The State of the Blog

Yeah, I know I haven't posted anything on A Different Jesus in a week, spent most of this week trying to get caught up on a few other things, and am realizing the summer is slipping away from me. There's just no way I'm going to finish my "to read" list. Which is very depressing. Especially since I've come up with another, incredibly time-consuming, project I want to work on.

I do hope to pick up the pace of blogs--especially those that require thought to deal with, not just the "ooh check out this movie/tv show/trailer" type. But this week is pretty shot in that regard.

I had thought about saying something about the whole Eminent Domain thing from last week, but the polymath and Jollyblogger covered it better than I could (in both the serious and joking ways I would've gone, respectively)

Just don't get it

Surfing on Google News Beta (btw,how long is this gonna be Beta?) this morning, I saw several articles saying this:

Bloomsbury, the publisher which was transformed by Harry Potter, is poised to launch its biggest ever advertising campaign to coincide with the launch of Harry Potter and the Half Blood prince.

ooookay, more than 1 million pre-orders of this book have been made on amazon.com world-wide, it's probably going to be the best selling novel of all time before month's end (that's July, not June, because that's now). WHY do they need to advertise this? I just don't get it. If you care at all about this, you know. You've probably known since the publication date was set last year--whether you want to or not. Why spend the money on advertising?

Ditto for Revenge of the Sith earlier this year. I mean, Hel-lo, we know! Well, okay, a good part of that advertising was to convince the jilted fan-boys that their hopes weren't going to be shattered for the 3rd time in this prequel series.

BTW, in case anyone wants to know, as I hit "Publish Post" there are 15 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 32 seconds 'til the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

The Proof is in the Pudding

There were many who had doubts when this maker of 3rd rate horror flicks got the go ahead to make The Lord of the Rings trilogy. And to say that he answered just about every doubt in The Fellowship of the Ring is to probably understate it--and he crushed the doubts, grinding them into a fine powder with The Two Towers. Then he sprinkled that powder of the graves of the doubters in The Return of the King (whether the doubters were in their graves yet or not).

So then he turns his eye to the movie he's wanted to remake since he was a kid. Many eyes rolled. Many figured he was a one trick pony anyway. And besides, do we really need another King Kong?But now the trailer's out. Jack Black plays a real human being. Adrian Brody gets to kiss the hot chick. Naomi Watts seems capable of stepping into Fay Wray's vocal chords. And we get a second or so of Andy Serkis doing his thing.

Wah-and might I add-hoo! Click here to see for yourself

[Expletive deleted]!

Just watched my first episode of The Closer. In many ways I've seen everything in the show before--a murder or two being shoved under the carpet so the Feds/Someone Else could take down a major underworld figure; a cop who no other cop likes, but is great at their job; the cop who tries to help out a friend who's a suspect only to find out the guy is a major creep; the cop who sets up the bad guy to get whacked as the only way to get justice for the victim; the cop who puts relationships (professional, romantic, whatever) on the line to close the case...etc.

But rarely have I seen it this well done. Got this down in the calendar for next week.

Not only was Kyra Sedgwick was great, the supporting cast was spot on. Great to see G. W. Bailey again, Corey Reynolds did a good job, and while it took me a lot longer than it should've to recognize J. K. Simmons, I really enjoyed his performance. But it's Kyra's show, and she carried it well.

Spurgeon quote of the Day

"Overcome the world by patiently enduring all the persecution that falls to your lot. Do not get angry; and do not become downhearted. Jests break no bones; and if you had any bone broken for Christ's sake, it would be the most honored bone in your whole body."

Why God Invented Elders

Nice post over at Jollyblogger, his notes taken from J. Ligon Duncan's sermon at the Opening Worship Service for the PCA's GA.

Day 2

Well, I talked about how much I hurt after Day 1 of my fitness program. Felt miserable yesterday...maybe felt worse this morning. But I made myself tackle the Day 2 regimen. Still didn't accomplish everything I should've, but got more done than Day 1. The pain is a lot less (mostly) than it was when I was dragged (kicking and screaming) out of bed this morning.

There may be hope for this ol' boy yet...

As if on cue...

Just the other day I'm lamenting how few really Presbyterian blogs there out in the blogosphere and *poof* one appears: Posse Bloggare Posse Non Bloggare. Keep an eye on this one, folks, should be worth the read (don't recall him uttering a less-than-edifying word in the pulpit or in discussion list emails...)

hmmm, maybe I should lament the lack of scholarships of OP Ruling Elders who are going to seminary... :)

A Different Jesus?, pt. 4

Chapter 3: Why a Restoration?

This chapter is significantly longer than the previous chapters, and I really don't have that much time for this today, so I'm only going to do a little bit of it...

Right out of the gate we read: "Foundational to any understanding of the Latter-day Saint conception of Jesus Christ is the idea of a restoration of divine truth in modern times." Yup. What was it that our Savior said about building on sand? He gives a couple of OT spoof texts for Isaiah and Amos prophesying about it, and then some NT spoofs for the apostles warning of it. Of course none of these texts have anything to do with a great apostasy, but why should that stand in anyone's way? He concludes his opening paragraph stating: "That apostasy entailed the loss or corruption of divine authority and true doctrine." (his emphasis) and the next section (and the only one I'm covering today) focuses on those.

Let's tackle authority first. He defines it as "the power to act in the name of God" and states that the NT "clearly teaches the need for it." But I honestly don't see this concept as he describes it in the NT. And then he simply states, "With the death of the apostles, within approximately one hundred years of the crucifixion of Jesus, this authority...was lost from the earth." No explanation of how it was lost (the spoof texts earlier don't give us enough information to test his assertion), no description of what happened, no evidence to support his claim, just "it was lost." And then he gives us roughly 1800 years of church history compressed into a couple of paragraphs and skewed horribly.

While Catholics claim apostolic succession... and Protestants speak of a "priesthood of all believers," Latter-day Saints teach that God's divine authority was not to be found in the Old World by the middle of the second century A.D.

1. This isn't at all what the phrase "priesthood of all believers" means! Hello! Doesn't Eerdman's believe in fact-checking? Who edited this book? Here's what the phrase means:

To be sure, Christ's apostles call all who believe in Christ "priests," but not on account of an office, but because, all the faithful having been made kings and priests, we are able to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God through Christ (Exod. 19:6; I Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6). Therefore, the priesthood and the ministry are very different from one another. For the priesthood, as we have just said, is common to all Christians; not so is the ministry. The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter XVIII

2. Again, no evidence for why the LDS teach that this authority was gone, it's just gone. Guess I'm asking too much...moving on:

The Roman Church had control of the Christian faith until the sixteenth century, when courageous men objected to, opposed, and broke away from Catholicism.

Church History a la The DaVinci Code. I'm guessing here (just a guess, because he doesn't spell it out) he means from the middle of the second century or so through the sixteenth. To call something the Roman church for the first few hundred years is silly. To think that as a persecuted group throughout the civilized world anyone "had control" is laughable. It wasn't 'til the 4th century that Constantine protected Christianity, and Rome certainly had no control over the Church then! And while the Reformers certainly were courageous (on the whole) the description of them as men who "objected to, opposed, and broke away from Catholicism" misses the point--sure they objected to it, protested it, but they didn't break away--they were kicked out! I do find it funny that Wesley seems to be lumped in with the Reformers--men whose doctrines he would oppose, and who were dead long before he came along.

One more point on his history. He holds up Roger Williams as someone who saw the need for apostolic authority to be given by God to the Church. He describes Williams as "the man known as the founder of the Baptist faith." I took a moment to ask a group of pretty knowledgeable Baptists if they agreed with that description. One Baptist who's taught Church History replied, "Uh, no." And that was the general consensus. I don't blame Millet for this totally, some editor along the way should've stopped this historical mess.

At this point he segues into the "loss or corruption of doctrine and I've gone on so long already, I'll leave that for tomorrow.

Ummm, Errr, Ummmm...this is a good thing, right?

Stryper is releasing a new album in August, Reborn. Here's the official press release.

Gotta Tip Your Hat to this Lady

I'll admit I'm not that up on the whole Jim West controversy (mayor of Spokane, WA), I've heard a little bit about it on TV, read some on a couple of blogs (espeically Huckleberries Online)...but he's not my mayor, so I haven't really focused too much on it. But the story of Shannon Sullivan is a gripping one. I hope she and her son come out of this thing intact...

A Different Jesus?, pt. 3

Chapter 2: The Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith

Sorry this one took so long...Real Life^TM caught up with me Friday, putting me behind schedule. Let's see what Millet has for us today.

He starts off talking about the Jesus Seminar, much his response to it (and like thinking) is on the money. I'm a little annoyed by his "I add my voice to the growing through of tens of thousands of irritated Christians." Sure, he considers himself a Christian, and part of his plan is to get evangelicals to think the same (he keeps saying it like this and many of his readers will start doing it too). But surely this is a red flag that some editor along the way at Eerdmans should've caught.

He quotes Gordon B. Hinckley, back when he was a mere apostle (emphasis his):

Modern Theologians strip [Jesus\ of his divinity and then wonder why men do not worship him. These clever scholars have taken from Jesus the mantle of Godhood and have left only a man. They have tried to accommodate him to their own narrow thinking. They have robbed him of his divine Sonship and taken from the world its rightful King.

ummm, Kettle? Pot's on line 2, something about you being black. Do I absolutely agree with Hinckley as far as Liberal Theology goes? Yup. But what does LDS theology do to Christ's divinity? They strip Him of it! He's not divine, He's not fully God yet fully man. He's just like every other spirit-child of God, He just came first! Utter hogwash.

Along the lines of thinking "Faith is based on evidence, and the stronger the evidence the stronger the faith" he favorably quotes John Warwick Montgomery...heh. You'll never see him quote Greg Bahnsen. :) Who, incidentally, would make mincemeat out of this book. I do have to admit, I agree with the Montgomery quote regarding the impossibility of any kind of Christianity without the events of the Gospels being true. He follows it with a quote from Alma, which takes a little wind from my sales. He then goes into the whole C. S. Lewis--Liar, Lunatic or Lord thing and assorted arguments on that front.

Then we come to the conclusion. It's here that my hackles really get raised, he invites people to

"Come and see" (John 1:39). We believe the final great test in determining the living reality of Jesus Christ and the essential truthfulness of the New Testament record is the test of faith, the test of spirit, the test of individual revelation, with the assurance that all can know.

Sure, sounds a little Josh McDowell-ish. But that's not what the invitation of the Scriptures is. It's not "try out Jesus for 30 days, your money back if not completely satisfied." Not even sure what the test of spirit is...need to ask someone. Okay, I asked someone; it seems the test of faith=test of spirit=test of individual revelation=test of assurance. It's the point where you're talking to an LDS missionary and they tell you to pray whether it's true or not, and you'll get a "burning in the bosom" or "a feeling of certainty" inside that it's all true. Pretty sure this isn't what John had in mind when he told us to "test the spirits." It sure ain't the apologetic Paul used on Mars Hill.

He then talks about trusting the Bible:

While the Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to a postilion of scriptural inerrancy, they do have a firm conviction that the scriptures mean what they say and say what they mean. They are to be trusted.

You can trust the Scriptures, sure they might be wrong from time to time...and the Prophet can correct them anytime he wants...but trust 'em.

A final thought about Millet's use of C. S. Lewis and J. B. Phillips, etc. This chapter is filled with quotes by evangelical apologetic works (many I have on my shelf), and there's an impulse to not be bothered because of his target: Jesus Seminar-type people. You know, the whole enemy of my enemy thing. But I am bugged by it. He's quoting these guys for a reason: he wants to appear like he's just a part of a different "brand" of Christianity. And I don't think he's trying to be deceitful or anything by quoting orthodox types, but he's clothing himself in the clothes of sheep because he thinks he is one (at least on some level). But at the end of the day, he's just a deluded wolf.

Can't stop laughing...

ROFLOL

Michael Jackson culture

James Bowman starts his review of My Summer of Love--like pretty much everything Bowman reviews, an interesting sounding movie that I'll never get around to watching despite my intentions--with the following observation. But it's stuff like this that makes me read his reviews

Writing in The Times of London about the Michael Jackson trial, Oliver James, a psychologist, notes that "The thing about people with borderline personality disorder, which I believe Jackson has, is that they have a weak sense of self - as evidenced by the need to change his skin color, his erratic moods and the fact that he thinks he is Peter Pan. They are constantly acting out different personalities, which means that the boundary between fantasy and reality is blurred." As in other ways, however, in this Michael Jackson stands for so much more than himself. Ours is the age of borderline personality disorder - not to mention the Peter Pan culture of eternal adolescence. The culture which once attempted to mould and shape us to a particular ideal now turns us loose into a world of infinite choices, and of nearly infinitely possible selves and demands only that we choose. Small wonder if we retreat and hide from such choices, or pretend like Michael Jackson in his absurd military uniforms, that we can slip from one to another without ever committing to any.

ow ow ow ow ow ow

Chat pal of mine who's really into fitness and taking care of yourself and that sort of nonsense got me hooked up with this home fitness thing. Really simple exercises, have done harder workouts back in the day (so long ago that phrase wasn't a cliche). Due to uber-mystery disease delays, today was Day 1.

I am past my prime. Not sure I had a prime that lasted more than a couple of days, really. But it was long, long a ago.

I couldn't do everything I was supposed to do, even using a ridiculously low amount of weight, and I am hurting. I will probably not be able to move pain free 'til Weds.

when it's time for Day 2.

Stick a fork in me...I'm done.

No Compromise

Don't normally do this (actually, have never) but this morning's sermon was so good, so on the money, and soooo not what most people heard this morning (never mentioned Father's Day once...Quelle Horreur!) Give it a listen: The Way God Sees It from Luke 17:1-5. The last few seconds got cut off, but you can get the gist of it.

Saw It!

Not much to say but wow! Sign me up for the sequel! Maybe in the next few days I'll find time to say more, but for now....wow!

Blogroll Housekeeping

Added a few links (Bloguccino, Patrick's Pensees, http://www.challies.com/, PyroManiac), dropped a few. If I'm overlooking anyone, sorry, feel free to remind me.

Not to sound all partisan, but I wish I had more presbyterian blogs...I know of a few, but frankly, don't think they're terribly presbyterian.

Warfield on Learning and Devotion

saw this on The Christian Mind and wanted to bring it up here:

"Nothing could be more fatal, however, than to set these two things over against one another. Recruiting officers do not dispute whether it is better for soldiers to have a right leg or a left leg: soldiers should have both legs. Sometimes we hear it said that ten minutes on your knees will give you a truer, deeper, more operative knowledge of God than ten hours over your books. "What!" is the appropriate response, "than ten hours over your books, on your knees?" Why should you turn from God when you turn to your books, or feel that you must turn from your books in order to turn to God? If learning and devotion are as antagonistic as that, then the intellectual life is in itself accursed, and there can be no question of a religious life for a student, even of theology."

--Benjamin B. Warfield, The Religious Life of Theological Students