I don't Twitter (or is it tweet?).  But I can't claim total purity, since I have facebook, myspace, and I blog.  Still, I've been purposefully avoiding the Tweet scene because it seemed to me to represent the worst of the other three.  No genuine conversation or community whatsoever, just an endless flow of (mostly trivial) information. 

I may rethink this position.  Not only did Abraham Piper point out that a narcissist is a narcissist regardless of where he is or how he spreads his narcissism (i.e. the powers of Twitter can be used for both good and evil, it all depends on the person), but the boys at Middlebrow (the podcast of Scriptorium Daily) have brought up a point worth considering:  If Christians are called to witness to the world and bring the gospel to the marketplace, and our marketplace is Twitter, isn't that exactly where we should go? 

It certainly is.  Christians who avoid new technologies and cultural trends altogether are not paying attention to the book of Acts.  Meeting unbelievers where they are and speaking their language is essential to evangelism.  But there's a danger lurking.  I would not be the least bit surprised to hear someone advocating "Twitter church" pretty soon.  This would be nothing new, of course.  Evangelicals have been advocating a move away from traditional church structures to private religion for years.  The point is that God knows what he's doing, and it's not up to us to decide to change the rules of the game. 

Dr. Reynolds has noted that Christianity is a religion of a book, not a movie.  This means that, however good it is that we are becoming more and more video literate as a culture, we can't allow our normal literacy to decline, because God isn't likely to send us an inspired DVD any time soon.  As a Christian, being video literate is important for witnessing to a video culture, but we can't allow ourselves to lose the ability to read and interpret a written text.  If we do, we will lose our only direct tie to the foundation of Christianity itself, the Word of God.

Likewise, Tweeting is not preaching.  In the Old Testament, the Word of God was delivered to messengers called Prophets, who personally and incarnationally brought that Word to the people.  In the Apostolic age, the Word was made flesh and the gospel of that Word was delivered by the Apostles through preaching.  It is in hearing the preached Word that God has promised to meet his people, to create and increase faith, and to seal believers with the Holy Spirit.  This simply can't happen on Twitter.

Just as we need to become more video literatre while not losing our ability to read and understand written texts, we must be careful not to let our increased Twitteracy diminish our ability to engange in genuine communication with real people in real community.  The more we retreat into Twitter and other online communites, the less at home we will feel in true, physical communities (such as church).  The body of Christ, like the Son of God Himself, is incarnational. 

The videos of all speaker addresses and panel discussions from this year's T4G conference are available online for free at Ligonier.org (for a limited time).  These conferences are amazing, encouraging (and often humorous) and it would be well worth your time to watch the videos (if you don't have a lot of time, just watch the panel discussions!)

Check them out here. 

In honor of John Calvin's 500th birthday, Westminster Seminary California's 2008 Conference is on the lasting legacy of John Calvin's life and work for the contemporary church.  The conference is tonight from 6 - 9pm and tomorrow from 8am - 2:45pm.  Unfortunately it is sold out, but for those of you interested in following the conference online, Dr. Scott Clark (Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at WSC) will be live blogging here.  The live blogging will begin right at 6pm tonight and run through the whole length of the conference (minus Dr. Clark's session, if he can't find someone to fill in for him). 

You can subscribe via RSS feed here. 

Also, here is the conference schedule.  And here are the speaker bios. 

The preacher at the church I attended today read this, and it struck me as an excellent meditation piece. It's from a sermon by S.M. Lockridge...

Themed Bibles are generally a bad idea.  For one thing, every part of God's Word is meant to speak to every Christian.  Themed Bibles tend to emphasize only the parts of the Bible that speak about the particular theme, leaving other potentially important aspects of Scripture under-emphasized or ignored (and here I'm thinking primarily within the context of "daily devotions"). 

Secondly, Scripture purposefully makes use of many different genres (and different themes!) to convey the Gospel message in the most comprehensive way possible.  A Bible that goes out of its way to draw attention to only a single theme can have the unfortunate side effect of obscuring the Gospel message itself. 

Now, none of this is to say that themed Bibles are inherently sinful or that the dangers I've mentioned will necessarily result from using them (I actually own a Couples' Devotional Bible).  So naturally I didn't think much of the new Green Bible.  I assumed it was just another gimmick.  And on one level, it is that.  The paper used in The Green Bible is 100% recycled, the ink is soy-based, and the cover is made of cotton-linen.  At the beginning is a collection of essays about being a "green" Christian by such international figures as Desmund Tutu, N. T. Wright, and even Pope John Paul II.  But it's most prominent feature is that it is the first ever "green letter edition" of the Bible.  No, the words of Christ are not in green.  Rather, every verse that supposedly speaks to the subject of "Creation Care" is printed in green.  Like I said, it's gimmicky.  And if that's all it was, I wouldn't have a problem with it.   Heck, I'm a sucker for this kind of thing myself.  I want to be a good Steward of God's creation as much as the next Christian.  But then I started poking around the book's website.  As it turns out, the green bible may actually be teaching something dangerously close to idolatry.

Here are some sample questions from The Green Bible Quiz:

"2) Which verse praising creation is from the Psalms?"

The answer is Psalm 19:1, "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork."  What's the problem?  This verse is NOT "praising creation."  It's doing the exact opposite, expressing how creation praises God.  To my mind, this is kind of a big deal (is anyone else thinking of Romans 1:25?).

"4) Where did Jesus go to commune with nature?"

(It's been said before, but it bears repeating here:  Jesus was not a hippy).  The answer to this question is apparently found in Matthew 14:23 (the quiz has the answer as Matthew 4:23, but I assume this is simply a typo), "And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray."  Seriously, are the people responsible for the green "bible" actually reading it?  Jesus didn't go up the mountain to commune with nature!  He went up to pray (literally, to commune with God!).  Stretching the meaning of a verse to make a point is one thing.  Butchering a verse and literally replacing God with nature...that's a whole new ballgame. 

Now, maybe this quiz is just a poorly conceived promotional tool that doesn't refelct the actual content of the green bible.  That's certainly possible.  But if the excerpt they provide from one of the opening essays is any indication, the content is no better than what we've seen so far.  In her essay, "The Dominion of Love", Barbara Brown Taylor says of the sixth day of creation:

The "new information" she is referring to is that land animals were also created on day six.  Apparently Ms. Taylor was under the impression that the only thing that made human beings special was that we had a whole day all to ourselves.  She also mentions our being given dominion over the earth, and the fact that God pronounces all of His creation to be good, not just man, but all of this is merely peripheral to the real issue.  If she had consulted even the most elementary level Bible scholarship, instead of simply assuming what I can only imagine are her culturally-inherited misconceptions about traditional Christian teaching, she would have seen very quickly that mankind's special place in creation is founded upon our unique status as image bearers of God.  As it stands, the main point of her essay ends up missing the point entirely. 

I would like to invite comments and feedback from anyone who might be willing to defend the green bible.  It's still possible that I've made egregious leaps and  assumed things based on these short previews that aren't really true of the bible itself.  So if anyone owns a copy and would like to defend it, I'm open to hearing your arguments. 

Like I said, I have no problem becoming "green."  I will probably never buy an SUV (as if that's all it means to be green!).  I really do want to be a good steward of God's creation.  But if the only way to join the "green team" is to accept poor theology and pseudo biblical scholarship that effectively butchers the Word of God...we evangelicals will have to work on starting our own team.  I have no doubt that "God is green" (in a sense, at least), but if He is, He ought to have said so.  We shouldn't have to twist His words to make them say something they're not really saying. 

Well, for those of you who've decided that it's OK to lust after appreciate high quality Bibles, Mark Bertrand over at BibleDesignBlog.com has posted his extensive review of Cambridge's new Pitt Minion ESV.  Here's an excerpt:

Read the rest of Mark's review here.

For those of you who don't know yet, Cambridge Bibles (pretty much the best Bible maker in the world!) is about to release their very first edition of the ESV.  The edition is a familiar one in other translations:  the Pitt Minion.  It's a small, hand-sized Bible with a center reference column.  The type size is large and clear for such a small Bible.  But the best part:  it comes bound in beautiful, supple goatskin leather (of course, you'll have to pay a bit more for that!).  The goatskin will be available in both black and brown, as well as a burgundy French Morocco leather and a two-tone imitation leather (see all 4 side-by-side in the image below).  The nice thing about goatskin (besides the way it feels) is that it's extremely pliable and durable.  So if you decide to spend the extra cash, it's well worth it, as you're likely to be keeping the Bible around for many more years to come. 

I used to be your average Bible consumer.  All of my Bibles were bonded leather.  My first ESV was "tru-tone" (basically just imitation leather).  Then I found this site.  Ever since I first read the insightful aesthetic comments of J. Mark Bertand, I have been a "Bible snob."  Unfortunately I am also a "poor graduate student", so that means I'm still using bonded leather bibles.  However, when I learned of Cambridge's plan to release an ESV, I decided to save up and spring for my first really nice Bible.  Mark will be reviewing all four editions of the Cambridge Pitt Minion ESV some time next week, so make sure to check back for that (in the mean time, browse his blog.  He's probably written something witty and interesting about your Bible!).

Now that I've admitted to buying one of these expensive things, I have a question for you (and I'm a philosopher who probably overthinks things, so you can take this or leave it).  I've found there to be something of a paradoxical conundrum to the "nice Bible."  On the one hand, I can see how it would be far more worthy to spend $80 on a Bible than on useless junk I don't need.  And further, buying a Bible that has obviously taken great skill and care to make seems to say something about how important God's Word is to you.  But is there something all too modern and Western about the "Cambridge goatskin Bible" market?  After all, the words are the words.  I can be spiritually fed just as well by a paperback Bible, and give the other $70 to my church, or to a homeless shelter.  Then again, is there something about that very sentiment that is equally "modern" and "Western"?  Can anything be said for a Bible that is, in itself, a work of art?

So what do you think?   Am I still a good Christian?  :P


 

I've recently joined a new group blog, the purpose of which is to consider various arguments for different views of church authority.  More specifically, my coauthors and I will be looking closely at Orthodox (and Catholic) arguments against Sola Scriptura.  Obviously attempts will be made at refuting these arguments, but the primary goal of this blog is to foster communication between Protestant and Orthodox Christians, and to work towards an increasingly charitable and transparent dialog between the two.  This blog is called "By Whose Authority?" and it can be found here. 

The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, simply put, is the belief that the Bible, the Word of God alone is the final authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice.  Where Popes or church councils have seemed to violate the plain meaning of Scripture on these matters, it is Scripture alone that has the power of veto, it does not stand side by side in authority with tradition.

The most common objection I have heard from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers to this doctrine is that it is not itself found in Scripture.  Nor is the list (canon) of books that ought to count as Scripture found in Scripture.  At first brush this seems rather embarrassing, if not outright contradictory.  But I feel this objection has been given far more attention than it deserves, and here I will attempt a brief response.

First, a simple but all too important point must be made:  There are many items of true knowledge to be found outside of the Scriptures, and we can know them.  My belief that the external world exists (including the Bible I'm holding in my hands) is one such item of knowledge.  But this belief, it could be argued, is found at least implicitly within Scripture.  Fair enough.  Another example would be the deliverances of modern Science, or of History beyond the date of the last New Testament book.  The Bible is neither a Science nor a History textbook.  But no one would attempt to argue that the doctrine of sola scriptura precludes Christians from engaging in and learning from these disciplines.  

Likewise, I see no reason why the list of books determined to be canonical or the doctrine of sola scriptura itself cannot be such items of knowledge, arrived at by sound arguments and the use of God-given reason.  

To illustrate the point, one need only study church history.  In the earliest days after the Apostles, there were a few books widely accepted as Scripture (such as the letters of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas).  There was no single council convened to answer the question of which books belonged in the canon and which did not.  There were several, some with slightly differing opinions than others.  There were also prominent individuals who compiled their own lists (such as Athanasius, who was probably the first whose list comprised only and all of the 27 books we now call the New Testament).  What is important to note about all of these is that each group or individual offered arguments on behalf of their selections.  The church did not arbitrarily pick which books it liked and which it didn't.  Good reasons were given for including books like Revelation and excluding Clement and Hermas, and in the end, the best arguments won the day.  And very recently, such arguments came in handy once more, as many Christians, especially Catholics, had to rebut the claims of the best selling Da Vinci Code.  

If this was sufficient to convince the church at the time, why not now?  Why now must infallible church authority  be added to the mix in order for us to be confident that we have the right canon?  Catholic and Orthodox Christians readily admit that the church never sat down and self-consciously used its belief in its own infallible authority to declare the canon into existence by fiat.  So why is infallibility necessary to be confident in the reliability of the canon today?  This at least seems to lead us to the conclusion that the list of books belonging in the canon need not be in Scripture itself in order for sola scriptura to be coherent. 

But what of the original charge, that sola scriptura itself is not discovered by Scripture alone?  Again, this objection simply misses the point.  If I have good reason to believe, based on the best evidence (both historical and logical) that the Bible (in its final, canonized form) is the infallible Word of God, and moreover, if I likewise have good reason to believe, based on the best evidence, that no other earthly institution bears the mark of divine infallibility, then sola scriptura follows quite naturally.  It is a deliverance of sound argument and reason, and need not be found in Scripture itself (which would be circular anyway).  

***

As a side note, it's worth pointing out that whatever can be said in favor of church infallibility can likewise be said in favor of the infallibility of Scripture, and whatever can be said against the doctrine of sola scriptura can likewise be said against the infallibility of the church.  Consider, upon what basis does the church claim infallible authority?  If the basis is on either tradition or Scripture (which is really a written derivation of tradition anyway), then the argument is circular.  But if the basis is upon reason (or even faith...which are by no means opposed), then whatever can be said for church infallibility can be said for sola scriptura. 

(I recognize that my Catholic and Orthodox brothers have other concerns with sola scriptura, but in this brief post I meant only to deal with this one common objection). 

The lyrics we sing today are at least one stanza shorter that what Robinson authored over 200 years ago. Most information I can find states that there were originally four stanzas, and that the final stanza was dropped from a hymnal published in 1860 by Martin Madan. What's curious is that the text found at CyberHymnal.org contains five stanzas and that the additional material is woven in as a different arrangement from every other edition of the hymn I can find. The material certainly sounds like it could have been written by Robinson, but I can't find any authoritative source noting whether Robinson may have written five stanzas or if the additional material was added in by someone else at a later date.

So here are the two possible original versions of the hymn. On the right is the curious five stanza version, on the left is the traditional four stanza. Today, most of us sing the four stanza version without the final stanza.

1. Come, Thou Fount of every blessing, Tune my heart to sing Thy grace; Streams of mercy, never ceasing, Call for songs of loudest praise. Teach me some melodious sonnet, Sung by flaming tongues above. Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it, Mount of Thy redeeming love. 2. Sorrowing I shall be in spirit, Till released from flesh and sin, Yet from what I do inherit, Here Thy praises I’ll begin; Here I raise my Ebenezer; Here by Thy great help I’ve come; And I hope, by Thy good pleasure, Safely to arrive at home. 3. Jesus sought me when a stranger, Wandering from the fold of God; He, to rescue me from danger, Interposed His precious blood; How His kindness yet pursues me Mortal tongue can never tell, Clothed in flesh, till death shall loose me I cannot proclaim it well. 4. O to grace how great a debtor Daily I’m constrained to be! Let Thy goodness, like a fetter, Bind my wandering heart to Thee. Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, Prone to leave the God I love; Here’s my heart, O take and seal it, Seal it for Thy courts above. 5. O that day when freed from sinning, I shall see Thy lovely face; Clothed then in blood washed linen How I’ll sing Thy sovereign grace; Come, my Lord, no longer tarry, Take my ransomed soul away; Send thine angels now to carry Me to realms of endless day.

1. Come Thou Fount of every blessing Tune my heart to sing Thy grace; Streams of mercy, never ceasing, Call for songs of loudest praise Teach me some melodious sonnet, Sung by flaming tongues above. Praise the mount! I'm fixed upon it, Mount of God's unchanging love. 2. Here I raise my Ebenezer; Hither by Thy help I'm come; And I hope, by Thy good pleasure, Safely to arrive at home. Jesus sought me when a stranger, Wandering from the fold of God; He, to rescue me from danger, Interposed His precious blood. 3. O to grace how great a debtor Daily I'm constrained to be! Let that grace now like a fetter, Bind my wandering heart to Thee. Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, Prone to leave the God I love; Here's my heart, O take and seal it, Seal it for Thy courts above. 4. O that day when freed from sinning, I shall see Thy lovely face; Clothed then in blood washed linen How I’ll sing Thy sovereign grace; Come, my Lord, no longer tarry, Take my ransomed soul away; Send thine angels now to carry Me to realms of endless day.

Here are some contemporary renditions of the hymn on YouTube:

Sufjan Stevens - I enjoy his gentle peaceful approach. There's also a low-quality live version online.

David Crowder - He provides the hint of Irish flair without making it too much like a modern rock-worship song. (live version)

Mormon Tabernacle Choir - Though it looks like it was filmed in the early 90s, it is a majestically powerful presentation.

Gateway Worship - They use a couple of original stanzas as verses and write their own chorus. Not bad, but nothing can beat the traditional version.