One of the reasons it’s a little hard for me to take Ayn Rand seriously as a philosopher is because the question of human nature is such a fundamental issue, and I think she got it completely wrong.
She once said that the notion of “man as a heroic being” was a cornerstone of her belief system. I’m afraid that “heroic” is too generous a term to describe a great deal of human behavior.
Take this, for example.
A friend and I stepped into a bookstore the other day and found, somewhat to our surprise, that it was our time. “It’s my time,” my friend noted aloud, with some interest.
Now, under normal circumstances, this would be cause for some concern. Generally speaking, if someone came up to me and said, “It’s your time,” then I’d assume I was about to cross the Styx and take a long dirt nap. Fortunately, however, this news came from Joel Osteen, a fellow who can usually be counted on to bring glad tidings. (He’s not unlike Ed McMahon in that respect.) And indeed, it seems he’s convinced that my best days are in front of me.
Until quite recently, I would’ve been skeptical. I’ve never put much stock in Osteen as a theologian. Besides, I’d long assumed that my best days were most assuredly behind me, especially since reading this discouraging news about the uncertain fate of a fourth installment in the Jurassic Park film series.
We all know what Deuteronomy 18:22 says about prophetic credentials: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
So for your sake and mine, Joel, I hope that fourth JP movie pans out.
…is because he tells it like it is, whether you like it or not. Check this out.
Americans tend to have really short memories. Take the movie Black Hawk Down, for example. It opens with a prologue explaining why American troops were in Somalia—and it came out just a few years after they were there. The filmmakers apparently assumed that everybody had already forgotten about the whole thing, so they had to remind us.
That’s one of the reasons this post over at the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog strikes me as really, really weird.
It’s not that I think a critique of Roman Catholic doctrine is a bad thing. I get that part, although I always wish these exercises could be carried out with a good deal more charity.
What I think is weird is the reference to the Catholic Church as “the individual church that has brought so much shame upon Christ’s name (remember the Pornocracy?) and has dipped its hands in the blood of the saints for centuries….”
Dipped its hands in the blood of the saints for centuries, huh? And here I thought the Vatican had gone out of the heretic-burning business.
Five centuries is a lot of water under the bridge. Could all you full-time apologists do us Protestant laymen a favor and give the Catholics a pass on the whole Inquisition thing? It’ll save us the trouble of pretending not to know you at the next auto de fé.
Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary is one of my favorite New Testament scholars. If you like NT scholarship that’s steeped in the cultural and historical context, then his work is well worth your attention.
Over on his blog, he’s just posted an examination of women in ministry that addresses some of the common scriptural objections. I’m not totally sure I agree with him on every point, but this is an area about which he knows a great deal, and his argument is definitely something to consider.
This story from Variety isn’t exactly new anymore, but it’s too good to pass up: ”20th Century Fox has made a preemptive acquisition of a pitch to tell the story of Moses in ‘300′ style. The tale will start with his near death as an infant to his adoption into the Egyptian royal family, his defiance of the Pharoah and deliverance of the Hebrews from enslavement.”
From knowyourmeme.com
I’m assuming that “‘300′ style” means green screen, and plenty of it. Of course, it could mean a lot more than that…
Moses: “The LORD says, ‘Let my people go!’”
Pharoah: “This is blasphemy! This is madness!”
Moses: “Madness? THIS—IS—TORAAAAHHH!!!”
James White is a little upset with the organizers of an upcoming apologetics conference, partly because they’ve got two Roman Catholics coming to speak.
I mean, geez, it’s only been five hundred years, and now we’re already letting them come to our conferences to debate atheists. Why did we bother having a Protestant Reformation in the first place?
White notes that he “wasn’t invited, mainly because anyone in charge would know I would only come to debate half the people they are inviting as their presenters!” Well, maybe…or maybe it just didn’t cross their minds to ask him. It’s all very well and good to hurl darts at folks like Dinesh D’Souza, William Lane Craig, Hank Hanegraaff, Gary Habermas, or Chuck Colson (all scheduled to appear) because you don’t like their theology, but they’re all very recognizable names. Conference organizers want fannies in the seats, and a couple of bestsellers go a long way. That’s life.
There’s a time and place for quibbling over doctrinal niceties. But when the debate is over something as fundamental as the existence of God, you get in line, close up the ranks, and charge those bayonets.
Mark Shea sums up the plight of contemporary Western civilization in this post over at his blog. Check it out and see if you agree with him as heartily as I do.
There’s bad news and there’s good news. I’ll give you the bad news first. John Shelby Spong has a new book out.
Here’s the good news. The first sentence of the Preface states, “This may well be my final book!”
Bishop Spong, from Wikimedia Commons
In The Real Jesus, Luke Timothy Johnson referred to Spong’s “narcissistic self-referentiality” (p. 33) and the “grandiosity” of some of his remarks (p. 35), and also questioned the quality of his scholarship. If Spong read Johnson’s critique, he didn’t take it to heart, because he gets rolling with both half-baked textual interpretation and breathtaking hubris before he even makes it out of the Preface.
For example, touting his new conviction that the Gospel of John was in reality “written on the basis of an early Jewish three-year lectionary” (p. x), he proclaims that this insight fundamentally alters the basis of Christology. Unfortunately, he admits, he lacks the background to pursue this kind of work systematically—but he then proceeds to draw dramatic conclusions from his theory anyway. “To walk through this door would also mean that people would be led to see Jesus’ essential identification with God not in incarnational terms, but as a new level of human consciousness,” he says. “That constitutes not just an appropriate and new direction, but a flashing, even blindingly bright, new understanding” (p. xi). Quite a promise for someone who’s just stated that he wished he actually was a Johannine scholar. His impulsive willingness to seize hold of any theory, no matter how flimsy, and use it as the basis for an entire theological system to overturn traditional Christian thought is pretty remarkable.
On the very next page, following an extended and rather unseemly speculation on the way he’ll be remembered, Spong informs us, “Every person must live within the boundaries of his or her own time in history. I have built bridges from my Christian past into a new Christian future. I am pleased that in this book I believe I have come to the place where I can actually see into another realm, and just seeing it is quite enough for me” (p. xii). Whatever virtues Spong wants to cultivate in the “new Christian future” he’s bringing about, humility doesn’t seem to be one of them.
I hope he remains satisfied with what he’s done already. The last thing we need is another revelation from a church official who can’t even stomach the basic doctrines of historic Christianity.
…is when the pastor is held up by an entrepreneurial magazine as an example of worldly success. Way to go, Joel!
From the November 2009 issue of SUCCESS (all caps, mind you): “What Osteen offers is an ability to speak the language of hope, experts say, at a time when audiences want more inspiration, less grim reality.” Hey, nothing shows a healthy congregation like a desire to be exposed to less reality.
The writer summarizes the theme of Victoria’s first book like this: “Understand who you are and the power you have inside, then tap into that greatness.” Given this kind of message, I have no idea why the Osteens profess to be surprised that their ministry took off.
Most Americans are already convinced that they’re wonderful and that they should realize their every dream. Telling them that God wants nothing more than for them to act on this belief is just giving them divine sanction to do what they’re already programmed to do. Who wouldn’t get up early on Sunday for that?
