The Nazareth Cross Project aims to build the world’s largest and most impressive Cross, standing at 60 meters tall, housing a magnificent church in its center. The Cross will be decorated by some 7.2 million brilliant mosaic tiles of varying sizes, each one with a personal engraving. These tiles will be made of stone from Nazareth, or platinum, silver or gold.
People naturally look to others for cues on fashion, speech, opinions, and whole life full of choices. Whatever decision we have to make, it seems easier when someone else has made it before us. We learn from these people. They teach us how to live life. Many of us come to respect and admire these models.
Christians often struggle with viewing their leaders as superhuman, almost beyond sin. The plain fact is that whoever your role model is, regardless of his position or intelligence, he still struggles with indwelling sin.
We’ve all had to deal with the trauma unleashed when one of these models fails. We’ve all felt hurt, deceived, or angry. If a leader falls that we didn’t particularly favor, maybe we even feel validated.
Christian leaders seem to fall the hardest. Their job is to preach and teach against sin, yet they inevitably give way to temptation. When that sin finally becomes public, particularly when it’s hidden or has been improperly dealt with, the world around them seems to implode. Their ministry is questioned, their accomplishments, even their religion. The problems in personal life casts a shadow across every context they live in.
Then the media digs in. Journalists spread the news, and the blogging aftermath lasts for weeks. Everyone has an opinion, everyone has a soapbox. The leader typically becomes either a martyr or a criminal. When the shine wears off the story, however, the man is soon forgotten.
Suzanne Hadley, writing for the Boundless Line, touches on the same topic. Her article highlighted an unusual thought that is too often absent from coverage of public failure. It’s an evidence of grace, thinking in this direction. Humanly speaking, this thought is not default.
Her mind does not tear into the villain, she looks instead toward herself:
. . . probably it hurts the most because it makes you more keenly aware of your own sin and propensity to fail. You think, If that person failed, what is the hope for me?
This attitude is nothing but the dramatic work of God. I’ve been the devastated pupil, I’ve been hurt by failure. I can attest, this thought was not controlling my mind.
If this perspective is so divine, so unnatural, what can we do about it? If this is how we’re programmed, what’s the point in complaining about it?
Suzanne points it out precisely:
The hope is Jesus Christ and the victory He promises. Living under Christ’s control and not becoming entangled in sin is possible. Still, in this world, we all experience moments of failure—some more devastating than others.
and,
It [hope] comes in the form of the truth God tells us about our sinful tendencies and the grace He offers through the all-sufficient sacrifice of His Son.
This thought, the Gospel, should be ruling our minds, dictating our thoughts, our speech, our actions. When we are aware of our own depravity and God’s view of it, we’ll be less tempted to condemn and more amazed by His grace at work in our lives.
There’s been a lot of talk this week about the Pope’s comments regarding those outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodoxy, even though separated, does warrant the label “Church.” Protestant bodies, however, are not properly called “Churches.”
The Pope’s comments came in response to five questions regarding the nature of the Catholic church and recent apparent changes in Catholic ecclesiological teaching.
Here are the questions with excerpts from the answers:
Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it. . . .
What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community,” that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. . . .
Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity.” . . .
Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all—because of the apostolic succession—the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds,” they merit the title of “particular or local Churches,” and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches. . . .
Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.
Some have been shocked that the Pope would make such statements. Others have been shocked that anyone would be shocked. The former group sees this as a major step backwards in terms of ecumenical progress. The latter group sees this as consistent with historical Catholic teaching. I tend to think that it does seem to be slightly out of line with the recent trajectory of Roman Catholic ecclesiology.
According to the Christian Post, the American Baptists are seeking to jumpstart their struggling association with a call to a “‘radical new form’ of ministry.”
The American BaptistAssociation has been through hard times lately, wrestling with doctrinal, practical, and spiritual issues. The whole southwestern constituency split from the Association a year ago.
A. Roy Medley, the general secretary of the Association, declared the need for a “righteous reboot” within the Association, beginning with the launch of New Life 2010. New Life 2010 is a missions project, seeking to produce 1,000,010 new Christians and 1,010 new churches by 2010.
We must re-imagine the church as ever-multiplying clusters of believers, each one shaped by its mission context, coming together with an intense sense of call to mission in worship style, in elements of ministry, and in the call to ministry in the community.
It seems that behind all the dramatic speech lies not a call to “reimagining” or “radical new forms of ministry,” but a call to renewed dedication to the pursuit of Christ and the furthering of His gospel.
Truthfully, Christianity does not need an exterior makeover. It needs internal, spiritual revival.
Here are two recent stories about scantily clad dancing women in church (the first Protestant, the second Roman Catholic) that you might hope are someone’s attempt at a bad joke, but unfortunately aren’t.
The first concerns the Church of the Carthusians in the south of Cologne. The original story is in German, but has been translated by Chris Gillibrand.
(I tried to choose the least offensive of the available pictures.)
A female dancer dances in a skin coloured stocking in the middle of the church in front of the altar. She crawls about on the floor and wraps herself in a hanging down white cloth.
. . .
Nearly one thousand interested people waited outside the door of the former monastery, despite a thunderstorm—but in the end there was only room for four hundred people.
. . .
A man came to the microphone and announced, This is an erotic church service, can you move a bit closer together, all of you. This was followed by saxophone music and dance. The vicar arrived in a black cassock and barefoot. He announced that eroticism and lust are not taboo areas pushed aside by God. In fact, “lust has to be lived out,” said Armin Beuscher, who tempered his speech immediately, by saying, “we are of course today in this service only able to implement this in a limited manner.”
. . .
The faithful were then asked to take part in an anointing ritual in which they should massage the forehead and hands of the person sitting next to them. Some go further and embrace each other whilst others kiss. The atmosphere gets more relaxed.
I appreciate good dancing, but, quite frankly, it’s disgraceful to see any dancing take place during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
. . .
I am morally certain the photos are authentic. I have the names of the dancers, but because they could very well be minors, I will not publish them. Nor will I show their faces. I think it’s time that (some) Catholics get their heads out of the sand.
. . .
A few additional details on the Mass: It was celebrated for the Sisters of St. Francis of Mary Immaculate on June 16, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. The presider was Father Charles Faso, O.F.M.
The Pope hopes for the end of the nearly 1000-year divide between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Pope Benedict XVI told a visiting Cypriot Orthodox leader Saturday that he holds hope that the Catholic and Orthodox churches can be united, despite centuries of painful division.
. . .
Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus has offered to play the role of mediator to try to arrange a groundbreaking meeting between the pope and the Orthodox patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II. That encounter eluded the late John Paul II in his long papacy because of Catholic-Orthodox tensions following the demise of Soviet communism.
In a speech to the archbishop after their private session, Benedict said he held “firm hope” of uniting the two churches.
The Seattle Times has a story about Episcopal priest Ann Holmes Redding, who has recently made public her commitment to both Christianity and Islam.
Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.
On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.
She does both, she says, because she’s Christian and Muslim.
Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she’s ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she’s also been a Muslim—drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved.
. . .
“I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I’m both an American of African descent and a woman. I’m 100 percent both.”
Redding doesn’t feel she has to resolve all the contradictions. People within one religion can’t even agree on all the details, she said. “So why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam?
“At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That’s all I need.”
She says she felt an inexplicable call to become Muslim, and to surrender to God.
“It wasn’t about intellect,” she said. “All I know is the calling of my heart to Islam was very much something about my identity and who I am supposed to be.
It would be hard to ignore the providential connection apparent in the timing: theResurgence releases a 1996 article by Tom Wells asserting the inevitability of controversy just as PastorForums.com launches.
The end of the first paragraph of Wells’ article could be a motto for discussion sites:
In a fallen world, truth and controversy are bedfellows.
There are times that the love of Christ is nearly absent from the comments being exchanged in Christian forums. There are also times that touchy subjects can be talked over and looked at from different angles calmly, lovingly, and respectfully, even in a way honoring to Christ.
How? Well, such a miracle as the latter is only possible by the grace of God.
Humanly speaking, however, there are steps we can take, in the power of Christ, that will help us keep the focus on Him. Wells lists several for our benefit, with more explanation in his article:
Show Respect for the Persons with Whom You Differ
“We are commanded to love those who belong to Christ. Can we then treat them with less than fullest consideration?”
Give Your Opponent Accurate Definitions of Your Key Ideas
“Our finitude makes it difficult for us to clearly grasp our own ideas, so as to define them accurately. Our sinfulness adds to the difficulty by making us impatient with those who “pretend” not to understand us.”
When in Doubt, Put an Orthodox Construction on Your Opponent’s Words
“To put it another way, our first impressions of others’ language, like our first impression of others’ persons, is often inaccurate.”
Never Attribute to Your Opponent More Than He Asserts
“It is so easy, because we think we see where his statement is bound to take him, to decide that he has already come to these apparently logical conclusions.”
Suspect a Man’s Judgment Before You Suspect His Sincerity
“Yet nothing is more common in controversy than for opponents to disparage each other’s integrity. This is a sin against charity at the very least, unless the grounds upon which it is done are beyond question.”
Be Ready to Believe That the Truth Is Larger Than You Have Understood It to Be
“The determination not to learn from others often accompanies the certainty that we are right. That is unfortunate; one might almost say insidious.”
As PastorForums grows, and as we participate in other discussions across the web and across the desk or conference table, let’s try to keep these guides in our mind; let us, by His grace, have His glory our highest goal.
I saw a sign on a strip of highway once that I would like to have copied on my gravestone. It said, “End of construction. Thank you for your patience.”
—Ruth Bell Graham*
I have been asked the question, ‘Who do you go to for counsel, for spiritual guidance?’
My answer: my wife, Ruth. She is a great student of the Bible. Her life is ruled by the Bible more than any person I’ve ever known. That’s her rule book, her compass. Her disposition is the same all the time–very sweet and very gracious and charming. When it comes to spiritual things, my wife has had the greatest influence on my ministry.
—Billy Graham
For more information regarding Mrs. Graham, see her Memorial.
Douglas Wilson expresses well one of the many problems with atheism in this portion of his latest reply to Christopher Hitchens in the ongoing debate: “Is Christianity Good for the World?” Wilson’s words remind me of Van Til and Bahnsen, who argued transcendentally that atheism cannot account for objective laws like the laws of math, logic, science, and morality.
Now we really need to address the point you continue to miss. I am not talking about whether atheists must do evil, or if they can do evil. I have denied the former, and you have now granted the latter. But that is not the point. We are not talking about whether your atheism compels you to run downtown this evening to shoot out the street lights. I grant that it does not. And we are not talking about whether atheists can do vile things. You grant that they can. We are talking about (or, more accurately, I am trying to talk about) whether or not atheism provides any rational basis for rational condemnation when others decide to misbehave this way. You keep saying, “I have come to my ethical position.” I keep asking, “Yes, quite. But why did you do so?”
So the point is not whether we could rustle up some nice places governed by atheists or some hellholes governed by Christians. If given a choice between living in a Virginia governed by Jefferson and living in a Russia under the czars, I would opt to live under your beloved Jefferson. Fine. But this is not a concession, because it is not the point.
Take the vilest atheist you ever heard of. Imagine yourself sitting at his bedside shortly before he passes away. He says, following Sinatra, “I did it my way.” And then he adds, chuckling, “Got away with it too.” In our thought experiment, the one rule is that you must say something to him, and whatever you say, it must flow directly from your shared atheism—and it must challenge the morality of his choices. What can you possibly say? He did get away with it. There is a great deal of injustice behind him, which he perpetrated, and no justice in front of him. You have no basis for saying anything to him other than to point to your own set of personal prejudices and preferences. You mention this to him, and he shrugs. “Tomayto, tomahto.”
I am certainly willing to take the same thought experiment. I can imagine some pretty vile Christians, and if I couldn’t, I am sure you could help me. The difference between us is that I have a basis for condemning evil in its Christian guise. You have no basis for confronting evil in its atheist guise, or in its Christian guise, either. When you say that a certain practice is evil, you have to be prepared to tell us why it is evil. And this brings us to the last point—you make the first glimmer of an attempt to provide a basis for ethics.
You say in passing that ethical imperatives are “derived from innate human solidarity.” A host of difficult questions immediately arise, which is perhaps why atheists are generally so coy about trying to answer this question. Derived by whom? Is this derivation authoritative? Do the rest of us ever get to vote on which derivations represent true, innate human solidarity? Do we ever get to vote on the authorized derivers? On what basis is innate human solidarity authoritative? If someone rejects innate human solidarity, are they being evil, or are they just a mutation in the inevitable changes that the evolutionary process requires? What is the precise nature of human solidarity? What is easier to read, the book of Romans or innate human solidarity? Are there different denominations that read the book of innate human solidarity differently? Which one is right? Who says?
And last, does innate human solidarity believe in God?
Several Christian businessmen are planning to build a 60-meter cross, the largest in the world, in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth.
.
People naturally look to others for cues on fashion, speech, opinions, and whole life full of choices. Whatever decision we have to make, it seems easier when someone else has made it before us. We learn from these people. They teach us how to live life. Many of us come to respect and admire these models.
There’s been a lot of talk this week about 
According to the 
Here are two recent stories about scantily clad dancing women in church (the first Protestant, the second Roman Catholic) that you might hope are someone’s attempt at a bad joke, but unfortunately aren’t.
The Seattle Times has 
It would be hard to ignore the providential connection apparent in the timing: 
