetal impulse. Life for many American Christians revolves around the “temple” and its program of activities for all ages and interests. It seems that the purpose of the church is to provide what Luther called a “roses and lilies” experience for people that protects them from the harsh realities of the world and the challenges of learning to relate authentically with those who don’t share our faith.

Adventures in missing the point, Chaplain Mike. What you say may be true, but it doesn’t relate to what Pastor Stanley was preaching.

When Andy Stanley talks about “the temple model,” he means something else.

Stanley’s message is actually a pretty standard evangelical look at differences between the old and new covenants, or as many would say, between “religion” that is constantly caught up with trying to please God and having a “relationship” with God that leads to love for others.

It’s a way of distinguishing law and gospel, contemporary evangelical style.

I won’t critique it here, except to say I don’t find it terribly profound, nor is it a very precise or accurate portrayal of old/new covenant distinctions. Plus, it reinforces shallow evangelical stereotypes of historic Christian traditions that are formal, liturgical, and sacramental. He might as well have called any church that has a traditional building, priests, stained glass, choirs and liturgical worship a “temple.” At least that’s what I would have heard in my evangelical days.

So, really nothing new here.

I do apologize for responding before I really understood what Andy Stanley was saying.

• • •

Here is another look at a much more theologically rich and historically sound understanding of the Temple and how it compares to Jesus and NT faith:

Open Forum: March 4, 2015

I’ve been working my fool head off this week, and simply don’t have time or sense enough to come up with a post today. That means the table is yours, my friends. Today, it’s Open Forum on Internet Monk.

The rules are:

Use common sense.
Follow the law of love.
Know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em.
Conversation is a gift. Enjoy and savor it.

As for me, I am on my way to get some sleep, hoping I won’t have to go out in the middle of the night again.

Lent with Walter White

In case you suspect that I’ve been distracted lately, it’s because I have been living in the Old Testament. Old Testament Albuquerque, that is.

I just finished binge-watching Breaking Bad, an act of self-flagellation worthy of the most rigorous Lenten discipline. I’ve known about the show, and had heard about its magnificent writing and performances and its labyrinthine plot line, but hadn’t committed to watching it all the way through. A co-worker highly recommended it, despite her misgivings about subjecting herself to scenes that were deeply troubling to watch. If you haven’t seen it and are thinking about giving it a try, I must warn you that its physical and emotional brutality can take a toll. But it is a remarkable program.

Back to my original point — Breaking Bad captures a story worthy of an Old Testament narrative. A steady drumbeat of retributive justice pervades each twist and turn. In every episode, someone pays for his or her sins or for someone else’s. God, or the universe in this case, will be satisfied. No adult is pure, everyone finds it necessary to lie, deceive, and cover up at times, and you can be sure they’ll pay for it. Only the children are innocent, and too often they suffer for the sins of their fathers and mothers.

Breaking Bad does contain its share of tender, touching scenes, and its characters are full human beings. Therefore, we do root for them at times, long for the triumph of the better angels in their natures, and hope against hope that one or another of them will take a way of escape from the madness, but most of the time the paths they choose just create more chaos. And rain down more judgment.

Walter White is the main character. A genius chemist, he nevertheless finds himself teaching high school chemistry when he receives bad news: he has terminal lung cancer. With a pregnant 40-year-old wife and a 15-year-old son with cerebral palsy, he realizes he will have little to leave them to secure their future when he dies. So he hooks up with a former student named Jesse and begins cooking and distributing the purest methamphetamine (crystal meth) that has ever hit the market. This decision, this choice to “break bad,” leads Walt, his family, Jesse, and a host of others on a downward spiral that both exhilarating and excruciating to watch. Walt’s first intention is to help his family, but it’s not long before demons long suppressed within him arise and take over. Over the course of time he constructs a mental world in which his choices are always justified and the best course of action because he’s making them “for the family” and all else be damned. Few are safe in that world.

In a commentary in CT, Mockingbird’s David Zahl describes the “moral logic” of the show:

[T]he show runs on a frightening moral logic: No one gets away with anything. Breaking Bad revolves around the least fashionable concept imaginable: wrath. It offers something quite different from the fatalism of The Wire, where things start off ugly and pretty much stay that way. In Breaking Bad, things get steadily worse.

The further Walt “advances” in his new career, the more obstacles he overcomes, the more he believes himself to be invincible, and the deeper he descends into a hell of his own making. When he tries to manage his crimes, he begets worse crimes. Intoxicated on the fumes of self-righteousness, Walt consistently mistakes atrocities for victories. And each time, we come to detest his rationalizations a little bit more—especially how he relegates right and wrong to the realm of less evolved, less scientific minds.

As I’ve said, Walter White is not the only sinner in this Sodom, just the most prominent and powerful. His wife Skyler reflects another way sin gains advantage: through confusing us and putting us in the midst of moral dilemmas so thick we can’t see our way clear. Skyler’s sister Marie is well-intentioned but weak, a secret shoplifter who somehow has the answers to everyone else’s problems. Uncle Hank, Marie’s husband, is a DEA agent (setting up some delicious storylines) who covers his little boy moral idealism and fear with a tough exterior and potty mouth that keeps everyone at a distance. Jesse, Walt’s companion in crime, is sin’s punching bag. Every time he thinks life might be smiling on him, it all comes crashing down. He’s an addict with a heart of gold, a loser we can’t quite seem to give up on, the frustrating anchor that at one moment drags everyone down and the next moment rights the ship.

These characters reveal the genius of Breaking Bad — it is a study of human brokenness and pride in all its fractured forms. Unfortunately, the show is a closed universe operating strictly in terms of retributive justice. It’s a universe without mercy, without reconciliation, without forgiveness or redemption. In this regard, the series is clearly unlike the Old Testament or any other part of the Bible. No Spirit of God hovers anywhere near these waters of chaos. There is no outside intervention. No rescue. No salvation. It’s strictly survival of the fittest, the strongest, the most determined, the smartest.

Walter White insists that he must be that person. In season 4, he gives a lecture to another man waiting to get tests in the cancer ward. This speech captures Walt’s spirit as well as any words from Breaking Bad:

Other Patient: One minute I’m starting a new business; my wife and I are thinking about kids. Walk into a doctor’s office and suddenly . . . phhht . . . I mean, life as I know it — Anyway, so for me, that’s been the biggest wake-up call. Letting go, giving up control. You know, it’s like they say, “Man plans and God laughs.”

Walt: That is such bullshit.

Other Patient: Excuse me?

Walt: Never give up control. Live life on your own terms.

Other Patient: Yeah, no. I get what you’re saying. But cancer is cancer, so . . .

Walt: To hell with your cancer. I’ve been living with cancer for the better part of a year. Right from the start, it’s a death sentence. That’s what they keep telling me. Well, guess what? Every life comes with a death sentence. So every few months, I come in here for my regular scan, knowing full well that one of these times — hell, maybe even today — I’m gonna hear some bad news. But until then, who’s in charge? Me. That’s how I live my life.

Without spoiling any of the details, in the end Walter White is able to remain in charge, accomplish some of his goals, and go out on his own terms. Is the cost worth it? What future does he actually gain for his family?

As I watched the final episode last night, I suddenly heard the words of Eleanor Rigby running through my head:

Eleanor Rigby, died in the church
And was buried along with her name
Nobody came
Father McKenzie, wiping the dirt from his hands
As he walks from the grave
No one was saved

In Lent I have looked in the face of Walter White, and have learned to fear a world in which there is only judgment.

Unless mercy triumphs, there is no hope.

Music Monday: Music for Daily Prayer

Today on Music Monday we feature music for daily prayer by Margaret Rizza. The album is called, Officium Divinum, and it is performed by the Convivium Singers under the direction of Eamonn Dougan. It was recorded at Portsmouth Cathedral and many of the pieces were accompanied by David Price on organ.

Rizza is an English composer of classical and contemplative choral music. I came to know her through a daily prayer podcast that I love dearly, “Pray As You Go,” which regularly uses Rizza’s pieces to create a calm, meditative, Christ-centered atmosphere as you participate in the readings and prayers.

Officium Divinum features musical settings for the four periods of daily prayer: Morning, Midday, Evening and Night based on the Daily Prayer services from “Common Worship, Daily Prayer.”

Here is her rendition of the “Song of Mary” (Magnificat) for use in Evening Prayer:

Officium Divinum is available at Amazon and other vendors and I recommend it as a good companion on your Lenten pilgrimage. You can also go to Margaret Rizza’s website and listen to examples from her other albums of equally sublime music.

I find that music, particularly choral music that is contemplative in nature, aids me greatly in my own practice of prayer. It is in that spirit that I commend this collection to you, hoping that it will likewise enable you to find a sense of rest and prayerfulness in God’s presence as you journey throughout these holy days and the rest of the year.

Below is a video featuring Margaret Rizza discussing Officium Divinum, with excerpts from some of the other songs on this album.

As our prayers rise before you, O God,
so may your mercy come down upon us
to cleanse our hearts
and set us free to sing your praise
now and for ever.
Amen.

Sundays with Michael Spencer: March 1, 2015

Note from CM: In 2015 we will mark five years since the death of Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk. Today, we continue our “Sundays with Michael” series with another excerpt from a post that was originally published in February 2005. Last week, from this same post, we heard Michael critique approaching the Bible like a “magic book.” Today he suggests another metaphor to describe a common, inadequate way of reading the Bible.

• • •

Another way of approaching the Bible is by collecting verses. The “grocery store” analogy is particularly helpful in describing how mainstream evangelicals approach scripture. The appearance of concordances and computer searching has allowed the emphasis on verses and lists of verses to develop to a high level. One need only find the proper book or software, and a search can be conducted to retrieve a list of verses relating to any subject, word or term. I compare this to going into a grocery store with a shopping list. I many need verses on marriage, parenting and forgiveness. I take my list, run up and down the aisles, and find the verses I need. (Or to be more true to today’s technology, I present my list to the man at the front, and he sends a runner to pick up my verses for me, while I simply meet him at the checkout.)

The idea that the Bible is a library of verses has been propagated through Bible study tools, but also through methods of preaching. Many popular preachers today NEVER engage a text unless it is a story with a lesson that speaks to a “felt need.”. They engage a topic that has been focus-grouped to gain the interest of the audience. (See Ed Young, Jr. for a good example) Then verses are marshalled to present an outline of principles. The Bible is the source of the verses, so it is routinely asked, “What does the Bible say about assessing potential spouses?” Since the collection of verses comes from the Bible, the conclusion seems sound. The “Bible” in this case is a humanly arranged collection of verses, out of context, with a variable degree of likelihood in relating to the truth.

While I am not saying that abuse of this method is universal, it is common. I could easily accumulate grocery lists of texts on polygamy, slavery, stoning rebellious children, demonic exorcism to solve physical problems, the need to exterminate unbelievers, and so on. All my lists would answer a “What does the Bible say?” question. And all could, potentially, seriously misrepresent the overall message that God has sent us in scripture, because the meaning of larger texts, especially books, has been ignored. I could even use the Bible itself to teach the very opposite of what the Bible teaches. In seminary, I was taught that the Bible was pro-abortion by a selective accumulation of texts. And no one laughed or cried, Orwellian as it was.

The use of the grocery store method is entirely dependent on how the accumulator understands the way verses relate to one another in larger contexts. For instance, the basic idea of old and new covenants would seriously affect how someone selected verses on worship and presented them as, “The Bible says we should worship by….” Some verse accumulation preachers are excellent. It is a method that can bear much fruit and be helpful, IF done in a context of actually understanding the larger framework of scripture. (Much like I could find lists of sentences in Walden on self-sufficiency that might misrepresent or well-represent Thoreau’s intentions in the book.)

Saturday Ramblings, February 28, 2015

Hello, imonks, and welcome to the weekend. Ready to ramble?

First, let’s get the heavy news out of the way. Thursday is what the internet (or at least social media) was made for. dress First, we had #the dress. It seems, by some quirk of biology that I don’t understand (I grew up Baptist) two people can look at the picture at right and violently disagree about its color. Is it blue and black? Or white and gold? You can read the scientific details here. What do you think, imonks? Do you have a dog in this very important fight?

Also on Thursday, a pair of Llamas, one white and one black, escaped from their owners and ran wild through the streets of Sun City, Arizona, on Thursday. Police and pedestrians chased them for a few hours before both were apprehended by use of a lasso. The white llama was released on his own recognizance. The black llama had bail set at 1 million dollars.

Another pair of Llamas, this time in Washington State, also escaped on Thursday. They were caught more quickly, but not before creating a stir as to why so many llama couples were on the lam.

Yes, this is silly, but hey, this is the Saturday Ramblings. You want profundity you read that Chaplain Mike guy. Anyway, you’re here so you might as well watch this video of the llama drama set to the William Tell Overture:

Continue reading “Saturday Ramblings, February 28, 2015”

They’ll know we are Christians by our language

I passed a church sign the other day. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to stop and take a picture of it to show you, but I haven’t been able to get it out of my mind since I saw it. The sign said:

God makes useful saints
Out of useless sinners.

Believe me, I understand black/white, in/out, saved/lost, saint/sinner thinking, having been a member of faith communities that ate that stuff up for years. There is a lot we could talk about here.

In fact, there is a lot that has been talked about, especially in so-called “emergent” and “missional” teachings. Missiologist Paul G. Hiebert’s writings on understanding Christian identity in terms of bounded and centered sets have had a profound influence on the discussion. Hiebert observed differences in how people in different cultures answered the question: “Who is (and isn’t) a Christian?” His concern was that missionaries, who had assumed they were acting “biblically” were actually reflecting the cultural perspectives of their backgrounds and churches concerning the answer to this question and that it was adversely affecting their ministries. Hiebert loved mathematics, and as he began to think about set theory, he developed his ideas and captured them in his missiological writings.

Continue reading “They’ll know we are Christians by our language”