parables of a prodigal world

I don't listen to much Christian radio nowadays, for obvious reasons. But every now and again, I'll tune in. Call it a sense of nostalgia. Call it a quest for fodder. Call it what you will. The other day, I flipped over to 99.5 KKLA , "The Intersection of Faith and Reason." Don't get me started on that one. If it was a quest for fodder, well, fodder I got. The preacher was, as is common, talking about one, narrow aspect of the gospel, and he concluded with the following words: "...Brothers and sisters, this is good news!" Which got me thinking... Do you really have to tell someone that what you've just told them is good news? And if you do, how good could it really be? I mean, imagine the following conversations... [One Dodger fan to another] "We just signed Manny Ramirez! This is good news!" [Ryan Seacrest to that hysterical girl, I think her name is Tatiana] "You are the next American Idol! This is good news!" [Phil Mickelson...

This is a hard post to write. It might go all over the place. Please bear with me. Humility is an important virtue. It is also often a justification for cowardice. I've come to see more clearly of late that this is a significant tension in the " Post-Evangelical " community, of which, though I don't care much for labels (I don't think YHWH does, either), I'd proudly consider myself a member. I while back, I posted a makeshift Post-Evangelical Manifesto in response to the then-famous Evangelical Manifesto . There, I explained that one of the driving theological forces behind P-E-ism (my wrists are starting to hurt, so I'm gonna use P-E and E from hereon in) is the recognition that, in our age, classic doctrinal expressions and expositions of the gospel of Jesus Christ have become difficult to hear, even stale. Moreover, though P-E-als believe resolutely in the truth of Jesus Christ, we don't think that is a truth that can be fully articulated with word...

Yesterday, Michael Spencer expressed some skepticism about what he would hear when Rick Warren asked Barack Obama and John McCain "The Jesus Question," as he had promised he would. Well, he did. This is a transcript of the two candidates' responses: First, to Obama. RICK: THE FIRST ONE IS CHRISTIANITY. NOW YOU'VE MADE NO DOUBT ABOUT YOUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU TO TRUST IN CHRIST AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN ON A DAILY BASIS? I MEAN, WHAT DOES THAT REALLY LOOK LIKE? OBAMA: AS A STARTING POINT, IT MEANS I BELIEVE IN THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR MY SINS AND THAT I AM REDEEMED THROUGH HIM. THAT IS A SOURCE OF STRENGTH AND SUSTENANCE ON A DAILY BASIS. I KNOW THAT I DON'T WALK ALONE, AND I KNOW THAT IF I CAN GET MYSELF OUT OF THE WAY, THAT I CAN MAYBE CARRY OUT IN SOME SMALL WAY WHAT HE INTENDS. AND IT MEANS THAT THOSE SINS THAT I HAVE ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS HOPEFULLY WILL BE WASHED AWAY. BUT WHAT IT ALSO MEANS,...

As the political atmosphere in this presidential election year begins to heat up, and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al., go around promising salvation/resurrection from the George W. Bush era, I'm sensing and hearing a lot of voices, some loud, some quieter, either wondering or exclaiming whether or how the Gospel of Jesus Christ speaks to the issue of politics and power in general, or to specific political issues in particular. The issue is, of course, complex and dense, but let me throw my two cents into the mix, not as an answer, but as a signpost to the answer. Have you ever tried to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—imagine that you are doing so for the first time—while consciously suspending any familiarity and presupposition? It is a very interesting thought experiment. Were you to do so, it would be difficult to avoid the realization that the Gospels are not primarily theological discourses. They are, at their most basic level, political stories, stories about a man wh...