Greg Boyd on the Nephilim:

If we take the narratives seriously, we can't deny there were some incredibly large people (and grapes!) in the land of Canaan.

N. T. Wright on heaven:

Our culture is very interested in life after death, but the New Testament is much more interested in what I've called the life after life after death — in the ultimate resurrection into the new heavens and the new Earth. Jesus' resurrection marks the beginning of a restoration that he will complete upon his return. Part of this will be the resurrection of all the dead, who will "awake," be embodied and participate in the renewal. John Polkinghorne, a physicist and a priest, has put it this way: "God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves." That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom.

Read the whole thing.

(HT: evangelical outpost)

Should Christians apologize to Muslims for the Crusades? Nathan Bradfield, citing Al Mohler and a few others, doesn't think so.

I say it's worth a bit more thought.

Owen Strachan begins exploring a theology of ambition:

Christians have always struggled with the tendency to pit prayer and meditation on Scripture against action. Those who do so always lose. If we emphasize prayer to the detriment of action, we overspiritualize life and become passive. If we emphasize action to the detriment of prayer, we live as practical atheists. Neither option is sound, and both will lead to a damaged way of life. Far better to couple prayer with action, to bathe action in prayer, and so to live in a combination of trust and dependence.

The iMonk on the problem with real Christians:

So it is with being a Christian. I am one. I want to be one. I’m deeply aware of how often I’m not one. Simul justus et peccator and several other things.

A blogger poses the question - Who would Jesus bomb? - and pretty much gives the standard answer: the bad guys.

Christians through the centuries have avoided both pacifism and militarism: holding to a "just war" concept that killing is never good but is sometimes best.

"Never good, but sometimes best." Just think about that for awhile.

(HT: Kingdom People)

Ben Witherington: Is God a narcissist?

God it would appear is not merely a glory grabber, but rather a glory giver.

HT: Michael Spencer

A recent interview of N. T. Wright, conducted by Trevin Wax.

Tim Challies and Michael Spencer weigh in on Joel Osteen's new book and recent spot on 60 Minutes.

Osteen is a Gospel preacher like Col. Sanders is an army officer.

UPDATE: A podcast from Spencer.

Michael Spencer is excited about the new ESV Literary Study Bible. [amazon] My thinline has even fewer frills, dispensing with the book and chapter introductions.

A new blog, or "online journal", as they're calling it, from the C. S. Lewis foundation. Looks pretty good so far. (HT: The Wardrobe Door)

Trevin Wax shares his past experience with and present feelings about eschatology. Some days I think Trevin and I were separated at birth, except that he's about 6 years older than I am. In any case, I'm in a very similar place on this topic.

What I do know, though, about Revelation is that the focus of the book is not ultimately a “theology of the end times” designed to fascinate us with details we can chart on a map. The focus of the book is on the unveiling of Christ and his bride. Read Revelation to find out about the end of the world and you might miss Christ - the center and focus of all Bible prophecy.

Maybe one day I will better understand Revelation. Until then, I’m satisfied to leave the eschatological speculation to the pro’s. Better yet, I’m going to keep my eyes on Jesus - the One who is coming soon.

Here's an excellent post from Michael Spencer about his personal perspective on Catholicism. It defies excerpting, so if the issue interests you, read the whole thing.

Another one of those "ouch-that's-me" posts from Cerulean Sanctum. Thanks Dan.

Here's a pretty good roundup on "Being a Missional Church" from Said@Southern. As usual, I'm the little snotty-nosed kid tagging along behind.

A TIME Magazine article about the spiritual struggles of Mother Theresa has sparked some discussion in the blogosphere about what it means to "practice the presence of God." Here's some thoughtful, honest posts from Michael Spencer and Dan Edelen - both definitely worth reading. Also see MercatorNet.

Andrew Osenga responds to an article branding Caedmon's Call as determinist. Good job, Andy, and extra points for invoking Chesterton.

The chorus of the song you referenced contains that Scripture “He makes all things good.” Either we believe that’s true, because He said it, or we believe it’s not. If it’s not, not only is God not powerful, but He’s a liar, and He’s not that good.

It’s just like believing that God became a man, woke up after death and somehow freed me from the consequences of my sin. The Church is built on believing in things that don’t always make a lot of sense.

A new podcast series from Michael Spencer examining Lewis's approach to apologetics in Mere Christianity.

CNN recently aired a documentary series entitled God's Warriors, in which they explored the agendas of fundamentalist/militant factions within Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. I didn't see it, but it looks like it was fascinating - and more than a little controversial. Here's some commentary from the evangelical outpost, some blustery indignation from The Northern Gleaner, and some good thoughts from Greg Boyd here and here. (Greg Boyd actually made it into the documentary. To see his segment, go to this page, click on "Christianity," and then click "Video Diary: Politics and Faith." Go Greg!)

This post by Joe Carter on the history of atheistic philosophy is pretty good, mainly because he manages to quote Chesterton twice.

Where do the New Atheists get this silly notion that they are heirs of the Enlightenment? ... The rationalists of the Enlightenment era were able to trust in reason precisely because they were theists or deists and believed in a transcendent, rational God. To think otherwise was considered, as the philosophers often noted, the height of absurdity.