Uri Brito

On October 31, 2014 By Uri Brito In Theology Like

Reformation Myths, Part 2

On the first post, we dealt with two myths. First, the myth that the Reformers did not care about the outward unity of the Church, and second, the myth that the Reformers wanted each individual Christian to read the Bible on his own and interpret the Bible on his own. On this final post, I will offer two additional myths. We cannot detail all the various myths surrounding Reformational theology, but we will be content with these four.

The third myth is that the Reformers invented the idea of predestination. The Reformers certainly taught the idea of predestination, but they certainly did not invent the idea of predestination. Augustine many centuries earlier in response to the heretic, Pelagius, had a very developed theology of predestination. Augustine wrote:

“For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it.”

But beyond that, it was Moses and Paul who first said that God will show mercy on whom He will have mercy. John Calvin’s greatest work is undoubtedly the Institutes of Christian Religion. Evangelicals may get the impression that the only thing Calvin talked about was predestination, when in fact Calvin did not tackle the subject of predestination until the tail end of Book #3 of the Institutes. This means that you have to read more than 900 pages to get to Calvin’s position on predestination, and when you get there, you will find that Calvin talks about predestination in terms of how this truth will comfort us. For Calvin, predestination was a doctrine of comfort, not some ethereal and academic topic. The Reformers believed in predestination because Moses, Jesus, John, Paul believed it exalted the grace of God, so the Reformers taught it with full biblical conviction.

The final myth is that when the Reformers broke from Rome, they broke free from liturgical worship. “True Protestant worship is spontaneous and unconstrained by liturgical forms. Who needs a bulletin? Let’s just follow the Spirit.” This is the general belief of most evangelicals in America– that breaking from Rome is breaking from liturgy. Of course, everyone has a liturgy; some are thought through, others are not. And because of this supposed idea of how a Reformed Church should be, many Protestants have ended up with spontaneous and entertainment-driven worship. But here is the irony of all of this: before the Reformation, the people would gather to be entertained by the Roman Church. Now they were not entertained by skits and praise bands as many do today, rather they were entertained by seeing the priest do his magic. In those days, the priest would take the bread and wine and magically it would be turned into the substance of Christ’s body. But when the magic was done the people themselves did not take the bread and wine; only the priest took the bread and wine. The people just sat there and listened to the priest talk in a language that they did not know. It was a sort of passive entertainment. Do you know how the Reformers reacted to this magical trickery and this passive entertainment offered to the people? The Reformers said: “Enough of this!” “The Reformers rediscovered the biblical truth that the whole congregation is a priesthood called to offer up spiritual sacrifice before God.”

The Reformers insisted that the people together with the minister do the work of worship; that people instead of sitting down passively and watching the trained musicians or the priest do his trick were now going to become themselves living sacrifices unto God. So, instead of only the trained musicians in the choir singing, the Reformers began to take the laity, the common people, and trained them to sing. Luther, of course, was a much better trained musician than most of the Reformers, so he began to compose beautiful music. He began to train the congregation to sing robustly, not like monks, but like warriors. And Calvin, who was not musically gifted, hired a musician to put the psalms into music ^b. So, you see what is happening is that the passive nature of the people in worship, where only the professionals sing–that is in fact still prevalent in our own day– has much more in common with Roman Catholicism than it does with Protestantism. The Reformers wanted the congregation involved in the liturgy: in the singing, confessing, and every other part of worship. Therefore, the Reformers did not abandon the liturgy, they corrected the liturgy of Rome. Instead of only priests and trained singers involved in the church, while the people remain silenced, the Reformers involved the entire congregation in sacred worship.

Many of you who have probably visited a Roman Catholic Church may say, “The modern Roman Catholic church is not like the Catholic Church of the 16^th century.” The modern day Catholic church has services in English and the people sing and the people take the bread and wine every Sunday. Do you know why this is the case? Because many years after the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholics realized that the Reformers were taking over the world and that they were losing the game and so they concluded: “We need to imitate the Protestants.”

It is not uncommon to have someone visit the congregation I pastor in Pensacola and say that our liturgy looks Catholic. But this means that they have bought into a myth. It is not that our liturgy looks Catholic, it is rather that anything that the Catholic Church does that appears in any way similar to what we do at our Church was learned from the Protestant Reformers, not the other way around. Do you think the modern day Protestant understands the Reformation? I would like to think they do. But every time you hear these myths stated remember what really happened. Remember and remind non-Reformed people that the Reformers loved the unity of the Church, they believed strongly that the people should read their Bibles in the context of the church, that the Reformers believed in predestination because the Bible taught predestination, and that the Reformers, not Rome, restored worship to the people.

Why do we celebrate the Reformation? Because the Reformers believed that the ancient paths of Moses and Paul were good paths and that we should walk in them and find rest for our souls.<>поддержание а ucoz

On October 29, 2014 By Uri Brito In Theology Like

Reformation Myths, Part 1

Reformation Sunday is coming! With the popularity of new movements, the Reformed faith has become a familiar furniture in the evangelical house. Still, Reformed theology can be very divisive. Our calling as Christians is to strive towards like-mindedness with the non-Reformed, but this does not mean that we ought to strive towards like-mindlessness. The call to unity is a call for us to dialogue with other Trinitarians with an open Bible and a humble spirit.^a To begin this conversation we need to clear away misunderstandings; to clear away the myths concerning the Reformation. It is my humble opinion that the greatest expression of Trinitarian orthodoxy in the world today is found in the Reformed faith. Explaining precisely what this great tradition desired to do will help us ground ourselves in the Reformation’s conviction that the Scriptures are our highest authority in life.

Critics have developed many myths about the 16^th century Reformation. Ironically, the critics would not have the privilege and liberty to express their criticisms if it had not been for the Reformation. They persist nevertheless. We will examine four of these myths; two now and the others in the days ahead.

The first myth is that the Reformers did not care about the outward unity of the Church.

In Jesus’ high-priestly prayer in John 17, He commands that we be one just as He and the Father are one. But the more astute may say, “But wait a minute: the Reformation did not unite the Church, it actually fractured it greatly.” In some sense it did. However, what one may fail to understand is that Christian unity cannot be rooted in corruption. A corrupt and immoral Church cannot continue to bless the nations. You see, the issue here is not just unity, the issue is uniting around the right things. The Reformers understood this. They understood that unless false doctrine and corruption were dealt with you would have a weak, paralyzed Church incapable of being the salt and light of the earth. The Reformers were so concerned about not dividing the Church that when Rome charged the Reformers with the sin of schism (the sin of division), Calvin called for a Church-wide council, so that both sides could be examined. He wanted another ecumenical council to debate these important issues; perhaps they could come to an agreement and not divide. In fact, Luther—the father of the Reformation—said to Philip Melanchthon before he died that his greatest fear would be that “many harsh and terrible sects will arise, God help us!” The Reformers feared the idea of a divided Church. They wanted to unify the Church but their vision never came to pass. Our hope is that the vision begun in the Reformation will continue in the decades and centuries to come. Still, the Reformation understood that unity is not based on the appointment of an arch-bishop or a pope. Installing an ecclesiastical figure does not bring unity unless purity and true doctrine are at its base. The Reformation was intended to be a reformation of the Church since the Reformers understood that without the Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

The second myth is that the Reformers wanted each individual Christian to read the Bible on his own and interpret the Bible on his own.

Some define this as the priesthood of all believers; that every man was his own priest and interpreter. But this is not what the Reformers meant by the priesthood of all believers. The Reformers did not want individual Christians taking their Bibles home and acting as if they were an authority in and of themselves, and that therefore they needed no one to guide them. On the contrary, the priesthood of the believers for the Reformers meant that all believers had common access to the heavenly throne of grace; that we could act as priests to one another. The Reformers did not mean that instead of having one pope, every Christian would be his own pope! Rather, they wanted the Bible put in the hands of the people so that it could be studied in the context of a community. The Reformers never intended for the people to try to understand the word of God apart from the guidance and teaching ministry of the Church. After all, the Reformers were biblical people and they knew Paul’s words that the Church needs pastors and teachers to equip the saints. This is why they wrote confessions and catechisms for adults and children.

The Reformation did not mean biblical anarchism. In fact, Luther feared that some would disregard the Church once they had their own Bible. Luther feared lack of submission to those in positions of authority in the Church. To those who did not seek the guidance of the Church, Luther had this to say: “If we read the Bible in our own way, we will just go to hell in our own way.” Martin Luther believed as Paul did that God gave ministers and elders to equip the Church in all truth. So, this idea that the Reformers believed that it was every man for himself and that people could come to their own conclusions without the accountability of the Church is a great myth. Theology apart from the Church is anarchism. The Reformers rejected this idea.<>racer mobil

Thanks to my friend, Rich Lusk, for elaborating on these (back)

On September 29, 2014 By Uri Brito In Politics, Theology Like

My Debt to Christian Reconstructionism

I came to Reformed theology through a very different door. While many of my friends were coming to it through the mainline Reformational figures–R.C. Sproul, et al.–I came through the doors of Christian Reconstructionism. I had heard and read Gary North before I ever heard of the popular Calvinist names of John MacArthur and John Piper. The first Gary North article I read as a young college student was on six-day creationism. At the time I felt rather offended by the suggestion. There was a type of dogmatism in Gary’s words that left an impression on me. It was not just that six-day creationism was right, it was that it was needed for all of life. Looking back, I think I am today much more sympathetic to that claim than when I first read it. I now pastor a congregation whose denomination embraces six-day creationism. But it wasn’t that which drew my attention. It was the claim that the Christian faith needed a cohesive, all encompassing paradigm. I was used to separating matters. And the thing about matter is that it is composed of atoms. And atoms are happily atomized. Keeping things distant from each other helped create this divided theology. What hath creation to do with eschatology? I answer this question very differently today because of Christian Reconstructionism.

North was on to something. He still is today publishing vociferously. He is filled with youthful vigor as he writes 2-3 essays a day. The man truly redeems the time. It was through North that I heard about Christian Reconstructionism. A friend of mine from college had been engaged with that movement for some time, and so one day he came into my room and offered me his Christian Recons. collection of journals. I took them all. I still have a few today. Most of them are available on-line for free. CR (Christian Reconstructionism) opened a vast world. In it, there was rich Reformed theology. There was the sovereignty of God topic, usually summarized b y the TULIP, but in the CR world that sovereignty spoke to areas like economics, history, education, and more. I had previously been exposed to the sovereignty of God only over individual salvation. I fought that battle for a while, but eventually gave in. It was too persuasive. Thanks to Michael Horton’s Putting Amazing Back into Grace. ^a But then CR told me that the sovereignty of God needed to be even more prominent in my thinking. How prominent? As prominent as the world. It further taught me that Reformed is not enough. That is, you cannot simply live with your systematic theology tattooed all over your body (metaphorically speaking), but you needed it tattooed all over the world. The law of God needed to be more than a reminder of an objective standard, but a reality lived out by the nations.

In short, CR’s emphasis on the totality of Jesus for all of life consumed me. It still does to this day. Differences aside–and I do have concerns; concerns with how that theology is articulated and pastorally communicated within the vestiges of this movement–the CR movement opened the world to me. I had been isolated for a long time. My denominational loyalties kept me imprisoned to a narrow view of life that lacked beauty and didn’t translate into much tangible fruit. But with CR, I was always struck by how much a small movement had produced. The movement was not new per se. It came from a long line of thinkers. Calvin embraced some of it in his Deuteronomy Commentary–though at other places he seems to contradict himself; I do have a theory as to why–ask me–Bucer spoke unabashedly about theocratic principles, the Puritans thought that the Gospel needed to be far more than a heart declaration, but a declaration that needed to affect its environment in tangible ways.

As the years have passed, I’ve had the privilege to meet many of these modern Reconstructionists, though I never met R.J. Rushdoony. My admiration continues for many of their insights. And many of those insights seem to be even more relevant today as this nation continues to entangle itself morally, socially, and in other ways in a fashion that belittles its glorious Puritan heritage.

CR led me to where I am today. It taught me to see the world in a more wholistic fashion. It taught me to appreciate elements of this world that I never thought would interest me. Paul says we are to give honor where honor is due. As I get a bit older and reflect upon my last 15 years of theological engagement I become more grateful for those early influences. I am learning not to despise them, despite some differences. I am learning to appreciate their incredible hard work in doing, saying, writing, and speaking ideas that were and are so contrary to the current evangelical ethos.

With this in mind, I’d like to offer five Reconstructionist principles that have helped me to think more biblically and that have shaped me today. Many outside of the CR movement may share these same ideas, but they were and are very central to Reconstructionist ideals. And yes, I am aware that CRs differ on a host of issues.

First, I am indebted to the labors of James B. Jordan ^b who taught me to think about the world through new eyes. Jim has always emphasized a healthy biblicism. He argues that the reason so many in the evangelical world fail to understand the implications of the Bible is because they suffer from a flawed hermeneutic. They have atomized revelation because they have failed to see the thread that runs through all of Scriptures. JBJ says that God’s revelation is not a piece of literature, it is God’s word, which means that it is layered with great mysteries that only the wise can see. Jim argues for the lunacy of unbelief. The reason unbelievers cannot understand the Bible is because without the Bible they are profoundly insane. It’s not that they can’t understand truth nor that they are incapable of saying anything true, but rather that they are theologically insane, and hence incapable of coherently formulating or speaking harmoniously truthful about the world.

Second, I am indebted to Gary North’s principles of economics. Though he has written so much about capitalism and its implications in society, I am more interested in his economic focus for the Church. His writings on tithing and its implication for the Church have shaped my understanding of the centrality of the Church. North argued that the Church is the center of charity.

Third, I am indebted to Rushdoony’s powerful expositions on the nature of education and the necessity of a distinctly Christian understanding of the Lordship of Jesus over the training and nurturing of our children (Deut. 6). Rushdoony says that education is inescapably messianic. Your children are either being nurtured by the true Messiah or a false one.

Fourth, I am indebted to Greg Bahnsen’s powerful ways of communicating Van Til’s apologetic. Were it not for Bahnsen’s popularizing of Van Til, Van Til would have remained a figure at Westminter Seminary’s archives. I know that some have continued Van Til’s legacy without the help of CR, but what was unique about Bahnsen’s popularizing of Van Til was that he saw Van Til’s model of “no neutrality” applying to a host of issues, beyond the apologetics methodology debate.

Finally, I am indebted to Gary Demar’s American Vision ministries (I should add the late David Chilton). It was through Gary’s book, Last Days Madness, that I was awakened to the flaws of Dispensational theology and the richness of Preterism. Gary has dedicated much of his career to awakening the evangelical mind to an alternative eschatology. His words have not gone unheeded. Many have begun to question their understanding of Revelation, and adopting a more consistent biblical method for understanding that glorious book.

For these reasons, and I am certain many others could be mentioned, I am indebted to Christian Reconstructionism. Reformed Theology has been enriched by the contributions of these scholars.<>продвижение а план

The irony here is that Horton is decidedly anti-Reconstructionist (back)
some of these figures like James Jordan are no longer a part of that movement, though he was a very influential figure in it in the early days (back)

On September 19, 2014 By Uri Brito In Family and Children Like

About Killing Dragons

We were chatting about something. It was common. But then he brought out the uncommon. “Daddy, I’ve never killed a dragon. Have you?” It caught me by surprise. I wish I had a handy answer for that one. I looked at him for a second and pondered what was going through his mind. It was so honest and pure. One of those out-of-the-mouths-of-babe moments. “I have never killed one, but I know who did,” I answered. “Who?” he asked enthusiastically. “Jesus.” I know as a trained theologian that when in doubt Jesus is the answer. And what an answer He is. I told my son about that old Serpent, Satan, who abandoned heavenly glory because of his deception. I told him that this dragon is the father of lies and how he loves to draw children’s hearts away from God. I told him that this dragon wanted glory for himself.

“Does he know how to fight? Does the dragon know how to hurt Jesus?” “He does. He certainly does,” I answered. I was now willing to develop this a bit. It doesn’t take long to get a preacher going. I said that the dragon/serpent knows how to grieve our Lord when he draws away those whom God created. He is a liar. So, when we lie we are being bad representatives of Jesus. Does the dragon fight? Yes, he does. He fights like a coward. He would love to shoot people on the back without having to look at them in the face. “Well, will he hurt us?” “No, he will not. Because Jesus also knows how to fight.” Now, I’ve reached common ground with Batman’s greatest fan. Every child is invested in hero admiration. He wants to be a hero, but more importantly, he wants to be on the side of the hero who wins.

“Did they ever fight?”

“Did they ever?” This is where I got really creative and probably a little too creative for his comprehension. But biblical narratives are powerful little things.

God had promised many centuries earlier that Jesus would bruise Satan’s head, and that Satan would bruise Jesus’ heel. It was a big, cosmic fight. The dragon thought he had the upper hand, so he tried for centuries to kill off the seed of the woman. He kept women barren and killed little infants by using wicked men to do his bidding.

But it was hopeless for him. God had promised and when he promises something it will happen.

There was a story about a little boy named David. We had read that story many times. The kids love to hear about the giant’s–the dragon’s–taunting of the people of God and how David took courage to fight on behalf of God’s people and not let the name of God be corrupted. That crazy, gigantic, dragon/creature was a little Satan. He loved to mock God’s people just like the dragon. But God will have none of it. His name will not be mocked. He send Davids and new Davids to defend His Name. And at the right time, He sent the final David. “Jesus?” he inquired. “Yes, Jesus!” He will defeat His enemies and not allow God’s Name to be mocked. That same Jesus will kill the dragon. He will crush the dragon’s head. He will protect and defend His father’s name and He will protect us, his children. And we are His children.

“Will the dragon ever come to our house?” “No!” I said emphatically, but not too emphatically for fear of waking up his little brother. God put the dragon in a big hole. “Will he ever come out?” “Yes, in the great eschaton he will come out, but for a short while before He will be crushed again for ever (Don’t worry. I didn’t use the word eschaton).”

He was concerned that the dragon would pay us a visit. So, I made that question worth it. “The dragon,” I said, “will never pay us a visit.” That old serpent looks around and sees all the homes that are baptized with Jesus’ Spirit. “Are you baptized?” “Yes, remember, daddy?” “Of course, I remember!” It was a wonderful day for our whole family. Do not fear that the devil will get you. Jesus is in our house and in us protecting us from harm. We are baptized with His Spirit and the dragon fears Spirit-indwelt-people. But there is one lesson for us. Just like we don’t go near a barking dog, neither should we go near the dragon. We should always stay away from him.

I could tell the conversation was getting long and the information was getting heavy. It was wonderful to see him thinking through these issues. He said he didn’t want to tell his siblings the story for fear that they would be scared. “Maybe we can tell them together.” He was satisfied with that answer.

No, I never killed a dragon. But I know who did.<>anonymizer-vkontakte проверить тиц и pr

On September 2, 2014 By Uri Brito In Books, Interviews Like

Interview with David Koyzis on Authority, Office, and the Image of God

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (22.2MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | RSS

This book argues that authority cannot be identified with mere power, is not to be played off against freedom, and is not a mere social construction. Rather it is resident in an office given us by God himself at creation. This central office is in turn dispersed into a variety of offices relevant to our different life activities in a wide array of communal settings. Far from being a conservative bromide, the call to respect authority is foundational to respect for humanity itself.<>

On September 1, 2014 By Uri Brito In Books 2

Should Reformed People Read N.T. Wright?

It doesn’t happen quite often, but once in a while when I recommend a book or a quote by N.T. Wright on facebook, I will receive a question that goes something like this:

“Do you approve of N.T. Wright? Do you think it’s fruitful to endorse N.T. Wright? Or don’t you know that N.T. denies Justification by faith alone?”

I addressed the first question on facebook and I thought I’d make it available here. My response goes like this:

I think the question ought to be more nuanced. In other words, humans and their ideas, especially new humans recreated by God, ought to be analyzed more carefully and charitably. As a pastor I recommend Wright to my parishioners with the same enthusiasm I would recommend C.S. Lewis, Schmemann, and Martin Luther. I have disagreements with all of them, but charity allows me to communicate with these great thinkers and gain from what they offer, while expressing sometimes strong disagreements on some of their contributions.

Yes, Reformed people, in fact, Christians of all stripes should read Professor Wright. His profound insights, his vision for a renewed humanity in Christ, his invaluable defense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and his commitment to the historical, Biblical Jesus make him one of the most gifted teachers and scholars of our time and The Jesus Seminar’s worst nightmare.

But what about justification? Shouldn’t we stand for the principal article of the Church? And by standing shouldn’t we reject anyone who denies it?

First, N.T. Wright has written and clarified many of his statements. He stated again and again that he does not deny justification by faith alone. I take him at his word. But hasn’t he been unclear? To those who think so, he will always be. I and many others find Wright’s overall project to be fruitful, despite having disagreements with him at points. I find Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s humorous, but yet serious points on the Wright vs. Piper debate to be very helpful, and from what I hear from reliable sources, Wright agrees and finds Vanhoozer’s attempt to bridge the two paradigms extremely beneficial.

Secondly, the Reformation did not settle every issue. There are contemporary issues that still must be handled within our context. The Reformers did not exhaust the fullness of justification. There is indeed a robustly corporate view of justification that the Reformers–rightly preoccupied with Romish theological abuse–simply did not address explicitly in the 16th century. In this sense, Wright needs to be read and listened to attentively.

Thirdly, when one poses the question of whether we should eliminate such an author from our library because he is wrong on an issue, no matter how important the issue may be, he is betraying the charitable nature of the Christian vision and our personal libraries. Of course, he may choose to avoid Wright, and other authors who also had some questionable theological presuppositions (like C.S. Lewis), but his theological vision will be narrow, and his ability to articulate a vision of the world will stop at the wardrobe (to borrow from Lewis). Those of us who appreciate Wright prefer to open the wardrobe and see Narnia in all its beauty.

Finally, the West’s over-emphasis on the individual is tragic. The individual matters, but Adam himself knew that the individual is not alone. Just as the Trinity is not alone, so too man needs to be a part of something greater. “Community” is not just a buzzword no matter how often hipster Christian groups use it. In its biblical sense, community is the essence of the Christian experience. Paul’s vision was highly ecclesiastical. The individual who divorces from the community loses his ability to be truly human. He breathes and eats as a human, but his breathing and eating desecrates God’s intention to incorporate him into a multitude. N.T. Wright offers immeasurable contributions on this subject.

Naturally, there is the possibility of over-emphasizing community, but that hardly seems to be the problem in our day. The reality is if you stress the community you get the individual, if you stress the individual you don’t get the community.

Should we read N.T. Wright? Yes. Read him often with the eyes of discernment. But again, discernment is the Christian’s best friend in any human activity.<>site

On July 29, 2014 By Uri Brito In Scribblings Like

Richard Dawkins’ World

Eleanor Robertson dismantles the silly declarations of Richard Dawkins. In her Guardian piece, she traces the maniacal assertions of a man who is “so convinced of his intellectual superiority that he believes the one domain in which he happens to be an expert, science, is the only legitimate way of acquiring or assessing knowledge.” Dawkins builds an entire empire of assertions and trashes anyone who dare confront his scientific appeal. He speaks of the profane and then treats those who view his rants as the indecency of a lunatic as absolutists.

A recent example of this comes from the famous tweets of the All-Learned and Blessed One:

Another day, another tweet from Richard Dawkins proving that if non-conscious material is given enough time, it is capable of evolving into an obstreperous crackpot who should have retired from public speech when he had the chance to bow out before embarrassing himself.

“Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse,” huffs Dawkins. Seeming to have anticipated, although not understood, the feminist reaction this kind of sentiment generally evokes, he finishes the tweet: “If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”

Suffice to note in this great degree of indecent, inappropriate, and insensitive analogy-twisting is that for Dawkins the concept of evil and greater evil exists. But how does the world of an atheist make sense of any type of evil? Where is the fountain of morality?

Dawkins is truly a crackpot. His hubris has bewitched him. His analogies are grotesque. There is no “worse” in Dawkins’ narrative. There is only unexplained choices, which stem from a non-purposeful universe; the world Dawkins obviously wants us to know he is its intellectual ruler. O, hail, ruler of the absurd!<>войти в гугл адвордс

On May 31, 2014 By Uri Brito In Politics Like

Ten Years of Blogging!

Ten years ago I started this little known project called blogging. Before that I used Geocities. Not many of you have heard of Geocities. It was the 90’s webpage builder. Yahoo shut down Geocities’ U.S. service back in 2009. Now, it is just a distant memory. Back in 2004, as I was starting my time at RTS/Orlando, I deleted my Geocities page and started a blog using blogspot. In 2006, I transferred all my data to a free wordpress account. In 2013, I bought my own domain, uribrito.com.

Today marks my ten year blogging anniversary! No cake. No party. Just a reminder that I have been writing for a long time. When I started in 2004 few people knew about blogging. A small social networking service launched in February 2004 known as Facebook had only recently made its debut. And from what I remember, it was meant only for Harvard students at the time. Now, as of the 3rd of October 2013, there were 500 million people with a Facebook account. Much of today’s blogging has been replaced by Facebook status updates and links to other websites. I even heard someone recently tell me that they get all their major links to news reports from Facebook. Still, my perspective has been that blogging provides a valuable resource to express fuller thoughts and also the opportunity to be more precise in your argument and thought. ^a

I have posted almost 4,000 posts in these last ten years. Here are five lessons I have learned:

First, writing is hard. Sitting down to write something that is more than the mere fluff you get in most places can be rather challenging. This is one reason thousands and thousands of people have blog pages that have been untouched in years. Blogging demands perseverance.

Second, blogging can get you in trouble. In the height of my zealous years as a seminarian, I thrived in writing about controversial topics. Sometimes they were so controversial that it attracted the attention of well-known scholars who would chastise me for such foolishness. I took their critiques as validation of what I was saying. I should have listened to them, but instead I was more concerned with the number of hits my post had.

Third, the best writing I’ve done has been peer-reviewed. I do not consider myself a great writer, but I have lots of ideas. I am well-read and have two degrees in theology. All that is proof that I should have a few things to say that are at least appealing to some. But, though one may have good ideas to discuss, he needs to express those ideas is readable and grammatically accurate way. Nothing is more distressing to readers than sloppy writing. It hinders good ideas from being communicated powerfully and effectively. As a result, I have developed a two-step process for publishing pieces over 1,000 words. First, I edit and re-edit my work. Secondly, I send it to two friends who have some gifts in the art of writing. After they send me back their thoughts, only then do I publish my material. This has proven to be highly successful. As as result I have edited a book, written another, and have published articles in well-known Christian websites. In summary, writing is communal. ^b

Fourth, writing is public. One of the main reasons I write is for the sake of others. Everything I write is so that others may find interest or help in something I am engaged in. I find the idea of reading or writing for self-pleasure difficult to understand. Of course, like anything, most initial forays into writing need to be kept away from the reading public until they reach a level of maturation. But there is also great pleasure in allowing others to enter into my reading and writing journey. Blogging has allowed me to invite others into my life.

Finally, blogging can lead to humility. I know certain bloggers use their writing as platform for their arrogant rants and vitriol. In my case, even with all the help I have received, I still make remarkable mistakes in my writing. And I am quite aware of that. In my mind, my ideas come out harmoniously, but when others read them, they lack the coherence I thought they had. ^c Those who have left comments over the years have encouraged me greatly to improve my communication in writing. Instead of reacting as if they have no sense of what they are talking about, I am always seeking to first consider my intentions for writing, how to better communicate my writing, and how to honor those who have taken the time to read my blog when there are millions more they could have been reading. So, thanks to all my readers. You are not many, but you have humbled me in many ways.

Here’s to another ten years!<>

and it has that little feature called a “footnote” (back)
I have also applied this method to all my sermon writing (back)
see #4 (back)

On May 28, 2014 By Uri Brito In Theology Like

How Helpful Are Analogies of the Trinity?

All analogies fall short. They can be enormously helpful at times, but sometimes we need to simply acknowledge that analogies are always limited. They help communicate profound truths in simple terms, but they may at times take us a bit too far and actually undo the intention of the analogy itself. ^a This is what happens when evangelicals use a variety of analogies to explain the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Trinity, Michael Bird, explains, “is not an esoteric doctrine forged in an unholy marriage of Greek metaphysical speculation and dodgy biblical interpretation.” ^b Our experience of God is not unitarian or tritheistic, but can only be true if it is Trinitarian. So, a biblical expression of the Trinity is essential.

We live in a day where Trinitarian religion in all its historical beauty has been lost in a sea of trivial statements about God. God, Three and One and One and Three, has become merely a side note in theological pursuit. As one pastor recently told me, “We do not need to talk about the Trinity to our people. It is too complex for them.” The Trinity is arguably the central doctrine that differentiates the Christian faith from other religious traditions like Islam and Judaism. Modern attempts to reconcile these traditions to the Christian faith is ultimately impossible. God is Three and One. He is Oneness and Community. Ancient heresies like Modalism, which teach that each person of the Trinity is merely a “mode of God’s activity as opposed to a distinct and independent person” is by and large the position of Oneness Pentecostals. Yet, most evangelicals view them as just another branch of the orthodox Church.

The nature of the Father, Son, and Spirit have never been more detached from the work of doing theology in our day. As a result of this neglect, modern Christians have attempted to re-energize the idea of the “forgotten Trinity” by providing analogies. These analogies are meant as simple illustrations. They attempt to do with simplicity what the Early Church sought to do with tremendous care and heavy qualifications.

Though the popular illustrations add a little more clarity, they end up confusing the Trinity with other heresies. S. Michael Houdmann offers a few examples:

The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, ^c but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God.

Some have attributed these analogies to St. Patrick of Ireland. ^d The supposed bad analogies of Patrick was put into a comical conversation between St. Patrick and two simple men inquiring about the Trinity:

To put it simply, “The problem with using analogies to explain the Holy Trinity is that you always end up confessing some ancient heresy.”

I have found that analogies of the Trinity are a normal reaction from Christians who find themselves defensive about a complicated doctrine. But Christians ought not be defensive about such a lovely description of our God. God is not meant to be intricately analyzed like an ancient fossil, but to be adored. Any explanation of His Nature ought to be done carefully and with the qualifications the Bible provides. ^e God is. And that is where we must start. In the words of Fred Sanders:

Trinitarianism is the encompassing framework within which all Christian thought takes place and within which Christian confession finds its grounding presuppositions. ^f

The Trinity is the necessary paradigm for all thinking. It is the beginning and the end of human thought. The Trinity is mysterious, because God is infinitely powerful and beyond human reasoning. In the end, we ought to catechize, biblicize those under our care with great care when we speak of who God is. In a nutshell, we can affirm the following essential elements concerning our Triune God:

First, the unity of one God in three persons.

Second, the eternity of the three persons.

Third, the shared and equal deity of the three persons.

Fourth, the shared and equal essence of the three persons.

Fifth, the Trinity includes distinction in roles and relationships within the Godhead.

Finally, the Trinity will always be an ineffable mystery.

In the end, the Trinity ought to lead us to worship as Isaiah did in Isaiah 6. And in that worship, we ought to imitate the seraphim who continually sing, “Holy, Holy, Holy.”<> ы женской тематики

For a history of “analogy,” see this (back)
Bird, Michael. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, pg. 92 (back)
No heresy is better than the other (back)
This claim is debated: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17724/did-saint-patrick-actually-explain-the-trinity-using-a-shamrock (back)
Analogies like Marriage and community are actually helpful ways to begin to understand the divine Trinity (back)
Quoted in Bird’s Evangelical Theology, pg. 124 (back)

On April 26, 2014 By Uri Brito In Family and Children Like

Love for the Mundane

It’s Saturday! In our household that means a little more sleep. We treasure those 30 minutes. In college, time was on our side. Naps were luxuries we took for granted. Now here we are: ten years have passed and three children later (one more on the way). Time matters a whole lot! The children are consistent early-risers. They are punctual little creatures. They love time. They love it so much that even without an alarm clock they detect that 6AM is coming. I am not fully awake, but I can hear them coming. Sometimes they come silently. Sometimes they come like hungry warriors. But they come…consistently. My lovely wife makes the first move. She is more courageous than I am that early. She does it without flinching. “What a mom,” I utter as I zombie my way back to sleep. Breakfast is ready. Children are fed. Sometimes the beach is a fine option. But the evening is reserved; an early Sabbath.

We begin our preparation for worship. Sunday mornings with three little ones can be a challenge. We try to go to bed relatively early. We usually make no Saturday appointments. Saturday evening is sacred in that we prepare ourselves for the sacred gathering. It is almost a ritual for us. Ironing and showers are constant activities. If we are hosting, it demands extra effort from our team. My oldest child unloads the dishwasher. My second child wants to do everything my oldest child does, which can be both entertaining and frightening to watch. My third child laughs, tumbles, and laughs some more. Preparation is key. And we begin the preparation early. Sunday morning arrives.

The man of the house is also the pastor of the Church. He begins to prepare himself psychologically for the events of the day. Sermon notes run through his mind; mental editing begins and really never stops until he begins preaching. He begins to hum through the psalms and hymns. Sunday mornings are created equal. It is always hard work. “Is the beer in the fridge for the guests?” “Are the floors clean?” “Are the plates set?” “We need to leave in the next ten minutes!” The excitement builds. We love Church. We prepare for it. But with little children nothing is easy. Mommy prepares herself. She makes sure that her war tools are ready: Diapers: check. Milk: check. Snacks: check. “I think we are ready!” She has her army under control. “Where are my clerical collars?” I ask. I have so many of them, but they never seem to be in the same place they were seven days ago. It’s naive of me to think they will be. But that is my liturgical pattern every Sunday.

It would be lovely to be a wizard. “A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to.” ^a But that’s not how it works for pastors and their families. “Children, what day is today?” “The Lord’s Day!” “What do we do today?” “We worship God and sing His praises.” Yes, we do all these things, but it’s been a long journey until that moment. We died in one hundred different ways during the week, so we can be brought to life on the day of Resurrection. “Live the liturgy,” says the preacher. We are trying. It’s extremely challenging. It’s really very sanctifying. It’s holy work. Yes, it is.<>