Updates

I am sorry it has been two months since my last post. A ton has been going on, and now that everything is official, I can make mention of it here. Due to a transfer at my company, my wife and I are moving to The Woodlands, TX, a community 30 miles directly north of Houston. My new position will be greatly involved with IT project management. Due to all business due to the move, I have had and will have little time to post anything of substance. I hope to pick back up after June 10th or so.

Before I mention the prayer request for my wife and I, I wanted to make mention of a few prayer requests for some friends, and some folks that I do not personally know:

• Pray for Sam Seidel. About four weeks ago, this little boy fell into a pool and was underwater for 15+ minutes. He still is recovering...
• Pray for Patsy Parker. She has been in and out of the hospital for the last several months, with surgeries. She still has a long road ahead.
• Pray for my friend's (Brian Daniel) mother, she has cancer and is going through a round of chemotherapy.
• Pray for Maggie Liner, our friends Marja and Shawn daughter. The family is changing houses, and Maggie has started day-care and has been struggling with staying well. Nothing severe or life-threatening--she just hasn't been able to get to 100%.

For me and Laura, pray that the transition goes well, that we sell our current home and get the contract on a house on which we have placed an offer, and that Laura is offered a job in a nearby school district, either Klein, Spring, Tomball, or Conroe. Lastly, and most importantly, please pray that we find a solid, biblical church that has strong preaching and fellowship.

President's Day...

If you have ever been so lucky to have debate a secularist or atheist on the religion of the Founding Fathers, undoubtedly you have heard the retort, "All of the Founding Fathers were diests."

Likewise, from Christians--particularly evangelicals--you will hear that the all of the Founding Fathers were Christian...

Neither is true. The only Founding Father that could be labeled deist--actually believing something compatible with classic deism--is Thomas Paine, and Paine could be easily interpreted to have been atheist or agnostic as well. The rest were obviously theist. How do I know this?

Most of the prominent Founding Fathers that the secularists claim to be deists were George Washington, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and occasionally John Adams. However, when you read the consensus of all of these men, there is a theme and word that shows up in all of their writings: Providence.

Washington was not an evangelical. Frankin and Jefferson were not even orthodox to historic Christian beliefs. The secularist are right on this point. However, all of these men consistently use the word Providence (of God) in their personal writings. Mentioned also is God's favor towards the United States.

This poses a problem for the secularist: the concept of a provident God is incompatible with deism. One cannot be a deist and believe in the providence of God, for the former holds that God does not interact in the affairs of the world and the latter requires such action on God's part.

To read more: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=878

I Do Have Readers...

Laura and I were talking with her parents last night on the phone, and her father, Dennis Sims, pastor of Ellerbe Road Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA, told us a hilarious story...

To set the context, Laura had them on speakerphone, and Laura and I were lying in our bed...

This past Sunday, I expressed in the midst of my sermon, as I have on several occasions, my frustration with people who have some theological training and express their dissapointment in the Sunday School material for "being too shallow", among other things...

At this point in time, I am literally shrinking under the covers, because I have expressed my sentiments on Sunday School material on multiple occasions, although I can't remember if I had done so within earshot of Dennis before. The funny thing was, Laura and I had "productive conversation" along those lines the day before.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect to get a seminary education from Sunday School, so "shallowness" isn't really my beef with the material...I get frustrated when I see unbiblical (something totally different than shallow) teaching in the Sunday School material.

...and use this as an excuse to not go to Sunday School at all. Like I said, I have said this before, and no one has ever told me anything in the past. This week, a person who attends our church misunderstood the comments and thought I was talking about him/her. Now this person has complained in the past about the shallowness of material, but he/she attends Sunday School, so she was not the target of my comments. We easily resolved the misunderstanding.

There is another man in the congregation who has a seminary education who hasn't been coming to Sunday School for a while, but he has medical reasons for doing so. However, just in case there was any misunderstanding, I went to visit them [or call them, I [Brent] can't remember].

His wife answered the door/phone and I began to speak with her. She assured me that there is no problem, and the conversation changed paths to another subject. She attends a BSF study, and the subject of the material is the book of Romans, and I have also been preaching through Romans--but the study is a bit ahead of where I am. She told me that the most recent study was on Romans 9. I said, "You all must be dealing with some significant issues, such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination. Now from what I understand, you can't address demoninational issues in this study can you?"

She said, "We can deal with any topic the passage addresses. Besides, there are a lot of Calvinistic Southern Baptists. In fact, I believe your son-in-law is a Calvinist, at least that is what it seems from reading his blog."

So I've said all of this merely to say that I ran into someone who has come accross your blog.

I found this to be hilarious! And, if you are reading again, thanks!

"You Are Too Cynical"

My wife and I had a real heart-to-heart yesterday. I love her to death, but she aggravates me when she makes me face reality ;-) One problem we have faced in our marriage comes from by incessant habit to criticize practically everything spiritual. She is an optimist and sees the good in things, and I am quite the pessimist when it come to spiritual matters.

Most of the time, when I read books on Christian theology, or "Christian spirituality", I keep my guard and I don't trust the source immediately. Theologians and preachers have to earn my trust by being reverent and true to God's word--and not sacrificing the careful interpretation of Scripture (or reverence to God's character) to drive home an emotional point. All fail in doing this at some point, others are blind squirrels trying to find a nut--they do so only by accident.

When trying to explain why I am so critical to Laura, I make no sense. None. I've had a hard time justifying it--but this article explains why so well:

Why do we espouse such outlandish concepts as "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? A better comparison of how we are being told to pick through the bad theology often being put forth today is not the baby/bath water analogy but it is the broken clock analogy. How convincing would it be for those same people who use the baby/bath water analogy to say, "Don't throw out the broken clock because it will be right sometimes"? How many of us would give a hearty amen to that kind of mentality?

Perhaps the reason we are more likely to agree with the baby/bath water analogy is that no one wants to picture a baby being thrown out, but how about the broken clock? I personally don't want to have to pick through a bunch of rancid humanistic philosophy to get to the bits of good theology that might be buried in most of these trendy preachers preaching.

In all honesty, I am really frustrated with the church today. Either one cares about ministry, or she cares about theology. Hardly ever do they meet in the same church congregation. I find completely theologically irresponsible claims in some of the study material that has come across my eyes lately, and would love to be in a situation in which error is not so commonplace.

Just this past week I read material in which these claims were made:

"God loved me most when I deserved it least."

"God accepts me even though I am guilty...Faultfinding is not God's style."

Why are they irresponsible? When does God love me the least? When did I deserve God's love the most? Would God be just in accepting me despite my guilt? Am I still guilty in they eyes of God as a member of the body of Christ? What would God be doing at the Great White Throne judgment?

These claims are filled with sappy feelings, but they lack significantly in biblical truth--and more of us would see this if we stopped reading with our feelings and engaged our minds some.

The sad thing is this: the point of the material was good...it was about demonstraing grace and mercy to our spouses, but my trust of the authors has been severely damaged, so now my guard will be even higher when I read on. I feel that I will have to sift away most of what's there in order to find the nugget of truth.

Daniel Hixon on Calvinism - Part 2

Here is Daniel's explanation of Unconditional Election:

Unconditional election - those who are elected by God for salvation are not elected based upon any work or quality of their own. There are no conditions they must meet in order to become the elect, God simply chose them (apparently arbitrarily since "there is no partiallity with him," which is very problematic). This is necessary because our depravity and the corruption of our wills is SO total that if God did not choose for us, then no one would be saved at all. Unconditional election is aimed at the same problem (our broken will) as Wesley's prevenient grace. If Unconditional election is true, then surely God, who wants everyone to be saved according to 1 Tim. 2:4, would therefore act in accordance with his own will and elect everyone for salvation unconditionally, to do otherwise would seem to imply some imperfection in God if he wills one thing (universal salvation) and then acts to ensure it can never happen. Thus if I believed in unconditional election I would immediately be a universalist Calvinist. I am of the opinion that we are elected according to the foreknowlege of God on the condition of our faith in Christ and our consequent and necessary participation in the covenant and the covenant people of God, and that all humans are called to do that by the grace of God, though many reject this calling.

The Scriptures are clear that God has chosen those whom He would save and did so before the foundations of the world, and these are "predestined" to be conformed to the image of his Son: (Ephesians 1:1-11, 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Romans 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:2). This choice is not arbitrary, and no Calvinist would ever say so. When the Scripture says that "there is not partiality with God, " particularly in the New Testament, it is in the context of the comparison of peoples, Jews to Greek or slaves to free. (i.e. Romans 2:10-11, Acts 10:34, Ephesians 6:9). We are chosen and predestined according to God's purpose and for His good pleasure. God had a purpose in choosing whom He does for salvation, but the basis of this choice is not any foreseen quality, attribute, or work of that person--it is by grace and grace alone.

1 Timothy 2:4 is the best verse in the Scripture to support Daniel's point, but the comments in 2:4 are made in passing. They are not the primary point of the text. The point of the context of 1 Timothy 2 is not that God wants every human being to be saved--it concerns godly practice and behavior. It could be credibly argued that "all men" of 2:4 could contextually mean "all kinds of men" for Paul is urging Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" (1:2). In most cases that the term all men (or whole world, all people, all, etc) is used, it is qualified by the context to a specific group of people. Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is described as fallen, does "all" or "world" refer to literally everyone. Not even in John 3:16.

There are passages in which the entire point concerns the doctrine of election by grace. Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Ephesians 1:1-11 with the support of 2:1-10, John 6:37-40,44,65, John 10:1-30, for examples.

First, let's look at these passages. In Romans 8:28-30, Paul tells us that "whom (or those) He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." The predestined are then called, and the called are then justified, and the justified are then glorified. The word foreknew is proginosko in the Greek. It is simply a compound word combining pro (before) and ginosko (know). In both the English rendition cited and in the Greek, "those" or "whom" is a plural term acting as the direct object of "know." The object of God's foreknowledge isn't a mere choice or act, quality or merit; it is a set of persons. In every case that the word ginosko is used with a human being as the object of that verb, it refers to a relationship of some sort. It could be an acquaintance, or it could even be sexual, but it never refers to a knowledge of a set of facts. In fact, the word ginosko is used in Matthew 7:23 when Jesus says, "I never knew you, depart from me!" Therefore, from the context, it is clear that there are those that God does not foreknow. The same "those" that are foreknown in verse 28 are the ones who are glorified in verse 30. From this passage, it is clear that not everyone is called, either.

This verse is telling us that God knew us in a relationship with Himself in eternity before [the best term we can use to describe the eternal nature of God's knowledge] that relationship came to be in time.

Romans 9 is even stronger: Paul begins by lamenting that the Jews do not know Christ, that he would surrender his own salvation for that of his kinsman. If there were a group of people that should have known that Christ was the Messiah, it should have been the Jews, they had the Law, the service of God, and the covenants--and were the race through which God chose Christ to come. But then Paul tells us that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." The first Israel refers to the descendents of Abraham, the second refers to God's chosen people. This is a bold statement on Paul's part.

To substantiate this claim, Paul uses the Old Testament. God rejected Ishmael, but chose Isaac--both were sons of Abraham. Then Paul refers to Isaac's children and says God chose Jacob over Esau: "for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works [grace] but of Him who calls." Paul has just demonstrated that mere kinsmanship to Abraham does not make you one of the chosen of God. Then Paul, in response to a possible objection ("Is there unrighteousness with God?"), uses the story of Moses and Pharaoh as an example for God's sovereignty in election and concludes in verse 18:

Therefore He [God] has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

In other words: God can save whoever He wants to, and this salvation is not in a response to action by men. It is initiated by God and is applied to particular individuals. Paul knew people would say that it is not fair for God to not give everyone a chance--especially if it is God who hardens the hearts of men. "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?'"

Paul's answer is not one that satisfies the modern-day critic of Calvinism, who often poses this very objection when confonted with the doctrine of reprobation. Paul essentially says this: We are property, and God is the property owner. Because of our status as creatures, God can do as He wishes with us. "Who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the same lump of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endure with much longsuffering those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Pauls couldn't be more clear. More to come on the UE in Eph 1 and 2, John 6 and 10, and others.

Daniel Hixon's Refutation of Calvinism, Part 1

Take some time to read my friend Daniel Hixon's criticism of Calvinism. The criticism is brief and broad, covering a lot of topics an a short amount of space, so he doesn't develop some of his arguments as much as I would like. Daniel is a brilliant guy. In fact, I respect him very much because of his honesty when we have discussed issues in the past.

I was one of the "real-live" Calvinists Daniel engaged at LSU. I was let out of my cage from time to time, so that I can roam to-and-fro and debate to pesky Arminians. ;-). Of all the non-Calvinists I have ever debated, Daniel was one of the most gracious and honest opponents. We talked about it on many occasions, too.

To be honest this movement distrubs me a little...Reaction to this Calvinistic trend has been varied. Young and zealous Calvinists with their tight rational system with all of its certainty can come of [off] as (and sometimes may actually be) arrogant and narrow, not respecting the rest of us...

I cite this section because Daniel is right...and this arrogance is not limited to the young and the zealous. My wife and I have discussed this elitist tendency among Calvinists on many occasions, and because of this, we avoid "Reformed" churches. I know that some of my Calvinist friends might gasp at me saying this, but it is the general tendency when Calvinists get together. It's not that they "come off" as arrogant--the most vocal Calvinists typically are arrogant and elitist. This is ironic to me, because elitism is inconsistent with Calvinist theology, although it is often it an outcome when people let sinful arrogance reign in their hearts. I will explain this inconsistency more in a moment.

This elitism does not come out of the doctrine of election itself--it simply comes from thinking that we are right and the rest are wrong. It comes from the belief that we preach the truth and the rest preach blasphemies, and the arrogance is most apparent when we think that we have nothing to learn from Christians outside of the Reformed circles. You can see that I am speaking from experience...

Daniel gives his summary of the 5 points of Calvinism:

Total depravity - this expression does not occur in scripture, but if it means that "every inclination of all the thoughts of their hearts were evil, and that continually" that causes me to wonder why so many non-Christians do so many apparently good (or at least refrain from even more evil) things. Calvin himself addressed this problem with what he called "restraining grace" which is in my opinion very similar to what Wesley called "prevenient grace." Both of them ended up saying the same thing: we are totally depraved in theory, but it doesn't play out that way in practice (Calvin says we are able to refrain from some evil and Wesley says we are also able to freely choose to accept/reject Christ) all because the grace of God is already at work in every person.

When Daniel said, "this expression does not occur in scripture," he was attempting to bias his reader against Total Depravity. The term "prevenient grace", a term coined by John Wesley (the founder of Methodism, Daniel refers to his sermon against Calvinism) and central to his theology of man, also does not occur in Scripture. Neither does the word Trinity. Just because the actual term does not exist does not mean the concept is not taught in God's Word.

His quoted definition is the correct definition of Total Depravity: every inclination of all the thoughts of our hearts, apart from the redeeming work of Christ, are evil, and on that continually. The definition is a citation out of Genesis 6 and 8. Reformed theologians qualify this "restraining grace" a bit more than Daniel does, and most common term is "common grace." Common grace comes several forms, with the most evident one being human government. The influence of the church upon society is another form of common grace. It is common grace that prevents the human heart from plunging into anarchy, as can be seen when the presence of certain forms of common grace, such as government, are removed.

However, common grace more often affects man's action rather than his motive. It keeps people from doing evil, but it doesn't necessarily stop man from desiring it. Most Calvinists, myself included, believe that altruism in an unbeliever is rare at best, if not impossible. Even when good is done, it is done with corrupt motives. Common grace also does not save; it does not change the obstinate heart of the sinner to be able to accept Christ.

In fact, Wesley's "prevenient grace" is an outflow of his belief in something similar to total depravity. Wesley did believe in severe noetic effects of sin; sin impeded man's ability to come to Christ. In Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace, God temporarily removes the effects of sin when the gospel call is made so that a persons response to the gospel is truly his own without any influence from God or sin. Prevenient grace is what make a "free choice" possible. In common grace, God does not remove the corruption of sin, he merely limits its capabilities through external means. In prevenient grace, the corruption is removed for the purpose of "free choice." Hence, these concepts are not one in the same.

Total depravity is not a "theory." It is a consistent teaching of Scripture, and it is the basis of biblical grace (Eph 2). Before Christ, my will was a slave to sin to do its bidding. It's reality can be seen, for we all know what we are truly like we no one is looking, and we see what people (and governments) can do when accountability is removed.

There is a biblical basis for Total Depravity and Common Grace. Genesis 6 and 8 cite Daniel's definition almost verbatim. Psalm 14, John 6:44; Romans 1-3; Isaiah 53:6; Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 13; among many others. If you need more, let me know.

More to come...wifey says it's time for bed.

Blue Like Jazz -- Review Final

In chapter 16, we come to Miller's idea of worship. He begins with saying that there are many things in Christian spirituality that are confusing. Well, he says that they are more than confusing, they are contradictory:

There are many ideas within Christian spirituality that contradict the facts of reality as I know them...Love...beauty. Jesus as God.

If these ideas contradict the facts of reality, are they even real? Essentially, Miller is trying to say that many ideas and concepts within the Christian faith are difficult to understand--and some are impossible to fully understand. I would certainly agree with this, but I would not use the term contradiction to categorize these difficult ideas. Tense, of course. Indescribable, in some ways, yes. Contradictory, never. The definition of contradiction is this: if statement A is true, then statement B is false, and if statement B is true then statement A is false. One must true and the other false. If both can be false, but at most one can be true, then we have concepts that are contrary, but not contradictory. In a contradiction, one statement must be true and the other false.

A married bachelor, a circle square, a smart Democrat (little joke at my friend Donald Miller's expense): these are contradictions. Three Persons in one Godhead? Not a contradiction. It is a difficult concept to comprehend and explain, but categorically, it is not a contradiction. Love is not a contradiction simply because it is not a tangible thing, and neither is beauty a contradiction because of its subjective nature.

I have a friend who is a seminary student who criticizes certain Christian writers for embracing what he call "mysticism." I asked him if his statement meant that he is not a mystic. Of course not, he told me. I asked him if he believed in the Trinity. He said he did. I asked if he believed that the Trinity represented three separate persons who are also one. He said he did. I asked him if that would be considered a mystical idea. He just stood there thinking.

You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic.

Three separate persons in one God would certainly be a mystical (as in impossible) idea--but it is not the definition of the Trinity. This is an uninformed statement on Millers part, and it doesn't prove his point. First, no orthodox theologian would ever say that the Persons of the Trinity are separate--that would be tritheism. The proper term is distinct: three distinct Persons of the one divine essence.

Second, Miller hijacks his friends argument by redefining mysticism. There is an ancient form of philosophical practice and belief called mysticism, and these ideas have influenced many Christian thinkers. The Christian form of mysticism is most often expressed in gnosticism, although there are other forms of mystic Christianity. There are teachings in mystic and gnostic practices that are contrary to Christian belief. Miller redefines mysticism in etymological terms alone: mysticism is the belief in anything mysterious and unexplainable. Of course, we Christian have many beliefs that are mysterious...but that is not the mysticism Miller friend is talking about.

In the entirety of this chapter, Miller seems to think that he knows he is right because he "feels awe." We essentially should never engage God intellectually, only emotionally. Fearing God and being in awe of God are the path to wisdom, says Miller. However, the intellectual engagement of God's nature is not an act of reducing God to math (something Miller accuses theologians of doing), in fact, it can spark incredible feelings of awe, wonder, fear, and humility. In fact, Solomon says in Ecclesiastes that with much wisdom comes much despair...

At the end of the day, when I am lying in bed and I know that the chances of any of our theology of being exactly right are a million to one, I need to know that God has things figured out, that if my math is wrong we are still going to be okay...I don't there there is any better worship than wonder.

Miller, there is no possible way for you to know that God has things "figured out" (as if He has to think through these things) if your theology has a "million to one" chance of being "exactly right." This is purely emotional rambling...

Also, God isn't sitting up in heaven trying to get us to sit down and wonder all day long. Worship is best expressed in obedience. We can wonder all day long, but if we fail to obey God's commands, we do not respect Him, and wonder and disrespect can coexist. Reverence and obedience together cannot coexist with disrespect.

Lastly, which will be the final critique I make in this book (although I could make many more), Miller tells us in the next chapter:

I began to attend a Unitarian church...The people were wonderful...I was comfortable there...I did not like their flaky theology, though...

In respect to his "million to one" comment, he has no right to criticize the Unitarians of flaky theology. If he can't be certain of his own, then he forfeits his ability to judge the theology of others--unless Miller wants to be a hypocrite...

All in all, I judge this book to be a great glimpse into shallow emotionalism, but as far as a source of spiritual growth, it's not a good resource. Miller is inconsistent in his own theology and offers us nothing of real substance outside of his demand to "feel God." In fact, I think this book can be dangerous to someone who doesn't think critically about spiritual issues. He advocates an perspective of anti-intellectualism (thinking about God is dangerous) and fails to engage God's revelation in the Bible at all. Not one verse is cited verbatim, some are alluded to, but no unbeliever will ever know which words are Scripture and which are Millers. When Miller does directly attribute his words to a biblical source, he doesn't tell you where to find it.

The gospel that Miller presents is a social gospel intended to save us from our own "self-addiction" to an awareness of social causes that we need to follow. There is no demand for repentance, no explanation of God's wrath and anger, and no discussion of what Christ actually did on the cross. Christ is here to fix up the mess of my life and make me feel good about myself. It's all about me and what I can gain from "Christian spirituality"; The god of this book looks nothing like the God of the Bible. He is passive, waiting, drunk with love, figuring things out, incapable of truly revealing Himself to a point where we can be certain, risking Himself--among other near-blasphemous ideas. Hence the reason I use the word dangerous.

Sorry about the delay in response...

Things have been hectic this week at work (more details to come on that when they are sorted out), and Laura's birthday was on Friday. So, I didn't have time to address all of the stuff I wanted to, nor did I respond to comments on my last post.

I apologize. I will try to get better about posting, but it will be more difficult in the next few months as things are going to get very busy for Laura and me...

Blue Like Jazz, Chapters 13-16

Chapter 13 is titled "Romance." It's was one of the most humorous chapters in the book to read. In it, Miller presented the analogy of human marital love with that of God's love for us. His anecdotes of dating and "finding the one" were hilarious and easy to empathize with, but again, we should not use romance as a metaphor of God's love. He does not seduce us with flowers, a nice restaurant, and candles. His love is expressed in terms of action and commitment, not mere romantic feelings.

"I mean that to be in a relationship with God is to be loved purely and furiously. And a person who thinks himself as unlovable cannot be in a relationship with God because he can't accept who God is; a Being that is love...," Paul says... [Pages 146-147]

In order to understand the theological implications of this comment (which is spoken by a married friend of Miller's, but Miller's tone indicates that he buys into it), one must understand that this comment is an enthymeme--a conclusion drawn from unmentioned premises. The premise is this: God's love for mankind is rooted in man's "being lovable." In other words, God's love in not rooted in God's character alone--despite whatever condition in which man may be. No, rather, it is also grounded in qualities that man possesses that make him lovable. Several times in the book Miller has qualified God's love as "unconditional", but now he tells us that man is "lovable." God's love cannot be unconditional if we deserve it, and if we do not deserve God's love, then we are not inherently lovable.

If God's love is truly unconditional (which it is), then it matters not that man is lovable (which he is, in fact, not). If man were lovable, possessing the qualities that deserve God's love, then the idea of free grace is completely obliterated. If you need more proof that Miller buys into this man-centered theology, listen to the closing words from a play Miller wrote, which are also the closing words of chapter 13.

God risked Himself on me. I will risk myself on you. And together, we will learn to love, and perhaps then, and only then, understand the gravity that drew Him, unto us.

Miller completely has it backwards here. Biblically speaking, it is God who draw us to Him. Here, Miller seems to think that somehow we have something, some quality, some attribute, who knows what, that created a "gravity that drew [God] unto us." It is God who is drawn to us in Miller's theology. We are the center of God's universe.

Moreover, I hate the word "risk" in relation to God. In order to truly say that God took a risk, one must also say that God does not know something. The concept of risk depends on the concept of chance, and chance depends on a lack on knowledge. These words of Miller's are an appeal to warm fuzzies that carry severe theological consequences. For you logicians and mathematicians:

God + Risk < Omniscience

For the rest of you, this means that if God could take a risk, God cannot be omniscient--He knows less than everything.

Chapters 14 and 15 deal with the importance of community. This is decent content, besides the endorsement of profanity [Page 179]. The devil's goal is to get you to cuss. ;-) (See my previous reviews to get this joke). Chapter 16 concerns the importance of faith involved with giving. This is also decent material, besides the bashing of conservatives on page 188.

Next review will complete chapters 17 - 20, and thus finish the book.

New Format and Some Updates...

As you may be able to see, I've updated the look of my site--thanks to Chris Barnette, who has a creative touch that I don't have time to have ;-). He develop the blogger template for me, and gave it to me a week ago.

I've also linked to a Wesleyan friend of mine, Daniel Hixon. I known him for some time and we had some very good and constructive theological conversations in the past.

Last thing, Laura and I have formally joined Instrouma Baptist Church. We've been visiting the church since late August, and it is a great church with friendly people.

Coming in the next few days, the final review or two of Blue Like Jazz, some more discussion on Christian Existentualism, and a review of Daniel's criticism of Calvinism.

Happy Anniversary...

Today, (well actually, tomorrow), January 7th is Laura and my first anniversary. We are staying in New Orleans, at the Block-Keller House B&B right on Canal St. Stalkers, stay away. It's been a while since I've been to uptown NO--since before hurricane Katrina. Construction is everywhere, and places that I once loved to go are now either out-of-business or under reconstruction.

My idea of marriage is now completely different than it was a year ago. Laura and I were fortunate to get fantastic premarital counseling, which has helped us immensely. Also, the relationship that Laura and I have has always been strong in communication. I know I hardly get personal on this site, but given the occasion, I think I should, especially for my single readers out there (wishful thinking, I know).

Laura and I married under the best of circumstances. Financially, I have a steady job with Chevron Phillips Chemical as an Applications Analyst (Applications/Web Applications Developer). The company is very good to me and had provided more than we need. I have been able to own a home and pay for her graduate school without going into any other debt besides a mortgage. Emotionally, we are both (I think, at least) stable and well-centered. Spiritually, we have the same beliefs. I married into a wonderful family, and I love her parents, and she loves my family--we have very little in-law tensions compared to most marriages. And we were (and are) in love, but the substance of our relationship was never purely grounded in emotion, but in committment.

Why do I say this? Because, even when you marry in the best of circumstances, marriage takes more work and patience than you could ever possibly imagine. She leaves drawers open, and for me, the interior decoration isn't complete unless I leave a pair of shoes in every room. I also shed body hair, and one bathroom sink just isn't enough room for her. Oh yeah, I snore sometimes, I can also be very inconsiderate at other times (but I never snore and be inconsiderate at the same time), and she demands that I tell her that she's not bossy (True story, but it happened before we married, but the demanding still stands).

I remember a few months into our marriage, Laura and I were having a hard time communicating about something, and afterwards she said to me, "Marriage has shown me how selfish of a person I am." It was such a profound and convicting statement--and true for the both of us. I'm only a year into my marriage, and I have been able to experience the spiritual sanctification and purification it brings. Privacy and secrecy are things of the past, so hiding anything is difficult in the short-term--and impossible for the long-term. If you are able to hide anything from your spouse, then true intimacy is an impossibility, and your vulnerability is an illusion.

But the best part is the intimacy that comes by truly being vulnerable to another human being by placing a strong trust in her (which is impossible without a faith in Christ to work through her), surrendering the responsibility to care for your needs to her--and her to you. When God's brings the person He intends for you to marry, it is for the good of both of you--and greatest good often comes through working through the most difficult times of marriage. These times demand our selflessness and patience as spouses--a Christ-like character which comes only by God's grace--in order for the marriage to survive them. The strongest and most intimate marriages I know have survived terrible times that forced the couple to demonstrate committment to God and the marriage.

To often people ground relationships purely on emotion. In such a relationship, one would have an eaiser time "grasping for the wind" than meeting the naive expectations of the other. Sure, the connection is strong at the start and it seems like you both think the same thoughts, but it will tire out after a time, and the both of you will certainly start thinking different thoughts. These things always happen, and marrying will only make them come faster, because one is forced to see the other's flaws. Without committment, the relationship will die as fast as a whale out of the water--and this committment must exist in the heart and expressed to the other before the marriage vows are taken--and it must transcend emotion.

How does one know that the relationship is purely emotion? If you don't see any flaws in the other's habits and character, then you have the emotional filter lenses on. If you are afraid to have your flaws exposed, and if you have not seen any imperfection (besides the pimples) in the other, then DON'T GET MARRIED!!! You need stop wading in the shallow pool of superficiality and dive into the deep waters of reality before you even consider marriage. Trust me, both you and your significant other are deeply flawed and selfish, and your illusions of intimacy at this point are nothing more than two people selfishly high on emotion.

Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 12

Happy 2007 to all!

In chapter 12, Miller gives us his idea of the institution of the church. He begins the chapter with the admission of his antipathy for institutions--especially corporations. (Who published this book?) He is not saying that institutions are bad, just that he doesn't like them. Some people have a dislike for pizza, Miller doesn't like institutions. "Those people never want to just talk; they always have an agenda." What would your agenda be, Don?

He does admit to the necessity of institutions and corporations, but he still doesn't like 'em. "It's my right." Yes, Miller it is. You have a right to dislike institutions, but then use them for your own personal gain and notoriety. Thomas Nelson (the publisher of your book) is a corporation. The newspapers and magazines that run your columns are institutions. This hostility for institutions also was for the church--until he found on he liked, Imago Dei in Portland.

"It doesn't do any good to bash churches." Yet between here and the end of the book, he caricatures politically conservative evangelical churches on a regular basis--even on the next page.

I felt like people were trying to sell me Jesus. I was a salesman for a while, and we were taught that you are supposed to point out all the benefits of a product when you are selling it. That is how I felt about some of the preachers I heard speak. They were always pointing out the benefits of the Christian faith. That rubbed me wrong....Did they have to talk about spirituality like it's a vacuum cleaner. I never felt like Jesus was a product. I wanted Him to be a person. Not only that, but they were always pointing out how great the specific church was. The bulletin read like a brochure for Amway. They were always saying how life-changing some conference was going to be. Life-changing?... [Page 131]

If this isn't bashing, I don't what is. I also hold in suspicion similar marketing tactics churches use to win converts. The presentation of the gospel should be based upon Scripture alone. However, isn't Miller also trying to "sell" his version of Jesus in this book? Why write a 240 page book to "sell" "Christian spirituality"? That rubbed me wrong. Miller can't have his cake an eat it too. In all honesty, Miller comes off as a hypocrite throughout this book. I agree that people often turn Jesus into a product, but is it intentional? Do the churches here in the South see Jesus as a nonperson product? Of course not. This is nothing more than a caricature--a straw man. If you need more evidence of Miller's hypocrisy in light of the citation above, take a look at the endorsements on the back cover of the book.

"Think of Donald Miller as ... Anne Lamott with testosterone, and this fresh memoir-like collection of essays as his version of Traveling Mercies. Miller's words will resonate with any believer who has ever grappled with the paradoxes of the faith." -- Christianity Today

"It's hard to find people who write about God from a position of commitment but still sound as if they're being human and honest ... Donald Miller is such a person." -- John Ortburg

"Donald Miller writes like a good improv solo--smooth, sweet, surprising, uplifting, and full of soul and fury and joy. When I finished the last page, I felt warmed, full of hope, and confident that this great book will echo with beauty in many, many lives just as it is doing in mine." -- Brian McLaren

For anyone wondering if the Christian faith is still relevant in a post-modern culture,

For anyone thirsting for a genuine encounter with a God who is real,

For anyone yearning for a renewed sense of passion in life...

Blue Like Jazz is a fresh and original perspective on life, love, and redemption.

Do I need to say anymore? To me, this is pure hypocrisy. He should have thought twice about allowing endorsements such as these on the cover of his book when he criticizes churches for advertising a conference as "life-changing" (a practice that bothers me as well) inside its covers.

From here, Miller discusses Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill is Seattle who is known for vulgarity in his sermons. In this section [Pages 135-136], Miller dismisses as superstitious those who might object to Driscoll's vulgarity. "I think some of my friends believed that that is was the goal of the devil to get people to say cusswords, so they thought Mark was possessed or something, and they told me I should not really get into anything he was a part of." Nice preclusion, Don. Of course, no one might have legitimate concerns about vulgarity in the pulpit and pastorate. You can't criticize someone for being authentic--and cussing is authentic.

Read 1 Timothy 3. A bishop (office of clergy/pastor) should be above reproach, in control of his impulses, modest, decent, and well- behaved. The interesting thing about Driscoll is that his theology is good--but is behavior is questionable at best, and indecent at worst. Driscoll then introduces Miller's current pastor, Rick, to Miller. "At the time, we [Rick and Miller] both chewed tobacco" and Rick "said a few cusswords but not as bad as Mark." Rick is the pastor at Imago Dei, a church that now has a substantial congregation. Do these men have the characteristics outlined in 1 Timothy 3?

Miller then talks about how great a church Imago Dei is [Page 136]. Isn't this doing the same thing as those churches he didn't like?

On page 137, Miller tells us, "I speak from the pulpit at Imago from time to time, and I am completely comfortable saying anything I like." This is very troubling to me, especially as one who preaches from time to time. II should never feel "completely comfortable" saying my thoughts from the pulpit. The pulpit is not meant to be a forum for the exchange of trendy ideas, it is meant to the the place in which men of God preach the Word of God. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Miller has made it clear that he does not sense a responsibility to preach and teach truth when he enters the pulpit. It's more important that he be "authentic."

I've read the rest of the book now. For this point on, I will address any issues that I really liked or issues of grave concern for me. Honestly, I had more issues of concern than things I liked--simply because of the book's inconsistency and popularity.