As a practicing member of the LDS (Mormon) Church, Glenn Beck believes:

• That the angel Moroni appeared to 17-year-old Joseph Smith in 1823 and told him of golden plates that would contain "the fullness of the everlasting gospel."
• That Smith dug the plates up four years later, translated their "Reformed Egyptian" into English with the help of two special stones called "Urim" and "Thurim" and the result of that translation is the Book Of Mormon.
• That the Book of Mormon, along with Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl Of Great Price, forms a trinity of inspired Scripture for the LDS Church.
• That "as man is, God once was; as God is, man may be."

As a bulwark of conservative Christianity, Liberty University believes:

• None of the above.
• That Mormonism is a cult -- using the trappings of Christianity to proclaim a decidedly unChristian message.

And yet Liberty -- a strongly confessional institution -- invited Beck to be its commencement speaker earlier this month. You can read some of the controversy this choice has stirred in the Baptist blogosphere here and here.

What to make of this? To be fair, Liberty states on its own web site that previous commencement speakers have run a wider gamut of theological beliefs that one would expect.

Yet as a graduate of a proudly confessional school myself, I would be alarmed if not outraged if my alma mater gave a Mormon -- or Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist -- such a high profile platform to deliver a prominent and influential address.

You'll note that I've shared where Liberty and Beck differ. I suppose for the purposes of the commencement selection, what they share is more important: an expressly conservative political viewpoint and opposition to all things Obama.

In this instance it seems that Liberty allowed political ideology to trump doctrinal integrity.

And whether your politics lean right or veer left, that is a slippery slope indeed.

Warning: Salty Language Below.

This week, I heard about a bumper sticker making the rounds in New York City:

The Truth Will Set You Free.
But First It Will Piss You Off.

I find that painfully true.

I find it theologically true.

It's why in Luke 3, John the Baptitst declares to his audience: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? . . . he (the coming Messiah) will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (3:7, 17)

And then Luke describes that diatribe in this way: "And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them." (3:18)

Before it's good news, it's bad news.

A vital part of the good news about God is accepting the bad news about ourselves.

That we are broken, selfish, and . . . sinful. I know that's not politically correct in the 21st Century, but it's still true.

It's the kind of self-awareness that really will piss us off.

Before it sets us free.

As many of you know, for many years I have been critical of premillenial dispensationalism, the "rapture-centric" view of the end times made most popular in the Left Behind series of novels.

For a long list of reasons, I have generally held to the simpler amillenial understanding of Jesus' Second Coming in which there is no secret rapture, no escape from tribulation, and no literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth.

I posted on it here.

But that's changing.

After careful reflection and study of primary sources, I am now coming to believe that I Thessalonians 4:13-17 does in fact describe the exodus of the church from planet earth; that the material in Revelation 4-19 really does describe the years of tribulation with Christians absent from the scene; and that there are in a sense three Second Comings -- one at the rapture, the second to establish the millenial kingdom, and the third at the end of the kingdom to inaugurate the new heavens and new earth once and for all.

As I progress in this new thinking, it will take some new training, perhaps starting with Dallas Seminary in the town where I grew up.

I'll need a new list of theological heroes, from C.I. Scofield to John Hagee to Jimmy DeYoung and of course, Tim LaHaye himself.

Talbot Davis, Rapture-ready dispensationalist.

God works in mysterious ways, doesn't he?

April Fools.

The Apostle's Creed puts it this way:

I believe in the resurrection of the body . . .

Yet the fact remains that most people don't take the resurrection of the body very seriously. They are more focused on the immortality of the soul.

Most Christians believe that eternal life is all about their souls resting in the arms of heaven forever. And most people who aren't Christians have been taught that's what Christians believe about eternity. There is an element of truth in all that; for example, 2 Corinthians 5:8 says this: "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

Yet biblically speaking, that "away from the body and at home with the Lord" is but an interim state. As a whole, the bible in general and the New Testament in particular is much more interested in the ultimate resurrection of our bodies. That's what I Corinthians 15 is all about -- Paul corrects the Corinthians' misuse of their bodies by teaching them that their flesh will be resurrected:

So it will be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. I Corinthians 15:42-44

When does all that take place? When Jesus comes back. What does it all have to do with the Easter season? Everything. Jesus' own resurrection was a downpayment, or a "first fruits," of our resurrection. He was saying, "What happened to me and my body -- that's what will happen to you and your body at the end of the age."

So believing in the "resurrection of the body" is not merely a line in a creed. It -- even more than the immortality of the soul -- is the destiny of those who follow Jesus.

Syncretism is not a common word in modern conversation, much less in the blogosphere.

And no, it's not the name of that old Police album. That was Synchronicity.

Though the word may not be that familiar, a lot of people are doing it. And believing it.

Syncretism is a blending of different belief systems -- especially religious ones -- in an effort to gain wisdom from each and harmonize all.

Christianity Today has a fascinating article about two Episcopal priests living out syncretism in a dramatic way. One priest, Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester, was recently elected a bishop of in the Diocese of Northern Michigan . . . in spite of the fact that he had recently undergone lay ordination as a Zen Buddhist.

A second priest, Seattle-based Ann Holmes Redding, was recently defrocked -- had her ordination rescinded -- because she claimed that she was simultaneously Christian and Muslim.

So I guess the Seattle Episcopalians take a dimmer view of syncretism than do those in Northern Michigan.

And so do I.

Because although harmonizing of disparate faiths in this way sounds nice, it is intellectually untenable. I also suggest it does a disservice to both faiths involved.

Syncretism is intellectually void because two contradictory ideas cannot be true at the same time.

Think about it: Buddhism & Hinduism teach that after death we are reincarnated as someone or something else; Christianity teaches that "it is appointed for man once to die and then to face judgment" (Hebrews 11:27). They can't both be true. Either one is right, one is wrong, or they are both wrong.

Or this: Christianity teaches that Jesus was literally God-in-the-flesh. Judaism regards that as view as an offense against the God of both faiths. They can't both be true. Either one is right, one is wrong, or they are both wrong.

Or this: Islam teaches that salvation in the afterlife comes as a reward for good works. Christianity teaches without reservation that people are "saved by grace through faith . . . not by works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). They can't both be true. Either one is right, one is wrong, or they are both wrong.

I believe that the attempts by the two priests in the Christianity Today article -- as well as scores of other leaders from different denominations -- stem from good intentions coupled with intellectual laziness.

I am all for interfaith cooperation. And I certaintly try to preach what I preach about Christ out of love and not out of judgment. But I believe Christ and his church -- as well as people from other faiths -- deserve our sharpest, clearest thinking about who Jesus is and what he claims.

And because of the unprecedented truthfulness of his resurrection, I'm staking my life on the claim that Jesus is not one of many. He is the one and only.

That's what Easter was about. You can listen to it here.