The Cross and the Jukebox

Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has a great feature on his blog called "The Cross and the Jukebox." There he discusses religious and cultural themes found in country music. Check it out HERE.

A clash of worlds in Iowa

It seems odd that anyone would have to explain why it is inappropriate for a boy to wrestle a girl. But such is the world in which we live. You have probably heard about the Iowa high school student Joel Northrup who graciously refused to wrestle a female student in a state tournament. In what can only be described as moral ineptitude and lack of common sense Sarah Spain and Rick Reilly, both of ESPN, offer only criticism of young Northrup. They seem unable to understand how a high school boy could possibly consider it odd, uncomfortable, or wrong to wrestle a girl.

Al Mohler weighs in:

This is insanity masquerading as athletic competition. The controversy over the Iowa state wrestling tournament reveals the fact that this debate represents a clash of worlds and worldviews. In one world — the world the increasingly demands the total erasure of distinctions between men and women — Joel Northrup is considered to be a religious nut. In this world, it makes sense that girls wrestle against boys and that society should celebrate this new development as a milestone in the struggle to free ourselves from the limitations of all gender roles. As if to make this point impossible to miss, Bill Herkelman, Casey’s father, said: “She’s my son. She’s always been my son.”

In the other world, Joel Northrup is seen as a young man of brave and noble conscience — a boy who forfeited a match rather than violate his conscience. The statements offered by Joel and his father are seen as moments of temporary sanity in a world going increasingly mad. The chivalry demonstrated at great personal cost by this boy athlete is to be celebrated and affirmed, and acknowledged as being deeply rooted in his Christian convictions — convictions about gender, modesty, the treatment of girls and women, propriety, decorum, and sexual purity.

Read the entire article HERE.

What Your Children May Be Watching...

Have you heard about MTV's latest foray into limit testing? They have begun airing a new drama called "Skins" which puts on display a wide array of teen pathologies. Included in this, not surprisingly, are depictions of sexual activity. Controversy is nothing new for MTV. I was in 8th grade when they launched. Back then parents were shocked by Ozzy Osborne and Prince videos. Over the years however, Music Television has been airing less music and more sex. The ratings have also declined in recent years. But the executives at MTV may have found a way to resurrect their brand. And that brings us back to "Skins." The problem? It is certainly not that MTV execs have had a sudden attack of decency. Rather, there are some who are raising the possibility that MTV may have violated child pornography laws.

Al Mohler weighs in:

The sex acts portrayed on “Skins” pretty much cover the waterfront of modern sexuality. There is no question that MTV will draw an audience. The big question confronted by the network is whether the show will draw child pornography charges as well.

David Carr, author of “The Media Equation” column at the Times, explained that “the series is meant to provoke.” He suggests, plausibly enough, that MTV executives did not “set out to make child pornography,” but they clearly did not set out not to make child pornography, either.

Evidently, the concerns are rather urgent at MTV’s headquarters. As Brian Stelter reported last week:

It is unclear when MTV first realized that the show may be vulnerable to child pornography charges. On Tuesday, a flurry of meetings took place at the network’s headquarters in New York, according to an executive who attended some of the meetings and spoke only on the condition of anonymity. In one of the meetings, the executives wondered aloud who could possibly face criminal prosecution and jail time if the episodes were broadcast without changes.

It should tell you just about everything you need to know that MTV executives “wondered aloud” if they might do jail time for child pornography by broadcasting the series. Have you ever worried about that at your office or place of work?

Read the entire article HERE.

Understanding the Bible and Ministry

Mark Dever interviews New Testament scholar Bruce Winter concerning issues such as cultural contextualization in ministry, the importance of historical background for interpreting Scripture, and bad contemporary ideas of leadership.

Check it out HERE.

HT: Justin Taylor

A Cruel Mistress Indeed

Between sessions at Together for the Gospel I was able to check a few of my favorite sites on the web. Carl Trueman has posted an article concerning the situation with Dr. Waltke. In particular Trueman responds to Waltke's assertion that unless we (theological conservatives) get with the program and embrace evolution then we risk the sneers of our cultured despisers.

The recent comments by Professor Bruce Waltke, to the effect that Christianity risks becoming a cult, or at least being perceived as a cult, unless it embraces evolution, have provoked a storm of comment, pro and con. I do not wish to address Professor Waltke's comments directly; for the record, I have always enjoyed his writings (and found them helpful). He is a scholar and gentleman, and when Professor Waltke speaks, I listen, even when I disagree. Thus, what I want to reflect on here are not Professor Waltke's well-known and long-standing views on origins but the questions surrounding the claim that a Christianity which rejects evolution really does risk becoming a cult, and, if so, whether that is something about which we should worry...

To the first point, it is clear from the New Testament that Christian views, particular of the cross, were regarded as stupid and offensive by the wider world. I Corinthians 1 makes that point in dramatic fashion; and the various Jewish and Gentile persecutions of the church described in Acts would imply that the church was not only seen as holding silly beliefs but as doing so in a way that scared society - a hallmark of being regarded as a sinister cult. This continues in the post-apostolic period. Pliny, writing to Emperor Trajan ca. 112, describes how he broke up a local Christian group. He describes them as secretive and engaging in strange practices which reflected their strange beliefs. In other words, he seems to have regarded them as a cult. Historian Tacitus is much the same: when he alludes to the Neronic persecutions, he speaks of Christianity as `shameful and hideous.' Well, as I have said in this column before: if it's white and woolly and goes `Baaaa!' when you kick it, it's a sheep.

To the second point, every theological discipline has its own point of whackiness. Perhaps evolution is where Old Testamentlers feel the pinch. Homosexuality would be the hotspot for contemporary Christian ethicists. For me as a historian, it is the resurrection: my friends in the secular history world will always regard me as a mediocre, or, perhaps more charitably, methodologically inconsistent, historian because I believe the tomb was empty. I am guessing that scientists would probably regard that belief as ridiculous too: the empirical and theoretical evidence for bodies being resurrected after traumatic execution and days of decaying in a tomb is, to say the least, not very compelling. Let's face it: opposition to homosexuality and belief in the resurrection are whacky views in today's climate, enjoying little or no support from the scholarly scientific world. Do we therefore change our views on these in order to avoid being seen as a cult? Even more dramatic, perhaps, is the increasingly strident voice of the aesthetic atheists, of whom Hitchens and Dawkins are just the most famous. As aesthetic atheism gains ground, any form of theism will increasingly be regarded as idiotic and cult-like. What will we do then? Cultural acceptability is a cruel mistress...

The question of evolution is a tough one, but it is not to be determined by whether rejection of it leads those who despise Christianity as whole to regard us as a cult. That is an utterly irrelevant point. What I want to know is whether evolution is consistent with biblical teaching, particularly Genesis 3, Romans 5 and I Corinthian 15. Which form of evolution is it at which we are looking (there being significant disagreements even within the scientific community)? What about the scientific objections of men like Michael Behe? And how come some people, with little or no scientific training, and who spend their lives telling us how difficult it is to understand messy, written texts - texts designed to, ahem, communicate in a relatively direct fashion -- seem to think that scientific data is univocal, unequivocal, and perspicuous on this point? Funny how old Enlightenment views of science can be found alive and well in the most postmodern quarters, isn't it? Given the stakes in play, it is not unloving or divisive for me to ask for answers to
these questions; but whether I run the risk of looking like a cult member if I find the answers I am given to be inadequate and unbiblical is, frankly, a matter of sheer indifference to me. I may be destined to live life on the cultic fringe of society, but there are worse places to be.

Read the entire article HERE.

Eden, Avatar, and the Kingdom of Christ

Check out this excellent discussion from Southern Seminary moderated by Al Mohler on how Christians ought to think about and engage pop culture.