Interesting conversation I had on facebook with a very bright guy named Pawel. Thought I'd share it. It was incited by the following video - HERE.
Pawel: The existance of the creator is far more complex than our mere attempt of understanding this force through personification and our finite abilities of understanding it by attempting to make it humanlike. It is, the creating force we like to call God, a vibrational energy responsible as the prime mover of systems as simple as a molecular recombination to create what we render as the double helix - hence our ability to be the mere fabric of perception- to gravity and attraction of mass and objects at given distances creating systems which move in a whirlpool of expansion and contraction. It is this energy which is responsible for what we consider good. Lack of this creational energy is the void and absence of, what we call evil or vacuum- dark matter. Personification is dangerous - in our short history- the source of extremism, conviction, and world conflicts leading to void or absence of high vibrational energy - or what we like to call God. Just a thought.
Me: Pawel, Very thoughtful. I would go the other direction however. The true danger is impersonification. Scripture declares God not merely to be personal, but supra-personal, tri-personal; a communal being who marks mankind with these personal communal attributes which define what good and evil are in relational contexts. To depersonalize the prime-mover is to undermine the very ontological basis of things like ethics, love, etc, reducing them to meaningless by-products of an impersonal system. Consequently, extremism, conviction, world conflicts, evil... are relatives, ultimately meaningless and perhaps even distracting.
Pawel: Hence the circular argument of who wrote scripture and with what motive in mind. As recently as zoroastrian formulation into our renditions of monotheism Christianity has become one vehicle for control- hence Nietzsche's argument that we killed God. I see your point but it is so easy to put a face - personify in the meaning of the term regarding to theology- as an attempt to understand something omnipresent omnicient and omnibenevolant. This is something we cannot explain by writing a book a few thousand years ago claiming it was the hand of God responsible for it. The absurdity of the thought that the creator would use a tool such as the hand of man- one of it's manifestations- to write rules and conduct for the mere hand pressing the ink into the page initself is proof that personification leads away from God suggesting weaknes through sin and the inability for the moral man to strive for the good him self- that high vibration we call God. This is the pivotal error man makes - the belief in being controlled by a force which he cannot be a moral man without. The jester. The hypocracy lyes within the man who by trying to believe has lost all faith. Kierkegaard would side with this notion as well. Blessings to you.
Me:
1. Such an argument can be circular. But I suggested that without a metaphysical and personal foundation for categories like good and evil, those terms are devoid of significance. That is arguing transcendentally from phenomena to what must be true to make sense of that phenomena. What is the "good" man is to strive for when we've removed the metaphysical underpinnings?
2. Further, I don't see how depersonalizing the the creator (e.g. vibration, prime-mover, first cause...) is in better keeping with the infinite nature the creator. I guess I would have to hear why personality and the infinite are truly mutually exclusive.
3. Although I see the foolishness of man reaching out and explaining deity, but I see no absurdity in deity explaining his nature and attributes to us. God, stooping down and "lisping" (as parents do to toddlers). By use of analogy, communicating meaningful information about himself. Our notions of power, causation, intelligence, are shady at best, but certainly sufficient to think of things like omni-this and omni-that; infinity here and there. Scripture is God revealing himself to us by analogy.
4. I'm not sure what Kierkegaard would be agreeing with in your statement. As a Christian existentialist, he was quick to posit a personal God to make sense out of his existential quest.
Pawel: Kierkegaard did more than posit a personal God to make sense out of his existential quest- but this is a topic all on its own. Sure all may be devoid of significance as we need the metaphysical to even have this discussion. Our senses, the area of the brain mapped in having a spiritual experience in the front corner through sodium and potassium exchanges, the electricity generated in doing so, hence the vibrational energy in creating secretions of hormones responsible for our mere senses and emotions, sight smell touch love hunger fear. The metaphysical is the only vehicle for our human experience. Some of the best scientists will not deny the force which may be responsible for theses processes. As we try to explain science, mathematics, and all quantifiable experiences, we do so with God. We also try to explain, as you did, that God explains himself through us meaningful information. Without us God would have no vehicle to do this hence he would no longer exist- just like the color you see on this screen would not exist if you did not come equipped with cones and rods in the back of your eyes sensing refractions and lengths of both waves and particles transforming into electricity in your occipital lobe, neither would the notion of God as he exists only through yours and mine contemplation. Faith? let it be so strong as to have no wonder if this is true, by merely trying to explain this- we doubt. One cannot argue the faith of an old woman living on a farm believing all her 80 years of her life with full conviction that Jesus Christ is the holy son of her God, yet we do this every time we slap a bumper sticker on the back of our SUV, the trademarking of faith such as Not Of This World TM. Just a modern take on the killing of God and the faith which exists independent of any notion of itself. True faith needs no explanation nor quantity yet we try to out do ourselves through proof to others of our faith and preaching to others what we may thing is righteous. Analogy is the only way we can try to make sense out of the literal as literal has no meaning for us without comparison to analogous situations. This is our mistake, the fact that literal cannot be explained is just that. God cannot be explained and yet we try to describe that he is doing this through us further proving the point that the notion of his existence would seize the moment we all turn to ash. It is our ego which allows for Gods existence as well as it is our ego that simultaneously nullifies him. Once we are egoless, only then can we experience the creator through love and devotion. This is the only way we will experience unity- without there will exist a perpetual race toward whose God is the righteous one- Allah, God, Jashuah...all the oooo and aaa sounds generated as our throats vibrate the sound as we utter this wavelength of sound constant in all faiths on our tiny planet. As soon as we argue for or against- we argue against ourselves, and the 80 year old devoted Christian woman with blind faith not needing proof of anything. Keep the faith!
Me: I’m completely on board in positing the metaphysical as the basis of the physical. I don’t think it’s a reciprocal relationship as you suggested, as in “without us… he would no longer exist.” Although it sounded like you were being more poetic than making a claim about God’s ontological status, elsewhere you suggest otherwise. The illustration of light as applied to God would make sense only if you conflated the primary and secondary qualities of something like light. First of all, I think there are good reason to hold to metaphysical realism when it comes to qualities like color, sounds, etc..., the first being the solipsistic reductionism that we want to avoid, namely, that we must reduce all of the physical world to subjectivity, because we are unable to interact with the world apart from perception. Secondly, the perception of light presumes and depends on the presence wavecycles; there’s an objective grounding our peceptions. In a similar way, though I knowledge of God is mediated through x, y, and z, it is faulty to reduce God to x,y,z. In the Christian doctrine of Revelation, God selects those mediums that best communicate himself to creature (imago dei, incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, inspiration of Scripture). God is uber capable of communicating truths about himself to beings who are less than infinite.
Faith? Faith presumes both objective and subjective components. Faith is in x. Faith in faith is absurd, like an eye looking at it self. Faith in faith can often be a ruse for egoism: I have faith in self (sounds like a Whitney Houston song). Kierkegaard argued that faith is a living, vivacious, active trusting in the Word of God. He resisted cold, stale, and lifeless orthodoxy, but never jettisoned orthodoxy proper.
I can see how ego can lead to a reductionism of God to this or that (creating God in our image). I find it instructive, however, that Scripture posits the first and enduring sin as the refusal of people to submit to God’s revelation of himself to them. The issue in human nature isn’t so much the we like putting God in our little boxes, but rather we refuse to accept the particular revelation of God to people, a revelation that communicates truths about him, the world, and you and I. Sola Fide!
Pawel: In order for faith to work it cannot be both objective and subjective. Kierkegaard argued for the subjective Christian- Thus faith is not the belief that someday someone will be able to prove the objective existance of God, as you are hinting at by posting videos such as the one above, faith is rather a commitment of oneself, with infinate passion, to something that is not based on objective fact or needs proving or spreading. By its very nature faith involves risk- and I am hopeful that you can agree with this without a poetic accusation or a metaphysical hair splitting of the nature of photons and our tools to perceive it- maybe I miscommunicated through interjecting one of the three other languages I speak- merely using English as the platform for the sake of this discussion. so I'll give you the benefit of. plus it was late and I just got out of the recording studio after my session :) . The absurdity that eternal truth has entered time as in the creating of scriptures themselves initself did not stand with Kierkagaard- Many Christians will deny that faith requires that the individuals relationship to the eternal truth be a paradox, what is true for the individual may be objectively false- hence my example of the elderly woman who I met in Croatia last Septemer, and the absurdity of a friend of mine who was with me at the time, making the mistake of trying to argue her subjective faith- him being the symbolic objective truth that god does not exist.
In a nutshell - if God is an objective truth- for the sake of you arguing for his existance with another spin on circular arguing that it is god trying to communicate with us not us manifesting his existence- if roles would change and now that woman is an 80 your old atheist and you were to argue to her that her belief, or there lack of, is false and her subjectivity will result in hell and eteranal damnation, I would have to side with her as to the fact that you should not have reasons to uphold or justify you being a Christian. If you do really believe in god, for the sake of simplicity, then you would dismiss the absurd that eternal truth has enetered time- as is the problem with Christianity itself through the perpetual recycling of words at bible studies and sunday sermons. That god has entered existence, has been born, has taken up human characteristcs (personification)- quite indistinguishable from other humans. As our friend Kierk would have it- the absurd is precisely by objective repultion the measure of the inwardnes of faith- I hope I am remembering this correctly- its been 15 years since I read him. And maybe you will agree that the danger of subjectivity in its extreme is madness. I sure would not argue with a mad 80 year old woman though-
When, if I was to believe that god exists, I understand that what I belive cannot be rationally understood or justified- since it is objectively a paradox. Yet if, in spite of the lack of external support, I still believe, then it must be because I consciously decide, with all the passion of the infinate, to choose to bring this commitment into existence. If the professor believes there is cold and dark- there is cold and dark and the little child arguing proved absolutely nothing- add a little emptional music and cinematography and you have yourself a religious campaign as inaffective as standing and protesting in front of an abortion clinic, and why you might ask? In a multicultural society such as ours the opposition of the detail of other faiths is far too strong to make prayer at school plausible. Cute video though I must admit- and it will attrack all those who frequently mentally masturbate the area of their cortex most active during a religious experience devoid of reason and logic- but lets not forget the danger of madness as a result of subjectivity. Zycze Ci prawdziwej wiary bez potrzeby udowodnienia ze Gog istnieje- Hwala!!!
ME: Enjoying the discussion. I don’t quite get the point that for faith to be operation, it must be act of pure subjectivity. Your mention of perceiving color and waves and particles was meant to illustrate your point that God only exists in our contemplation, without which he ceases to exist. My point is that this illustration in fact demonstrates both an objective/subjective dimension of reality, not the collapse of the objective into the subjective. I see nothing absurd or counterintuitive about the same subjective/objective dimensions existing in faith. Rather, I think this distinction protects us from ontological and moral relativism, or solipsism.
Understand about the late night. I have kids screaming in my ears, so I may end up typing in tongues before this is over.;o). I also am fluent in many languages…
I don’t see absurdity in eternal anything entering time and space. Plato’s whole philosophical motif was that there are these things called universals (timeless, perfect, infinite) that are constantly occasioned in time and space. Take numbers for an example. One might argue that numbers are an infinity. But this fact doesn’t prevent us from saying 1 2 3… adding, subtracting, dividing, etc. Of course it would be foolish for us to think that since we’ve grasped multiplication, therefore we understand everything there is to know about numbers. Equally foolish is to say that we can’t know anything about numbers; or to posit them requires leaps of faith and the abandonment of rationality. For plato, numbers are just one of many things that are eternal and yet instance themselves in time and space (e.g., logic, relations, the good…). The notion of the divine being incarnated in flesh is no novelty of Christianity.
It might be good to define what we mean by “objective” and “subjective.” By “objective” I mean that God existence and attributes are independent of me, the relator. Given that definition, I don’t think its good to call someone who thinks something to be true when its not true a “paradox.” I call that error. A paradox in my mind is when there are two qualities that seem to be in opposition of each other, and yet we affirm they are both true about some thing. Now I say “seem,” because a paradox by definition comes short of a contradiction, as in “God exists and doesn’t exist.” There’s no way this statement could be true in the same way and relationship.
Now the admission that one may be wrong, and yet affirms that the item believed to be true, is true of almost all of human knowledge (maybe with exception to self-knowledge). But with this common experience, we also see that it is epistemically responsible to proportion the subjective level of faith to objective markers; otherwise we have to argue that positing electrons (no one has seen one) is no more grounded than positing unicorns.
It might also be good to define “justify,” as in “what I believe cannot be rationally understood or justified- since it is objectively a paradox.” Empirically, light exhibits paradoxal qualities. We are “justified” in believing that light has these qualities, though we can’t comprehend how these two things are true. This is a great example of how rationality works. Reason takes us so far, but by itself is insufficient for infallible and exhaustive certitude. But this doesn’t negate the very reason that pointed to its own limitation.
I’m not sure what you mean by circular argumentation. Not its not that I don’t know what circular arguments are, but I don’t see how this applies to this discussion (i.e., God’s existence). Please explain to me where there is circularity.
It’s clear you’re not fond of the video. That’s fine. But the notion of communicated has a rich heritage in western philosophy, be it Plato, Plotinus and “the way of negation,” Augustine, Aquinas. Evil as the absence of what is right is also at the very heart of Scriptures definition of evil (e.g. god-lessness, un righteousness). Let’s be careful not to through out the baby with the bathwater.
You say, “and it will attrack all those who frequently mentally masturbate the area of their cortex most active during a religious experience devoid of reason and logic.” Ironic, given you’re presentation up to this point – religious faith is an irrational leap, devoid of reason and logic.” Define for me what role reason and logic plays in discussing matters of religious faith? If it doesn’t, I don’t get the critique. If it does, how have the great thinkers of the faith abused these tools. Sola Dei Gloria!
Pawel: Thank you Solomon for clarifying my point of what I was trying to say. I too am enjoying this conversation even though I had no ideal I was talking with a preacher. I'm honored- and a philosophy majour at that-super-honored. I think Solomon hit it right on the head. Love and god are synonamous. And he experiences this first hand with two beautiful children. There is a godliness about having that experience and as I would not argue with his experience of divinity as with the 80 year old woman for I sense his faith is genuine and subjective in the sense that it is his own inwardness through love without the need for further justification. Jake - I'm enjoying the discourse and now since I know you have a love for knowledge - hence your majour- I suggest you revisit Kierkegaards fear and trembling. I think this is where you might be a bit confused as far as me throwing around the context pertaining to definitions of subjectivism objectivism time and his three movements to faith. Unscientific postscript is another. Like I said it's been years for me but de Beauvoir, Camus, nietzche, Heideger, Sartre, Dostoevsky, Ayn Rhand, pre socratics such as Amos Hosea Isaiah Micah. Zepheniah babakkuk jerremiah anaxogoras gorgias archelaus philalous melissus are probably worth have been on my list to go back to so maybe you should consider it yourself as well- could be fun. Especially Kierkegaard since there seems to be a bit of misunderstand of his definitions. As far as the video goes- maybe if it was in a different language it would be a bit more appealing and warming. Guess the sombre feeling and mood just puts the wrong face on god. We are so condition to fear god even if it's through subconscious psychology- just another history of our Christian faith resurfacing inapt to fit the times and our spiritual evolution. Speaking of evolution how about that new discovery of the fossil. So much for the Lucy theory huh? But I'm sure scriptures were already written so that's ok. If not here then somewhere in the universe. SatNam!
ME: Pawel, good speaking with you. I've read fear and trembling three times (as well as other works of his); took two classes on Capt. Keirk. I'm no expert, but I think I get a sense of his thinking. The tension is of course with God's promise of Isaac (God's prior Word), God's command (kill Isaac), and the existential crisis of obeying the former despite the later. But even in this account, we have the Vox Dei (the Word of God), Abraham's past experience with God, and the conviction that God could somehow reconcile the apparent paradox (Heb.). It was a leap, but a leap off of something.
Understand about the video. It might be likened to Sheryl Crow redoing GNR's "Sweet Child of Mine." Unnecessary and not nearly as good as the original.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Defining a Church
A church is a (1) group of baptized believers who join together under (2) qualified leadership (Jesus as senior pastor & qualified pastors under Him) (3) in regular gatherings for (4) the hearing and application of the Word of God preached (the gospel exposited from the 66 books of the Bible), (5) the administration of the sacraments (baptism and communion), (6) in deep community within and (7) serious mission without.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Coins with Joseph’s name found in Egypt
Coins with Joseph’s name found in Egypt :
Archeologists have discovered ancient Egyptian coins bearing the name and image of the biblical Joseph, Cairo’s Al Ahram newspaper recently reported. Excerpts provided by MEMRI show that the coins were discovered among a multitude of unsorted artifacts stored at the Museum of Egypt.
According to the report, the significance of the find is that archeologists have found scientific evidence countering the claim held by some historians that coins were not used for trade in ancient Egypt, and that this was done through barter instead.
The period in which Joseph was regarded to have lived in Egypt matches the minting of the coins in the cache, researchers said.
“A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait,” said the report.
SOURCE
Archeologists have discovered ancient Egyptian coins bearing the name and image of the biblical Joseph, Cairo’s Al Ahram newspaper recently reported. Excerpts provided by MEMRI show that the coins were discovered among a multitude of unsorted artifacts stored at the Museum of Egypt.
According to the report, the significance of the find is that archeologists have found scientific evidence countering the claim held by some historians that coins were not used for trade in ancient Egypt, and that this was done through barter instead.
The period in which Joseph was regarded to have lived in Egypt matches the minting of the coins in the cache, researchers said.
“A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait,” said the report.
SOURCE
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The man who saved a billion lives
from Cranach: The Blog of Veith
The man who solved the world’s food problem, Norman Borlaug, died at 95. His applications of agricultural science launched the so-called “green revolution,” not in the sense of environmentalism but in growing an abundance of green, productive plant life.
Scientist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug rose from his childhood on an Iowa farm to develop a type of wheat that helped feed the world, fostering a movement that is credited with saving up to 1 billion people from starvation.
Borlaug, 95, died Saturday from complications of cancer at his Dallas home, said Kathleen Phillips, a spokesman for Texas A&M University where Borlaug was a distinguished professor.
“Norman E. Borlaug saved more lives than any man in human history,” said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U.N. World Food Program. “His heart was as big as his brilliant mind, but it was his passion and compassion that moved the world.”
He was known as the father of the “green revolution,” which transformed agriculture through high-yield crop varieties and other innovations, helping to more than double world food production between 1960 and 1990. Many experts credit the green revolution with averting global famine during the second half of the 20th century and saving perhaps 1 billion lives.
Now there is a life that made a difference. Food shortages continue, of course, but the causes are nearly always political and economic, not because of limited food production. Lars Walker notes a Lutheran connection.
The man who solved the world’s food problem, Norman Borlaug, died at 95. His applications of agricultural science launched the so-called “green revolution,” not in the sense of environmentalism but in growing an abundance of green, productive plant life.
Scientist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug rose from his childhood on an Iowa farm to develop a type of wheat that helped feed the world, fostering a movement that is credited with saving up to 1 billion people from starvation.
Borlaug, 95, died Saturday from complications of cancer at his Dallas home, said Kathleen Phillips, a spokesman for Texas A&M University where Borlaug was a distinguished professor.
“Norman E. Borlaug saved more lives than any man in human history,” said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U.N. World Food Program. “His heart was as big as his brilliant mind, but it was his passion and compassion that moved the world.”
He was known as the father of the “green revolution,” which transformed agriculture through high-yield crop varieties and other innovations, helping to more than double world food production between 1960 and 1990. Many experts credit the green revolution with averting global famine during the second half of the 20th century and saving perhaps 1 billion lives.
Now there is a life that made a difference. Food shortages continue, of course, but the causes are nearly always political and economic, not because of limited food production. Lars Walker notes a Lutheran connection.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Some Unoriginal Thoughts on the Problem of Evil
I received an email today from an old Bible college buddy who is wrestling with the Problem of Evil in one of his classes and wanted to know my thoughts on the topic. For those of you who don't know what the "problem of evil" is, it goes something like this:
The God of the Bible is all powerful, all knowing, and all good.
1. If God is all powerful, he could stop evil.
2. If God is all knowing, he would know how to stop evil in the most efficient way.
3. If God is all good, he would stop evil.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore, the God of the Bible doesn't exist.
Here's the brief response I sent to my friend:
"1) Admittedly, evil can make belief in God tough. But ultimately, evil can only do so provided that it is in fact truly meaningful to talk about evil and good. And if that is a meaningful dialogue (which i contend is an undeniable dialogue), these categories presuppose something like belief in God. God makes the existence of evil possible. Evil can no more disprove God's existence then shadows disprove the existence of light. Shadows presuppose light. Evil presupposes God.
2) Some shift their argument from deductive to inductive. Instead of attempting to show that God and evil are logically impossible, they offer a less rigorous argument that "the amount of evil makes it likely that God doesn't exist." Here are some problems:
(a) I don't think shifting from a deductive to inductive argument removes challenge of how to make sense out of the amount of real evil in the world unless there is some transcendent standard that aids us in weighing degrees of immorality. Its seems to me that if one shadow doesn't disprove the existence of light (and in fact presupposes light), then a whole bunch of shadows don't either.3) That raises another issue. You can't divorce the problem of evil from other considerations for God's existence. Its one thing to have only one acceptable argument for God's existence and then the counter-evidence of the evil. Its another thing to have dozens of compelling arguments for God and one counter-example.
(b) It's been awhile since I've read the best possible worlds argument, so I'm writing off of some faded impressions. I'm not comfortable arguing that God must always pick the best possible everything. I'm not sure that 's necessary, and I'm not sure that helps with the argument. It seems that a good God has the prerogative to choose good worlds (that may go bad), without having to pick the very best world. Can I imagine a world where eleven fingers would be better than ten? Probably. Was God constrained to allow some obscure murderer to come into existence and commit his crime because it would contribute to the greatest good? This feels fatalistic. It says "take the sum total of all people, events, actions that have and will happen in the universe, and they could not have been different without making the world less than the best possible world. And God could not have done different." That's more philosophy than Bible. I can think of a number of activities in Scripture (prayer, our co-operation with God in sanctification) that may add more good, less good, or even evil in the world.
(c) Remember God's challenge to Job. Essentially the Lord told Job that the reason why he couldn't make sense of suffering was that Job was terribly limited in his understanding. God marshals evidence of his power, wisdom, and goodness in creation. God essentially says, 'You're powerless to do what i've done and clueless on how it got done. Do you think that the same may be true with the problem of evil." Put differently, "if I've have been wise, powerful, and good in the creation of and sustenance of the world in some many undeniable ways, doesn't it follow that I exercise that control over evil." I would probably go in some direction that "it is likely that God has a good reason....".
4) Here's my last point. In 1981 Rabbi Kushner wrote a book called “When Bad Things Happen to Good People.” Biblically, are there truly “good” people to whom bad things happen (cf. Romans 3:10; Job 25:4; Jer. 13:23)? The answer is no. Biblically, the question looks like these: “Why do bad things happen to bad people?” Or, “Why don’t worse things happen to bad people.” Or, “Why do good things happen at all to bad people?” Phillosophically, I think one can make an argument that evil seems to be gratuitous on our end because of a broken moral compass in which we view the slightest movement towards good to be the highest virtue, and anything that falls short of murder, rape, genocide.... to be excusable.
I would highly recommend a book by C.S. Lewis called The Problem of Pain. Its one of my all time favorites. With exception to the first argument he makes (the standard free will argument), the rest of the book is life changing.
I hope this helps."
Monday, August 17, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Pray for the Persecuted Church
4 Christian Orphanage Workers Beheaded in Somalia
By Aaron J. Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Aug. 12 2009 11:56 PM EDT
Somali Islamic extremists beheaded four Christians recently after kidnapping them last month, according to eyewitness accounts reported to International Christian Concern (ICC).
Members of the Islamic extremist organization Al-Shabaab had kidnapped Fatima Sultan, Ali Ma'ow, Sheik Mohammed Abdi, and Maaddey Diil on July 27 from their coastal town of Merca, 56 miles from Mogadishu, and eventually beheaded the Christians after they refused to renounce their faith in Jesus Christ.
The four Christians had been working for a local NGO that helps orphans in southern Somalia.
According to one eye witness account, all four of the “apostates” were given an opportunity to return to Islam and to be released “but they all declined the generous offer."
When they refused, all four were beheaded for apostasy and news of their deaths was passed along to their families on Aug. 4 by a junior Al-Shabaab militant who called himself "Seiful Islam" ("the Sword of Islam").
--------------
"I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; 10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also."
Revelation 6:9-11
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?
In 1981 Rabbi Kushner wrote a book called “When Bad Things Happen to Good People.”
Here are some questions that came to mind as I read this title:
1. Are there truly “good” people to whom bad things happen (cf. Romans 3:10; Job 25:4; Jer. 13:23)?
2. If not, could we rename the book, “Why do bad things happen to bad people?”
3. Or better yet, “Why don’t worse things happen to bad people.”
4. Or, “Why do good things happen at all to bad people?”
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
“I WAS GOING TO PREACH THIS, BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT LEAD ME TO THIS” . . . AND OTHER STUPID STATEMENTS
by ~ c michael patton ~
Does my title give me away? So much for being coy with my proposition. Let me say that this post is going to get me in trouble with some dear friends who preach God’s word every week. My message to them: Bear with my critique. I pray that my thoughts will be considered as “wounds from a friend”—a very fallible friend.
Here, let’s start this way. Have you ever heard someone (probably a preacher or teacher in the church) say something like this:
“I had prepared all week to teach on __________, but the Holy Spirit changed my lesson at the last minute.”
I have. Dozens of times. The idea it conveys is that the particular message that was prepared was not of God (at least at that time) and this new message was most certainly of God. In fact, the new message is miraculously of God! Why? Because I did not really prepare for it. It must have been God who prepared it. “I just step back when that happens and let God do his thing. Who am I to interrupt God?”
Can I say something? (Wait, let me hide behind something first . . .There.) That is a stupid statement!
My basic thesis is this: The type of assumptions required to adopt the occurrence of such homiletic detours is irresponsible both to yourself and to your audience and misunderstands the way God works in the life of the church.
Let me give you some characteristics that I see in such statements. They can:
Neglect the Holy Spirit. The idea that is conveyed is that the Holy Spirit is not present in the sermon/lesson preparation process. Without God’s presence and guidance in the study, does he somehow show up at the pulpit? There is no justification for such thinking. In fact, I would argue that we are in more need of the Spirit’s guidance in the study than we are when we deliver. If the Spirit is not present when you are in preparation, how can he be there when you deliver? The delivery is simply the product of your life, study, preparation, and daily walk with God. If this is true, why would God miraculously change what he has been preparing you to present? Can he not make up his mind? Did some new unforeseen circumstance arise that caused him to adjust, shift, or compensate for? Be careful.
Blame the Holy Spirit. The idea that God changes the sermon or lesson can be an attempt to discount your involvement and responsibility in what is being presented. Maybe you did not prepare and you are seeking someone to blame? Maybe you want to say something that you don’t think will gain people’s favor? Maybe you are just trying to blame the Holy Spirit?
Be manipulative. The third commandment, in principle, has nothing to do with swearing, but everything to do with protecting God’s reputation. When we claim that God miraculously changed the lesson or sermon, we may be manipulating the audience. In other words, it may be another way of saying, “This sermon is really from God.” In doing this, you are using his reputation by way of putting a “hands-off” authentication on your teaching. After all, if God changed your mind at the last minute, whatever criticism that someone might have must concede its fury; otherwise, the critics might find themselves at enmity with God himself. That type of approach is manipulative. The best we can do is prayfully hope that God has guided our lives, thoughts, and studies to qualify us to represent him when the time comes.
Arise from a gnostic bent. I think that people assume that this is a norm in the pulpit because we have the tendency to separate the mundane from the sacred. We often believe that if it is from the Lord, it will have a halo around it. Halos don’t seem to appear in studies that are filled with struggle, doubt, and, often, timidity in our conclusions. We seek the halos to rise above the mundane to sanctify us in a different way. However, we must live thoroughly converted lives, recognizing that the wall between the sacred and the “secular” is not really present, and it never was. It is no more spiritual to study than to preach.
But . . . What about . . .
I can hear it coming. What about Jude in the New Testament? I am just following in his footsteps.
“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” (Jud. 1:3)
Doesn’t Jude here demonstrate that he was going to write about something but the Holy Spirit led him somewhere else? Yes, but this cannot be applied to what I am speaking about. Jude is not saying that he was just about to write on the subject of salvation, but the Lord miraculously changed his lesson. He is saying that he purposed to write about salvation, but he was convicted of a greater priority instead. To put this in our current situation, it would be like me saying that I have been intending to preach on marriage, but I feel it is more important at this time for me to start a series on dealing with false doctrine due to its current influence in our culture. The reason for the change is not some last minute anointing of the Holy Spirit, but because of the expediency of the subject for the current situation. It says nothing about preparation and study. It is assumed that Jude is prepared to speak to the issue of his conviction precicely because of the presence of his conviction.
In the end, we need to be careful. From conception, preparation, to presentation, we can only hope that God is guiding it all. Can God change our sermon or lesson while we are in the pulpit? Of course. The question that you have to ask yourself is whether or not this is a model that we should expect. Your message can be further shaped, nuanced, and impassioned while you are teaching, but this is not really God changing your sermon. Preach what you prepare for and prepare for what you preach.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Walking By The Spirit
"Walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16)
Here are some necessary conditions for Walking In the Spirit:
1. Right Goal - Obedience to the Glory of God
2. Right Theological Foundation - Obedience founded on Justification
3. Right Means - Obedience Fueled and Reinforced with the Instruments of Grace (Word of God...)
Here are some necessary conditions for Walking In the Spirit:
1. Right Goal - Obedience to the Glory of God
2. Right Theological Foundation - Obedience founded on Justification
3. Right Means - Obedience Fueled and Reinforced with the Instruments of Grace (Word of God...)
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Sin: worse than hell. Christ: better than heaven
Anselm used to say, "that if he should see the shame of sin on the one hand, and the pains of hell on the other, and must of necessity choose one, he would rather be thrust into hell without sin, then go into heaven with sin."
Luther: I'd "rather be in hell with Christ, than in heaven without him."
Luther: I'd "rather be in hell with Christ, than in heaven without him."
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Old Women in Pulpits
Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was asked publicly why the churches of his day had so few young men in the pews. He instantly shot back, "Because there are so many old women in the pulpits."
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Loving Cameras rather than Pictures...
Every poet and musician and artist, but for Grace, is drawn away from love of the thing he tells, to love of the telling, till, down in Deep Hell, they cannot be interested in God at all but only in what they say about Him.
Lewis, The Great Divorce, 85
Lewis, The Great Divorce, 85
Texting And Driving Worse Than Drinking and Driving
Friday, June 26, 2009
Car and Driver Magazine recently released results of driving tests that observed braking reaction times for drivers when texting and reading texts and compared them to those when the drivers were legally drunk. The results revealed drivers had worse reaction times when texting and reading than when drunk.
HERE
Car and Driver Magazine recently released results of driving tests that observed braking reaction times for drivers when texting and reading texts and compared them to those when the drivers were legally drunk. The results revealed drivers had worse reaction times when texting and reading than when drunk.
HERE
Friday, June 19, 2009
STUDY: Chubby people live longest...
One more reason to embrace and celebrate our elastic pants - HERE
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Are urban tapeworms on the rise?
Anthony Franz says an undercooked salmon salad gave him a 9-foot-tapeworm, and in August he sued the Chicago restaurant that served it to him... MORE
Monday, June 15, 2009
Post Rapture Pet Care
"Suppose you go in the Rapture . . . What happens to Fido after you are gone? Cats can take care of themselves. But what about dogs? Well, here's a group of avowed UK atheists who know they won't go in the Rapture. So, for a small fee, they'll feed your pets after you are gone" (kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com) - HERE FOR POST-RAPTURE PET CARE
Monday, June 8, 2009
A FROG that constantly changes colour is being worshipped as a GOD in India
- Link
Hundreds of curious followers flock to Reji Kumar’s home every day to pray and ask for miracles.
Now one of the country’s top zoologists plans to study the rainbow frog. But Reji, 35, who keeps the creature in a glass bottle after finding it while out watering plants, is afraid it might CROAK first.
He said: “My one problem is that this frog does not appear to eat. I keep trying to feed it but it doesn’t eat anything. I don’t know what else to give it.”
The frog was a dazzling WHITE colour when Reji, from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, first spotted it.
Then it changed to YELLOW and had gone GREY by the time he got it home.
Lift worker Reji added: “By night the frog was dark yellow, and then it became transparent so you could see its internal organs.
"It seemed like a miracle to me that this frog had so many different coats. So now people come to see him and pray to him.”
Professor Oommen V. Oommen from India’s Kerala University, said it was not uncommon for animals to change colour.
He explained: “Frogs do change colour to scare away predators.
“But from what I have heard, the frog at Kumar’s place changes colour so frequently it is a bit unusual. I will collect it for study.”
Hundreds of curious followers flock to Reji Kumar’s home every day to pray and ask for miracles.
Now one of the country’s top zoologists plans to study the rainbow frog. But Reji, 35, who keeps the creature in a glass bottle after finding it while out watering plants, is afraid it might CROAK first.
He said: “My one problem is that this frog does not appear to eat. I keep trying to feed it but it doesn’t eat anything. I don’t know what else to give it.”
The frog was a dazzling WHITE colour when Reji, from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, first spotted it.
Then it changed to YELLOW and had gone GREY by the time he got it home.
Lift worker Reji added: “By night the frog was dark yellow, and then it became transparent so you could see its internal organs.
"It seemed like a miracle to me that this frog had so many different coats. So now people come to see him and pray to him.”
Professor Oommen V. Oommen from India’s Kerala University, said it was not uncommon for animals to change colour.
He explained: “Frogs do change colour to scare away predators.
“But from what I have heard, the frog at Kumar’s place changes colour so frequently it is a bit unusual. I will collect it for study.”
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Parents, guard your laptops!
WELLINGTON, New Zealand - A New Zealand mom made some online bids on toys before napping. Then her 3-year-old daughter took over and bought a bigger plaything than expected — a huge earth-moving digger for a cool $12,300.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion
I'm looking forward to this book:
Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion (Paperback)
by Ted Kluck (Author), Kevin DeYoung (Author)
MORE...
Chinese Calvinism Flourishes
from guardian.co.uk
The churches that follow Calvin are the third largest Christian grouping in the world. In China they hope to become the religion of the elite. - HERE
The churches that follow Calvin are the third largest Christian grouping in the world. In China they hope to become the religion of the elite. - HERE
Monday, June 1, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Faith that Works - James 2:14-26
New Life Community Church
5/24/09
Weekend Message - James 2:14-26.
Series: Radiate. Speaker: Jake Magee
LISTEN HERE
5/24/09
Weekend Message - James 2:14-26.
Series: Radiate. Speaker: Jake Magee
LISTEN HERE
Who taught me to like tobacco and alcohol?
'You are always dragging me down,' said I to my Body. 'Dragging you down! replied my Body. 'Well I like that! Who taught me to like tobacco and alcohol? You, of course, with your idiotic adolescent idea of being "grown-up". My palate loathed both at first: but you would have your way. Who put an end to all those angry and revengeful thoughts last night? Me, of course, by insisting on going to sleep. Who does his best to keep you from talking too much and eating too much by giving you dry throats and headaches and indigestion? Eh?' 'And what about sex?' said I. 'Yes, what about it' retorted the Body. 'If you and your wretched imagination would leave me alone I'd give you no trouble. That's Soul all over; you give me orders and then blame me for carrying them out.' - C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
WHY I’M PUMPED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH
by Larry Osborne
It’s fashionable to decry the current state of Christianity in America.
But frankly, I don’t buy it.
Some of the most popular conference speakers on the circuit today excel at drive-by-guiltings. They paint a picture of a church that lacks guts, cowers from dying to self, and lives out a self-satisfied, what’s-in-it-for-me Christianity.
In most cases, I like these speakers. They are good guys. I respect them. But I just don’t agree on this issue.
I’ve noticed that their audience is usually a room full of charge-the-hill-type young leaders who eat it up and then return home to look with disdain upon other churches, pastors, leaders, and often their own congregation (oblivious to how much they have in common with the self-congratulatory zealot in Luke 11: 9-14).
__________________________
Now don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that we have lots of carnality and self-centered living in our churches today. But come on, that’s nothing new. It’s been like that from the beginning. It’s simply not accurate to paint a heroic picture of the early church without also pointing out its many failures. In reality, the early church was pretty messed up, about as messed up as the American Church.
Have we forgotten . . .
Those who willingly sold what they had to share with those in need thought Jesus was returning any day. So when the Pentecost pilgrims who stayed rather than return home ran out of money (no one carried a debit card) the Jerusalem Christians sold possessions, fields, and homes to meet their need. I’m sure I would too if I thought Jesus was returning in the next couple of weeks.
They ended up broke. So much so that the Gentile churches took up a special collection for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem. Between persecutions and previously selling much of what they had, the Jerusalem church ended up in poverty. Perhaps Acts 2:41-47 is descriptive rather than prescriptive. After all, I know of no one who suggests we should be meeting daily, in Jerusalem, in the temple courts.
The early church ignored Jesus’ command to take the gospel to the world. They flat out disobeyed. They stayed in Jerusalem. Eventually God had to send a great persecution to drive them out of their holy huddle and jump start the expansion of the kingdom. That’s the only reason they left according to Acts 8:1
The early church was unwilling to share the gospel with Gentiles. And once they did, they didn’t want to allow them full status as Christians. Only after a contentious debate at the Jerusalem council did things change. And even after that, the battle raged on. That’s one of the major reasons we have the books of Galatians and Hebrews in our Bibles.
The Apostle Paul’s church plants were so messed up (both doctrinally and morally) he later had to write a bunch of letters to get them back on track. The Corinthians were visiting temple prostitutes, ignoring sin in the name of grace, hoarding the good stuff at church pot-lucks. And they seem to have forgotten that the resurrection really mattered. Timothy had to be reminded not to appoint the town drunk as an elder. The Galatians’ and Colossians’ flirted with heresy. And that’s just the beginning of a long list of sins and goofy thinking that had to be corrected.
The early church leaders were as feisty and flakey as today’s leaders. Paul and Barnabas had a messy split over how to handle a young intern named John Mark. Peter fell into hypocrisy and pretended to be a legalist until called out by Paul. And didn’t everyone skip out on Paul during his time of greatest need?
Jesus also had some rather unflattering things to say to the New Testament churches. Most of the churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3 hardly set an example I’d want my church to follow.
So when we call for a return to the New Testament church, do we really know what we’re asking for? In many cases, I think not.
__________________________
And in light of that, here’s why I’m so pumped about the future of the American church.
Jesus said he would build his church and the gates of hell could not hold it back. So I’ll bank on his promise despite some occasional setbacks.
As seen above, things might not be as bleak as they appear. Yes, we’re messed up, but so was the early church; and God used them to turn the world upside down.
God has already hand-picked a new breed of leaders and shepherds to care for his flock and beautify his bride. In my travels around the country, I run into them all the time. I wish everyone could see what I see and spend time with them as I do. They are the real deal. Many are already leading huge churches at a young age. Thousands more are heeding the call to become church planters. A plethora of church planting networks and organizations have spontaneously formed to recruit, train, and deploy these folks into ministry. It’s not only encouraging, it’s humbling.
__________________________
Does that mean they will win our nation back?
I don’t know. That’s out of their control. They can only be faithful and prepare the horse for battle. God will determine the outcome.
I said I was pumped about the future of the American church – not America.
So what do you think?
It’s fashionable to decry the current state of Christianity in America.
But frankly, I don’t buy it.
Some of the most popular conference speakers on the circuit today excel at drive-by-guiltings. They paint a picture of a church that lacks guts, cowers from dying to self, and lives out a self-satisfied, what’s-in-it-for-me Christianity.
In most cases, I like these speakers. They are good guys. I respect them. But I just don’t agree on this issue.
I’ve noticed that their audience is usually a room full of charge-the-hill-type young leaders who eat it up and then return home to look with disdain upon other churches, pastors, leaders, and often their own congregation (oblivious to how much they have in common with the self-congratulatory zealot in Luke 11: 9-14).
__________________________
Now don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that we have lots of carnality and self-centered living in our churches today. But come on, that’s nothing new. It’s been like that from the beginning. It’s simply not accurate to paint a heroic picture of the early church without also pointing out its many failures. In reality, the early church was pretty messed up, about as messed up as the American Church.
Have we forgotten . . .
Those who willingly sold what they had to share with those in need thought Jesus was returning any day. So when the Pentecost pilgrims who stayed rather than return home ran out of money (no one carried a debit card) the Jerusalem Christians sold possessions, fields, and homes to meet their need. I’m sure I would too if I thought Jesus was returning in the next couple of weeks.
They ended up broke. So much so that the Gentile churches took up a special collection for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem. Between persecutions and previously selling much of what they had, the Jerusalem church ended up in poverty. Perhaps Acts 2:41-47 is descriptive rather than prescriptive. After all, I know of no one who suggests we should be meeting daily, in Jerusalem, in the temple courts.
The early church ignored Jesus’ command to take the gospel to the world. They flat out disobeyed. They stayed in Jerusalem. Eventually God had to send a great persecution to drive them out of their holy huddle and jump start the expansion of the kingdom. That’s the only reason they left according to Acts 8:1
The early church was unwilling to share the gospel with Gentiles. And once they did, they didn’t want to allow them full status as Christians. Only after a contentious debate at the Jerusalem council did things change. And even after that, the battle raged on. That’s one of the major reasons we have the books of Galatians and Hebrews in our Bibles.
The Apostle Paul’s church plants were so messed up (both doctrinally and morally) he later had to write a bunch of letters to get them back on track. The Corinthians were visiting temple prostitutes, ignoring sin in the name of grace, hoarding the good stuff at church pot-lucks. And they seem to have forgotten that the resurrection really mattered. Timothy had to be reminded not to appoint the town drunk as an elder. The Galatians’ and Colossians’ flirted with heresy. And that’s just the beginning of a long list of sins and goofy thinking that had to be corrected.
The early church leaders were as feisty and flakey as today’s leaders. Paul and Barnabas had a messy split over how to handle a young intern named John Mark. Peter fell into hypocrisy and pretended to be a legalist until called out by Paul. And didn’t everyone skip out on Paul during his time of greatest need?
Jesus also had some rather unflattering things to say to the New Testament churches. Most of the churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3 hardly set an example I’d want my church to follow.
So when we call for a return to the New Testament church, do we really know what we’re asking for? In many cases, I think not.
__________________________
And in light of that, here’s why I’m so pumped about the future of the American church.
Jesus said he would build his church and the gates of hell could not hold it back. So I’ll bank on his promise despite some occasional setbacks.
As seen above, things might not be as bleak as they appear. Yes, we’re messed up, but so was the early church; and God used them to turn the world upside down.
God has already hand-picked a new breed of leaders and shepherds to care for his flock and beautify his bride. In my travels around the country, I run into them all the time. I wish everyone could see what I see and spend time with them as I do. They are the real deal. Many are already leading huge churches at a young age. Thousands more are heeding the call to become church planters. A plethora of church planting networks and organizations have spontaneously formed to recruit, train, and deploy these folks into ministry. It’s not only encouraging, it’s humbling.
__________________________
Does that mean they will win our nation back?
I don’t know. That’s out of their control. They can only be faithful and prepare the horse for battle. God will determine the outcome.
I said I was pumped about the future of the American church – not America.
So what do you think?
What I mean by Preaching - John Piper
What I Mean by Preaching
May 12, 2009 | By: John Piper
Category: Commentary
The following is from the intro to last weekend's sermon.
Some of you may have little or no experience with what I mean by preaching. I think it will help you listen to my messages if I say a word about it.
What I mean by preaching is expository exultation.
Preaching Is Expository
Expository means that preaching aims to exposit, or explain and apply, the meaning of the Bible. The reason for this is that the Bible is God’s word, inspired, infallible, profitable—all 66 books of it.
The preacher’s job is to minimize his own opinions and deliver the truth of God. Every sermon should explain the Bible and then apply it to people's lives.
The preacher should do that in a way that enables you to see that the points he is making actually come from the Bible. If you can’t see that they come from the Bible, your faith will end up resting on a man and not on God's word.
The aim of this exposition is to help you eat and digest biblical truth that will
make your spiritual bones more like steel,
double the capacity of your spiritual lungs,
make the eyes of your heart dazzled with the brightness of the glory of God,
and awaken the capacity of your soul for kinds of spiritual enjoyment you didn’t even know existed.
Preaching Is Exultation
Preaching is also exultation. This means that the preacher does not just explain what’s in the Bible, and the people do not simply try understand what he explains. Rather, the preacher and the people exult over what is in the Bible as it is being explained and applied.
Preaching does not come after worship in the order of the service. Preaching is worship. The preacher worships—exults—over the word, trying his best to draw you into a worshipful response by the power of the Holy Spirit.
My job is not simply to see truth and show it to you. (The devil could do that for his own devious reasons.) My job is to see the glory of the truth and to savor it and exult over it as I explain it to you and apply it for you. That’s one of the differences between a sermon and a lecture.
Preaching Isn't Church, but It Serves the Church
Preaching is not the totality of the church. And if all you have is preaching, you don’t have the church. A church is a body of people who minister to each other.
One of the purposes of preaching is to equip us for that and inspire us to love each other better.
But God has created the church so that she flourishes through preaching. That’s why Paul gave young pastor Timothy one of the most serious, exalted charges in all the Bible in 2 Timothy 4:1-2:
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word.
What to Expect from My Preaching and Why
If you're used to a twenty-minute, immediately practical, relaxed talk, you won't find that from what I've just described.
I preach twice that long;
I do not aim to be immediately practical but eternally helpful;
and I am not relaxed.
I standing vigilantly on the precipice of eternity speaking to people who this week could go over the edge whether they are ready to or not. I will be called to account for what I said there.
That's what I mean by preaching.
May 12, 2009 | By: John Piper
Category: Commentary
The following is from the intro to last weekend's sermon.
Some of you may have little or no experience with what I mean by preaching. I think it will help you listen to my messages if I say a word about it.
What I mean by preaching is expository exultation.
Preaching Is Expository
Expository means that preaching aims to exposit, or explain and apply, the meaning of the Bible. The reason for this is that the Bible is God’s word, inspired, infallible, profitable—all 66 books of it.
The preacher’s job is to minimize his own opinions and deliver the truth of God. Every sermon should explain the Bible and then apply it to people's lives.
The preacher should do that in a way that enables you to see that the points he is making actually come from the Bible. If you can’t see that they come from the Bible, your faith will end up resting on a man and not on God's word.
The aim of this exposition is to help you eat and digest biblical truth that will
make your spiritual bones more like steel,
double the capacity of your spiritual lungs,
make the eyes of your heart dazzled with the brightness of the glory of God,
and awaken the capacity of your soul for kinds of spiritual enjoyment you didn’t even know existed.
Preaching Is Exultation
Preaching is also exultation. This means that the preacher does not just explain what’s in the Bible, and the people do not simply try understand what he explains. Rather, the preacher and the people exult over what is in the Bible as it is being explained and applied.
Preaching does not come after worship in the order of the service. Preaching is worship. The preacher worships—exults—over the word, trying his best to draw you into a worshipful response by the power of the Holy Spirit.
My job is not simply to see truth and show it to you. (The devil could do that for his own devious reasons.) My job is to see the glory of the truth and to savor it and exult over it as I explain it to you and apply it for you. That’s one of the differences between a sermon and a lecture.
Preaching Isn't Church, but It Serves the Church
Preaching is not the totality of the church. And if all you have is preaching, you don’t have the church. A church is a body of people who minister to each other.
One of the purposes of preaching is to equip us for that and inspire us to love each other better.
But God has created the church so that she flourishes through preaching. That’s why Paul gave young pastor Timothy one of the most serious, exalted charges in all the Bible in 2 Timothy 4:1-2:
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word.
What to Expect from My Preaching and Why
If you're used to a twenty-minute, immediately practical, relaxed talk, you won't find that from what I've just described.
I preach twice that long;
I do not aim to be immediately practical but eternally helpful;
and I am not relaxed.
I standing vigilantly on the precipice of eternity speaking to people who this week could go over the edge whether they are ready to or not. I will be called to account for what I said there.
That's what I mean by preaching.
Monday, May 11, 2009
If Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was Published in Christianity Today
from Sacred Sandwich.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Christianity Today:
In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently? I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most loving, caring people I’ve ever met.
Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI
————————————————————————
Dear Editor:
How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does, and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?
Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS
————————————————————————–
Dear CT:
I’ve seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I’m surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the Church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr. Apostle for many years now has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to “mark” certain Christian teachers who don’t agree with his biblical position. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God’s word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the Church, and gives credence to the opposition’s view that Christians are judgmental, arrogant people who never show God’s love.
Ken Groener; San Diego, CA
—————————————————————————-
To the Editors:
Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off their own privates? What kind of Christian attitude is that? Shame on him!
Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO
—————————————————————————-
Dear Christianity Today:
The fact that Paul Apostle brags about his public run-in with Peter Cephas, a well-respected leader and brother in Christ, exposes Mr. Apostle for the divisive figure that he has become in the Church today. His diatribe against the Galatian church is just more of the same misguided focus on an antiquated reliance on doctrine instead of love and tolerance. Just look how his hypercritical attitude has cast aspersions on homosexual believers and women elders! The real problem within the Church today is not the lack of doctrinal devotion, as Apostle seems to believe, but in our inability to be transformed by our individual journeys in the Spirit. Evidently, Apostle has failed to detach himself from his legalistic background as a Pharisee, and is unable to let go and experience the genuine love for Christ that is coming from the Galatians who strive to worship God in their own special way.
William Zenby; Richmond, VA
——————————————————————————
Kind Editors:
I happen to be a member of First Christian Church of Galatia, and I take issue with Mr. Apostle’s article. How can he criticize a ministry that has been so blessed by God? Our church has baptized many new members and has made huge in-roads in the Jewish community with our pragmatic view on circumcision. Such a “seeker-sensitive” approach has given the Jews the respect they deserve for being God’s chosen people for thousands of years. In addition, every Gentile in our midst has felt honored to engage in the many edifying rituals of the Hebrew heritage, including circumcision, without losing their passion for Jesus. My advice to Mr. Apostle is to stick to spreading the gospel message of Christ’s unconditional love, and quit criticizing what God is clearly blessing in other churches.
Miriam “Betty” Ben-Hur; Galatia, Turkey
——————————————————————————-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Christianity Today apologizes for our rash decision in publishing Paul Apostle’s exposé of the Galatian church. Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth. We regret any damage we may have caused in propagating the doctrines of Christ.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Christianity Today:
In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently? I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most loving, caring people I’ve ever met.
Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI
————————————————————————
Dear Editor:
How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does, and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?
Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS
————————————————————————–
Dear CT:
I’ve seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I’m surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the Church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr. Apostle for many years now has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to “mark” certain Christian teachers who don’t agree with his biblical position. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God’s word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the Church, and gives credence to the opposition’s view that Christians are judgmental, arrogant people who never show God’s love.
Ken Groener; San Diego, CA
—————————————————————————-
To the Editors:
Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off their own privates? What kind of Christian attitude is that? Shame on him!
Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO
—————————————————————————-
Dear Christianity Today:
The fact that Paul Apostle brags about his public run-in with Peter Cephas, a well-respected leader and brother in Christ, exposes Mr. Apostle for the divisive figure that he has become in the Church today. His diatribe against the Galatian church is just more of the same misguided focus on an antiquated reliance on doctrine instead of love and tolerance. Just look how his hypercritical attitude has cast aspersions on homosexual believers and women elders! The real problem within the Church today is not the lack of doctrinal devotion, as Apostle seems to believe, but in our inability to be transformed by our individual journeys in the Spirit. Evidently, Apostle has failed to detach himself from his legalistic background as a Pharisee, and is unable to let go and experience the genuine love for Christ that is coming from the Galatians who strive to worship God in their own special way.
William Zenby; Richmond, VA
——————————————————————————
Kind Editors:
I happen to be a member of First Christian Church of Galatia, and I take issue with Mr. Apostle’s article. How can he criticize a ministry that has been so blessed by God? Our church has baptized many new members and has made huge in-roads in the Jewish community with our pragmatic view on circumcision. Such a “seeker-sensitive” approach has given the Jews the respect they deserve for being God’s chosen people for thousands of years. In addition, every Gentile in our midst has felt honored to engage in the many edifying rituals of the Hebrew heritage, including circumcision, without losing their passion for Jesus. My advice to Mr. Apostle is to stick to spreading the gospel message of Christ’s unconditional love, and quit criticizing what God is clearly blessing in other churches.
Miriam “Betty” Ben-Hur; Galatia, Turkey
——————————————————————————-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Christianity Today apologizes for our rash decision in publishing Paul Apostle’s exposé of the Galatian church. Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth. We regret any damage we may have caused in propagating the doctrines of Christ.
Monday, May 4, 2009
You might be a Reformed male if...
No one has ever heard of the beer you are currently drinking.
You've named or plan to name your first son John, Jonathan, Charles, Knox, Owen, Calvin, Martin, Luther, Martin Luther, or Jean.
You have a beard (or wish you did).
You smoke a pipe.
You consult the PCA church directory when planning domestic vacations.
You dream of being accidentally left behind after hours in the Curry library (which, if you don't happen to be in the know, currently houses around 7,000 books from Charles Spurgeon's personal library).
You have a dream Bible.
You've considered Wittenberg, Germany as a great honeymoon destination.
You know what PCA, OPC, CREC, EPC, RPCNA, and APC stand for.
You refer to non-Christians as "unregenerates."
John Piper really is your homeboy.
You don't shop at Christian bookstores.
You've used the line, "Baby, your name must be Grace because you are irresistible" on women.
It's "Reformation Day" not "Halloween."
You've taped a copy of the 95 theses to the door of the nearest Catholic or seeker sensitive church on Reformation Day.
You can finish the names of each of these men:
A.W.
B. B.
R. L.
J. C.
C. H.
You end each email with "Soli Deo Gloria."
You've named or plan to name your first son John, Jonathan, Charles, Knox, Owen, Calvin, Martin, Luther, Martin Luther, or Jean.
You have a beard (or wish you did).
You smoke a pipe.
You consult the PCA church directory when planning domestic vacations.
You dream of being accidentally left behind after hours in the Curry library (which, if you don't happen to be in the know, currently houses around 7,000 books from Charles Spurgeon's personal library).
You have a dream Bible.
You've considered Wittenberg, Germany as a great honeymoon destination.
You know what PCA, OPC, CREC, EPC, RPCNA, and APC stand for.
You refer to non-Christians as "unregenerates."
John Piper really is your homeboy.
You don't shop at Christian bookstores.
You've used the line, "Baby, your name must be Grace because you are irresistible" on women.
It's "Reformation Day" not "Halloween."
You've taped a copy of the 95 theses to the door of the nearest Catholic or seeker sensitive church on Reformation Day.
You can finish the names of each of these men:
A.W.
B. B.
R. L.
J. C.
C. H.
You end each email with "Soli Deo Gloria."
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Great Offense - Sinning Against Mercy
"And so Capernaum, that was lifted up to heaven, was threatened to be thrown down to hell. No souls fall so low into hell, if they fall, as those souls that by a hand of mercy are lifted up nearest to heaven. You slight souls that are so apt to abuse mercy, consider this, that in the gospel days, the plagues that God inflicts upon the despisers and abusers of mercy are usually spiritual plagues; as blindness of mid, hardness of heart, benumbedness of conscience, which are ten thousand times worse than the worst of outward plagues that can befall you..."
"Oh! therefore, whenever Satan shall present God to the soul as one made up all of mercy, that he may draw thee to do wickedly, say unto him, that sins against mercy will bring upon the soul the greatest misery; and therefore whatever becomes of thee, thou wilt not sin against mercy."
Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices, Banner of Truth Trust, 53.
"Oh! therefore, whenever Satan shall present God to the soul as one made up all of mercy, that he may draw thee to do wickedly, say unto him, that sins against mercy will bring upon the soul the greatest misery; and therefore whatever becomes of thee, thou wilt not sin against mercy."
Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices, Banner of Truth Trust, 53.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Must have more books!!!
"We do not know what the books were about, and we can only form some guess as to what the parchments were. Paul had a few books which were left, perhaps wrapped up in the cloak, and Timothy was to be careful to bring them. Even an apostle must read. . . . A man who comes up into the pulpit, professes to take his text on the spot, and talks any quantity of nonsense, is the idol of many. If he will speak without premeditation, or pretend to do so, and never produce what they call a dish of dead men's brains—oh! that is the preacher. How rebuked are they by the apostle!
He is inspired, and yet he wants books!
He has been preaching at least for thirty years, and yet he wants books!
He had seen the Lord, and yet he wants books!
He had had a wider experience than most men, and yet he wants books!
He had been caught up into the third heaven, and had heard things which it was unlawful for a men to utter, yet he wants books!
He had written the major part of the New Testament, and yet he wants books!
The apostle says to Timothy and so he says to every preacher, "Give thyself unto reading." The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains, proves that he has no brains of his own.
Brethren, what is true of ministers is true of all our people. You need to read. Renounce as much as you will all light literature, but study as much as possible sound theological works, especially the Puritanic writers, and expositions of the Bible. We are quite persuaded that the very best way for you to be spending your leisure, is to be either reading or praying. You may get much instruction from books which afterwards you may use as a true weapon in your Lord and Master's service. Paul cries, "Bring the books"—join in the cry." - Spurgeon
He is inspired, and yet he wants books!
He has been preaching at least for thirty years, and yet he wants books!
He had seen the Lord, and yet he wants books!
He had had a wider experience than most men, and yet he wants books!
He had been caught up into the third heaven, and had heard things which it was unlawful for a men to utter, yet he wants books!
He had written the major part of the New Testament, and yet he wants books!
The apostle says to Timothy and so he says to every preacher, "Give thyself unto reading." The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains, proves that he has no brains of his own.
Brethren, what is true of ministers is true of all our people. You need to read. Renounce as much as you will all light literature, but study as much as possible sound theological works, especially the Puritanic writers, and expositions of the Bible. We are quite persuaded that the very best way for you to be spending your leisure, is to be either reading or praying. You may get much instruction from books which afterwards you may use as a true weapon in your Lord and Master's service. Paul cries, "Bring the books"—join in the cry." - Spurgeon
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Blah!!!!!
"God's grace, God's forgiveness...the free gift of salvation is at best just a footnote on the gospel."
Brian McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Brian McLaren - A Generous Orthodoxy
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Lesser Temptation, Greater Sin
"The less the temptation is to sin, the greater is that sin."
"When Satan says it is but a little one, do thou answer, that oftentimes there is the greatest unkindness showed to God's glorious majesty, in the acting of the least folly, and therefore thou wilt no displease thy best and greatest friend, but yielding to his greatest enemy."
"There is a great danger, yea, many times most danger, in the smallest sins.... Greater sins do soon startle the soul, and awaken and rouse up the soul to repentance, then lesser sins."
Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices, Banner of Truth Trust, pgs 41-42)
"When Satan says it is but a little one, do thou answer, that oftentimes there is the greatest unkindness showed to God's glorious majesty, in the acting of the least folly, and therefore thou wilt no displease thy best and greatest friend, but yielding to his greatest enemy."
"There is a great danger, yea, many times most danger, in the smallest sins.... Greater sins do soon startle the soul, and awaken and rouse up the soul to repentance, then lesser sins."
Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices, Banner of Truth Trust, pgs 41-42)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saddleback Church Trains 2,400 New Members; Baptizes 800
Saddleback Church in southern California trained nearly 2,400 new church members on Saturday. It was the largest membership class in the megachurch’s 30-year history. Of those who participated in the church’s introductory membership session, Class 101, about 800 were baptized afterwards. Founding pastor Rick Warren personally taught the program and then, with the help of other Saddleback pastors, spent more than three and a half hours baptizing the hundreds of new members.
HERE
HERE
Friday, March 27, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
When Jesus Makes You Feel Bad
We’ve heard it before: Jesus is nearly equated with anti-depressant mediation. Accepting Jesus is like taking a Valium.
"Come to Jesus, and you’ll…(you fill in the state of euphoria)."
Again, "Know Jesus, Know Peace. No Jesus, No Peace."
Nice platitudes… I guess...
When a person comes to faith, there isn’t a removal of feeling bad and the installment of feeling good. Rather, the Christian life is gradual reversal of what you feel good and bad about. As non-believers, we generally feel good about sin and bad about righteousness. When God changes our hearts, we begin to feel bad about sin and good about righteousness. These feelings intensify gradually.
But it’s precisely this reversal that throws a person into a deep, nagging, and sometimes overwhelming struggle of soul (i.e., sadness). One might even argue that a person can sometimes feel "worse" as a believer than as an unbeliever. The more a person loves righteousness, the more he or she hates the sin within; which is to say, the more he or she feels "bad." Paul models this well:
Romans 7:15-24 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate…For I know that nothing good dwells in me….For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want…Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
The mere fact that you feel worse off now then you did when or before you first believed doesn’t at all mean that you are actually worse off not then when or before you first believed. Rather, it may be an indication that you are better off. Sometimes it’s an unhealthy person that doesn’t feel any pain. Pain can be a sign of health.
Imagine for a moment a man whose body is ravaged due to a head-on accident. One of the most significant injuries is a severed spinal column which has caused paralysis and lack of sensation, and therefore a lack of pain. Though the rest of his body is broken, he doesn’t feel it. Imagine some powerful scientific feat in which doctors are able to reattach his spinal cord. Upon this reattachment, pain signals begin to flow to his brain. Consider that though he is healthier after this procedure (due to this spinal cord being reattached), he experiences far more pain now then when he was significantly less healthier. The presence of pain may give the patient the illusion that he is worse off after the procedure than he was before it. Instead, pain is a signal of new found health.
The fact that a Christian experiences times of spiritual angst should not immediately dismissed as a sign of immaturity, but maturity. A sober man understands drunkenness, not a drunk. A person "sobering up" in the Christian journey will have a more sane and acute of the sin that remains. This leads to reinforce his convictions about salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. He is moved to boast louder in the cross and renounce confidence in the flesh.
Pastor Jake
"Come to Jesus, and you’ll…(you fill in the state of euphoria)."
Again, "Know Jesus, Know Peace. No Jesus, No Peace."
Nice platitudes… I guess...
When a person comes to faith, there isn’t a removal of feeling bad and the installment of feeling good. Rather, the Christian life is gradual reversal of what you feel good and bad about. As non-believers, we generally feel good about sin and bad about righteousness. When God changes our hearts, we begin to feel bad about sin and good about righteousness. These feelings intensify gradually.
But it’s precisely this reversal that throws a person into a deep, nagging, and sometimes overwhelming struggle of soul (i.e., sadness). One might even argue that a person can sometimes feel "worse" as a believer than as an unbeliever. The more a person loves righteousness, the more he or she hates the sin within; which is to say, the more he or she feels "bad." Paul models this well:
Romans 7:15-24 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate…For I know that nothing good dwells in me….For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want…Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
The mere fact that you feel worse off now then you did when or before you first believed doesn’t at all mean that you are actually worse off not then when or before you first believed. Rather, it may be an indication that you are better off. Sometimes it’s an unhealthy person that doesn’t feel any pain. Pain can be a sign of health.
Imagine for a moment a man whose body is ravaged due to a head-on accident. One of the most significant injuries is a severed spinal column which has caused paralysis and lack of sensation, and therefore a lack of pain. Though the rest of his body is broken, he doesn’t feel it. Imagine some powerful scientific feat in which doctors are able to reattach his spinal cord. Upon this reattachment, pain signals begin to flow to his brain. Consider that though he is healthier after this procedure (due to this spinal cord being reattached), he experiences far more pain now then when he was significantly less healthier. The presence of pain may give the patient the illusion that he is worse off after the procedure than he was before it. Instead, pain is a signal of new found health.
The fact that a Christian experiences times of spiritual angst should not immediately dismissed as a sign of immaturity, but maturity. A sober man understands drunkenness, not a drunk. A person "sobering up" in the Christian journey will have a more sane and acute of the sin that remains. This leads to reinforce his convictions about salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. He is moved to boast louder in the cross and renounce confidence in the flesh.
Pastor Jake
Monday, March 16, 2009
How to Read the Bible Without Becoming a Cult Leader and Heretic
How to Read the Bible Without Becoming a Cult Leader and Heretic - HERE
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The New Calvinism: 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now
Time.com reports on 10 ideas changing the world. Number 3 on that list is the resurgence of Calvinism.
HERE
HERE
Monday, March 9, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Reading on Your Knees
I searched out these references to Whitefield's and Muller's approach towards Holy Scripture.
"We can visualize him at 5 in the morning in his room, on his knees with his Bible, his Greek New Testament, and a volume of Matthew Henry spread out before him. With intense concentration he reads a portion in English, studies its words and tenses in the Greek, and then considers Matthew Henry’s exposition of the whole. Finally comes his unique posture of ‘praying over every line and every word’ in both the English and the Greek, feasting his mind and his heart upon it till its essential meaning has become a part of his very person. When we shortly see him preaching forty and more hours per week with virtually no time whatsoever for preparation, we may look back upon these days and recognize that he was then laying up a store of knowledge on which he was able to draw amidst the tumult and hast of that later ministry” (Arnold A. Dallimore, George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century, pg. 22)
George Muller (1898), after reading Whitefield’s biography and concluding that the source of his evangelistic power to be his reverence and approach to the word of God and his passionate prayer life. So, George Muller took up the practice of reading his Bible on his knees. What Whitefield was in Evangelism, Muller was with Faith (e.g. 50,000 cases where he could trace distinct answers to definite prayers). (A.T. Peirson: George Muller of Bristol: His Life of Prayer and Faith, pgs. 137-139)
Monday, February 23, 2009
Grace
Thomas Brooks offers ten particulars of renewing grace over and against restraining grace.
1. True grace makes all glorious within and without: A lion in a cage is a lion still; he is restrained, but not changed. But now true grace turns a lion into a lamb.
2. The objects of true grace are supernatural.
3. True grace enables a Chrsitian, when he is himself, to do spirtual actions with real pleasure and delight, To souls truly gracious, Christ's yoke 'is easy, and his burden is light;' his commandments are not grievous, but joyous."
4. True grace makes a man most careful, and most feaful of his own heart.
5. Grace will work a man's heart to love and cleave to the strictest and holiest ways and things of God, for their purity and sanctity, in the face all dangers and hardships.
6. True grace will enable a man to step over the world's crown, to take up Christ's cross; to prefer the cross of Christ above the glory of this world.
7. Sanctifying grace, renewing grace, puts the souls upon spiritual duties, from spiritual and intrinsical motives, as from the sense of divine love, that does constrain the soul to wait on God, and to act for God; and the sense of the excellency and sweetness of communion with God, and the choice and precious discoveries that the soul hath formerly had of the beauty and glory of God, while it hath been in the service of God.
8. Saving grace, renewing grace, will cause a man to follow the Lord Fully in the desertion of all sin, and in the observation of all God's precepts.
9. True grace leads the soul to rest in Christ, as in his summum bonum, chiefest good.
10. True grace will enable a soul to sit down satisfied and contented with the naked enjoyments of Christ.
Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices, Banner of Truth Trust, 154-162.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Devilish Doubt
"Satan does not labor more mightily to persuade hypocrites that their graces are true when they are conterfeit, than he does to persuade precious souls that their graces are counterfeit, when indeed they are true."
Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices, Banner of Truth Trust, 155.
Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices, Banner of Truth Trust, 155.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
A Review of The Shack
23 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
The Shack is no Shaq!, February 10, 2009
By whejoe
I thought this was a horrible book, as I thought it was a biography about Shaquille O'Neil. He will go down as one of the greatest centers in the history of the nba. From his time in Orlando, through his current team, the Phoenix Suns, he continues to dominate.
Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)
The Shack is no Shaq!, February 10, 2009
By whejoe
I thought this was a horrible book, as I thought it was a biography about Shaquille O'Neil. He will go down as one of the greatest centers in the history of the nba. From his time in Orlando, through his current team, the Phoenix Suns, he continues to dominate.
Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sanctification
“Sanctification is a lifelong process of repentance (not recovery) and obedience (not inner healing) that results in holiness (not wholeness) for the glory of God (not personal fulfillment).”
- C.J. Mahaney
- C.J. Mahaney
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Dangerous Church in 2010
from Ed Stetzer
The Dangerous Church in 2010
Cautions
1. Don't Believe the Hype.
Many who promote bad news have a program to fix it.
If those that tell you have a need and then try to sell you the solution, you should be cynical.
For example, people keep telling me the era of the megachurch is over. They have data. They say this is the final year. And, then this year there were more than last year. You have to have over 7000 weekend attendees to qualify to be in our LifeWay Research / Outreach top 100 list (it was in the 5000s three years ago).
Well, turns out that they don't like megachurches. Like it or not, your current views impact your future predictions.
2. Be more cynical.
Too many believe the "next big thing" will fix the church. Instead, we need to be more cynical.
The church will not solve all its problems by emerging, having 5 purposes, moving into a house, or announcing itself missional. And, we tend to just be too ready to believe these things contain all the answers.
3. Be People of Issachar (1 Chronicles 12:32).
-There are trends we can and should watch.
I always like the name that Leadership Network used to use, "Scouts for the Emerging Church." They don't like to talk about that phrase as much today, but we need to be constantly looking for where God is at work so we can join him in it. Or, to quote my friend Reggie McNeal, we need to look at the present future.
-Skate Where the Puck Is.
Too many look at the trends and think they understand today-- they skate where the puck is. That is a start.
But, I think it is more than knowing today. We have to look into the future. (To quote Gretzky: we skate where the puck is going to be.)
For More - Here
The Dangerous Church in 2010
Cautions
1. Don't Believe the Hype.
Many who promote bad news have a program to fix it.
If those that tell you have a need and then try to sell you the solution, you should be cynical.
For example, people keep telling me the era of the megachurch is over. They have data. They say this is the final year. And, then this year there were more than last year. You have to have over 7000 weekend attendees to qualify to be in our LifeWay Research / Outreach top 100 list (it was in the 5000s three years ago).
Well, turns out that they don't like megachurches. Like it or not, your current views impact your future predictions.
2. Be more cynical.
Too many believe the "next big thing" will fix the church. Instead, we need to be more cynical.
The church will not solve all its problems by emerging, having 5 purposes, moving into a house, or announcing itself missional. And, we tend to just be too ready to believe these things contain all the answers.
3. Be People of Issachar (1 Chronicles 12:32).
-There are trends we can and should watch.
I always like the name that Leadership Network used to use, "Scouts for the Emerging Church." They don't like to talk about that phrase as much today, but we need to be constantly looking for where God is at work so we can join him in it. Or, to quote my friend Reggie McNeal, we need to look at the present future.
-Skate Where the Puck Is.
Too many look at the trends and think they understand today-- they skate where the puck is. That is a start.
But, I think it is more than knowing today. We have to look into the future. (To quote Gretzky: we skate where the puck is going to be.)
For More - Here
Friday, January 30, 2009
Homosexuality, Evangelicalism, and Bigotry: A Plea for Clarity and Compassion
by Jake MageeSomeone recently asked me how he might graciously and tactfully respond to a homosexual friend who contends that Christians are being judgmental, bigoted, and unloving when they label the homosexual lifestyle as sin. Since this is pervasive in dialogues on the topic, I offer a few thoughts to hopefully help elucidate the conversation and allow Christians share Biblical convictions with clarity and compassion.
Here’s a basic question that comes to mind in thinking over the charge made: If, when, and how should people make moral evaluations on sexual behavior?
If and When?
Some homosexuals seem to imply that we shouldn’t make moral evaluations on sexual behavior. Notice that I’d rather use “evaluation” rather than “judgment” because “judgment” is term is loaded with a bunch of junk I’d prefer to avoid. By “evaluation,” I’m saying that we conclude that some sexual behavior is great, good, not so good, or bad. This is the proper meaning of “judgment.”
So, should one make moral evaluations on sexual behavior? Let’s distill this question a bit more and see if we make some headway: “can we make moral evaluations about behavior in general?”
Granted, this question borders on being simplistic. Murdering Jews in the holocaust is bad and saving Jews from the holocaust is good. Stealing from old ladies is bad and helping old ladies is good. Helping people because they are in need is better than helping people to get a favor in return. The list of behaviors of which we make judgments is seemingly endless. So then the answer is “Yes”; we can and must make moral evaluations about behavior in general.
Well, what about sexual behavior?
This too seems obvious to me. We make judgments about pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality, and rape. I understand that homosexuals will gasp at being lumped with most of these (and I think that their reversion is partially right), but that’s beside the immediate point. A homosexual also believes that it is sometimes proper to make moral judgments about sexual behavior; they’ll just disagree about what behaviors to make judgments about.
Here’s the point. Of the behaviors that they do make judgments on, it hardly seems to appropriate for someone (namely, the person whose behavior the homosexual is evaluating) to automatically label their evaluations “judgmental,” “bigoted,” or “unloving.” Making moral evaluations on sexuality isn’t default bigotry. Maybe our homosexual friends are responding to something else.
How?
In this debate, there seems to be the confusion of moral judgments and judgmentalism. Some homosexuals are responding to how some may convey moral evaluations. And this is understandable. Some believers offer moral evaluations in a way less than moral. With that said, it is a leap of logic to conclude that evangelicals are wrong in their moral evaluations due to the way they are communicated. That’s like some concluding the homosexual lifestyle is immoral because some fringe radical homosexuals assault people in the name of their cause. This too would be a leap of logic. Again, it would be leap to conclude that the homosexual cause was moral because the cause was communicated with meekness and gentility. The message and the method need to be distinguished.
With that said, evangelicals have been strong on message and negligent on method. Here are a couple of ways that evangelicals fail to communicate well on this issue, as well as some proffered adjustments.
First, some fixate on this sexual sin and elevate it to a category it shouldn’t. Scripturally, homosexuality, heterosexual sin, as well as non-sexual sin are lumped in the same list of behaviors deserving the wrath of God and therefore requiring the atonement of Jesus to satisfy (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Galatians 5:20-21). This list includes drunkenness, fornication, adultery, theft, covetousness, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, and carousing. Within evangelicalism, these behaviors are spoken of less frequently and resisted far less vigorously than homosexuality. The solution, however, isn’t to speak less about or tolerate homosexuality in the way that we do other behaviors. Rather, our response it is to speak and resist more any and all behavior that fails to conform to God’s kingdom, and hold out Jesus as God’s solution for our chronic sinfulness. This transitions to my last point.
Some fail to communicate redemptively. Believers often communicate on this topic in a way that makes it appear that they’ve never been guilty of damning thoughts and actions. What an indictment on them, and perhaps an indication of the absence of God’s grace in their own lives. If we truly have a sense of the greatness of our sin and our Savior, then any and all approaches to our friends and family about their moral condition (be it homosexuality, heterosexual sin, or non-sexual sin) will be marked by humility and love, like one spiritual beggar telling another where to get grace.
I urge my brothers and sisters to engage this issue. Engage it, and don’t shrink from the emotionally charged rhetoric that has silenced those who would represent the Biblical position far better than some of our well-meaning but poorly articulated brothers and sisters. Engage it Biblically, thoughtfully, humbly, and redemptively.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Basic Outline for 1 John
1. The Person and Work of Jesus in History
A. The Person of Jesus (1:1-4)2. The Effects of Jesus in our Affections – What we Love
B. The Need for Jesus (1:5-10)
C. The Work of Jesus (2:1&2)
A. They Love Righteousness (2:3-13)3. The Effects of Jesus in our Actions – How We Live
B. They Hate Worldliness (2:15-17)
C. They Withstand Deception (2:18-27)
A. The Root of Righteousness
i. Pursuing Purity in view of the Christ’s 2nd Coming (2:28-3:3)
ii. Practicing Purity because of Christ’s 1st Coming (3:4-6)
iii. Practicing Purity because of Re-birth. (3:7-9)
B. The Fruit of Righteousness
i. The Presence of Practical Righteousness (3:10-19)4. The Challenges to Our Affections and Actions – How We Win
ii. The Presence of Practical Assurance (3:20-24)
A. Overcoming the Challenges of the Demonic Deception (4:1-6)
B. Overcoming the Challenges of Christian Community (4:7-21)
C. Overcoming the Challenges of Worldly Influence (5:1-12)
D. Overcoming the Challenges of Personal Doubt (5:13-21)
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
Every Commercial Flight in 72 seconds - Video
“But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” Dan 12:4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)