Cranach on Lost
There’s an interesting posting & discussion going on over at the Cranach blog. Granted, this is not an uncommon occurrence, but in this case it happens to be centered on one of my favorite TV shows (non-realitytv division), ABC’s Lost.
More specifically, it’s dealing with the fairly reasonable treatment that Christianity is getting with the recent (2nd season) addition of the ‘Mr. Eko’ character, who is, for all intents and purposes (i.e., setting the quibbling over specifics that we’ve learned form his backstory aside for the moment) a Roman Catholic priest. For the most part, the Christian faith is getting a reasonably decent shake from the writers, although I would certainly like to take them to task for some of the baptismal theology that they put forth in last week’s episode. In all, though, I was very happy that in the end Baptism was given such a respectful & generally accurate treatment — i.e., the theology put forth was one of Baptismal Regeneration.
A development that I’m not quite as comfortable with is (and this will only matter to those of you who actually watch the show…) how they are changing the tenor of Locke’s “faith” as a result of Eko’s emergence. Over at Cranach, some commenters are chalking that up to Locke being emblematic of a more postmodern Oprah-like “faith-in-faith”, something with which I think I can agree. But, as Locke has always been the voice of “faith” vs. Jack’s voice of “reason”, I’ve found the recent, shall we say, refinement in his character to be more than a little jarring — especially in the dismissive attitude he had towards evil & Baptism in the last episode.
The show is good, and the discussion over at Cranach is good — check ‘em both out.
-ghp
Whither the Children?
A very nice posting by Pr. Cholak, over at +the Crowned Ones+, wherein he writes on the subject of children (and other non-communicants, I would infer) at the Communion rail.
Intellectually, I understand (I think) the arguments about why folks want to have everyone come on up to the rail; however, I disagree. I don’t think that it’s, ultimately, a more beneficial/salutary practice. In fact, as Pr. Cholak writes, I think that it is actually harmful because it introduces some level of uncertainty into/onto/unto that which should have none. Currently, an emotion-driven desire for “inclusivity” and outward shows of “unity” seem to have carried the day. It sounds heartless to state that the Communion rail is not the place for blessings — but it’s true. This practice is an innovation of recent vintage, and it is one that has served to lessen, rather than strengthen, certainty.
-ghp
Momma’s Boy
I am a “momma’s boy.”
Those who know me and my mom have no doubt as to the truth of that description of me. Piper men tend to be like that — my dad was with my grandmother, and my son is most definitely the “momma’s boy” apple of his mother’s eye!
Vicar Chaz Lehmann, however, has waxed eloquent on another, far more significant, way in which being a “momma’s boy” is a very good thing. For a Christian, there is no higher (or truer) complement than to be called a “momma’s boy”! Thanks to Jesus’s atoning work on the cross, we have been made a part of the family. Baptism joins us to Jesus. Where Jesus was begotten of the Father, we then become Begotten by the Father. And where the Father chose Mary to bear the God-Man Jesus, He so chose His Church to bear us through the waters of Baptism.
Yup, being a momma’s boy rocks!
-ghp
Wheat & Chaff
I routinely have very little problem with what I read over at the Rev. Dr. Al Mohler’s commentary blog. Heck, I’m a fan, even, and I’ve even been known to think that this Southern Baptist is more Lutheran than a great many “Conservative Lutherans” in the LCMS. That, however, shouldn’t, and doesn’t, mean that once in a while he goes a little too far off-the-beam for me!
His July 12 commentary is a case in point. In A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity, Dr. Mohler makes some good points. These good points, however, are kernels of wheat buried within a mountain of chaff. In the commentary, Dr. Mohler outlines a tiered approach to doctrine that I just don’t think holds water — at best, it’s merely mistaken. At worst, it trades the birthright of solid, Truth-based, doctrinal unity for the pottage of false, feel-good, “unity.”
More specifically, I find his second- & third- orders to be a bit too facile and, thus, quite problematic. In no way do I doubt that it could be argued that certain doctrines are more, shall we say, foundational than others — after all, the sainted Dr. Luther himself said that Justification is “the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.” The problem I have found is that when folks try to rank doctrines in order of “importance”, such a ranking belies a desire to minimize certain among doctrines. It also seems to betray a misunderstanding of the fact that many (if not all) of the “lesser/2nd&3rd-order” doctrines are very much intimately tied to the understanding of the “major/1st-order” doctrines.
For example, Dr. Mohler exposes his Reformed roots when he relegates Baptism to a tier-2 doctrine (i.e., one upon which Christians can disagree, but still remain in fellowship of some significant level…). [NOTE: Over at Ask The Pastor, Pr. Snyder gives a wonderful outline & explanation of just why Baptism is, in the context of this posting, a 1st-order doctrine, intimately bound together with Justification.] Dr. Mohler also makes the ordination of women into a 2nd-order doctrine, which is astounding given the importance he places on Christology as a 1st-order doctrine.
It’s not a bad, necessarily, posting by Dr. Mohler — just a disappointing one, in that he seems to be espousing what is really more of a “feel-good” unity that is based on a less than honest definition of what true doctrinal unity is (or, at least, should be). Such “unity” yields debacles like the JDDJ between Rome & the LWF, or the hideous communion between the ELCA & the mainline Reformed denominations. It’s sad, and it’s wrong.
-ghp
-
Analytics & Hosting
