Separated at Birth?

Emperor Palpatine & Helen Thomas?

... um ...

This just in from the Joel Osteen:

The God Kind of Faith

Today's Scripture
“…the life which I now life in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God…” (Galatians 2:20).

Today's Word from Joel and Victoria
Faith is all around us. People have faith in so many different things: faith that a friend will be true, faith that your job is taking you on a certain career path, faith that the chair you are sitting on is going to hold you up! Faith is simply believing in something. But there are different kinds, or levels, of faith. There’s a difference between having faith in God and having the faith of God. When you open your heart to the God kind of faith, you’re actually allowing Him to believe through you. The God kind of faith will cause you to believe for things when you don’t even know how they’ll happen.

And it probably won’t make sense in your mind, but you have to allow your spirit to rise higher than your thinking. Don’t talk yourself out of believing. Don’t focus on all the reasons why not, instead allow God’s faith to rise up within you. Meditate on His Word that says, you can do all things through Christ and you are strong in the Lord and the power of His might. As you allow God’s faith to flow through you, He’ll take you places you’ve never dreamed. You will rise higher and higher and live the abundant life the Lord has for you!

A Prayer for Today
Heavenly Father, today I humbly open my heart to You. Use me for Your glory and have Your way in my life. I choose to believe in You and invite You to believe through me. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.

For the record, I added the underlined, italics and the bold type in the main body. And now that you have that pearl of great price, so to speak, have a nice day.

an interesting magisterium

Alert Reader Gil Thomas pointed me at the Acts29 blog to some comments by Mark Driscoll, particularly about a phone call he got from Rick Warren.

I'm going to drop those comments in here, and do some color commentary:

Third, I got a call from Pastor Rick Warren last week. He called simply to see if there was anything he could do to help. His kindness was humbling and helpful.

Which, you know: I get that. I get it that Rick Warren would call Mark Driscoll to lend him a (kind of) elder-statesman thing -- especially since guys like Dever and Piper and Mahaney are doing that. I get that someone who is perceived by many as a leader in the American church would call Pastor Mark so that, as a leader, he could give him some leadership advice.

I think, however, it begs the question of "what kind of leader of the American church is Rick Warren?" And that's not a rhetorical question, but some of you will take it that way because I don't answer it right here. Let me say only, for a moment, that he's a different kind of leader than Dever or Piper or Mahaney and we'll come back to it.

I asked him how he handled his critics and he had a great insight that in our day criticism has changed. He explained that there was a day when a critic would have to sit down and write a letter and then mail it into a newspaper. With limited space, the paper would then be able to only print a fraction of the letters they received. The printed letters were often not read and quickly became dated.

See: that's an interesting insight because, regardless of what follows, it says that in the past some criticism was sort of cast away because it didn't get through the filters of newspaper editors, and that was a way to get past it.

Let's think about that for a minute: someone like Rick Warren, who is responsible for a lot of things in popular Christianity today including the irresponsible idea that churches ought to be gigantic, and program-driven, and who operates a church which at best treats baptism like some kind of party favor, has the opinion that in the past some of that could get by without answering critics because the subjects didn't interest the editors of newspapers.

To keep this brief, that's an interesting magisterium. He's right in one respect: there are plenty of quacks out there, and I might be one of them. But his point that somehow that's a valid place to decide who is and is not a quack leaves so much to be desired that I'll let you, the reader, think about whether newspapers should decide what is and is not useful to report about men who lead churches.

However, Warren said, in our day criticism is marked by the following four factors:

1.Instant
2.Constant
3.Global
4.Permanent

He forgot "mean" and "impersonal" (meaning "they don't apologize for disagreeing", and "they don't call you on the phone first"), but I take exception to the idea that internet criticism is "permanent". Blogging, or erecting a web site, for the sake of some argument or issue doesn't make it "permanent" any more than getting you book published makes its contents "permanent".

What it does do is make it public, and the question then is "will anyone read it?"

If some guy named, um, "centuri0n" sets up a blog and starts saying that Rick Warren has 3 wives and practices Shinto in his basement at an altar to his father's father, the first question is, "did anyone really read that?" And the second question is, "can that be proven at all?"

That guy with a blog may never delete his blog, but if no one ever reads it, the only one who will judge him for it is Christ. The tree fell in the woods, and nobody else cared. So "permanent" is a bizarre category for what is different about criticism today, especially in comparison to criticism filtered by local newspaper editorial staff.

I'd also like to add that the attribute of "constant" criticism is only born by those who are doing something which somehow keeps drawing attention to their foibles or errors. For example, I am unaware of Mark Dever having to field "constant" criticism -- unless I should have read Steve Camp lately or something.

Let me suggest that pastors who are in the scope of "constant" criticism either have established themselves as opponents of a very powerful and vulnerable enemy, or they are doing something which deserves criticism. There may be a third choice, but I'll bet if you can find one, it's really the first choice.

For example, there was a time when Phil Johnson took a lot of guff from Fundamentalists. Phil had made some statements -- which he stands by -- criticizing the problems with their movement, and the defend of Fundamentalism came out of the woodwork. The problem, however, was that Fundamentalism was both very powerful (in numbers, anyway) but also very vulnerable -- and it the advocates for such a thing had to try to push Phil over because, well, if he's right the movement was dead, dying, or worse.

The other example I'd tender is Joel Osteen. Why does Joel take guff from people as diverse as Michael Horton and Steve Camp? It's because Joel is off the apple cart, out of the street, down the storm drain, and rolling down into the swamp outside town.

Criticism is not just hard to bear because it seems to come often. It is hard to bear either when it is the truth or resembles the truth enough to cause us to pause. False criticism is pretty easy to bear unless it costs us money or prison time -- the rest of the time (like when people call me "mean") it's good for a laugh just to see how far someone will take their imaginary world.

So I find Rick Warren's explanation facile for starters -- but I can see why he adopts it. It is a very easy way for him to dismiss his many critics -- and to put himself in Jesus' camp, at least in his own mind.

I think there is another reason for his view here, which relates to what I started to say, above, but I'm not ready to spill the beans yet.

Warren then went on to explain that, as Jesus experienced, the strongest criticism for any Christian leader comes from rigid religious people.

See what I mean? They criticize you, Mark, not because you don't really get how to keep the pulpit free from cheap scatalogical jokes and irreverant speech: they criticize you because they are "rigid religious people". You know: you're doing ministry, and they're blogging or raving.

I think an interesting contexter here is that Abraham Piper recently called Mark Driscoll a jackass, and he wasn't accused of making an unjust criticism. Someone else points out that referencing Jesus' anatomy and digestive functions from the pulpit is unwholesome and it's suddenly a world of hurt.

So as we think about Pastor Warren's trajectory here, let's remember that it's selective at best, and that somehow I think the actual criteria for making the selection is hidden or stowed away.

When I asked him what someone should do when facing criticism, he gave the following insightful points:

1. Turn your critics into coaches by hearing what they are saying and humbly considering if there is any truth in their criticisms to learn from.

2. Never engage the critics on their terms because it only escalates the conflict and is not productive.

3. Be very careful with firing off emails or leaving voicemails and responding out of anger in a way that you will later regret.

4.Shout louder than your critics to define yourself and do not allow them to define you.

Of these 4, #3 I get. In fact, #3 is the best advice on earth to give anyone who is giving or getting criticism -- but you don't have to be a globally-recognized brand of inspirational publishing either to give it or to receive it. You just have to read the book of James.

Here's what I think about the rest:

#1 seems so obvious that to mention it seems a little, um, obvious. Yes: criticism is only any good if it's true, and if it's true, do something about it. That's why PDL underwent so many revisions after the critics started pointing out its foibles.

#2 ignores the real burden and real freedom of #1 -- that is, if #1 is true, valid criticism should be used to improve one's self, and false criticism is simply false.

And #4 reveals something about Warren that I never thought we'd find him saying out loud: he's willing to admit that nobody defines who he is but himself -- that is, there are no valid criticisms of him unless he says so. That's a doozer, folks -- a real eye-opener. Someone criticizes me? All I have to do is say, "I stand for ice cream!" louder and longer, and therefore the critic can't be right. Someone once called that "the big lie", but I can't remember who that is.

So that leaves us with my yet-unexpounded subtext -- "what kind of leader is Rick Warren?" and the "other reason" for Rick Warren wanting to make himself a member of the Jesus squad and his critics "rigid religious people".

If you haven't really been thinking about Rick Warren's trajectory, it's riding on a the social Gospel, highly critical of clear doctrinal affirmations, balanced on self-fulfillment, focussed on style and allegedly "brining people together". For those of you who can't put it together, it's emergent lite. Rick Warren is the "conservative" Brian McLaren -- though I will admit that Warren's theology is not as completely wretched as McLaren's.

Warren is the nice suit for the left side of the evangelical divide. And it makes sense for him to give Pastor Mark an open hand -- just in case the MHC Pastor has one too many MHC-17 moments and Dever or Mahaney or Piper calls him on it and he doesn't want to hear it.

I think Warren's advice is bad advice, especially to Mark Driscoll. It is sketchy at best, flippant and self-deceptive at worst, and leaves one in the really unhelpful position of not having to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.

And now that opinion, apparently, is permanent. We'll see if it has any impact.

Eckhart Tolle

It's amazing what we get requests for at the bookstore - what people are willing to read, anyway.

As you all know, Oprah has been a boon for the publishing industry by plugging her vast audience into books - "Oprah's favorites" as they say. And she has stumbled upon a fellow named "Eckhart Tolle" who is interesting only for his, um, lack of interesting attributes.

According to wikipedia, he was born in 1948, in Germany. He lived with his father in Spain from about age 13 until he moved to England in his early 20s. He did not attend formal schooling after age 13, but rather took language and other courses. His bio says he "was educated at the Universities of London and Cambridge," but it doesn't list anywhere what degrees he received from either of those institutions. Then at age 29, he achieved or received what he calls "spiritual enlightenment", and I want to do the math here quickly. When Tolle was 29, it was either 1977 or 1978, and I mention that only because Tolle's book the Power of Now (1997) says his spiritual transformation occurred in 1980. It's an odd inconsistency, but not a deal-breaker - it just seems reasonable to me that if it took him 20 years to tell his own story, he would have some kind of narrative worked out that makes sense.

Here's a sampling of his very important, um, message:

In the Gospel story of Mary and Martha, Jesus says to Martha, "You are anxious and troubled about many things, but only one thing is needful." (Luke 10:41)

As I was writing A New Earth, people would sometimes ask me, "What is the new book about?" And invariably, my answer would be, "I only ever write or speak about one thing."

What is that one thing?

Spiritual awakening.

Can a person be awakened spiritually by a book?

Yes, if three conditions are met:

Firstly, there must be a readiness on the part of the reader, an openness, a receptivity to spiritual truth, which is to say, a readiness to awaken. For the first time in the history of humanity, large numbers of people have reached that point of readiness, which explains why millions have responded so deeply to The Power of Now.

Secondly, the text must have transformative power. This means the words must have come out of the awakened consciousness rather than the accumulated knowledge of a person's mind. Only then will a text be charged with that power, a power that goes far beyond the informational value of the words. That is why such a book can be read again and again and lose none of its aliveness.

Thirdly, the terminology used needs to be as neutral as possible so that it transcends the confines of any one culture, religion, or spiritual tradition. Only then will it be accessible to a broad range of readers world-wide, regardless of cultural background.

Now, you know, points for talking to Americans by first citing the Bible – that's marketing savvy. But what on Earth – or as Tolle might say, the New Earth -- does that have to do with anything?

But here's a much more interesting question: what does Tolle base his affirmation on? That is, what undergirds his statements in such a way that we ought to believe him?

It seems that Tolle appeals only to his own personal spiritual awakening as justification for making these claims. That is, he knows, and that's enough – if you want to know, or better still are ready to know, just listen to him speak "as neutral as possible" and you'll get it. It's practically self-evident, emphasis on "self".

I am sure I could spin out another 10,000 words on this one, but I found an Amazon review which is simply perfect, and it's written by a concerned Buddhist:

I will say this: Tolle has the brains to borrow liberally from the Great Eastern religions, but that does not make him an enlightened master. He is a salesman, and his own books are his primary product. He repeatedly congratulates readers for being "awakened" enough to read this crap, claiming that merely reading this book will take you to the next evolutionary level. Are you kidding me?? I'm sorry, folks, awakening takes a lot of effort -- your own -- and reading this claptrap won't get you there. Tolle anticipates this response, though, and says that his words only speak to those ready to be enlightened. Does that reek of the emperor's new clothes, or what? The instances of sloppy thinking are far too many to enumerate here; just pick a page and keep your eyes open. Being spiritual does not mean you should suspend all critical thinking! Although sometimes (if unintentionally) amusing, this book is a muddled, condescending, and deeply cynical waste of time.

Thanks. Back to your business.

born after Sonny & Cher

Abraham Piper has a personal blog now -- because, you know, posting at Desiring God doesn't really get him that many readers -- and he links to his wife's MySpace (I ... um ... what's a "my space? is it a blog?), where we can find out she was born in 1979.

You know: in 1979, I was attenting Jesuit High School and trying to figure out how to ask my Dad if I could get a driver's license while trying to figure out if I was ever going to be anything but a skinny little geek. And I was bemoaning the cancellation of Quark.

In 100 words or less ...

Well, Andrew Sullivan is going to ignore my last post (he's a big fish; I'm a little fly), but the question of the iMonk's affirmations about inerrancy, frankly, needs a little hair tonic and clippers. So to keep the uproar to a minimum, I'm going to talk about his position in 100 words or less, and I invite his fan club to come and try to do the same.

Is that fair?

iMonk was quoted thus:

I do not doubt God or his ability to express revelation exactly as he wants it to be. The thought that God cannot reveal truth unless it is in a book that is supernaturally prevented from having normal, imperfect, human expressions of its time really never occurs to me. I assume that within the expressions, thought world, worldviews and literary genres of the time, God got exactly what he wanted and I can preach it without having to be concerned about "errancy."

My thought on reading this is that the writer has never considered what errors in the text says about the authority of the text. A categorically-perfect comparison is the Scofield notes to the KJV. Scofield's original notes were, frankly, errant – and only the most ardent KJVO clown will demand Scofield's first edition of notes for his KJV. Oxford has been kind enough to repair Scofield's work – twice – so the Scofield III notes are at least serviceable.

Who exactly is prepared to "repair" the book of Luke or of John? And on what basis ought those repairs be made?

The Shack

Challies reviews the Shack.

Open thread here for people who think Challies is wrong. Just so you can count the cost, I think Challies' last sentence is exactly right, and good on him for telling the truth about this book. I would have made that final point more clear in the rest of the review, but I'm not a famous author with a contract with Crossway.

Yes, I am green with envy.

Wednesday Shill-fest

At TeamPyro I posted the Challies interview for his new book, but I wanted to cover the real news this week today and shill for what is plausibly the source of covetousness and idolatry in my life: the new MacBook Air.

Even at two grand, it's completely break-out. I might make my wife buy me one instead of buying a new car.

Flacking for Challies

In spite of his mother's fears that I hate him, I have received Challies new book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, as a promo copy, and I'm on the bandwagon.

Look for a full-scale review here, and on Jan 16, Tim and I will have a little blog chat at TeamPyro about his book as part of his "blog tour".

Rick warren video?

Somebody e-mailed me and said Rick Warren was on CBS this morning about the church shootings. Anyone have video linkage?

There will your heart be also

I hope you're all following this story. Here's my favorite quote from this dispatch:

Bishop Eddie Long, who leads a megachurch and ministry in Lithonia, Ga., initially promised to "fully comply" with Grassley's request. But a few days later, Long told his congregation the request was "unjust," "intrusive," and "an attack on our religious freedom and privacy rights."

I just want to point out that there are no small churches with bivocational pastors under scrutiny here, and that to call what most of these people do "religion" is, at best, a sociological definition.

There also don't appear to be any questions about whether they are teaching one thing or another: there are questions about how money is being spent on luxury items. That's hardly religious persecution, unless wealth is a sacrament -- which might lead to some interesting thoughts about which God that is, but I'll pass tonight because I'm tired.

She's not famous like me

Got a bog kick out of Stephen King's interview with TIME Magazine, especially where he's riffing on how Britney Spears is not news-worthy but his movie about monsters in the fog is.

Because she's not famous like he's famous, even though he admits he's famous for being the "designated kid" who makes up stories.

epistemolopoloosa

J. P. Moreland goes too far in saying that evangelicals have gone too far. I leave it to you to decide in what way -- you'll enjoy thinking about it.

Note to Steve Camp ...

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks "prominent evangelistic ministries ... have illegally used donations to finance opulent lifestyles."

Mr. Grassley said that he and Finance Committee staff members focused on these ministries because they were “intrigued” by investigative reports about many of them in local newspapers and on television. They also received tips from watchdog groups like the Trinity Foundation in Dallas and ministrywatch.com.

“It centered on these six ministries,” Mr. Grassley said, “but I wouldn’t want to say there’s something magic about these six. It could be seven or eight. Who knows, after we get these answers back, we might decide we have to look at others.”

Why we are idiots

HT: Twitchell for pointing me to this TownHall.com essay by Wayne Grudem. Apparently Grudem is endorsing Romney for President.

Can I say it clearly that Grudem's point that Mormon moral teachings are "from the Bible" is true enough from a sociological standpoint, but that this argument is completely irrelevant? Listen: If we extract the moral precepts from the theological ones, most moderate Muslims have a good handle on God's law, too. It just turns out that this is a nation which isn't Muslim foundationally, and in the same way it also isn't Mormon foundationally. Frankly, I think its his Mormonism which allows him to be soft on abortion, and that's the end of that.

It matters who the God is we are referring to when we say "In God We Trust" on our money. Governor Romney isn't referring to the John 1:1-4 God who is Savior and Lord in his Mormonism. Sorry -- that puts him off my political menu. He's welcome to practice his religion, to his own eternal peril. I have no obligation to vote for him, in spite of Dr. Grudem's pragmatism.

-yawn-

A gay wizard. If you ask me, it's been done. What's more troubling in the little bits of what is said in this piece, if you ask me, (and you're reading my blog, so I'll consider you as "asking") is that J.K. Rowling says her books are ultimately a "plea for tolerance".

I'm sure that's what happens at the end of the last book -- tolerance all around. That's now she can say her books are "inspired by Christianity", I am sure.

Correction of Errors

Some of you astute readers may remember this post and this post from 2005.

Given that Steve Camp and iMonk have had the audacity to speak in uncertain terms and agree that the man who can bench-press 300 lbs and still have great hair is also outside the fences when it comes to expressing the Gospel, it behooves me to issue a correction of my own previous posts.

To wit: as Camp noted, given the lite version of a statement of faith available for Lakewood, it's actually -worse- for the Osteens than if they didn't have a statement of faith at all. And as Mike Horton has made clear in his writings on this particular topic, it's just a different, chummier legalism to give self-help advice and say God is only love and not also a holy God who owes you nothing even when you do a good deed.

So if you run into my old posts on this subject, consider me corrected or perhaps convicted. iMonk's right about this: if Osteen's preaching is "good enough" for the church at large, we are completely lost. God have mercy on us, but we are not called to be winners: we are called to be the last, the scum, the ones poured out like a drink offering.

two scary news items

This one is scary because it demonstrates how desperate Putin is for friends. That's like watching a pack of dogs getting riled up to jump a deer.

This one is scary because it's not the Weekly World News. I think they're serious.

Presbyterian Watchbloggers

Baylys earn the name "watchblog" by pointing out President Bush's public denial of the Christian faith. Nice work, fellas. I'm surprised this is the first I've heard this.

Spam Filter folder

Got this e-mail tonight:

PASTOR JOEL OSTEEN ANSWERS CRITICS AND IS OVERCOME
BY A BURST OF EMOTION ON "60 MINUTES" SUNDAY

"We’re Not Perfect," Says America’s Most Popular Preacher

Answering his critics, Pastor Joel Osteen says he’s not perfect, but the reward he gets from helping to change the lives of his followers is affirmation enough that he is preaching the right message. Then, the popular pastor, who is seen, heard and read by millions across the world, breaks down in tears in his interview with correspondent Byron Pitts. Osteen’s interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES, Sunday Oct. 14 (7:30-9:00 PM, ET/7:00-9:00 PM, PT) on the CBS Television Network.

"You know, you get people that want to criticize, ‘You’re not doing enough of this, enough of that.’ Well, we’re not perfect," he tells Pitts. "But to have, you know, hundreds of people telling you, ‘You changed my life. I haven’t been in church in 30 years,’ or ‘You saved my marriage.’ Not me, but God, but they’re telling me…," says Osteen, who then buries his head in his hands. "I told you I was a crybaby, but you just feel very rewarded. You feel very humbled," says Osteen of his reaction to his followers’ thanks. Click here to watch an excerpt of the interview.

Osteen’s message lacks the fire and brimstone of fundamentalism and eschews doctrinaire interpretation of the Bible. His extremely positive message, delivered to 42,000 attendees each week in his Lakewood church in Houston and in books and speaking tours, is attacked by theologians for being too optimistic and easy. "I think it’s a cotton candy gospel," says Dr. Michael Horton, theology professor at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, Calif. "His core message is God is nice, you’re nice, be nice….If it were a form of music, I think it would be easy listening," he tells Pitts.

Osteen says he’s just keeping a complicated subject simple. "Sometimes you have to keep it simple and not make it so complicated that people don’t understand," he says. “I think you need to talk on the peoples’ level, not dumbing it down, but just saying, ‘You know what?...I could get up here and try to impress you with Greek words and doctrine.’ And there are people that need that. They want to study deeper," he tells Pitts. "But I know what I’m called to do is say, ‘I want to help you learn how to forgive today. I want to help you to have the right thoughts today.’ Just simple, simple things," says Osteen.

The strategy has paid off in followers and revenue for Osteen, who came from behind the scenes eight years ago to take over his deceased father’s ministry. His Sunday service, seen by 10 million television viewers worldwide, is the most-watched religious service in the world. His books are bestsellers in the U.S. and abroad and are available in 25 languages. In addition to the book revenue, Lakewood Church takes in $43 million a year in collections and followers send another $30 million into his ministry by mail.

I think Mike Horton is jealous. I can admit that I'm jealous that my blog doesn't pull in $73 million a year.

Here's an interesting factoid: I can find Grace to You, the Billy Graham Evnagelical Association, Focus on the Family, and even the disreputable TBN, but I couldn't find Lakewood Church or Joel Osteen Ministries in the Charity Navigator. I wonder why ...

UPDATED: For our international readers, and luddites like me who don't have cable or live in a place where we can receive a decent TV signal, 60 Minutes has the smarts to put some of its interviews on the web via CBS.com.

1. Go here.
2. click the link "video" on the left just below the red box
3. when the popup window/video viewer open, click "60 Minutes" in the nav bar in the center
4. scroll for the interview you want to see on the right

My guess is that the video won't be up until after the interview has broadcast West-Coast time, but maybe you can get what you want to see there.