The Boston Marathon bombings and the faiths of the Tsarnaev brothers have renewed the debate about the nature of Islam, so this week I am reposting my review of Miroslav Volf’s Allah: A Christian Response, from the Patheos archives.

–

President George W. Bush created a boiling controversy amongst Evangelicals in 2003 when he declared that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Many accused Bush of pandering to political correctness. Nearly 80 percent of Evangelical leaders polled in 2003 disagreed with the notion that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God.

Miroslav Volf of Yale Divinity School is not so sure. Evangelicals may roll their eyes—of course an ivory-tower liberal from Yale believes that Muslims and Christians worship the same God! But in his book Allah: A Christian Response, Volf offers a thoughtful—if ultimately too uncritical—examination of the identity of the God, or gods, of Muslims and Christians.

(more…)

The latest issue of the Weekly Standard includes a rant against Twitter by Matt Labash, who does not have a Twitter account. I am on Twitter, and I like it a lot. Of course, it has its vapid and vicious aspects, but all in all, I find that Twitter is the most useful means of staying apprised of a ideologically and geographically wide range of opinion and news, and simultaneously the easiest means of connecting with like-minded folks. It is also striking another damaging blow against the tunnel vision of the mainstream media.

I sympathize with Labash to a certain extent – anything truly novel is likely to be bad, and a reflexive opposition to newfangled ideas is probably going to be vindicated much of the time. Newfangled technology, however, may just improve upon older, useful products, and the best of today’s information technology often represents methods of communicating that are very similar to what scrolls, books, newspapers and magazines have been doing for a long time. Twitter’s limit of 140 characters is not nearly as significant as people like Labash suggest – 95% of what I share on Twitter includes links to longer-form material, such as articles in the Weekly Standard.

Here are my three cheers for Twitter (or what Labash calls the Twidiocracy):

• People can use Twitter for noble purposes. Labash may not realize the irony that, as he was presumably drafting his article against Twidiotic navel-gazing, social conservatives engaged in a remarkable campaign to bring attention to the abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial in Philadelphia. Spearheaded by Mollie Hemingway, the #Gosnell push succeeded in keeping the horrific trial as the top-trending topic on Twitter for a sufficiently long time to draw in many reluctant media outlets who, for whatever reason, had said little about the trial.
• Twitter makes it simple to connect with people of common interests. I could give many examples of pastors, missionaries, writers, professors, and others whom I now “know” because of Twitter, including people on several continents. It was fascinating to connect with many the legions of people who organically took up the #Gosnell campaign, and I had a similar experience with the #TweetforYoucef campaign, which brought attention to the plight of imprisoned Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani (I also wrote about “Tweet for Youcef” at Patheos).
• Twitter is superior to Facebook, which only emphasizes staying connected with people you already know. Facebook, as all users realize, has become increasingly convoluted, with constant new efforts to get you to “promote posts” and the like. It is also very difficult to search on Facebook for, say, people sharing about the Gosnell case. You can stay connected with far-flung relatives and college buddies there, but Facebook frowns on connecting with people you don’t know. Twitter is a relatively simple, open platform. In the world of social media, Twitter is a Mac, and Facebook is more and more a PC.

Of course, you see a lot of garbage on Twitter, too, and it can easily distract you from more important tasks. That’s the internet. But used the right way, Twitter will not lead to the “decline of western civilization, 140 characters at a time.” Heck, maybe Twitter could even help preserve it.

Cross-post at the Anxious Bench.

The History Channel’s hit miniseries “The Bible” offers us yet another on-screen depiction of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The honor this time goes to Diogo Morgado, whom the New York Post calls “a kind of surfer Jesus.” The Portuguese actor’s Jesus is not exactly Anglo (although his on-screen accent is); but basically, this Jesus is white. And therein lies a problem.

My thoughts on what Jesus looks like were spurred by a fascinating lecture at Baylor by the University of Colorado’s Paul Harvey, author with Edward Blum ofThe Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America. In spite of the Ten Commandment’s ban on “graven images” (and the worship of them), many Christians have become so used to visual representations of Christ that we often don’t give them a second thought, nor consider what they say about our mental picture of the Son of God.

The medieval church also produced artistic representations of Christ, but many Protestants assailed these icons, tapestries, and paintings as violations of the second commandment, smashing and burning many of them as they had opportunity. The Puritans and some other early settlers of America tried not to employ visual representations of God, although they surely must have had some mental image of God or Jesus as they spoke to him in prayer.

During the nineteenth century, visual images of Jesus became more common among American Protestants, and they were almost always ‘white’ – or at least not distinctly Semitic/Middle Eastern/North African, which one would think would be the preferred choice if ethnic accuracy were a priority. These images became more common – and insistent – in the years following the Civil War. Perhaps the most disturbing use of the white Jesus was in D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation (1915), in which Jesus blessed the founding of the Ku Klux Klan.

Most depictions of a white Jesus were more innocuous in intent than Birth of a Nation, and the most common one in American homes was Warner Sallman’s 1941 The Head of Christ. The commonplace depiction of Jesus as white led to indignant reactions, with some African Americans and other Christians claiming a “black Jesus” or some other Christ of their own ethnicity.

I don’t mean to go all ‘Puritan’ here, but should churches promote any visual depictions of Christ? Do the images of a white Jesus risk making God in our own image? Would a more Semitic Christ solve the problem? Or should we return to the full Reformed skepticism about using any images of God at all?

Whatever our answers, the fact remains that Christians do normally imagine Christ’s appearance as we read the Bible and pray (reported visions of Jesus have often seemed Anglo, too). Scripture, however, gives us precious little guidance about his appearance. If not the Jesus of Warner Sallman or The History Channel, then what should he look like?

Cross-post at the Anxious Bench.

One of the perennial struggles in church life is balancing our approach to the work of the Holy Spirit. On one side of the evangelical continuum, there are self-conscious “cessationists” who believe that the “sign gifts,” such as prophecy and speaking in tongues, ceased with the closing of the New Testament canon. On the other side, we have charismatics and Pentecostals who so heavily emphasize the sign gifts that they sometimes evaluate a believer’s commitment to Christ according to their exercise of tongues or other charismata.

These issues have engendered endless theological debates, but there’s no question that the charismatic side of the continuum is winning on the global stage. The phenomenal growth of Christianity in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, has been dominated by charismatic theology. Even churches that would be considered mainline in the west routinely hold healing and deliverance services there, with worship that even some moderate western charismatics might regard as uncomfortably exuberant.

Into the debate over the Holy Spirit comes Chad Norris’s Signs, Wonders, and a Baptist Preacher. Norris’s autobiographical book tells how he went from an anxiety-ridden Baptist youth preacher, to a still imperfect but joy-filled conduit of the Spirit’s power, frequently receiving words of knowledge, and witnessing healings and other miracles (though apparently not tongues).

Norris’s folksy story will disarm or frustrate readers, depending on their perspective. If you go into this book suspicious of “charismatic chaos,” as John MacArthur once put it, you will come out more suspicious. If you go in wishing to see miraculous works of the Spirit manifested in your life, and in your church’s, you will no doubt find the book charming and encouraging. If you’re looking for a theological defense of the charismatic gifts, however, you won’t find it here. All Norris offers is one man’s experience of bringing the supernatural into his day-to-day grind of family, ministry, and fighting inner demons (which, to Norris, can sometimes be literal demons).

Sometimes Norris risks the trivializing of the works of the Spirit – I failed to see the point, for instance, of his praying for the resurrection of a dead office plant. (It was raised to life by Monday morning.) And I thought it was notable that one of his very last anecdotes has Norris weeping uncontrollably, not at a move of the Spirit, but at a Coldplay concert anthem. How does one sort out the difference between an authentic work of God, and all the other inputs we receive?

Nevertheless, I think that Norris, as confident as he is about the ministry of the Spirit, makes an important caveat – not everyone is healed in his book, and it is not because of a lack of faith. Unlike some proponents faith healing, Norris leaves room for the mysterious providence of God to heal, or not heal, at God’s discretion.

Even if we don’t come down where he is, Norris prompts evangelicals to ask good questions – and old questions – that surge during times of revival. What can we expect from the Holy Spirit, not just in theory, but in practice, on an everyday basis? What does it mean to “walk by,” “live by,” and “keep in step with” the Spirit (Gal. 5), in the midst of our routines? Chad Norris has answers; so should we.

I’d be interested in reading recommendations on this topic in the comments section. Who are the best authors on the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the church? Thanks!

This post is part of a Patheos Book Club discussion of Chad Norris’s book.

Cross-post at Anxious Bench

The past couple years years have seen a great deal of criticism and allegations about Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), with a number of churches breaking away from the organization, and a lawsuit charging leaders with covering up child physical and sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990s. Last Friday came the news that SGM founder C.J. Mahaney was stepping down as president, but remaining as pastor of his new SGM church plant in Louisville, Kentucky.

For more information on the SGM controversy, here is my weekend news post at WORLD Magazine on Mahaney’s resignation. I also wrote on the controversy for WORLD [subscription wall] in November 2012.

Other links for becoming familiar with the SGM issues, and responses to them:

C.J. Mahaney, “A Word of Thanks from C.J. Mahaney” (regarding his resignation)

Peter Smith, “Sovereign Grace Denomination President Resigns,” Louisville Courier-Journal

Jeremy Weber, “C. J. Mahaney Leaves Leadership of Sovereign Grace Ministries,” Christianity Today

Tim Challies, “Thinking Biblically About C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries” , and Rachel Held Evans’ response to Challies, “How [Not To] Respond to Abuse Allegations: Christians and Sovereign Grace Ministries”

There are many other posts and perspectives available – including many other responses to Tim Challies – but these should serve as a short introduction to this disturbing story.

(Cross-post)

The latest front in the Baptist battle over Calvinism and Arminianism has opened at Louisiana College, where the administration has decided not to renew the contracts of three faculty members—Jason Hiles, Kevin McFadden and Ryan Lister. The latter two have doctorates from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, while Hiles’s doctoral degree is from Southeastern Seminary. While President Joe Aguillard has not addressed the non-renewals directly, a recent blog post by him acknowledged that his “love for all Baptists including Calvinists, does not constitute our approval of its being advocated at Louisiana College.”

Critics also allege that the college has blocked websites critical of the administration, including The Daily Bleat and lcstudents.org. Two current students, Joshua Breland and Drew Wales, have said they are under investigation by the college for violations of the student code of conduct, specifically for “making disparaging comments” about the college and administration.

The college’s board of trustees held an emergency meeting regarding the controversy Monday afternoon, but apparently no press coverage was allowed. Reports Monday evening indicated that Aguillard will remain as president.

Former faculty members have spoken out against the administration and its policies, their complaints and charges often predating the latest non-renewals. Scott Culpepper, a Louisiana College alumnus and former faculty member, calls for Aguillard’s immediate dismissal for “public and private dishonesty, spiritual manipulation and intimidation, irresponsible anti-intellectualism, and presumptuous attempts to implement poorly conceived pipe dreams rather than responsible planning.”

Given my World magazine coverage of the David Barton controversy, I found fascinating Culpepper’s account of a dispute over Barton’s address at a college commencement:

My first direct encounter with Aguillard’s style of managing subordinates came in the spring of 2009 when I voiced concern . . . about comments made by David Barton at the spring commencement. Mr. Barton made several comments at the ceremony that were erroneous . . . I had already communicated to the administration before the event Barton’s well known reputation for distorting facts and his nearly universal repudiation by Christian academics. I requested that Aguillard allow us to present the other side of the argument. . . .

The response was bizarre. Dr. Chuck Quarles had also written a letter in which he echoed some of my concerns about Barton’s presentation. Aguillard requested that his personal assistant, Joseph Cole, vet my letter and Dr. Quarles’ for factual accuracy because we probably “misunderstood Bro. Barton.” Cole was a music major with no background in history who had not even completed his undergraduate degree. Aguillard finally called me in for a rather strange conversation in which I tried to convince him with historical evidence that Barton was incorrect, and he responded by continually asserting that I would believe otherwise if I felt the spiritual vibe at Barton’s headquarters in Aledo, TX.

The meeting ended with Aguillard saying that he forgave me for my letter. When I tried to diplomatically say that I stood by the letter and was not apologizing for its content, Aguillard said it would be best for my long term future at Louisiana College to forget about Barton. [read Culpepper's whole letter here]

As I have written previously, the debate over Calvinism’s place in the Southern Baptist Convention is one of the most fractious since conservatives took control of the denomination and its seminaries by the 1990s. If (as is widely alleged) the dismissals of Hiles, McFadden, and Lister are motivated partly by hostility to Calvinism, then we have a test case of whether a theological dispute will translate into faculty purges of those not supporting Arminianism. But as Culpepper’s letter makes clear, the accusations against Aguillard’s administration go far beyond just the Calvinist and Arminian divide.

For more, see The Town Talk (La.), “Louisiana College president’s comments, loss of theologians, prompt spirited debate”

The Town Talk, “Former Louisiana College Board Member: ‘Restore Integrity to Office of President’”

Cross-posted from the Anxious Bench. [Photo: Guinn Chapel at Louisiana College, via Wikimedia Commons]