NIKE SPORTSWEAR got together with Beautiful Losers for "MAKE SOMETHING!!," a series of community and youth-oriented creative workshops in NY, LA and SF. The workshops will be hosted by artists from the Beautiful Losers documentary; Ed Templeton, Tobin Yelland, Geoff McFetridge, Shepard Fairey, Mike Mills, Todd James, Cheryl Dunn, Kaws, Mr. Cartoon and Aaron Rose.

“Nike and Beautiful Losers share the belief that if you believe in something, then you should make it, regardless if people tell you that you can’t.”

-Aaron Rose

The inspiration for the shoes came from "the Beautiful Losers film documentary and pulled frame stills of what we felt were key moments in the narrative. We used these moments to tell the Beautiful Losers story using the shoes as a medium, with the end result being a collection of works of art.” said Aaron Rose. Which is an interesting concept, very different and artsy, the dunk becomes the canvas.

“When we decided on the concept of using frame stills from the film, we identified an innovative digital printing technique to create this special collection...There are 22 Nike Dunk Hi shoes each telling a different part of the Beautiful Losers story.” 

Jesse Leyva, Nike Sportswear Design Director 

For complete article visit SNEAKERFREAKER

Beautiful Losers celebrates the spirit behind one of the most influential cultural movements of a generation. In the early 1990's a loose-knit group of likeminded outsiders found common ground at a little NYC storefront gallery. Rooted in the DIY (do-it-yourself) subcultures of skateboarding, surf, punk, hip hop & graffiti, they made art that reflected the lifestyles they led. Developing their craft with almost no influence from the "establishment" art world, this group, and the subcultures they sprang from, have now become a movement that has been transforming pop culture. Starring a selection of artists who are considered leaders within this culture, Beautiful Losers focuses on the telling of personal stories...speaking to themes of what happens when the outside becomes "in" as it explores the creative ethos connecting these artists and today's youth.

Interviews, progress, artworks... by Barry Mcgee, OBEY,  Ed Templeton, Mike Mills, Thomas Campbell,  Jo Jackson, REAS....and more...

check out the trailer, its gonna be on DVD sometimes soon.

On the Academic page.....

In 1994 I gave the inagural lecture for the Restoration Theological Research Fellowship at the Society of Biblical Literature. It was titled "What Did Christ's Sacrifice Accomplish? Atonement in Early Restoration Thought." It surveys the different atonement theories of Alexander Campbell (as well as Thomas Campbell), Barton W. Stone and Walter Scott. It then picks up the theories that emerged as dominant in the middle and late nineteenth century (including the views of J. W. McGarvey, Robert Milligan, Hiram Christopher, Thomas Munnell among others). I conclude that while penal substitution was a common notion within our history, we have a diverse history of understanding of the atonement (including moral and governmental theories). Ultimately, the SCM--especially Churches of Christ--settled for emphasizing the fact of the atonement without trying to explain (or perhaps even understand) the atonement.

In 1999 I offered a response to a presentation by Doug Foster on Stone-Campbell Christology for the Restoration Theological Research Fellowship at SBL. I suggest that our Christological story line has moved from a search for doctrinal unity in the midst of competing Christologies--a unity which was rooted in the use of biblical language rather then theological consensus--to the full embrace of a Trinitarian incarnational theology that focuses on the ethical life. We have learned from our heritage not to get overheated in speculation and we have learned from others the importance of an incarnational theology for the Christian life. Perhaps we can maintain the biblical confession that Jesus, the Messiah, is the Son of God as our common faith while at the same time reflecting theologically on the meaning of that confession for our understanding of God and ethics.

On the General Materials page....

I was asked to provide an article on the atonement for the festschrift in honor of Dr. Harold Hazelip (entitled Theology Matters, edited by Mark Black, Gary Holloway and Randy Harris) whose service in education among Churches of Christ has been exemplary. He was at one time Dean of Harding University Graduate School of Religion and then President of Lipscomb University. I entitled my contribution "What Did God Do to Sin and Death through Jesus Christ?" While recognizing that other dimensions of the atonement are necessary to a full understanding, I offer a particular perspective on the "just and justifier" dimension of the cross. God himself removed sin from his people through Jesus Christ, God identified himself with sinners in Jesus Christ, God substituted himself for sinners in Jesus Christ, and God satisfied himself in Jesus Christ. The atonement was, in part, the self-substitution of God for our sakes. But resurrection is also part of the atoning work of God in Jesus. Our resurrection with Jesus is the presence of God's transforming Spirit in our hearts, our resurrection with Jesus transforms our experience of death, and our resurrection with Jesus in our "spiritual" bodies enables full communion with God in the eschaton. The death and resurrection of Jesus are two of God's mighty acts of reconciliation (we should add incarnation, ministry and ascension as well). The cross is God's self-humiliating participation in human suffering in order to substitute himself for the sake of his own self-satisfaction. The resurrection is God's justification of Jesus through which we presently experience the powre of a sancfified life, live with hope in the face of death and expect our full sanctification by God's Spirit in the eschaton. Atonement destroys sin and restores life.

I have uploaded a chart that I often use in discussing the atonement with students in my systematic classes. I hope it makes sense, but perhaps it is too bare bones to be helpful. Maybe I will have opportunity in the future to explain it a bit more. Essentially, it recognizes that atonement is a broad concept that involves the act of God in incarnation to unite God and humanity (e.g., the union of immortality with mortality in sublime fellowship), the act of God in the ministry of Jesus to destroy evil and reverse the curse, the act of God at the cross to defeat the powers of evil, the justification of God and humanity at the cross as the reconciling work of divine love, and moral example of God in Jesus to define human life as it was intended to be lived (the true image of God).

At the bottom of the chart is another way of picturing the theories of atonement--dynamic, subjective or obejctive. Dynamic refers to the act of God to confront the hostile elements in order to defeat them (God does something to sin, evil, etc.). Subjective refers to the act of God within the human soul to transform us (God does something to us). Objective refers to the act of God to set the cosmos right by maintaining his own justice but at the same time expressing his love--which he does through self-substitution and self-satisfaction (God does something within himself).

And so my quest to make materials available continues....I hope someone finds them useful. :-)

Thomas Campbell filme le surf en 16 mm, cela devient rare. Le trailer de son dernier film, The Present, est de toute beauté. A voir et à revoir et à revoir et à revoir et à revoir... sur son site.

History

The Regulative Principle was first announced by John Calvin and represents his approach to purifying the church from various Catholic additions that had accreted over the 1,500 years of Christianity preceding Calvin's work.

In Calvin's teaching, it's really the "Regulative Principle of Worship," as he only applied it to the doctrine of worship. However, others came to apply it to church organization, such as James Henry Thornwell in 1841-2, part of the Old School Presbyterian Church. Even the Puritans and other strict, old-school Calvinists saw the dangers of expanding the rule to include all of Christianity.

Thomas and Alexander Campbell

In the Restoration Movement, many trace the Regulative Principle back to Thomas Campbell's dictum, "We speak where the Bible speaks; we're silent where the Bible is silent." As soon as Campbell announced the principle, the argument was made that infant baptism should be rejected, as the Bible nowhere says anything about it. However, it was several years before Campbell came to insist on believer baptism, and that was due to much more consideration than the rote application of this slogan to the scriptures.

The question is whether by "silent" Campbell meant "say nothing" or "speak a prohibition." "Silent where the Bible is silent" can actually more naturally be understood as an insistence on the Normative Principle -- say nothing.

The reality is a bit more complex. The teachings of the church can be thought of in three layers -- soterology, other doctrine, and praxis. Let me use better words: the Bible's teachings on salvation, all other Biblical teaching, and practices not dictated by the Bible -- what we like to call matters of expedience. The Campbells weren't very careful in distinguishing the three -- and this has led to unspeakable grief within the Restoration Movement churches.

Although I say the Campbells weren't sufficiently careful, they are clear enough to anyone who bothers to read their writings with the question in mind. Let's consider what they said about salvation first. Alexander Campbell wrote,

Faith in Jesus as the true Messiah, and obedience to him as our Lawgiver and King, the ONLY TEST of Christian character, and the ONLY BOND of Christian union, communion, and co-operation, irrespective of all creeds, opinions, commandments, and traditions of men.

Preface to the second edition of the Christian System (1839) (emphasis in the original).

Now, Campbell’s point was not that creeds are bad because creeds are in error—

Our opposition to creeds arose from a conviction, that whether the opinions in them were true or false, they were hostile to the union, peace, harmony, purity, and joy of Christians; and adverse to the conversion of the world to Jesus Christ.

Ibid. Some have said we have no creed but the Bible, meaning by this that we have no creed except our interpretation of the Bible — as though there were some profound difference between a written creed and an unwritten creed. Obviously, there is none. Rather, Campbell taught that we should replace creeds with faith in Jesus, not faith in our understanding of divorce and remarriage or our understanding of the role of women in the church.

Thomas Campbell, Alexander’s father, taught the same thing in his “Declaration and Address,” generally considered the founding document of the Restoration Movement and frequently quoted by even the most conservative writers.

Thomas Campbell wrote,

8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the church; neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge: but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure of scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice; and of the way of salvation thro’ Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in, and obedience to him, in all things according to his word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his church.

The Campbells came to their understanding of baptism some years later. Hence, except for baptism, Proposition 8 of the “Declaration and Address” is simply the plan of salvation as we’ve traditionally taught it. To be saved you must be aware of your lost condition, confess faith in Jesus, and consent to be obedient to him—hear, believe, repent, and confess.

9. That all that are enabled, thro’ grace, to make such a profession, and to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct, should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each other as brethren, children of the same family and father, temples of the same spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same divine love, bought with the same price, and joint heirs of the same inheritance. Whom God hath thus joined together no man should dare to put asunder.

However, Proposition 9 is dramatically different from our traditional teaching. Here, Campbell urges that everyone who meets the standards stated in Proposition 8 should be considered a fellow Christian and “subjects of the same grace” and “joint heirs of the same inheritance.”

In other words, Campbell contends that the standard by which we first become saved is the same standard by which we stay saved. “Hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized” defines not only who is first saved but who goes to heaven, provided, of course, they remain true to their faith and repentance.

This is also precisely what the Bible teaches. I explain this in Do We Teach Another Gospel? and in The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace.

And so, we see here the Campbell's soterology -- doctrine of salvation. It has nothing to do with being silent or authority or pianos. It's what we've always taught, except that the rules don't change after our baptism. There doesn't come some magic day when getting divorce and remarriage wrong damns -- because you can perfectly well have faith and be penitent and be honestly mistaken on the question -- can't you?

But, of course, the Campbells had a lot to say on other subjects, especially their desire to unite the churches based on a common form of worship and church organization. They argued that if we'd all follow the First Century pattern, we'd have no trouble being united both in God's eyes and in actual practice.

The problem arose when many of their disciple took this "Restoration Plea" and turned it into a salvation doctrine, relying on (you guessed it) the Regulative Principle. How could their students have so badly misunderstood?

[Next up -- how the Baptists messed up Campbell's teaching for us.]

And I've come to realize just how very, very far we've drifted from the original vision of the Restoration Movement -- as well as the scriptures. And this drift is built on certain false understandings regarding human nature, two of which I want to address here.

They are lies -- not that these men are liars. Rather, they've been deceived by the Father of All Lies regarding how real people act and think.

Fortunately, we have a truer, deeper, better understanding of human nature as revealed in the scriptures, available to us by reading the writings of Thomas Campbell. Campbell was right because, well, he was a better Bible student and student of human nature than many of today's preachers.

Read both understandings and decide for yourself: which better reflects the human condition and a gracious God?

First lie

"I can judge the hearts of my enemies, and they all sin knowingly and so deserve their damnation."

Ultimately, the goal of much right-wing literature is to prove that their opponents are damned. It's not good enough show their behavior is unwise or even sinful. No, they must be damned for their error.

It's easy enough to show that those who deliberately continue to sin are lost (Heb 10:26-27 says so). It's easy enough, or so they imagine, to show that they sin. All that remains is to show that their sins are "knowing" or "deliberate."

The Oklahoman ad, for example, declares,

Seeing that the case has been proven, it comes down to a respect or lack thereof for God.

The argument is that, because the authors feel they've proven their point, those who disagree do so out of a lack of respect for God. They can't imagine that someone might disagree out of a lack of respect for the authors -- a very different thing!

Similarly, they argue that those who disagree with the authors do so out of presumption, relying on 2 Pet 2:10 --

(2 Pet 2:10a) This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

The argument is that those who disagree with the authors do so from a "corrupt desire" and because they "despise authority." But these three ministers are not the sort of "authority" Peter refers to.

Just so, in A Plea to Reconsider, Miller condemns Rick Atchley with this reasoning --

Yet, consider: what honest, sincere person, having heard the pure Gospel, having learned what God has done for us in Christ and the rich spiritual blessings that accompany that sacrifice, would balk at complete submission to Christ simply on the grounds that the worship of God excludes a humanly-devised, mechanical contraption? Answer: only one who has not had a genuine change of mind (repentance), and who is reluctant to render complete allegiance to Christ to the point of abandoning fleshly allurements!

Miller presumes to know Atchley's heart so well that he can find that he has not repented of sin because of his insistence on worshiping God with an instrument.

The overriding theme of Frank Chesser's The Spirit of Liberalism is that "liberals" do what they do knowing it to be wrong but not caring.

Now, the reality is that none of these authors knows the hearts of all their opponents. How could they? There are millions of them!

More importantly, what would make anyone think that a believer would go to church, donate to the Lord's work, volunteer for Christian service, and worship God Almighty with an instrument believing he was sinning in so doing? What kind of human acts that way?

I mean, if I have a rebellious heart, why go to church at all? It's easy enough to imagine why a few people might act this way -- but not people by the millions.

The obvious truth is that these worshipers of God use an instrument because they believe it's consistent with God's will. It is therefore false -- a lie from Satan -- to declare that they all intend to violate God's commands in so doing.

Lie 2

While God may overlook error in the immature, at some point the mature become accountable for getting doctrine right.

Phil Sanders writes,

That we are all imperfect, having imperfect knowledge and living imperfect lives, is not under question. What is under question is if ignorance is a license to self-made religion. Are we to assume that we can (because the water is presumably muddy) act on our own initiative? Do we really think that ignorance grants us the right to presume upon the grace of God?

Now I can perceive a novice or babe in Christ being judged less strictly. The disobedient who did not know the master's will will be beaten with few stripes rather than many. What of the church leaders who, departing from a unified view, presume to embrace out of a supposed uncertainty the right to self-made religion? Will not teachers incur a stricter judgment (James 3:1)? Will not leaders who grant permission to go beyond the instructions of Scripture be held accountable? Can people plead endlessly they lack certainty (all the while acting without evidence from the New Testament)? Do people never have to repent of self-made religion? Can they knowingly continue to practice their presumptuous ways?

Notice the cleverness of the argument. He begins by conceding that a new Christian won't be held accountable for all error. After all, it takes a while to learn all the truth.

But by the end of his argument, he's concluded that the leadership of a church always violates Biblical teaching on worship "knowingly." No one disagrees honestly!

It's just not true that there comes a magic moment in our lives when we suddenly have perfect Biblical knowledge. It doesn't happen for anyone, ever. God holds us accountable to study his will. He holds us accountable for faith in Jesus and a penitent heart. He does not require us to agree with any of these authors to go to heaven.

A truer understanding

Rather, Thomas Campbell got it right nearly 200 years ago when he wrote the founding document of the Restoration Movement, the "Declaration and Address" --

5. That with respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the scriptures are silent, as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be; no human authority has power to interfere, in order to supply the supposed deficiency, by making laws for the church; nor can any thing more be required of christians in such cases, but only that they so observe these commands and ordinances, as will evidently answer the declared and obvious end of their institution. Much less has any human authority power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church; or be made a term of communion amongst christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.

6. That although inferences and deductions from scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word: yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power and veracity of God -- therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the churchs's confession.

7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of divine truths, and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors, be highly expedient; and the more full and explicit they be, for those purposes, the better; yet, as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of christian communion: unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment; or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers.

Have you ever wondered why a unity movement became divisive? It's simple. We've forgotten our roots. 200 years ago, Campbell saw what caused Christians to divide from each other -- the very same things that divide us today -- an insistence that only those with "a very clear and decisive judgment" may be saved, an insistence on imposing inferences on people who disagree with those inferences -- and an insistence on filling the silences of the scriptures with commands.

If only we'd have listened, our history would have been a much better one. Indeed, we'd be united on the basis that Campbell urged --

9. That all that are enabled, thro' grace, to make such a profession [of faith in Jesus], and to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct, should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each other as brethren, children of the same family and father, temples of the same spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same divine love, bought with the same price, and joint heirs of the same inheritance. Whom God hath thus joined together no man should dare to put asunder.

(Campbell says nothing of baptism as he and Alexander came to their conclusions re immersion much later.)

You see, Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Walter Scott, especially Scott, were great sloganeers -- and the slogans they coined defined the Movement for generations. Sadly, we've forgotten or misinterpreted nearly every one of them.

We've all heard,

We speak where the Bible speaks; we're silent where the Bible is silent.

This one goes back to Thomas Campbell's "Declaration and Address" and has been greatly misunderstood.

You see, Campbell would have been infuriated at the suggestion that this slogan means that those who use instruments or the like are damned. Campbell certainly advocated a return to First Century practice, but he also taught -- and taught vigorously -- that inferences from the scriptures should never be tests of fellowship.

In his "Declaration and Address," he wrote,

6. That although inferences and deductions from scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word: yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power and veracity of God -- therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the church's confession.

Plainly, Campbell was not speaking of authority but terms of communion. He meant that we should never bind as tests of fellowship those things not expressly found in scripture! Those who make instrumental music a test of fellowship are not part of the Restoration Movement, as they deny it's founding principle.

In light of this teaching, it's not surprising that the Campbells also taught,

We are Christians only, but not the only Christians.

This one was commonly taught for decades after Alexander Campbell's death but is now nearly forgotten -- because many of us now deny it. But the slogan well summarizes key Restoration Movement principles. Campbell wanted us to return to First Century practices (Christians only) but not bind those practices as tests of fellowship (not the only Christians).

More well known is --

In faith, unity
In opinion, liberty, and
In all things, charity

This was not original with the Campbells, but it still remains a commonly stated principle among us. However, its meaning has been changed. By "faith," Campbell meant "faith in Jesus," because this is how the Bible defines "faith." "Opinion," therefore, meant everything else. Of course, "charity" meant love in the 19th Century.

Nowadays, we use "faith" to mean anything the Bible mentions, while "opinion" is anything else, but this is quite plainly not Campbell's view. See Faith vs. Opinion.

Campbell simply meant that we should treat as brothers all who share our common faith in Jesus. It's really that simple. Of course, as any Bible scholar would know, Campbell believed that "faith" includes a commitment to obey God's commands -- to make Jesus Lord of our lives -- but he also understood that we all do this imperfectly and can count on grace to cover our doctrinal shortcomings.

Finally, we should add the still-famous slogan,

We have no creed but Christ;
No creedbook but the Bible.

This has, of course, been distorted a bit. We more typically combine the two and say, "We have no creed but the Bible." And we have trouble explaining why we so object to creeds when we are fine with doctrinal position statements on our websites and in our tracts and Sunday school material.

You see, Campbell's objection to creeds was that they were used as tests of fellowship. And so he meant that the only test of fellowship we have is Christ. If you're in Christ, you're in fellowship with us, even if we disagree on something else.

The lessons we're covering on grace simply take us back to the founding of the Restoration Movement -- returning us to our founding principles -- not because they're part of our heritage, but because they're Biblical.

It's a sad irony, isn't it, that we've become the very thing that the founders of our Movement dedicated their lives to ending.

• Freedom is the oxygen of the soul.

Thomas Campbell

• The patriot's blood is the seed of Freedom's tree.

Ignazio Silone, The God That Failed, 1950

• Liberty is the possibility of doubting, of making a mistake,... of searching and experimenting,... of saying No to any authority - literary, artistic, philosophical, religious, social, and even political.

The Photographic has posted two new songs to their MySpace page today. These tracks are from the upcoming album "Pictures of a Changing World" which will be released March 11th 2008 on Galaxia Records. Galaxia is even currently using the album's cover art as their MySpace profile pic as they start promoting the album. Also of note, Artist and filmmaker, Thomas Campbell, features The Photographic's song, "Night Noise," in his most recent movie trailer for "The Present." (Click here for a higher quality trailer, or see below for Youtube version)

I saw these guys earlier this year at the Louisville Homegrown Series, and they were really impressive. I didn't know what to expect because I see them out at the Nachbar or where ever and I know they're in the scene, but their music comes from some other place, years beyond the experience I would have envisioned. I was blown away. The unfortunate thing about the album is that you won't get the chance to see the beautiful video that coincides and seems to play along beautifully with the loops these guys are making.

As for the sound, it's a nice progressive ambient rock.  I guess I should say its starts there and where it ends is yet to be seen. I only had the chance to hear a few songs at Homegrown, but I'm definitely ready for more. Luckily, they are on the line-up at this year's Terrastock in Louisville!
Check out their MySpace page for 2 new tracks from the upcoming album...

Velocity Review
Leo Review

"'Tis distance lends enchantment to the view,
And robes the mountain in its azure hue."

Thomas Campbell, 1777-1844
Scottish poet