In the Bowers household growing up, one of the yuletide mainstays was Alabama’s Christmas album. It boasted such songs as “Santa Claus (I Still Believe),” “Joseph and Mary’s Boy,” and “Tennessee Christmas.” Our favorite tune, however, was “Thistlehair the Christmas Bear.” It’s a story about a bear named Thistlehair who lives in the woods and comes around at Christmastime to tell all the children what Christmas means. Here’s the chorus. I hope it’s as delightful to you as it is to me:

Oh, Thistlehair the Christmas bear
Spreadin’ the good news everywhere
About Christmastime and what it means
To all the children of the world
Every little boy and girl out there
Loves Thistlehair.

Crystal likes to make fun of this song. She thinks that it’s silly to sing a song about a Christmas bear. I can handle it better now, but early on in our marriage it was a touchy subject. In fact, during our first Christmas season as a married couple I played this CD once while Crystal was cutting my hair and actually started crying because of all the nostalgia of it all. Yeah, it’s embarrassing. But that’s okay. Thistlehair understands.

For Crystal’s family, Amy Grant and Point of Grace decked their halls. One of the reasons I’m okay with Crystal making fun of my Alabama Christmas CD is because it gives me some latitude to deride Amy Grant’s album. I realize I may alienate some of you by saying this, but I am of the persuasion that this CD could be erased from the public consciousness and we would all be better off. I cringe every time I hear “My Grownup Christmas List.”

Of course, all of this is in good fun. I’m glad Crystal and I get to share — and laugh about — our favorite Christmas music. Of course, we have some CD’s we both enjoy, like City on a Hill’s “It’s Christmas Time” and the music to “A Charlie Brown Christmas.”

What Christmas albums did you grow up with? What are your favorites now?

To further whet your appetite for this month’s giveaway, here is an excerpt from “Total Church” in which the authors contrast a common presentation of the gospel in individualistic terms with an explanation of the biblical storyline as it has to do with the people of God. This has definitely forked some straw into my mental feed trough. I’m still chomping, in fact. Here is what they say:

At the heart of much evangelical piety is the individual soul before God. A personal relationship with God has all too often become an individual relationship with God. This individual relationship is seen as authentic spirituality from which other expressions of spirituality are derived. So people say things like, “We will not be prayerful in the public life of the church unless we have first learned to be prayerful in private.”

In some ways it depends how you tell the Bible story. There is a version that runs something like this: “God made you to know him, but you have rejected God. Your sin cuts you off from God and brings you under his judgment. But God sent his Son to die in your place and reconcile you to God. Now you can know God and look forward to being with him after death.” It is the story of an individual out of relationship with God brought back into relationship with God. This version of the story is true. But it is not the whole truth, nor is it how the Bible itself tells the story.

Hmmm. How many times have I heard — and explained — the gospel in this way? The question, of course, is not whether or not this way of understanding the message of the Bible is true. Chester and Timmis acknowledge this. The question is whether or not there is more that needs to be said. They continue:

Consider instead a different version: “God made humanity to know him and to rule over his good creation. But humanity rejected God, and ever since we have lived in rebellion against him and in conflict with each other. But God chose Abraham and his family to be the beginning of a new humanity. He rescued this people from slavery and made a covenant through which they could relate to him and display his glory to the world. When they persistently rejected God, he promised a remnant who would continue the promise of a people who know God. He promised a new covenant bringing forgiveness for sin and his Law written on their hearts. Ultimately Jesus was that faithful remnant. He died for his people to redeem God’s new humanity. And he rose as the first among many who would enjoy new life in a new creation. God is now gathering his people through the mission of the church and will present them, drawn from all nations, as the perfected bride of his Son.”

The invitation implicit in this story is not simply to an individual relationship with God (though that is one implication). The invitation is to become part of the new people of God, the bride of Christ. It suggests a spirituality with a much more communal orientation. Here is a spirituality in which we grasp the amazing dimensions of Christ’s love “together with all the saints” (Ephesians 3:18). We model and embody God’s love for one another (1 John 4:12). I have a relationship with God because we have a relationship with God. There are persons of God because there is a people of God. (pages 148-149)

What do you think?

This month I’m giving away a free copy of “Total Church” to any new or current subscriber to The Fool’s Gold.

Here’s what to do:

1. Subscribe to The Fool’s Gold by RSS or by e-mail.

2. Contact me letting me know you’re a subscriber, whether new or old.

3. I will randomly select a winner on Friday.

About the Book

“Total Church” is a book by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, British co-founders of a church-planting initiative called The Crowded House. The book argues for doing “ordinary life with gospel intentionality” and stresses the necessity of being both gospel-centered and community-centered in the way we approach evangelism, discipleship, apologetics, pastoral care, etc. I have about twenty pages left in the book, and I doubt these pages will be any less delightful and provocative than the first 180. I highly recommend it.

Zach Nielsen at Take Your Vitamin Z had this to say about the book:

I have just finished reading Total Church by Steve Timmis and Tim Chester and can say without qualification that this book is one that most pastors and church leaders should consider picking up and reading. You won’t agree with everything these guys write, but the content is worth wrestling through.

I found that the conclusion was one of the most powerful sections of the book and as with many other books I wish the conclusion would have been the introduction. Many of the objections that will be raised to this book would be squelched if the conclusion was read as the introduction. Read the conclusion first and then work your way through the book. You won’t be disappointed.

You can also read an interview with Tim Chester at the DG Blog.

A few days ago Andy Naselli had an interesting post about why it can be profitable to read the Apocrypha. He breaks his argument down into three reasons, which I found to be helpful:

1. Exegetical Value

The Apocrypha is valuable because it sheds light on the history of Second Temple Judaism. Understanding this period is especially important to discern the religious, political, social, and literary context of the New Testament.

2. Cultural Value

The Apocrypha has had a pervasive influence on Western literature and music. Knowledge of the Apocrypha’s content is useful for interpreting works it has inspired spanning from William Shakespeare’s plays to Charles Wesley’s hymn compositions. Dozens of Wesley’s hymns including “Now Thank We All Our God,” “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel,” and “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear,” incorporate ideas, phrases, and even whole sections from the Apocrypha (cf. Bruce M. Metzger, “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979], 1:174).

3. Devotional Value

Christians recognize that it is possible for non-inspired sources to possess devotional value (e.g., books, hymn lyrics, the words of a preacher). The Apocrypha has devotional value in the sense that a generally useful devotional book does. (And it is certainly not completely free from error!)

The life of John Bunyan is a classic example. At a crucial point in his life, Bunyan questioned whether or not he was one of God’s elect, and after a great mental struggle, God used a verse from the Apocrypha to comfort him. Bunyan could not find the reference to what he thought was a Bible verse, and he tried in vain to find it. He wrote in his autobiography Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners:

I continued my search for more than a year, but I could not find this text. Then at last, having cast an eye over the Apocryphal books, I found it in Ecclesiasticus 2:10. At first this somewhat daunted me, but because by this time I had more experience of the love and kindness of God, it troubled me less, especially when I considered that though it was not in those texts which we call holy and canonical, it did contain the sum and substance of many of the promises and it was, therefore, my duty to take comfort from it. I bless God for that word; it was for my good. That word still often shines before my face (1966; update, Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press, 2000, p. 45).

Naselli finishes by giving a suggested list of Apocryphal books to start reading.

Christianity Today has an interesting and short quiz on the history of Thanksgiving.

I got 3 out of 6 right. How did you do?

Denny Burk explains the results of the ETS vote last week on the proposed amendment to the Society’s doctrinal basis. In short, 130 members were opposed and 47 were in favor of the amendment. Though the proposal was defeated, Burk is encouraged by what he has seen:

Ray and I [Ray Van Neste and Denny Burk co-sponsored the proposal] are realists. We knew over a year ago that our proposal had very little chance of getting the support of a majority of the ETS, much less of the 80 percent super-majority that is required to amend the doctrinal basis. When the Executive Committee (EC) made clear their intentions to oppose our measure last year, we knew that its passage would be highly unlikely. Nevertheless, we pressed forward with our effort because we thought that there would be something to be gained by soldiering on.

First, we believed that if we pushed forward we might be able to spur the EC on to take this matter up for themselves. It was clear on Friday that we had achieved that goal. After the final business meeting, we were assured that the EC would be taking up this issue to see if there is any significant interest among the membership to clarify the ETS’s evangelical commitments. We are grateful for this result and will support the EC’s efforts in this regard going forward.

Second, we thought it would be good and healthy for the Society to debate the matter publicly and for everyone to get their cards out on the table. I have to say that the two sessions of debate and discussion were some of the most stimulating sessions I have ever been to at ETS. To hear the members speak both for and against was highly instructive. I think we have a much better feel for how different members think about things as a result. Moreover, Ray and I were encouraged that so many distinguished members stood to speak in favor of our proposal: Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, Michael Haykin, John Warwick Montgomery, Robert Saucy, and others. We have the utmost regard for dear brothers who stood to oppose it. ETS needs to be a place where people of good will can debate and disagree without rancor and without fear of recrimination.

Read the whole post for more details.

This question is not simply limited to a church service. It could apply to a presentation, a board meeting, or any situation in which a silent audience is expected. In such an event, how do you open the plastic wrapper on a peppermint, for example, without causing undue distraction? I see at least four options:

1. Gradually unfurl the wrapper, timing each crinkle to match times of greater volume in the speaker’s presentation.
2. Cough very forcefully and loosen the wrapper all in one motion. You will draw attention to yourself, but it will be directed away from your fumbling hands and may even be mingled with some momentary pity.
3. Bank all your hope on the fleeting short-term memory of those around you and get it over with as quickly as you can.
4. Petition candy companies to wrap their products in cloth.

Which do you prefer? Do you have any other ideas?

Thabiti Anyabwile introduces his readers to the traditional African-American style of preaching known as whoopin’. This was really enjoyable to read and watch.

At the Miami Pastors’ Conference, one of the best things to experience is the genuine Christian fellowship and laughter. I laugh there and in Chicago at the New Life conference more than any place on earth. That’s ’cause the bruthas are silly.

This past conference, Ken Jones, Michael Leach, and Anthony Carter grilled a young man about why he feels compelled to whoop. Now whoopin’ is a staple of traditional African-American preaching. If you can’t ‘hoop, you can’t preach. And don’t let Leach fool ya; he’s a ‘hooper :-). Anyway, if you’ve never seen a preacher ‘hoop, it’s better to illustrate than describe. Here’s a video for the uninitiated.

Now what’s new to me in this video is the lady in the corner doing sign language for the hearing impaired. Ever seen a ‘hoop signed??? She’s smooth with it. Check her out as the preacher gets rolling!

I just finished my first full day of ETS yesterday. One of the benefits of convening a whole herd of scholars is that it creates a ripe opportunity for hearing very choice vocabulary words. Here are ten of my favorites so far:

1. Deleterious
2. Recidivist
3. Longitudinal
4. Atomistic
5. Foment
6. Gestalt
7. Intelligentsia
8. Soporific
9. Erudition
10. Cogently

You get ten cool points if you guess which ones were uttered by Al Mohler. I’ll give you a hint: you have a 60% chance of being right.

As best I can tell, there are primarily three types of bloggers:

1. Innovators. These are the really smart and creative folks who have ideas sprouting like dandelions and just pluck one up and give it a puff of digital wind each day.
2. Harvesters. These are the bloggers who drive their combine over the blogosphere every day (or hour) and pass on whatever crops they find to be tasty. Their primary task is pointing to other people’s posts.
3. Personalizers. These are the people who share their lives for anyone who is interested.

I have two observations about these categories:

1. The appeal for each of these types of bloggers is that they save their readers time. The innovator saves the reader from having to think of something creative himself and lets him expend his mental energy critiquing what he reads. The harvester saves the reader search time by giving her a central location to access relevant information. If the harvester is good, the reader may not feel the need to go elsewhere. The personalizer saves the reader from having to call or e-mail to find out what is happening in the blogger’s life. If the reader does not know the blogger personally, he can enjoy following from a distance and commenting when he pleases.
2. Ideally, a blogger should be all three types. This is not a universal necessity, but in general, a blog devoted to innovation should include a dash of harvesting and a dash of personalizing. The same goes for the other two types. Having all three components keeps a blogger interesting (because he doesn’t just repeat what he hears), humble (because he recognizes other people have good ideas), and real (because he doesn’t just sit in front of a computer all day…at least he shouldn’t).