It was neat to see that Impact/Houston Church of Christ made the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, complete with one of those WSJ-type portraits of Charlie Middlebrook. Page A10 includes a photo of the offices at Impact.
I'm impressed at how well those folks are handling the challenges associated with responding to the needs of hurting people. It reminds me of 3 John 6, where the writer encourages Gaius to take care of missionaries "in a manner worthy of God." Apparently, that phrase well describes the ways of Impact.
Lord, please give them strength and success!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ever since the President weighed in on the question of teaching intelligent-design theory along with Darwinism in our public schools (he said we should), the New York Times has been on a veritable rampage.
As one would guess, in the Times the dominant theory is considered fact, while the challenger is characterized as void of any scientific backing, "intellegent design" being nothing more than code language for "God." No surprise here.
What gets to me is the tired notion, repeated ad nauseum in the letters section, that science and theology really treat different subjects and should, therefore, be kept separate. For example, one self-described "retired minister" writes:
"Scientists and theologians both make significant contributions to human knowledge. But getting them mixed up creates confusion of the worst possible kind.
"Let scientists do science and theologians theology. And let them stay out of each other's hair!"
Compare such drivel to something Wolfhart Pannenberg wrote 42 years ago:
"A theology that remains conscious of the intellectual obligation that goes along with the use of the word 'God' will try in every possible way to relate all truth, and therefore not least of all the knowledge of the extra-theological sciences, to the God of the Bible, and to attain a new understanding of everything by viewing it in the light of this God. That task might seem presumptuous, but it is the non-transferable burden laid upon any responsible speech about God.
" . . . it seems misleading to me to suppose that theology would be closer to its own 'essential content' when it falls back upon a separate province of divine revelations and becomes one science alongside others, . . . Such a concept of theology might have its advantages for the peaceful coexistence of theology with the other faculties of the university. But the universality connected with the idea of God thereby falls into oblivion, and a betrayal of the first commandment threatens to occur in theological thought at this point, concealed by sweet-sounding assurances about theology concentrating on its distinctive tasks."