the merge

Rob Bell just released the latest in his nooma series. I don't know how long it will last, but there is a free preview available online by clicking here.

Thanks to my friend Mike for sending along the link!

This weekend a world record was broken at the Nathan's Annual Hot Dog Eating Contest...68 hot dogs in 10 minutes besting the previous world record of a mere 58 hot dogs. This feat was accomplished by none other than Joey “Jaws” Chestnut.

Jaws's other accomplishments include: 47 Grilled Cheese Sandwiches in 10 minutes, 173 Buffalo Wings at the Philly Wing Bowl in 2006, he has won the Asparagus eating contest in 2005, 2006 & 2007.

Here are a few other Champions from the International Federation of Competitive Eating (IFOCE):

Dominic Cardo: Whole pickled beef tongue (3 lbs. 3 oz) in 12 minutes.
Don Lerman: Salted butter (7.25) lbs. in 5 minutes
Peter Bertoletti: Strawberry shortcake (15.25 lbs.) in 8 minutes
Timothy Janus: Ramen noodles (10.5 lbs.) in 8 minutes
Sonya Thomas: Deep-fried okara (9.75 lbs.) in 10 minutes

Is anyone else feeling hungry? I thought not.

I have been reading a few different things over the past few weeks that have really challenged me. This morning I was reading N.T. Wright's brilliant! book Surprised by Hope. I was reading the section that paints a picture of what salvation, justice, and beauty really look like if we take seriously Jesus' resurrection and the Kingdom of God (leading to God's recreation of His creation).

I got to thinking about ministry to the poor, the broken, and the hurting, and what this hope calls us to as God's Church.

I realized...no one was ever crucified for serving and helping the poor. Governments and businesses have no problem with people bandaging the wounded. People get crucified for trying to heal the system causing the wounds in the first place.

Seeking God's justice for our world means we speak out about the injustices of the systems and conditions that creates the poverty and brokenness. Yes, sometimes people are in the situations they are in because of their own stupid decisions (I am in no way relinquishing personal responsibility)... but that is where God's justice proclaimed on the situation and His grace given to the person brings restoration and recreation of that person to live a Kingdom life.

Maybe we need to not only bandage the wounds, but seek to cure the cancerous cause...what do you think?

Shane Claiborne is someone "living as an ordinary radical." He is part of a faith community known as The Simple Way in Philadelphia, and lives in the impoverished area known as Kensington in Philadelphia. This community is part of a movement that could be considered a form of new monasticism.He is someone who has taken seriously the call of the Gospel to live a radically different life.

The Irresistible Revolution reads like a travelogue of a life, or, like a memoir of sorts. It weaves stories and experiences from Shane's life with challenging questions and theological insight. It is easy to read, but challenging to chew.

Shane's book is about his experiences and application and sometimes this makes it a little difficult to interpret...it actually takes some thinking on the readers part (imagine having to do that!) to make application for our own life. Shane is single without kids, living in a community house in a poor neighborhood, part of the cell church type of system, and relatively free of some of the responsibilities of that life (not that he is free of responsibility). The challenge becomes making application and figuring out how to live the Kingdom-Life for the person who is married with children, living in the suburbs or rural areas, part of an organized church, and tied down with some additional life responsibilities because of those realities. Luckily Shane isn't completely insensitive to our plight to make application...he says, "You don’t have to have my life, but you have to react to Jesus.”

It would be easy, but wrong, to write Shane off as a liberal or an activist who is simply pasting the message of Jesus over his own message. Somehow he has forged a middle ground between liberal activist and right wing conservative. He manages to hold elements of both in tension with great humility and recognition of his own inner struggles. Shane says, “While most activists could use a good dose of gentleness (after all, it is a fruit of the Spirit), I think most believers could use a good dose of holy anger.”

I was challenged and convicted by many things said in the book, and believe it is well worth your time to read. Perfect? No. There were a few things that gave me pause (and not some of the ones that gave others people pause). But all-in-all this was a good read. I don't necessarily agree with all of his conclusions (I don't necessarily agree with all of my own conclusions), but I can't disagree with his commitment to live out an expression of the faith that echoes the Old Testament Prophets (established orders didn't like them much either...critiquing their theology and commitment to the nation).

I think the point is don't live Shane's life...live his commitment to living out Jesus' life. Or, maybe just start asking the hard questions of how you can more fully life out Jesus' life for yourself. I know I am, and it is never easy.

I am definitely looking forward to reading this...

"Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship. Then it moved to Greece and became a philosophy. Then it went to Rome and became an institution, and then it went to Europe and became a government. Finally it came to America where we made it an enterprise."
Richard Halverson, former chaplain to the U.S. Senate

According to Kevin Roeten at Redstate.com:

It’s likely even Jesus would have OK’d water boarding if it would have saved his Mom. He would’ve done the same to save his Dad, or any one of His disciples. For that matter, He even died to save all humans.

Really? The man who was brutally beaten and murdered by a tyrannical empire would support torture?

I am no pacifist, but I certainly don't think a case could be made where Jesus would support waterboarding!

But I guess Kevin is not alone as a recent Pew Forum points out that 62% of protestants surveyed believe that torture can be justified. Check out the survey results here.

What do you think? Would Jesus have supported water boarding?

This is what a champion does...

I am starting to read The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. I found the following statement at the beginning of the book, and much of my journey has echoed its cry...

Many of us find ourselves estranged from the narrow issues that define conservatives and from the shallow spirituality that marks liberals. We are thirsty for social justice and peace but have a hard time finding a faith community that is consistently pro-life or that recognizes that there are "moral issues" other than homosexuality and abortion, moral issues like war and poverty. So some folks just end up trying to save individual souls from their sins, and others end up trying to save the world from "the system." But rarely do we see that the sickness of our world has infected each of us, and that the healing of our world not only begins within us but does not end with us.

I rarely read a book without finding something of value in it. Even in viewpoints with which I disagree I can usually find some redeeming points or insights. Jesus, Interrupted, however, was a waste of my time. While being easy on the readability scale, it is filled with half-truths and poor scholarship almost to the point of unreadability.

In this post I will give a few points where I agree with Ehrman (indicating areas where I diverge) and then point out a few other problems with the book.

At the end of this post I will give the links to Ben Witherington III's blog posts concerning this book. He is a brillilant New Testament scholar with more expertise in this area than I. His series is nothing short of brilliant. It is lengthy, but worth the time it takes. You don't even need to have read Ehrman's book to understand and learn from Witherington's posts.

Let me say that there are a few points where I agree with him. While I agree with him it does not mean they are new, insightful, or all that useful.

Points of Agreement with a little explanation:

1. Every first year seminarian learns New Testament criticism, and it does challenge some. During my first year of seminary I was challenged by the issues presented by New Testament Criticism...until they offered all the views. I was able to evaluate them and found there are very plausible explanations which Ehrman either doesn't discuss or completely disregards without a full explanation.
   
   Erhman does a great job of only presenting one (his) explanation as the only plausible one and giving just enough information about other views to make them seem ridiculous. It is easy to disregard some of the arguments because Ehrman himself starts with faulty assumptions. New Testament Criticism is a complex field and the scholars (despite Ehrman's "most scholars agree" comment) do not agree with his explanations.
   


2. Very few pastors bring this stuff up. I don't want to misrepresent Ehrman or attempt to speak for him, but his writing leaves me with a bad impression. That impression is that Ehrman believes pastors are keeping this information from the people because they just don't want to deal with it, think their people won't be able to handle it either spiritually or intellectually, or they are purposely deceiving people.
   
   Most of this is practical. Sharing the insights of New Testament Criticism would overwhelm many. It is a difficult subject that requires more than a Sunday morning sermon can provide. Many pastors do not fully understand the ins and outs of NT Criticism.
   


3. The Historical-Critical method is a widely used and very reliable method of getting at the meaning of a Biblical passage and understanding. Ehrman is correct that to properly understand the Biblical message and interpret it properly we need to understand the time, place, situation, etc of the original writers and readers.
   
   Unfortunately, Ehrman only abides by this principle when it is convenient.
   
   In the section explaining Biblical contradictions...Ehrman fails to take into account Biblical genres (His understanding of Genesis and his explanation of the Psalms are just one example). He fails to understand why John would place the Temple Cleansing at the beginning of his book while other place it later...then says that it cannot be reconciled. If Ehrman understood the purpose of a Gospel genre he wouldn't have so much difficulty.
   


4. There are variant views, textual differences, and the writers were usually anonymous (and not necessarily who's name was listed on the document). Again a simple understanding of the process would help. Ehrman just misses it. There are textual variations, the Biblical writers had slightly varying theologies (though, despite Ehrman's inferences, they all held to the same main principles), and there are some anonymous letters (but not forgeries or misrepresentations).
   


5. I have as much problem with the fundamentalist view of inerrancy as Ehrman. I believe God spoke through human beings and allowed their personal writing styles, personalities, and idiosyncrasies to show through. The Scriptures were written by real human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit; not automatons. Variations occur, but this does not remove the presence of the Holy Spirit working and keeping the essential message of God's Word for us.
   

A Couple of Additional Problems:

1. The underlying assumption that nothing supernatural is occuring in the Scripture.
   Buried within Ehrman's writing is the assumption that nothing supernatural is going on with the Bible. Obviously this is a difference of opinion as he would say that my faulty assumption is that I believe there is something supernatural going on. Once you start with a purely humanistic origin of the Bible and view its development as being separate from all Divine intervention...then I can see how some things seem illogical. However, I also think that God's working to bring us the Bible plays a big role in the discussion.
   


2. Lack of scholarly insight and study. Bibliography for additional study? None! Footnotes to reference bold claims and "widespread acceptance" of his ideas? None! (Unless you count footnote references to his own work!) Interaction with alternative views as anything other than straw men? None! Plus there is nothing new about the ideas that are presented...some of which have been proven wrong and abandoned by liberal scholarship anyway.
   

Ehrman's writing is easy to read making it accessible to a popular audience. By this I don't mean stupid, but rather people who are unable or unwilling to wade through the theological tomes available on NT Criticism. Because of this Ehrman is able to present a very biased and unscholarly work and pass it off as everyday stuff that pastors and scholars have been hiding from us for years!

Ben Witherington III does a great job of presenting the individual insights and argument against Ehrman's work. The posts are VERY lengthy, but well worth the read. Check them out here, here, here, here, and here.

Check out Bart Ehrman and Stephen Colbert here. You can also see the overall introduction post for this review here.

CNN has an article about Ehrman.