STATEMENT OF FAITH (under constant reconsideration)

I believe in God.
My belief is provoked by God’s love for me, which is an act of grace.
God’s grace also has provided me with a measure of faith

by which I am able to believe.

My first experience of God’s love

was through the loving nurture of my family.

Having been conceived in the nuptial embrace

of my father and mother,

I was born into this world a helpless human being

wholly dependent on others.

My whole experience of love in the beginning was erotic.
As I matured, I discovered more mutual ways of loving

and began to love others less self-interestedly.

Through my family I came to accept the Bible as the Word of God.
Because of my family, I found myself in a community of people

who gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ.

As I matured in this community, I came to an understanding
that
I must make a personal decision concerning reconciliation to God

given that my relationship to God is not right

apart from accepting Jesus Christ as the way to be reconciled to God.

I trusted my family and the Christian community to which I belonged,

believing them to be truthful in teaching me these things.

Given my understanding of God,

especially how God is holy

and how we too should live holy lives,

I often found myself at odds with my profession of faith,

finding resolution

in confession and repentance,

but not enduring in my resolve

to live in such a way as to be found holy in all I thought, said or did.

I developed secretive habits that became part of my lifestyle

that provoked much awareness
for the need of confession and repentance,

yet miserably persisted.

I believe the grace of God kept me in spite of my persistent sin.
It is my hope

that the character of Christ Jesus is forming in me

by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thank God for his lavish goodness.

Begin here in God and God will take you there.

God is God, beyond comprehension.
God provides, by His Spirit alongside/within/all about us,

what we require to think of Him,

but we must not think that our thoughts can wholly comprehend Him.

We have the Word of God

to which we must go to measure our musings against His awesome Majesty.

In doing so, we will inevitably end up like Job, who confessed,

"I have uttered what I did not understand.

Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

... I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you.

Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

We might learn also from Elijah's experience,

who, in beholding the LORD's passing by, realized where the LORD was not.

This recalls the via negativa

to which theo-philosophical discussion must usually resort.

Transcendence is troubling to those trying to take God's measure.
Immanence is God's solution,

and that is found in the person of Jesus Christ.

Begin here in Him and He will take you there.

Truth as relational/revelational rather than propositional

A correspondent wrote: "Theology, even on the disputable matters, is relevant, in that it makes us better or worse prepared to live a life worthy of Christ, and makes us more or less interested and effective in sharing the Gospel, which is one more reason we should do our best to get it right."

This statement is of utmost importance. Theology, as I understand it, involves telling; telling implies communication, communication implies relationship. One engages in theology for the purpose of communicating to others one's experienced understanding of God. Given that language is a primary means of communication, words come into play in particular.

Although "all experiences are not equivalent," all experiences are mediated by some relationship. Right relationship leads to truth. Although "we do not abandon the objective claims of the scripture for the self-authorizing subject," we do need to be sure that we submit such so-called objectivity to the Self-authorizing God of Truth, whose Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

I understand the Pentecostal emphasis to be on experienced Truth being informed by God's Word while informing understanding of God's Word and compelling obedience to God's Word. (Many other Christian groups are skeptical about experience and often discount it in theological intercourse; for the Pentecostal, experience is very significant - theology is an active verb to be spoken in the present tense.) The words in God's Word are the common coin exchanged back and forth in the Household (economia) of God and the Spirit of God is the measure of their value. Theology may be the effort to facilitate the means of exchange.

When unbelievers enter the theological conversation, it is like a foreigner without any Euros entering a European country. Perhaps apologetics is the place to exchange currency. Consider Proverbs 23:23 – "Buy the truth and do not sell it; get wisdom, discipline and understanding."

I am speaking of Truth as relational/revelational rather than propositional given that Truth is true because God is the source and sustainer of what is true. Apart from God, there is nothing true; thus does the father of lies distort what is otherwise true to become false. Apparent truth must be closely examined with the discerning light of the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised will guide us into all truth. All truth is God's truth and any proposition must be put to the test of agreeing with what is revealed in the Word of God. I insist - there is no truth apart from God; reality itself confronts us with what is true because all creation declares God's glory, so sinful Man avoids what is real by creating his own ideal, proposing this or that idea to make reality seem to conform to him.

Thus does it behoove us to submit to the Spirit's renewal of our minds so that, becoming transformed, we are able to perceive what is really true. Propositional truth depends on language, language depends on understanding, understanding depends on relationship, relationship depends on grace. Let us then celebrate the glorious Incarnation of the Logos who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The erosive consequence of Pentecostals joining the NAE

I am convinced the present generation of Pentecostals has almost altogether abandoned its historic roots. Both by experience and by disposition the earliest Pentecostals were a lay movement, where there was little interest in "clergy" and all were called "brother" and "sister." At the same time, there were a large number of women who had been ordained for ministry. But in three generations of the Assemblies of God, I have watched all that change. When the Pentecostals joined the National Association of Evangelicals, an erosion took place in the area of church and ministry that is bidding fair to destroy the very thing that God the Holy Spirit created in the first place. Despite protest to the contrary, we are now de facto a denomination of clerics, second only to Roman Catholicism; and, unfortunately, we have become a denomination of white male clerics. Although I have little hope that one voice can stem this overwhelming tide, I include this essay because it expresses the convictions not only of a New Testament scholar, but of a Pentecostal that bemoans the dissolution of the "restoration" on this very crucial theological issue. For some, this essay may seem to have a dimension of "clergy bashing" to it; if so, it probably gives expression to my own deeply populist roots, which I am convinced in this case are also the roots of the New Testament church.

[Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics page xi]

Fee's verdict concerning the erosive consequence of Pentecostals joining the NAE is right on; it was a classic case of pouring new wine into old-wineskins. In my opinion, evangelicalism was/is riddled too much with modernism, accepting the presumptive mind-set of the Enlightenment. The Pentecostal movement, with its supra-rational restorationist focus on letting the Truth of God's Holy Spirit lead scripturely-correct religious practice, trumped modernism's rationalism with its Spirit-quenching Kantian restrictions on religion while at the same time exposing the spiritually-counterfeit masquerade of theosophism/anthrophosophism with its neo-gnostic nonsense. The late 20th century drift toward post-modernism seemed to be a secular attempt to escape the modernist dead-end; that effort is failing and will continue to fail because it too quenches the Spirit of Truth with its embrace of radical poly-valence and abhorrence of Real Presence.

I doubt that the "christianity" emerging from post-modern culture will fair any better.

Evangelical Identity

Reformatted excerpt from AN EVANGELICAL MANIFESTO:

A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment

May 7, 2008; Washington, D.C. (http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf)

To be Evangelical,

and

to define our faith and our lives

by the Good News of Jesus

as taught in Scripture,

is to submit our lives entirely

to the lordship of Jesus

and

to the truths and the way of life

that he requires of his followers,

in order that they might

become like him,

live the way he taught,

and

believe as he believed.

As Evangelicals have pursued this vision over the centuries,
they have prized above all certain beliefs
that we consider to be at the heart of the message of Jesus
and therefore foundational for us

— the following seven above all:

First, we believe

that

Jesus Christ is fully God become fully human,

the unique, sure, and sufficient revelation

of the very being, character, and purposes of God,

beside whom there is no other god,

and

beside whom there is no other name by which we must be saved.

Second, we believe

that

the only ground for our acceptance by God

is what Jesus Christ did on the cross

and what he is now doing through his risen life,

whereby he
exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence,
bore the penalty for our sins,
credited us with his righteousness,
redeemed us from the power of evil,
reconciled us to God,
and empowers us with his life “from above.”

We therefore bring nothing to our salvation.
Credited with the righteousness of Christ,
we receive his redemption solely by grace through faith.

Third, we believe

that

new life,

given supernaturally through spiritual regeneration,

is a necessity as well as a gift;

and that

the lifelong conversion that results

is the only pathway

to a radically changed character and way of life.

Thus for us, the only sufficient power

for a life of Christian faithfulness and moral integrity in this world

is that of Christ’s resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, we believe

that

Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude

toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible,

God’s inspired Word,

make the Scriptures our final rule

for faith and practice.

Fifth, we believe
that

being disciples of Jesus

means

serving him as Lord in every sphere of our lives,

secular as well as spiritual,

public as well as private,

in deeds as well as words,

and in every moment of our days on earth,

always reaching out as he did

to those who are lost

as well as

to the poor,

the sick,

the hungry,

the oppressed,

the socially despised,

and being faithful stewards

of creation and our fellow-creatures.

Sixth, we believe

that

the blessed hope of the personal return of Jesus

provides both strength and substance

to what we are doing,

just as what we are doing

becomes a sign of the hope of where we are going;

both together leading to

a consummation of history

and the fulfillment of an undying kingdom

that comes only by the power of God.

Seventh, we believe

all followers of Christ are called

to know and love Christ through worship,

love Christ’s family through fellowship,

grow like Christ through discipleship,

serve Christ by ministering to the needs of others in his name,

and share Christ with those who do not yet know him,

inviting people to the ends of the earth and to the end of time

to join us as his disciples and followers of his way.

At the same time, we readily acknowledge

that

we repeatedly fail to live up to our high calling,

and all too often illustrate

the truth of our own doctrine of sin.

We Evangelicals share the same “crooked timber” of our humanity,
and the full catalogue of our sins, failures, and hypocrisies.

This is no secret

either to God

or to those who know and watch us.

"BELIEVE WHAT? WHOM?"

Believe God is - this first, then faith will become operative in assuring one of what follows from that. The first responsibility of any person is to believe in God, that is, be faithful to God - faith, by definition, is believing what is true; if what one believes is not true, one is unfaithful. To not believe God is will mar anything else a person may believe: "without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).

Belief functions in humans before reason does. This priority of belief is a matter of maturity - "when I was a child, I reasoned as a child ...." What is childish reasoning like? It is thinking one's beliefs rightly describes reality as it appears to be. Reason accepts the possibility that what is apparent may be other than what is real. This is what I like about the philosophical approach of phenomenology - it takes seriously the appearance of things but is willing to put that appearance to question.

There is no such person as a "non-believer." Every person believes something. A reasonable person will desire to believe what is true - to believe otherwise is not reasonable. Grace and truth are realized through Jesus Christ. I believe that God graciously ta kes responsibility for revealing the truth He wants us to know. We must pattern what we believe after that which God has revealed - God is perfectly revealed in Christ Jesus. Born in sin, our belief system begins out of whack. We begin our lives capable of believing only one thing properly (this is how I understand what Romans 12:3 describes as each person's "measure of faith" ) - that we need God to reveal how we ought to believe. Responsible belief is continually on the lookout for whatever God reveals. Humans are born ready to respond to what God reveals - sin works to distort that revelation and alter our response. It is the grace of God the works against the distorting influence of sin; by grace we are able to respond rightly to God's revelation, if we are willing, that is, if we believe. Belief is what we are willing to do.

Belief always takes place in the context of relationship. That is why witnessing is more that mere reasoned presentation of the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ - it is a reasoning together: this often involves a challenge to beliefs, iron sharpening iron, as it were. Let this conversation take place in love, grace and truth in action. When one of the persons reasoning together is God Himself, the other discovers a cleansing transformation taking place - sin, that source of bad belief, no longer separates oneself from God. God is right there to be worshipped - confession, repentance, praise, intercessory prayer, proclamation of his mighty works, and on and on.

All praise be to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

who has opened the way for us,

through the power of the Holy Spirit,

to faithfully believe what pleases our Father in Heaven,

the LORD God Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth.

Self Abortion 05.16.09

Skeptics build a house of straw where they reside. They lock themselves into a little room then paint themselves into a corner. They curl up in the corner with clenched fists, ears shut and eyes closed tight. In fetal position, they self-destruct. Skeptics abort themselves.

Evangelical Manifesto considered

In a recent correspondence, a colleague wrote:

But just because Christianity contributed to the forming of our country does not mean our country is Christian. Composed of may Christians, sure. But as far as I can tell the only true Christian government is the one where Jesus Christ rules in the flesh - and that doesn't happen until after the resurrection.

First of all, thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding - so much revisionist history is out there severing well-established historical connections with Christianity (glaring example: the European Union constitution, of all things), that I was not sure where you were coming from. I also agree that America is "Christian", in the sense you employ; however, it is NOT "post-Christian"'; far from it. Or else it would look more like some soviet or Islamic state (or worse). A Christian presence is still quite ubiquitous in American life and culture - if it were not so, the anti-Christian lobby ( a truly motley crew) would not be so enraged, incensed and organized to stamp it out. They would just let it die a nice quiet post-Christian death. Ain't happenen'.

I agree with the (somewhat overblown self-righteous?) statement in the Evangelical Manifesto (http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/), but what motivates this group anyway? And why a manifesto? Isn't that something Karl Marx did a century and half ago, and that humanists update every couple of years? (Have you seen the latest version, by the way?) I am not a stranger to American Evangelicalism all these years, warts and all. Yet I feel no over-riding compulsion to go out of our way with a bunch of mea culpas to show to the supposedly dominant new Left. These people don't give a hoot about what Evangelicals believe - they think of us as Stalin did his "useful idiots"; so why act like the part? What is wrong with just leading people to Jesus and telling them all about Him? The root of "evangelical" is, after all, "evangel".

Now, how come these things weren't brought up in those long "Bull" years; now that the "Bear" has come to Evangelicalism, politically at least, it's suddenly cool to gloss over all that has happened, spiritually, since the Billy Graham crusades of yore clear up to PromiseKeepers and beyond, as if nothing of significance happened except for scandal, duplicity and hypocrisy. Fact is. lots of folks "got saved" (or whatever they call Christian conversion these days). All of a sudden, Christians are welcoming (failed) socialist approaches, uncritically, naively, as if it's new. If you don't believe it, look at the new life breathed into some of these old goats, like Sojourners. Do they really have something new to say to me that I didn't get the first time around? Well, I'm not buying it. Their is just a whiff of Franky Schaefferism in some of this stuff that makes me a bit skeptical - or at least, not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon. After all, the core of all those decades of activity and, yes, activism, was the Gospel message itself - spoken not like Liberal denominations, nor other parts of Christendom which would dilute the preaching of the Cross and the salvation that each person needs, etc. - unabashedly and boldy preached. Even with my advanced degrees and decades of campus culture, I am still cautious of the diluting effect the university (including, or especially Christian ones) can have on an believer's genuine vibrant faith in Jesus and the love that engenders all around. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of the Lord then dwell in the tents of evil men...(one reason I admire C.S.Lewis, and my dad, and others, so much, is that, while they worked in those tents, they never dwelt there.)

But maybe I am over-reacting (like many of those of whom I speak). Perhaps some of us overindulged or are just coming to terms with things we never thought about before. Or perhaps we are just adjusting to new technologies, like the internet and global culture, etc. I'm cool with that part. But next time. tell these evangelical nay-sayers not to quench the Spirit when some of us Pentecostal types have a word to speak...maybe next time, they'll listen. But will there be anyone left to prophesy?

FRANKYnstein Shaeffer

Franky Schaeffer, frankly speaking, has lost it!

See his weird confessional considering the murder of Mad Doktor Tiller at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html, which begins: "My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America."

I discovered this outrageous article through the blog (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/frank-schaeffer-son-of-evangelical-icon.html) of an outspoken Roman Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, who writes: "Last September, Schaeffer put out his book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back, in which he essentially renounced his past and trashed his father and mother. It was one of the most astonishing displays of ungratefulness and betrayal of one's parents (and the movements one was a part of) in memory. He had done a similar thing to a lesser extent in his semi-autobiographical novel Portofino (2004). His mother Edith has expressed extreme anguish and hurt over this, and longtime Schaeffer family friends are outraged by how Frank has behaved. See, for example, family friend Os Guinness' scathing review of this book and a further comment by Dr. Jim Eckman."

I recommend the Os Guiness review, found at http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/marapr/1.32.html?start=1. The review begins with the following thought: "The case can be made, however, that from a Christian perspective, no relationship is more mysterious and more wonderful, yet sometimes more troubling, than that of fathers and sons. The depth and wonder begin with all we know of the relationship of God the Father and God the Son, while the troubled aspects stem from the Fall. Consider Absalom's rebellion against King David in the Old Testament, Edmund Gosse's exposure of his father Philip, the Oedipal drive in the writings of Sigmund Freud—and now Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God, a memoir that is his personal apologia at the expense of his famous father, Francis Schaeffer, who was the founder and leader of the worldwide network of L'Abri communities."

Reading the review, as well as Armstrong's comments about Schaeffer, I found myself reflecting on my own status as son of a well-regarded man of God. To be candid, I must confess that I saw a bit of myself when reading about Franky's angry rhetorical attitude; I hope and pray that I truly learn to "speak the truth in love" so that my own words are not merely sounding brass and clanging noise. In his anger, it seems the Franky Schaeffer has finally gone too far and sinned - supporting such a monstrous agenda as belongs to the wickedly deceitful "pro-choice" crowd.