"It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle."

I'm not ready to take sides in this debate, but this is a very thoughtful piece, worth reading.

I've never understood the fascination with Mixed Martial Arts, which seem to be awfully popular among a lot of Acts 29 types… (or maybe just for the Acts29 founder?) Daniel Kirk pretty much nails the point of my discomfort.

"Religious / clergy-based leadership often behaves like an overbearing conductor, not partnering with the orchestra but managing and controlling the musical conversation. Talgam concludes, “The worst damage I can inflict on my orchestra is to give them a clear instruction, for it prevents the sectional ensembles from listening to each other.” The global-virtual ecclesia is listening to each other – moving their focus away from the podium, towards a harmonious priesthood of the commons."

Interesting analogy and thoughts here.

Henry was right, says author Richard Mouw, in his view that the church should not address political or economic specifics:

"The church is obliged to "declare the criteria by which nations will ultimately be judged, and the divine standards to which man and society must conform if civilization is to endure."

"…A constant theme in his writings was that the church as such has neither the competence nor the authority to address political or economic specifics. He would usually add, though—probably with the memory of Nazi Germany in mind—that there may be "emergency situations" in which the church would have clear mandate from God to address specific evils. But in the normal course of things, the church should leave it up to individuals to take a very general mandate to think and act Christianly in the public arena."

"As I indicated in the first post in this series, I think authenticity is important, even indispensable in Christian communities. But it is not a sufficient rule of practice to tell us either how to act (because we’re being authentic) or how we shouldn’t (because doing a particular action wouldn’t be authentic).

Our rule of life is not who we are, but who we are being made to be in Christ, and the road he has led us on by which to get there: the way of the cross, which is the way of death, which is the formative narrative that determines what our life in community looks like."

I promise I won't start linking every post, but this series from Dr. J. R. Daniel Kirk is really good stuff. Quickly becoming a favorite blog of mine.

Geof is upfront, as ever, about his struggles with mental illness. A good brother who needs our prayers.

"First, did you notice that our worship of God is given back-seat to our relationships with God’s children? Against our individualistic tendencies that see worship as a matter between me and God, or my heart alone before God, this passage says no, the quality of your community as a place that is living into the reconciled relationships that God himself establishes with us is our first priority."

Good good stuff from Dr. Kirk.

I've read several of these, but not nearly enough. Gotta work on that.

"And so, as the pastor exhorted us this morning, Christians must have a “least of these” mindset. Like Jesus, who came to proclaim good news to the poor, release to prisoners, recovery of sight to the blind, and freedom for the oppressed (Luke 4:18), even so his followers must humble themselves to reach out to the neediest of our neighbors and serve them with the Savior’s love.

This passage is so stirring, so stimulating to the imagination, so sobering in its implications, that one cannot help but pause to take stock of one’s own life in its light.

Except…

Except that I am convinced we have it all wrong."

I'm still chewing on the alternate interpretation that iMonk's guest blogger gives here. A commenter on this post notes that NT Wright holds much the same view… again, interesting.

"Liberal democracy offers religious believers a bargain. Accept, as a price of citizenship, that you may never impose your convictions on your neighbor, or use state power to compel belief. In return, you will be free to practice your own faith as you see fit — and free, as well, to compete with other believers (and nonbelievers) in the marketplace of ideas.

That’s the theory. In practice, the admirable principle that nobody should be persecuted for their beliefs often blurs into the more illiberal idea that nobody should ever publicly criticize another religion. Or champion one’s own faith as an alternative. Or say anything whatsoever about religion, outside the privacy of church, synagogue or home.

A week ago, Brit Hume broke all three rules at once. "

Ross Douthat is quickly becoming my favorite NYT columnist, and this whole column is worth reading.