From the first time I heard the album Welcome to Paradise in 1976, I have been a big Randy Stonehill fan. His music was always a cut above whatever else was going on at the time in contemporary Christian music. His guitar parts were challenging enough to make me learn them (although I could never sing as high or as well as he did).
A discussion with a friend today over the relative merits of a couple of albums got me thinking about something that I noticed years ago. From 1976 to 1993, Randy always used producers for two straight albums and then went to another producer for the next two. It has always seemed to me that in each pair of albums the first is much better than the second. I have some thoughts on this, but let me first demonstrate.
His debut album Welcome to Paradise (the 1971 Born Twice is a glorified demo) is still one of the great classic Christian rock albums. Produced in 1975 by Larry Norman, the songs are still among the best he has written. Though the production values seem a little primitive, the performance is tight and consistent. The follow-up, The Sky Is Falling (recorded in 1977 but not released until 1980) has much better production values--definitely easier on the ears. However, the songs are nowhere near as strong and the silly side of Randy comes out in two songs ("The Great American Cure" and "Bad Fruit"). It's not a bad album at all (I love "Venezuela" and "Jamie's Got the Blues") but it just doesn't compare to its predecessor.
Terry Taylor filled the producer's chair for the next two albums utilizing Tom Howard and the members of Daniel Amos. Between the Glory and the Flame (1981) was uneven but very strong. The new-wavish styling that DA was using at the time really invigorated his songs, especially the opening three numbers. 1982's Equator was more consistent, but without the high spots. Good production, some decent songs, but not the same spark as previously. Also the silly side comes out in 4 songs ("Big Ideas," "American Fast Food," "Cosmetic Fixation," and the Star-Trek vocal on "World Without Pain").
David Edwards' producer Barry Kaye changed Randy's sound again on his two albums. Not only that, but the two albums were incredibly different from even each other. As with many of his albums the first, Celebrate This Heartbeat (1984) is noted for its unevenness--very strong songs matched by really weak ones. The production is good, simple, and clean. The next album, 1985's Love Beyond Reason, though very popular, is to my mind a disaster. No silly songs this time, just awful over-production including heavy reliance of the Fairlight synthesizer and the exploding snare drum sound so popular in bad 80s music. No fewer than 19 singers, musicians, and synthesizer programmers are listed. No terrible songs but no real great ones either (although I have always been partial to the underrated "Hymn"). He even included his first recording of his classic "Your Love Broke Through" (co-written by Keith Green and Todd Fishkind). We had been waiting for this for years and this 24-track train wreck was quite disappointing.
Dave Perkins managed to produce two consecutive disappointing albums, although once again, the second is better than the first, if only marginally. I will give them credit for trying something different with The Wild Frontier. Here Randy tries to rock out on his Fender Telecaster and put some grit in his vocals. There are even some good songs ("The Wild Frontier," "The Dying Breed," and "The Hope of Glory"). It's not just that the gentle folk-rocker cranks up the amp, it's that he just doesn't do it very well. The follow-up, Can't Buy a Miracle, like most second albums from each producer, suffers from weak material. The production is better but the songs are not memorable.
Randy turned to his friend and sometime engineer Mark Heard for what I consider his comeback 1989 album Return to Paradise. Though more somber than the album to which they were trying to hearken back, Welcome to Paradise, it contains his strongest songs in quite a while and has clean, simple production values. Though Randy had co-written songs in the past, this album is notable for containing 3 songs which he had no song-writing credit at all. Once again the follow-up was disappointing by comparison. Until We Have Wings was one-half studio (so only 7 new songs) and one-half live. The new songs were so-so and the live part did not have the same life that Randy had exhibited in earlier years. As one who had a couple of live bootlegs, I can attest that the 1990 live Randy Stonehill concert (if this recording in any indication) was inferior to the late 70s to early 80s version.
Surprisingly Randy brought back Terry Taylor for 1991's Wonderama. This is probably in my top three of his albums (along with Welcome to Paradise and Between the Glory and the Flame). The songs are very strong, the production consistent, the playing wonderful. Just one silly song ("Great Big Stupid World" which would have been better if the last minute had been cut). The album ends somberly with the ponderously slow "The Lost Parade" and "Lantern In the Snow" but is a fine album overall. I can listen to it again and again. Next, someone decided it was time for a quasi-greatest hits album called Stories. Eleven oddly picked previously-released tracks and two new songs produced by Terry Taylor, neither particularly memorable (though one was a hit).
After this, Randy recorded less frequently and with different producers on each album.
Some will disagree with my assessment (my friend Eric Stancliff, for instance, hates Glory and the Flame but loves Equator), but I will stand by it. I wasn't in the studio so I have no idea what went on there, but I wonder if a new producer energized Randy in a way that was different when he returned with the previous producer. In a couple of cases (The Sky Is Falling and Equator), too many silly songs were part of the reason. On another, the horrible production values of the day (Love Beyond Reason) was the culprit. However, I think that the most common factor was that the songs on these second albums were just not as strong as the first.
If you stumble onto this post and are a Randy Stonehill fan, let me hear from you. I would like to see if anyone else sees what I do or has a different take.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
Be Careful What You Wish For
Don't it always seem to go
You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone
They take paradise, put up a parking lot.
(Joni Mitchell--Big Yellow Taxi)
Well, it finally happened. Tony La Russa announced his retirement today as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals. I think STL fans fall into one of three camps regarding TLR. (1) He is the greatest manager of all time and we are lucky to have had him. (2) He is the village idiot and should have been run out of town years ago; the team won with superior talent and despite the manager. (3) Tony is a great, Hall of Fame worthy manager who could drive you absolutely nuts with some of his managerial moves.
Although I know people in all three camps, most of the most thoughtful ones I know tend to fall into the third group. This is also where I reside. Let's start with what many believe to be his shortcomings:
Tony is one of the more thin-skinned, smug, cocky managers I have ever seen. He treats both media and fans with contempt. He acts as if he is much smarter than everyone else and only an idiot would question him. He is a hot-head and very unlikable from a distance.
At times, he takes the bullet for his team regarding moves. At other times, he tries to shift blame (the bullpen phone snafu) or ignore the issue completely (his drunk driving arrest about which he never spoke).
His hot-headedness affected his relationship with some players. His feuds with players like Ozzie Smith, Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds, and Colby Rasmus got them all run out of town. I will admit that the Rasmus trade was a key to winning the WS this year. You always should be willing to trade future assets to win now. The problem I had with the trade is that I really don't believe that was TLR's motivation in pushing for it; rather it was his pique at Rasmus. I think there was a little luck there.
Though he has a lot of company among his managerial brethren, he seems to eschew modern player measuring tools in favor of having "scrappy" players. Therefore, we are always treated to heavy doses of guys like Nick Punto (career OBP .325, career OPS+ 76!!!), Aaron Miles (career WAR 0.8--the definition of average).
His over-specialization of pitchers meant that he had to carry 12-13 pitchers. This so limited the bench that he could never carry decent pinch-hitters. Rather, to be on TLR's bench a player had to be able to play multiple positions which often meant guys with weak bats.
He, again like many managers, gave too many ABs to washed-up players for their "veteran leadership," even thought it is getting on base that scores runs.
I also find it really hard to believe that he had no knowledge of the steroids issue. His defense of Mark McGuire--while throwing Jose Canseco under the bus--is impossible to defend.
All this sounds like I think he was a terrible manager--far from it. But these warts really made it hard for many fans to really like him.
But LaRussa was quite an innovative manager at the same time. His use of the bullpen--while overdone at times--influenced all of baseball. He was an innovator in the use of video with hitters. He was not a gut-feeling manager most of the time, but kept tons of match-up stats that rightly affect playing time. By all accounts (with some notable exceptions), he was a good motivator and ran a quiet, business-like clubhouse. He wisely deferred to Dave Duncan--clearly the best pitching coach in the game--with good results.
In the end, the good far outweighs the bad in evaluating his career. He was a great manager, albeit with some serious quirks.
For the Tony-is-an-idiot crowd, however, I don't think today should be a celebration. The team will move on but it is fair to ask how well. Will management be able to find a manager who can seamlessly move forward? If they make a mistake and the team finishes below .500 for a few years in a row, STL fans would be up in arms.
Though I think they will make a good move, it is a precarious time.
I remember years ago when Fleetwood Mac toured for the first time without Linsdey Buckingham. Though Buckingham was the guy who made the band sound as it did, he was also, shall we say, a little weird. His perfectionist streak annoyed both the band and fans at times. His public persona on stage was at times downright embarrassing. Other than the good music, there was nothing that attracted you to him.
But when the band decided to tour with two guitarist/singers replacing their leader of more than a decade, one reviewer summed up his absence with this phrase: "Less artistic posturing; also, less art."
I hope that St. Louis fans don't end up wishing that he would come back, but you never know.
You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone
They take paradise, put up a parking lot.
(Joni Mitchell--Big Yellow Taxi)
Well, it finally happened. Tony La Russa announced his retirement today as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals. I think STL fans fall into one of three camps regarding TLR. (1) He is the greatest manager of all time and we are lucky to have had him. (2) He is the village idiot and should have been run out of town years ago; the team won with superior talent and despite the manager. (3) Tony is a great, Hall of Fame worthy manager who could drive you absolutely nuts with some of his managerial moves.
Although I know people in all three camps, most of the most thoughtful ones I know tend to fall into the third group. This is also where I reside. Let's start with what many believe to be his shortcomings:
Tony is one of the more thin-skinned, smug, cocky managers I have ever seen. He treats both media and fans with contempt. He acts as if he is much smarter than everyone else and only an idiot would question him. He is a hot-head and very unlikable from a distance.
At times, he takes the bullet for his team regarding moves. At other times, he tries to shift blame (the bullpen phone snafu) or ignore the issue completely (his drunk driving arrest about which he never spoke).
His hot-headedness affected his relationship with some players. His feuds with players like Ozzie Smith, Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds, and Colby Rasmus got them all run out of town. I will admit that the Rasmus trade was a key to winning the WS this year. You always should be willing to trade future assets to win now. The problem I had with the trade is that I really don't believe that was TLR's motivation in pushing for it; rather it was his pique at Rasmus. I think there was a little luck there.
Though he has a lot of company among his managerial brethren, he seems to eschew modern player measuring tools in favor of having "scrappy" players. Therefore, we are always treated to heavy doses of guys like Nick Punto (career OBP .325, career OPS+ 76!!!), Aaron Miles (career WAR 0.8--the definition of average).
His over-specialization of pitchers meant that he had to carry 12-13 pitchers. This so limited the bench that he could never carry decent pinch-hitters. Rather, to be on TLR's bench a player had to be able to play multiple positions which often meant guys with weak bats.
He, again like many managers, gave too many ABs to washed-up players for their "veteran leadership," even thought it is getting on base that scores runs.
I also find it really hard to believe that he had no knowledge of the steroids issue. His defense of Mark McGuire--while throwing Jose Canseco under the bus--is impossible to defend.
All this sounds like I think he was a terrible manager--far from it. But these warts really made it hard for many fans to really like him.
But LaRussa was quite an innovative manager at the same time. His use of the bullpen--while overdone at times--influenced all of baseball. He was an innovator in the use of video with hitters. He was not a gut-feeling manager most of the time, but kept tons of match-up stats that rightly affect playing time. By all accounts (with some notable exceptions), he was a good motivator and ran a quiet, business-like clubhouse. He wisely deferred to Dave Duncan--clearly the best pitching coach in the game--with good results.
In the end, the good far outweighs the bad in evaluating his career. He was a great manager, albeit with some serious quirks.
For the Tony-is-an-idiot crowd, however, I don't think today should be a celebration. The team will move on but it is fair to ask how well. Will management be able to find a manager who can seamlessly move forward? If they make a mistake and the team finishes below .500 for a few years in a row, STL fans would be up in arms.
Though I think they will make a good move, it is a precarious time.
I remember years ago when Fleetwood Mac toured for the first time without Linsdey Buckingham. Though Buckingham was the guy who made the band sound as it did, he was also, shall we say, a little weird. His perfectionist streak annoyed both the band and fans at times. His public persona on stage was at times downright embarrassing. Other than the good music, there was nothing that attracted you to him.
But when the band decided to tour with two guitarist/singers replacing their leader of more than a decade, one reviewer summed up his absence with this phrase: "Less artistic posturing; also, less art."
I hope that St. Louis fans don't end up wishing that he would come back, but you never know.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Elections, the Finale (Hopefully)
If people are interested in a different kind of election, I offer for your consideration what the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod does. For those who are not aware, the LCMS is a conservative denomination. It has a congregational system and supervising districts (as we do), rather than central control by bishops as most other Lutheran groups do.
For their national President, the procedure is as follows: Circuits (our sections) elect delegates to the tri-annual convention, one lay and one clergy. Not every church or minister can attend as voting delegates. The circuits also have the right to make nominations for national office. The districts likewise are allowed to nominate candidates.
These nominations are gathered at headquarters. Each one nominated is contacted to see if they wish to run. The candidates are then allowed to put together documents outlining their qualifications and positions. Before the convention meets, a booklet is mailed out with all the business to be conducted and includes these candidate statements. (Also, the number of districts and sections that place a person's name into nomination is given.)
This would place an expectation upon any office-holder who did not expect to run for re-election to announce his or her intent quite a ways in advance so that others could be nominated.
The mechanics are simple enough. We would just need to decide the details.
Now I have a caution. I find the Missouri Synod Lutherans to be very heavily politicized. There are (and have been for many years) organizations within the denomination taking political positions on their future and direction. The recently un-elected president, Jerry Kieschnick, was considered to be part of the liberals and the new president, Matt Harrison, was the darling of the conservatives. (For the record, I have spoken to Matt Harrison several times when I was a student at Concordia. He seems to be a smart, good guy. I also knew that the would be president as early as 2006, though it took until 2010. I have never even seen Jerry Kieschnick.)
I don't mean the terms liberal and conservative in any way that reflects our political system or the Biblical theological world. For the LCMS, a liberal believes the church should be more like American evangelicals (less emphasis on liturgy, clergy robes and collars, and the confessions; more contemporary worship; among some acceptance of female clergy). The conservatives believe the church should be more like it was in the time of Luther (heavy emphasis on liturgy and the confessions; traditional worship; little contact with other denominations). I have generalized here and if any of my LCMS friends read it, they may take me to task. The point is that, although the divisions are put in theological terms, the biggest factional divisions are over church operations.
The politics are a bit ugly for my taste. There are newspapers and websites keeping these issues going and recruiting ministers and lay people to their particular side. As an outsider to their culture, I don't like it.
This is the biggest issue that keeps me from throwing my full support behind a nomination system that allows us to hear from the candidates. Though we have political things going on, our culture pushes those into the background. Overt politicking is frowned upon. I fear that a system like the Missouri Synod uses would inevitably lead us to blatant politics and factionalism. I'm not sure we would like it.
So I have shown you a method from another denomination. It can be done. What we need to decide is if we really want it.
For their national President, the procedure is as follows: Circuits (our sections) elect delegates to the tri-annual convention, one lay and one clergy. Not every church or minister can attend as voting delegates. The circuits also have the right to make nominations for national office. The districts likewise are allowed to nominate candidates.
These nominations are gathered at headquarters. Each one nominated is contacted to see if they wish to run. The candidates are then allowed to put together documents outlining their qualifications and positions. Before the convention meets, a booklet is mailed out with all the business to be conducted and includes these candidate statements. (Also, the number of districts and sections that place a person's name into nomination is given.)
This would place an expectation upon any office-holder who did not expect to run for re-election to announce his or her intent quite a ways in advance so that others could be nominated.
The mechanics are simple enough. We would just need to decide the details.
Now I have a caution. I find the Missouri Synod Lutherans to be very heavily politicized. There are (and have been for many years) organizations within the denomination taking political positions on their future and direction. The recently un-elected president, Jerry Kieschnick, was considered to be part of the liberals and the new president, Matt Harrison, was the darling of the conservatives. (For the record, I have spoken to Matt Harrison several times when I was a student at Concordia. He seems to be a smart, good guy. I also knew that the would be president as early as 2006, though it took until 2010. I have never even seen Jerry Kieschnick.)
I don't mean the terms liberal and conservative in any way that reflects our political system or the Biblical theological world. For the LCMS, a liberal believes the church should be more like American evangelicals (less emphasis on liturgy, clergy robes and collars, and the confessions; more contemporary worship; among some acceptance of female clergy). The conservatives believe the church should be more like it was in the time of Luther (heavy emphasis on liturgy and the confessions; traditional worship; little contact with other denominations). I have generalized here and if any of my LCMS friends read it, they may take me to task. The point is that, although the divisions are put in theological terms, the biggest factional divisions are over church operations.
The politics are a bit ugly for my taste. There are newspapers and websites keeping these issues going and recruiting ministers and lay people to their particular side. As an outsider to their culture, I don't like it.
This is the biggest issue that keeps me from throwing my full support behind a nomination system that allows us to hear from the candidates. Though we have political things going on, our culture pushes those into the background. Overt politicking is frowned upon. I fear that a system like the Missouri Synod uses would inevitably lead us to blatant politics and factionalism. I'm not sure we would like it.
So I have shown you a method from another denomination. It can be done. What we need to decide is if we really want it.
Friday, October 21, 2011
A/G Elections Take 2
At the special District Council for the Southern Missouri District this week, there was a great deal of sentiment to changing our tradition so that delegates would hear from the candidates and know something about them and their views before voting. We have no mechanism for this and even some reasons against such a system. We have traditionally believed that if we pray, God will direct our voting and that it makes no difference what we know.
This is mostly pious fiction. First, we normally re-elect incumbents. Typically, they receive the necessary two-thirds on the nominating ballot. Second, when electing a superintendent to a vacant position, the top candidates are district officials or presbyters. This is even true of the assistant superintendent and secretary-treasurer. If a candidate arises who is not already an official or a presbyter, it is the pastor of a large church.
The point is this: Only those who have a well-known name get elected. If we were really hearing from God, wouldn't you expect maybe, just once, a complete unknown would be elected. Like Saul or David were chosen. But this never happens.
So, we recognize that what we know (or think we know) about people in the district affect our voting. We hope and pray that God will guide us, but we are limited to those we know something about. So if we can get beyond the pretense that it is all about God directing us, perhaps we should consider being more knowledgeable about those upon whom we are voting.
The only way that I can see such a thing working is to completely change the nominating process. I think you would have to have the candidates declared ahead of time so that they have time to put together positions that the district could disseminate to the voters.
I know of one denomination that has this type of system. I got a PhD at Concordia Seminary which is part of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. So this post doesn't get too long, I will post again in a day or so that spells out their system for your consideration.
This is mostly pious fiction. First, we normally re-elect incumbents. Typically, they receive the necessary two-thirds on the nominating ballot. Second, when electing a superintendent to a vacant position, the top candidates are district officials or presbyters. This is even true of the assistant superintendent and secretary-treasurer. If a candidate arises who is not already an official or a presbyter, it is the pastor of a large church.
The point is this: Only those who have a well-known name get elected. If we were really hearing from God, wouldn't you expect maybe, just once, a complete unknown would be elected. Like Saul or David were chosen. But this never happens.
So, we recognize that what we know (or think we know) about people in the district affect our voting. We hope and pray that God will guide us, but we are limited to those we know something about. So if we can get beyond the pretense that it is all about God directing us, perhaps we should consider being more knowledgeable about those upon whom we are voting.
The only way that I can see such a thing working is to completely change the nominating process. I think you would have to have the candidates declared ahead of time so that they have time to put together positions that the district could disseminate to the voters.
I know of one denomination that has this type of system. I got a PhD at Concordia Seminary which is part of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. So this post doesn't get too long, I will post again in a day or so that spells out their system for your consideration.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Southern Missouri Special District Council
I had posted these comments on a Facebook page but they were removed by the page's creator as not being germane to the subject of his page. I disagree, but it's his page. As suggested by a couple of people, I am repeating those thoughts here.
Yesterday, more than 670 ministers and delegates from the Southern Missouri District of the Assemblies of God met to select a new Superintendent to replace Bill Baker who resigned mid-term and between regular council meetings.
There has been a groundswell developing in the district for younger, new-styled leadership. At least one web-site and a couple of Facebook pages have discussed this issue. Though I am not that young anymore, I sympathize with them. I have always found this district to be somewhat fuddy-duddy in its approach.
Ordinarily in settings like this, one of the other top district officials are the favorite to be elected. The Assistant Superintendent withdrew his name immediately upon being nominated, leaving only the Secretary-Treasurer, Stan Welch, on the ballot from the district officers. Sure enough, after the first electoral ballot, he was leading by a wide margin over a dozen or so candidates (I wish I had access to actual numbers).
On the third ballot, as per our bylaws, everyone but the top three were dropped from consideration. On this ballot through the fifth Stan Welch had a clear lead over the other two. However, his vote total didn't change and he hovered just below 50% (two-thirds is needed for election). One of the districts executive presbyters, Don Miller, began to open up a lead over another executive presbyter, Mickey Davis and was closing in on Stan Welch.
On the sixth ballot Don Miller passed Stan Welch and by the eighth ballot he went over the two-thirds necessary and was elected superintendent.
If you were there, you already know this, if not, I'm glad I could give you the information. But what I find interesting is the story that I think is told by this election.
As I said, it would have been following precedence to elect Stan Welch and, in fact, something like half of the voters seemed to lean that way. Another thing that traditionally happens in elections like this is that when one candidate has a large lead, supporters of the other candidates begin to shift their vote to the leader who looks "inevitable" to them.
Well, that's not what happened this time. Those supporting the other two candidates stayed their course and many of those who had been voting for Stan Welch began to shift. I won't say that this has never happened before, but it is hardly common.
I believe that--fair or not--a sizable portion looked upon Stan Welch (whose position, like the superintendent is a full-time job) as part of the status-quo that they wanted to see changed. I have not been around here long enough to know any of the players in our little drama, but I did already note that the two alternative candidates (including the eventual winner) were executive presbyters. They have many responsibilities and duties that they could also be considered status-quo.
This leads to a possible alternative explanation--that what the voters really wanted was someone who was currently a pastor so that experience would be fresher with the new superintendent. While this may have been behind some of the voting, I still think the non-status-quo argument is the strongest.
It remains to be seen if Don Miller desires to do things differently. I am looking forward to the future with interest.
I would love to hear from those who have the same or a different take on the proceedings. If you got here from Facebook, you can respond there. If you respond on this blog, please use your name. I find it personally frustrating to respond to Anonymous.
(Humorous aside. I was sitting near Ted Cederblom, pastor of the church where the meeting was held. As it began to fill, I asked him, "How many does this church hold?" He shrugged and guessed maybe 500. When the registration closed, it was announced that 678 delegates were present (along with a section of non-voters). I then told him, "Now you know.")
Yesterday, more than 670 ministers and delegates from the Southern Missouri District of the Assemblies of God met to select a new Superintendent to replace Bill Baker who resigned mid-term and between regular council meetings.
There has been a groundswell developing in the district for younger, new-styled leadership. At least one web-site and a couple of Facebook pages have discussed this issue. Though I am not that young anymore, I sympathize with them. I have always found this district to be somewhat fuddy-duddy in its approach.
Ordinarily in settings like this, one of the other top district officials are the favorite to be elected. The Assistant Superintendent withdrew his name immediately upon being nominated, leaving only the Secretary-Treasurer, Stan Welch, on the ballot from the district officers. Sure enough, after the first electoral ballot, he was leading by a wide margin over a dozen or so candidates (I wish I had access to actual numbers).
On the third ballot, as per our bylaws, everyone but the top three were dropped from consideration. On this ballot through the fifth Stan Welch had a clear lead over the other two. However, his vote total didn't change and he hovered just below 50% (two-thirds is needed for election). One of the districts executive presbyters, Don Miller, began to open up a lead over another executive presbyter, Mickey Davis and was closing in on Stan Welch.
On the sixth ballot Don Miller passed Stan Welch and by the eighth ballot he went over the two-thirds necessary and was elected superintendent.
If you were there, you already know this, if not, I'm glad I could give you the information. But what I find interesting is the story that I think is told by this election.
As I said, it would have been following precedence to elect Stan Welch and, in fact, something like half of the voters seemed to lean that way. Another thing that traditionally happens in elections like this is that when one candidate has a large lead, supporters of the other candidates begin to shift their vote to the leader who looks "inevitable" to them.
Well, that's not what happened this time. Those supporting the other two candidates stayed their course and many of those who had been voting for Stan Welch began to shift. I won't say that this has never happened before, but it is hardly common.
I believe that--fair or not--a sizable portion looked upon Stan Welch (whose position, like the superintendent is a full-time job) as part of the status-quo that they wanted to see changed. I have not been around here long enough to know any of the players in our little drama, but I did already note that the two alternative candidates (including the eventual winner) were executive presbyters. They have many responsibilities and duties that they could also be considered status-quo.
This leads to a possible alternative explanation--that what the voters really wanted was someone who was currently a pastor so that experience would be fresher with the new superintendent. While this may have been behind some of the voting, I still think the non-status-quo argument is the strongest.
It remains to be seen if Don Miller desires to do things differently. I am looking forward to the future with interest.
I would love to hear from those who have the same or a different take on the proceedings. If you got here from Facebook, you can respond there. If you respond on this blog, please use your name. I find it personally frustrating to respond to Anonymous.
(Humorous aside. I was sitting near Ted Cederblom, pastor of the church where the meeting was held. As it began to fill, I asked him, "How many does this church hold?" He shrugged and guessed maybe 500. When the registration closed, it was announced that 678 delegates were present (along with a section of non-voters). I then told him, "Now you know.")
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Steve Jobs at the Pearly Gates?
The New Yorker magazine has this clever cover of Steve Jobs being checked by St. Peter not in the physical Book of Life, but on an I-pad. (Although, as my friend Ilene Vick notes, he was a Buddhist.)
This reminds me of one of my favorite nerd jokes. The story is that Bill Gates died and was met by at the entrance to heaven. St. Peter said, "Bill, we are just not sure what to do with you. On one hand, your software brought the computer to so many people for their enjoyment. On the other hand, it was buggy and crashed a lot, causing people to take God's name in vain."
He went on, "Here's what we are going to do. You are going to spend two weeks in hell and then two weeks in heaven. At the end of that time, you will get to choose where you will spend eternity." Bill thought that sounded like a good plan and was immediately transported to hell.
Upon arrival, he was amazed. White sandy beaches stretched as far as the eye could see. Every day was bathed in beautiful sunshine. The beaches were filled with hot women in bikinis. There was ample beer and a party going 24/7. "I'm not sure how heaven is going to top this," he thought.
After two weeks, Bill was transported to heaven. This was a beautiful, marvelous place that his mind found difficult to grasp. It was calm and peaceful and filled with wonder. After a few days, however, it began to feel a little...well, dull. Nothing was happening to stimulate his senses as had been the case in hell.
At the end of the second fortnight, St. Peter summoned Bill and asked him, "Which will it be?" Gates answered, "Heaven is a wonderful place, but I think I would prefer hell." "As you wish," St. Peter declared and Bill Gates was transported away.
After some time had passed, St. Peter made a visit to Bill Gates in hell to find him in torment in the flames. Gates cried, "This is awful. Where are the sandy beaches? Where are the girls and the beer? This isn't what I signed up for." Whereupon Peter replied, "Oh, that was the beta version. This is the final release."
Monday, October 10, 2011
The Riddle of Columbus Day
Friends on Facebook have been posting interesting sayings regarding Columbus day: Let's Celebrate Columbus Day by walking into someone's house and telling them we live there now. Or this: If the Somalia pirates discover something while they are murdering and robbing like Columbus did, will we make a holiday for them?
It's easy and fashionable to denigrate Columbus and, by extension, the European colonization of the Americas. The indigenous peoples were treated horribly--killed, enslaved, relocated, absorbed. I have two thoughts on this trend:
(1) Anyone willing to give up their house or land so that we can return this continent to its state in the 16th century? I didn't think so.
(2) Europe desired to explore and expand. Anything inherently wrong with that? When arriving on this continent, they were technologically light-years ahead of those people who resided here and those people didn't exactly fill the lands, but only lived in a few areas. So what were the colonists to do? Turn around and go home?
Should they have acted differently? Absolutely. But this does not excuse the smug self-righteous exercise of demonizing Columbus and the exploration of the New World. Can we have a little balance here?
It's easy and fashionable to denigrate Columbus and, by extension, the European colonization of the Americas. The indigenous peoples were treated horribly--killed, enslaved, relocated, absorbed. I have two thoughts on this trend:
(1) Anyone willing to give up their house or land so that we can return this continent to its state in the 16th century? I didn't think so.
(2) Europe desired to explore and expand. Anything inherently wrong with that? When arriving on this continent, they were technologically light-years ahead of those people who resided here and those people didn't exactly fill the lands, but only lived in a few areas. So what were the colonists to do? Turn around and go home?
Should they have acted differently? Absolutely. But this does not excuse the smug self-righteous exercise of demonizing Columbus and the exploration of the New World. Can we have a little balance here?
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Most Interesting Country Album Ever
(Note: I am once again returning to blogging. I have actually discovered a couple of people were reading. This is not my deepest post, but it might be interesting to someone.)How do you like that title? Well, hear me out. I am not a real country fan. Back in the day, I liked the late 60s-early 70s country rock of the Byrds, Flying Burrito Bros, Poco, and Eagles, but it didn't get me into the originals. I discovered bluegrass when the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band put out Will the Circle Be Unbroken.
At the same time, I detested Tammy Wynette-styled music and the Nashville Sound. Today, most pop-country offends my ears with its lack of authenticity or artistry.
That said, this album is a wonder. Hank Wilson's Back is the 1973 product of Leon Russell, an Oklahoma-raised turned L.A.-hippie musician. It actually received a bit of airplay on FM rock stations, who recognized its genius even though they didn't ordinarily play country music.
What is immediately obvious is Leon's love of this music. This is stone-cold country, made in an era when the record-buying public wasn't interested; he certainly didn't make it to be commercial. There are no dumb songs here; no D-i-v-o-r-c-e corniness. There are quite few standards, a few more-obscure (at least to me) but quality tunes.
Just about every country genre is covered, either by song or style. There is bluegrass, straight-ahead country, Nashville sound, honky-tonk, Texas swing, even a hippie-styled update of "Battle of New Orleans." The only thing missing is cajun music. Hank Williams, Jimmie Rodgers, Jimmy Driftwood, George Jones, and Ledbelly are among the songwriters covered.
If you have any interest in authentic quality country music, this album is certainly worth a listen. Tracks are available on You Tube and Grooveshark. If not, thanks for stopping by; perhaps I'll have something more interesting for you next time.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Good Works and Unbelievers
If we believe in Total Depravity then what do we do with this passage:
At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, "Cornelius." And he stared at him in terror and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea." (Acts 10:1-6 ESV)
The result of the story is that Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and he was saved.
We know that our good works do not earn our salvation. In this case, however, Cornelius' good works moved God to make sure that Peter received salvation. Wow! That really runs against the grain of what we would otherwise expect, doesn't it?
Well, I don't want to build a doctrine on this single episode. I just think it should cause us to pause and acknowledge that the nature of our goodness or badness might be a little more complex than some are willing to admit.
Apologetically, I think we should not denigrate the goodness in people. Mis-quoting verses like Isa 64:6 as "Our righteousness is like filthy rags in the sight of a holy God" is, I think, unwise and ineffective. (Look up the verse in context; it says nothing like we make it say.) We can acknowledge that many non-believers perform wonderful acts of goodness with good motives all the time.
The point is that how many good things one does is not the payout window (to borrow an expression from Vin Scully). The problem that we all face is that we have sinned. Though it only takes one sin to break faith with God, that is an unnecessary point. Each of us have sinned many many times and we know it. Our sins separate us from God and he can not have fellowship with sin. We would be lost and without hope but for the fact that God made a way for us to be saved from our sins and their consequences.
And this is point we should make clear--God has made the way. Face it, who else could do so? Not sinful humanity. We are the problem--he is the solution. It is not just that there is a way, but the point is that God decided to create that way. And how simple that way is: Receive the grace and forgiveness present in the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made by dying for our sins. No long periods of study. No hours of meditation. No piling up of good works. No knocking on doors. Just receive the gift, because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9 ESV) This might be a tough concept for someone to believe but, once believed, it is easy to accept.
Good works make the earthly life better for the individual and for those around him. But it is only the grace of God that gains him eternal life.
This is not where I wanted to go with this post. Check back in a day or so and I will finish the thought on the mistake of being too extreme with Total Depravity
At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, "Cornelius." And he stared at him in terror and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea." (Acts 10:1-6 ESV)
The result of the story is that Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and he was saved.
We know that our good works do not earn our salvation. In this case, however, Cornelius' good works moved God to make sure that Peter received salvation. Wow! That really runs against the grain of what we would otherwise expect, doesn't it?
Well, I don't want to build a doctrine on this single episode. I just think it should cause us to pause and acknowledge that the nature of our goodness or badness might be a little more complex than some are willing to admit.
Apologetically, I think we should not denigrate the goodness in people. Mis-quoting verses like Isa 64:6 as "Our righteousness is like filthy rags in the sight of a holy God" is, I think, unwise and ineffective. (Look up the verse in context; it says nothing like we make it say.) We can acknowledge that many non-believers perform wonderful acts of goodness with good motives all the time.
The point is that how many good things one does is not the payout window (to borrow an expression from Vin Scully). The problem that we all face is that we have sinned. Though it only takes one sin to break faith with God, that is an unnecessary point. Each of us have sinned many many times and we know it. Our sins separate us from God and he can not have fellowship with sin. We would be lost and without hope but for the fact that God made a way for us to be saved from our sins and their consequences.
And this is point we should make clear--God has made the way. Face it, who else could do so? Not sinful humanity. We are the problem--he is the solution. It is not just that there is a way, but the point is that God decided to create that way. And how simple that way is: Receive the grace and forgiveness present in the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made by dying for our sins. No long periods of study. No hours of meditation. No piling up of good works. No knocking on doors. Just receive the gift, because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9 ESV) This might be a tough concept for someone to believe but, once believed, it is easy to accept.
Good works make the earthly life better for the individual and for those around him. But it is only the grace of God that gains him eternal life.
This is not where I wanted to go with this post. Check back in a day or so and I will finish the thought on the mistake of being too extreme with Total Depravity
Monday, February 7, 2011
Youth can be boring too
The Who's performance at last year's Super Bowl was so lackluster that I remarked at the time that it would kill the six year run of classic rock artists (Paul McCartney, Rolling Stones, Prince, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Who). Sure enough, this year the organizers turned to one of the darlings of the modern musical sphere: The Black-Eyed Peas.
There were touches of the MTV-produced days. More emphasis on dancing/production than on the musical performance. Unannounced guest stars. Younger, hipper music. The only problem: It was just as boring to me as others found the classic rock acts.
Please, I am not being an old fart who believes my music was better (although there is truth in that statement). I have always been more about the music than the production. Guest artists are fine if there is a point to it. And though I don't like hip-hop, the BEP do perform a catchy mix of genres.
The real problem is that they tried to do so much that the show was unfocused. You only have 12 minutes--make them count. Was that really Slash? They could have trotted out any tall skinny guy with a top hat and Les Paul. He was only on stage for a half-minute and added nothing other than a guitar riff that could have come from the back-up tape. And when did Usher become a back-up dancer?
They should have just done most of their three best party songs with one ballad thrown in the middle. By trying to do so much, it just fell flat.
The biggest crime, however, was the sound mixing. Couldn't they get whoever does sound for the band (and who knows their songs) to mix? They did? Well, that was embarrassing. From the opening notes, the sound was wrong and it never really improved. With the improvements in broadcast sound technology, it's not as if they were trying to mix for the Ed Sullivan Show. They have the equipment; the humans operating it were incompetent. I would like to hear more about what happened there.
Their performance is getting mixed reviews. It will be interesting to see what they do in the future. Can't they just find some performers who are well-liked (a youth act this year, a classic rock act the next) who will just give a good tight musical performance and leave it at that? Is that too much to ask?
There were touches of the MTV-produced days. More emphasis on dancing/production than on the musical performance. Unannounced guest stars. Younger, hipper music. The only problem: It was just as boring to me as others found the classic rock acts.
Please, I am not being an old fart who believes my music was better (although there is truth in that statement). I have always been more about the music than the production. Guest artists are fine if there is a point to it. And though I don't like hip-hop, the BEP do perform a catchy mix of genres.
The real problem is that they tried to do so much that the show was unfocused. You only have 12 minutes--make them count. Was that really Slash? They could have trotted out any tall skinny guy with a top hat and Les Paul. He was only on stage for a half-minute and added nothing other than a guitar riff that could have come from the back-up tape. And when did Usher become a back-up dancer?
They should have just done most of their three best party songs with one ballad thrown in the middle. By trying to do so much, it just fell flat.
The biggest crime, however, was the sound mixing. Couldn't they get whoever does sound for the band (and who knows their songs) to mix? They did? Well, that was embarrassing. From the opening notes, the sound was wrong and it never really improved. With the improvements in broadcast sound technology, it's not as if they were trying to mix for the Ed Sullivan Show. They have the equipment; the humans operating it were incompetent. I would like to hear more about what happened there.
Their performance is getting mixed reviews. It will be interesting to see what they do in the future. Can't they just find some performers who are well-liked (a youth act this year, a classic rock act the next) who will just give a good tight musical performance and leave it at that? Is that too much to ask?
Friday, February 4, 2011
What were they thinking?
To rip off Marc Anthony, I have not come to bury Charlie Sheen, but to bury others. First a recap.
A successful actor, Charlie Sheen has been known to live a life of utter debauchery. You know the story well enough that I don't have to repeat it. His latest entry into rehab was not his first.
Since 2003, he has been the star of the very popular television program Two and a Half Men. The recurring theme of the show is his character's debauched lifestyle. Much alcohol and many women (including prostitutes) are what his character lives for. It's a bit of an inside joke, though everyone else gets it. Here, art imitates life as Charlie's past lifestyle is parodied in his character's.
The problem is that it seems that Sheen has never successfully kicked his vices. Even during the show's run, he has been the cover-boy of the tabloids for his on-again, off-again escapades.
I sincerely hope that this rehab trip does him some good. Even if he brings destruction upon himself, I would like to see him free from it and live a normal life. Better yet, I pray that there is a strong believer near him who can bring him to Christ. But that's not what this post is about.
It is funny in a way to lampoon the real-life Charlie Sheen in the fictional Charlie Harper. But I am wondering what is going through the minds of the writers and producers as they turn out this product. I suppose if Sheen had been completely rehabbed, it would be amusing to have him play the person he used to be but from which he has broken free.
But how do you write scripts detailing his boorish behavior when he still engages in it? When you know Charlie Sheen and you see how he is damaging his own life, when does it stop being funny? The dues the fictional character pays pale in comparison to what the actor is paying. Don't these people have any responsibility here at all?
Furthermore, are you in some way enabling him in his behavior by making a joke of it? Maybe he would realize he has a problem if you cast him in a drama where this lifestyle completely ruins him. As long as he struggles with his addictions, I think the laughter is hollow.
So I don't come to bury Charlie Sheen. I think it is Charlie Harper who should be buried. And maybe a few writers with him.
A successful actor, Charlie Sheen has been known to live a life of utter debauchery. You know the story well enough that I don't have to repeat it. His latest entry into rehab was not his first.
Since 2003, he has been the star of the very popular television program Two and a Half Men. The recurring theme of the show is his character's debauched lifestyle. Much alcohol and many women (including prostitutes) are what his character lives for. It's a bit of an inside joke, though everyone else gets it. Here, art imitates life as Charlie's past lifestyle is parodied in his character's.
The problem is that it seems that Sheen has never successfully kicked his vices. Even during the show's run, he has been the cover-boy of the tabloids for his on-again, off-again escapades.
I sincerely hope that this rehab trip does him some good. Even if he brings destruction upon himself, I would like to see him free from it and live a normal life. Better yet, I pray that there is a strong believer near him who can bring him to Christ. But that's not what this post is about.
It is funny in a way to lampoon the real-life Charlie Sheen in the fictional Charlie Harper. But I am wondering what is going through the minds of the writers and producers as they turn out this product. I suppose if Sheen had been completely rehabbed, it would be amusing to have him play the person he used to be but from which he has broken free.
But how do you write scripts detailing his boorish behavior when he still engages in it? When you know Charlie Sheen and you see how he is damaging his own life, when does it stop being funny? The dues the fictional character pays pale in comparison to what the actor is paying. Don't these people have any responsibility here at all?
Furthermore, are you in some way enabling him in his behavior by making a joke of it? Maybe he would realize he has a problem if you cast him in a drama where this lifestyle completely ruins him. As long as he struggles with his addictions, I think the laughter is hollow.
So I don't come to bury Charlie Sheen. I think it is Charlie Harper who should be buried. And maybe a few writers with him.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Israel and the Second Coming
When the late 19th- early 20th-century fervor over the Second Coming arose, there was no nation of Israel. Jews were scattered all over the earth. There were a few living in the land known as Palestine. Larger scale immigration to the land began after 1881 as Jews fled eastern European pogroms.
Second Coming fervor did not depend on the existence of Jews in a nation called Israel. However, as more and more Jews returned to the land, American and British evangelicals and Pentecostals began to see the references to Israel in Biblical references to eschatology. Rather than spiritualizing Israel, they understood a modern Israel, both the nation and location, as the key player in end-times prophecy.
Israel's emergence as a nation in 1948 and its conquest of Jerusalem in 1967 completely changed the landscape. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth, originally published in 1970, articulated this position for the masses. In our circles (not among my Lutheran friends, however) it is an article of faith that when the Bible refers to Israel in prophecy, it is the current nation that is being referred to.
Therefore, the re-emergence of Israel is proof that we are now in the last days. Israel will exist until the end, be nearly destroyed by the Anti-Christ, and saved at the last minute by the return of Christ. I heard one man teach that if Israel gave up any land that it had conquered, then the promises of the Bible must not be true. Therefore, giving up land can not happen.
Further, the modern, secular, Christian-persecuting nation of Israel is seen by this branch of the Church as the inheritor of God's blessings and that this nation must be supported in all its decisions. The Arab nations (Muslims) are always wrong and Israel (Jews) are always right.
Excuse me a minute, but I have some questions: Just because a group of Jews move into the historic land of Israel, from which they were driven 19 centuries previously, why does it necessarily follow that the resulting nation is the inheritor of God's blessings? If an Israeli nation does exist in the land at the end times, how can we say that it will not be this nation, but one that comes into existence 100 or 1000 years from now? Is the Old Testament theology of the land still valid in the New Testament or has the Land been fulfilled in a different way as many other OT concepts have been? (This is a subject that I would appreciate feedback on now and that I want to address another day.)
I think the argument that the modern nation of Israel is necessarily God's nation is based on a circular argument: We originally believe that we were in the last days. The nation was established. The existence of the nation proves that we are in the last days.
I believe in the second coming. Jesus may return before I finish writing this blog entry. But there is nothing that is happening in the world today--including the existence of Israel--that demands its happening is imminent. You and I, like many before us, may die without seeing its fulfillment. This does not mean that he is not returning, only that we have no idea when.
Second Coming fervor did not depend on the existence of Jews in a nation called Israel. However, as more and more Jews returned to the land, American and British evangelicals and Pentecostals began to see the references to Israel in Biblical references to eschatology. Rather than spiritualizing Israel, they understood a modern Israel, both the nation and location, as the key player in end-times prophecy.
Israel's emergence as a nation in 1948 and its conquest of Jerusalem in 1967 completely changed the landscape. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth, originally published in 1970, articulated this position for the masses. In our circles (not among my Lutheran friends, however) it is an article of faith that when the Bible refers to Israel in prophecy, it is the current nation that is being referred to.
Therefore, the re-emergence of Israel is proof that we are now in the last days. Israel will exist until the end, be nearly destroyed by the Anti-Christ, and saved at the last minute by the return of Christ. I heard one man teach that if Israel gave up any land that it had conquered, then the promises of the Bible must not be true. Therefore, giving up land can not happen.
Further, the modern, secular, Christian-persecuting nation of Israel is seen by this branch of the Church as the inheritor of God's blessings and that this nation must be supported in all its decisions. The Arab nations (Muslims) are always wrong and Israel (Jews) are always right.
Excuse me a minute, but I have some questions: Just because a group of Jews move into the historic land of Israel, from which they were driven 19 centuries previously, why does it necessarily follow that the resulting nation is the inheritor of God's blessings? If an Israeli nation does exist in the land at the end times, how can we say that it will not be this nation, but one that comes into existence 100 or 1000 years from now? Is the Old Testament theology of the land still valid in the New Testament or has the Land been fulfilled in a different way as many other OT concepts have been? (This is a subject that I would appreciate feedback on now and that I want to address another day.)
I think the argument that the modern nation of Israel is necessarily God's nation is based on a circular argument: We originally believe that we were in the last days. The nation was established. The existence of the nation proves that we are in the last days.
I believe in the second coming. Jesus may return before I finish writing this blog entry. But there is nothing that is happening in the world today--including the existence of Israel--that demands its happening is imminent. You and I, like many before us, may die without seeing its fulfillment. This does not mean that he is not returning, only that we have no idea when.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The Second Coming
By now you have all heard that Jesus is going to return May 21. Harold Camping, who earlier predicted his return in 1994, is at it again. In his earlier book, he hedged a little on whether 1994 was the exact time, but this time there is no doubt. He will not even speculate on what happens if he makes it to May 22 because there is absolutely no chance he could be wrong.
I have to hand it to him. Camping is not only bold, he also runs against the grain. Every prediction that I remember predicts Christ's return at Rosh Hashana in the fall. There is a certain logic to this: Christ was sacrificed on Passover. The Holy Spirit was poured out on the church on Pentecost (an early harvest festival). Therefore, it makes some sense to think that Christ would return on the Feast of Trumpets since trumpets are part of the second coming motif (not to mention the New Year/New Jerusalem parallel).
Camping, however, predicts a day in the spring. It's not even Pentecost. I have not read enough to know how he picks this particular day (nor am I really interested), but he gets points for being novel.
I am not here today to criticize a nut job (check out some of the other stuff he believes and you'll understand). I want to talk about our (and here I guess I am talking mostly to my Assemblies of God friends) approach to the second coming.
Our movement and others were founded in the atmosphere of the second coming fervor of the late nineteenth century. This is shown both in our continuing missions emphasis (which arose from the belief that the world needed to hear before Jesus came back) and the fact that 4 of our 16 doctrinal statements center on eschatology.
Even the early twentieth-century outpouring of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was explained in eschatological terms. Believing that tongues and the miraculous as common had waned after the first century, the understanding as to why it had been resurrected was the soon return of Christ. This is why you occasionally see references to the Latter Rain, an interpretation of Joel 2:23. Just as crops needed rain at the beginning (i.e., Pentecost), they also need rain just before the harvest (the Second Coming) Therefore, the fact that the Holy Spirit was again being poured out at the beginning of the twentieth century was proof that the second coming was very soon.
I have more thoughts for another post. Check back with me.
I have to hand it to him. Camping is not only bold, he also runs against the grain. Every prediction that I remember predicts Christ's return at Rosh Hashana in the fall. There is a certain logic to this: Christ was sacrificed on Passover. The Holy Spirit was poured out on the church on Pentecost (an early harvest festival). Therefore, it makes some sense to think that Christ would return on the Feast of Trumpets since trumpets are part of the second coming motif (not to mention the New Year/New Jerusalem parallel).
Camping, however, predicts a day in the spring. It's not even Pentecost. I have not read enough to know how he picks this particular day (nor am I really interested), but he gets points for being novel.
I am not here today to criticize a nut job (check out some of the other stuff he believes and you'll understand). I want to talk about our (and here I guess I am talking mostly to my Assemblies of God friends) approach to the second coming.
Our movement and others were founded in the atmosphere of the second coming fervor of the late nineteenth century. This is shown both in our continuing missions emphasis (which arose from the belief that the world needed to hear before Jesus came back) and the fact that 4 of our 16 doctrinal statements center on eschatology.
Even the early twentieth-century outpouring of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was explained in eschatological terms. Believing that tongues and the miraculous as common had waned after the first century, the understanding as to why it had been resurrected was the soon return of Christ. This is why you occasionally see references to the Latter Rain, an interpretation of Joel 2:23. Just as crops needed rain at the beginning (i.e., Pentecost), they also need rain just before the harvest (the Second Coming) Therefore, the fact that the Holy Spirit was again being poured out at the beginning of the twentieth century was proof that the second coming was very soon.
I have more thoughts for another post. Check back with me.
Friday, January 21, 2011
I'm back
It has been 13 months since I last blogged. I think it was a combination of being lazy and thinking that no one was reading (except you Jeff). My friend Brian, however, is right. It is important for someone interested in theology to participate in dialogue. Which means not only commenting on other people's posts, but also creating some of my own.
I promise to my reader(s) that I will try to come up with something interesting at least once a week. That is not too large a commitment. If I come up with more, even better.
If you happened upon this post, I hope that you will bookmark me and give me a shot. If you like it please sign up so I know that someone is reading. Thanks.
Also, if you are new to my blog, check out some of the past posts.
I promise to my reader(s) that I will try to come up with something interesting at least once a week. That is not too large a commitment. If I come up with more, even better.
If you happened upon this post, I hope that you will bookmark me and give me a shot. If you like it please sign up so I know that someone is reading. Thanks.
Also, if you are new to my blog, check out some of the past posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
