The Serenity Prayer

Now that's a blog post I thought I'd never pen. I came across the full serenity prayer tonight on someone elses blog and I thought I'd post it here for several reasons: 1) I really needed it (albeit for different reasons than it's original context) 2) I never knew who wrote it 3) I never heard more than the first paragraph. I always thought the first paragraph was a bit stoic and fatalistic (not to mention cheesy). Though I've been accused of being both (or all three technically) it was still too much for me, but set in it's full (dare I say canonical) context, it definately takes on new significance (meaning?). Here it is:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

–Reinhold Niebuhr

Almost sounds a bit Christian Hedonistic...

(HT: iMonk)

Driscoll and the Emerging Church Conversation

I've had various talks with various people in various venues about the emerging church conversation. Generally speaking, I'm favorably disposed towards it, and think there is a lot to emply, though of course without embracing all of its tributaries (as if that were even possible). Many people view the conversation through the lens of Brian McLaren and others of his stream. I tend more towards the Reformed stream and often refer to Mark Driscoll. I haven't read anything first hand by McLaren (which is admittedly myopic on my part) which may be why I don't get so fired up when people bring up the topic, but I love Driscoll.

HOWEVER, people regularly, though with varying degrees of certainty, inform me that I am incorrectly associating Mark with the emerging church and that he left it a while back or at least disassociated himself. Granted, my take is based on his book Confessions of a Reformation Rev. Yet, the subtitle inclines me to think I'm right (hard lessons learned from an emerging missional church), not to mention the summary on the back cover (which opens with "Mark Driscoll's emerging missional church...). However, if that's not enough, I thought I'd point out several statements he makes in the book that I came across while rereading it this past weekend:

"Since the movevment, if it can be called that, is young and is still defining its theological center, I do not want to portray the movement as ideologically unified because I myself swim in the theologically conservative stream of the emerging church" (p. 22).

"For some Emergent [which Driscoll sharply distinguishes from the broader emerging] leaders, this critique may be as welcome as water on a cat. But I assure you that I speak as one within the Emerging Church Movememtn who has great love and appreciation for Christian leaders with theological convictions much different from my own" (p. 23).

Now granted, the book was published in 2006; maybe something has changed since then. Yet, I think his disassociation is more with people in the movement, and/or Emergent, which should not be confused with the emerging church conversation/movement (which is MUCH broader). I remain open to more recent correction if it's out there. In the meantime, I STRONGLY commend Scot Mcknight's lecture on the four rivers of the Emerging Church delivered at Westminster. It's a great explanation from a scholar within the movement communicated to those of a conservative, reformed mindset outside the movement. Very helpful and balanced. You can read the PDF here. I tried to find the audio files for it, but it appears you have to pay money for it now. Still, it's worth the read.

P.S. In case I was too subtle, this does indicate I finally finished ANOTHER book and in one weekend at that! Yeah, yeah, it WAS a Driscoll book and I HAD already read it, but heh...200 pages is 200 pages, and I'm not done for the month of May :-)

Sola Scriptura

I'm still plodding through The Drama of Doctrine and loving every minute of it. Granted, I can go several pages at a time withouth knowing what Vanhoozer's saying, but when I hit the occaisional page I do understand, it makes it all worth while. He has some interesting things to say about the idea of sola scriptura, particularly as it relates to authorial intention (i.e. the intention of the reformers who coined [Luther] and used the phrase).

"Sola scriptura is not the answer to the question 'How many sources should one use in doing theology?'" (p. 232).

Instead,

"Sola scriptura is the answer to the question 'Where can we find the supreme norm by which to measure Christian deeds and Christian doctrine?' Construed positively, sola scriptura indicates how the church is to practice divine authority. Stated negatively , 'sola scriptura is the statement that the church can err'" (p. 232-233).

"Sola scriptura is not a protest against tradition as such, but against the presumption of coincidence between church teaching and tradition" (ibid).

"The Reformation emphasis on the priesthood of all believers has mutated in modernity into the notion that individuals can interpret the Bible for themselves, without the benefit of church tradition. The danger in such individualism, however is pride, yet another 'presumption of coincidence,' this time between one's own interpretation and the word of God. What one discovers in tradition is that Christianity is far rich than one's own personal and ecclesiastical experience" (ibid).

"The Reformation was not a matter of Scripture versus tradition but of reclaiming the ancient tradition as a correct interpretation of Scripture versus later distortions of that tradition. The Reformers regarded the early church councils by and large as true because they agreed with Scripture, not because they had authority in and of themselves" (ibid).

The last two quotes in particular still ring true today in somewhat of a parallel scenario. One could substitute Calvinism in for 'tradition' and the false dilemma masquerading in the name of Biblicism could be equally undone by Vanhoozer's critique. I hope I haven't worded that too subtly.

Thiselton on the Nature of the Gospel and Preaching

"Paul then proceeds to offer a diagnosis of why these two foundational themes [being in Christ and the cross centered nature of the Gospel] have become obscured. The first concerns the nature of preaching. It is not of such a nature as to invie assessments of competing rhetorics. As such its operative effectiveness depends on the force which it derives from God as authentic proclamation, not on artifices of persuasion or the consumer-oriented goals of rhetoricians. The cross reverses any strategy of manipulatives power. Such a notion of 'power' would prove counterproductive for genuinely christological proclamation since Christ points away from himself to the glory of God and the welfare of others in the cross."


A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC, pp. 107-108.