Gut Check Press Interview

by Frank Turk

You may or may not have heard of Gut Check Press -- last year I wrote the foreword to their widely-read and widely-discussed Kinda Christianity. hey have published a couple of other things since then, but the follow-up to Kinda is a lovely little tome entitled Younger, Restlesser, Reformeder in which the other young people with a Christian/religious bent get a little of the same as their Emergent neighbors.

They were allegedly going to have a blog tour this week to promote the book, but it looks like I'm the only one playing. Below is the stream for the best 20 minutes of the time we spent together, and if you click through you can download it and pretend you're listening to a podcast.

For the invasively-curious, the intro and outro music is by Chris Green, and it's called "Boogie 2.0". It's graciously provided royalty-free by Mevia/Music Alley at musically.com.

Enjoy.



Download the audio here

---

Pagan "evangelicalism"?

by Dan Phillips

I'm going to assume you're familiar with the narrative of Numbers 22-24. Balak, son of Zippor, king of Moab (Joshua 24:9), tries to hire the services of a seer named Balaam. Balak believes that Balaam's words have power (22:6), and he wants Balaam to aim those words at his enemy: Israel.

The whole Balak/Balaam saga is a study in paganism vs. Yahwism. The pagan worldview is that the gods can be handled, "worked," manipulated to serve us and our will. The gods may not be much more than personified, magnified forces of nature; but if we work the right forms and rituals, we can make them serve us. We can make them do what we want them to do.

Balak approaches Balaam from this perspective, this worldview. It doesn't matter to Balak whether Balaam calls his deity Yahweh, Baal, or Brittany. He wants Balaam to work his mojo and get this Yahweh-thingie working for him.

Balak is absolutely nonplused at Balaam's insistence that he can't do that with Yahweh (22:13, 18). Balak is stunned. It does not compute, it blows Balak's circuits. It is inconceivable.

So, Balak figures there must just be a communication problem, or something. Or maybe Balaam's trying to haggle up the price? Balak offers more money. He sends more and flashier dignitaries. Finally, Balaam comes — but still he can't work the name of Yahweh into a curse (22:35, 38; 23:8, etc.).

But Balak doesn't give up. Maybe it isn't Balaam who's driving such a hard bargain. Maybe it's Yahweh. So... if not now, then maybe in a few minutes? If not from here, maybe from there? Or there? Or — come on, work with me! — surely from up there?

Not only is the answer an unrelenting "No," but Balaam blesses Israel, over and over.

Balaam himself is a troubling figure, though a sterling illustration of Biblical inerrancy (see Ronald B. Allen's crackling-good essay on the theology of the Balaam oracles). Balaam looms as a quintessential false prophet for his love of money (2 Peter 2:15; Jude 11; Revelation 2:14).

And yet even Balaam knew that Yahweh could not be manipulated, as could the false gods of paganism. Even he knew that Yahweh was Lord, and His word was law (cf. Numbers 22:13, 34, 38). Only thing Balaam finally could figure out to do was to get Israel to bring a judgment on themselves (cf. Numbers 31:16; Revelation 2:14).

So, Balak assumed that Yahweh — like all the gods — was both mutable and malleable. In truth, Yahweh was (and is) neither (Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6). Hence Israel's cry,

"Who is like you, O LORD,
among the gods?
Who is like you,
majestic in holiness,
awesome in glorious deeds,
doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11).

Who is like Yahweh among the gods? No one!

We shake our heads at Balak's folly... but did it really die with him? Can we not see it in Christendom, or even in "evangelicalism"?

Of course you think "Word-faith movement," and of course you're right. But is it only those nutty, absurd heretics?

Do we see it, sometimes, when people try to get the pastor to "say a prayer" for them, as if he had more "pull" with God, and could get God to see it their way? Don't even the doctrinally more orthodox fall into trying to faith God into doing something, or much-word Him, or good-works Him, or better-than-the-other-guy Him?

Or can we even see whispers in ourselves, as we (unconsciously) try this or that to get God to support our agenda?

Obviously I believe in prayer, as the Bible explains and enjoins it. I've talked about prayer's divinely-designed limitations, and I've also discussed how significant it has been and can be, in the sovereign plans of God. But Christian prayer must always have the essential element that breathes Christ's spirit: "Not my will, but Yours." Even as we plead, argue Scripture, press the promises, lay out our case, we must know: if we actually could manipulate God, it would be the most disastrous event in the universe.

I've often said to God, in closing, after pressing my case to the best of my ability, "...but then, You get to be God — and that's a good thing!"

And I really mean it.

Leave paganism to the pagans.

---

Sorry Dan!

by Frank Turk

Joe Carter and I will be on Paul Edwards today at 3:30 PM CT to talk about The Gospel and Politics. You follow that link, and you can hear the stream.

Pray for all of us that we put Christ first.

---

Frank: I listened to you and Joe Carter on Paul Edwards via streaming feed. Great, great job—all three of you. But I especially liked your input. Joe is no doubt correct that actual grassroots evangelical involvement in the political process is pretty low. But the number of professing Christians willing to turn off "American Idol" and take the Great Commission seriously is surely even lower. Joe seems to think all this evangelical apathy proves my whole argument is invalid. But he is actually proving my point. See: I didn't suggest that Evangelicals have done well organizing, mobilizing, and integrating their own rank-and-file into the political process. In fact, I said nothing at all about the level of grassroots involvement. What I complained about was the inordinate amount of energy and resources that are spent on politics rather than evangelism by evangelical organizations and leaders. Here's a major part of the problem with trying to drum up evangelical zeal over something as mundane as politics: It's uninspiring compared to the challenge of the gospel, and it has helped breed a generation of evangelical couch potatoes who think sending Dobson or the Republican party a check fulfills their duty to "engage the culture." But the typical fad-driven evangelical is no more a true activist than the liberal fat cat or Hollywood celebrity who thinks if she buys enough carbon credits she is really helping change the world. The answer isn't to invest more energy and resources into political lobbying. It's to get off the couch and back into the world with the gospel. You made that clear. Thanks.