Tony Almeida will be returning in season 7!
I knew he wasn't dead. No one as sweet as the Almeida-nator could die at the hands of the washed up RoboCop actor turned terrorist.
Check it out here!
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Monday, September 24, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The True Cost of a New iPhone
This quick and dirty spreadsheet indicates the total cost of iPhone ownership over a 24 month contract, excluding likely extras such as accessories and hidden charges.
Our Father and Mother, Who Art In Heaven?
One of the most important issues facing the church today, as it has for centuries past, centers around the matter of changing language when speaking of God. Language is always changing. Dictionaries and grammars are frequently revised to include new words and phrases which become more commonplace with the march of time. Some radical feminists and revisionists are saying that the Scriptures are written in male terms and that the Bible should be corrected or adapted to fit today’s post-post-postmodern culture (I may have left out a few “posts”). They maintain that we must eliminate the male bias which supposedly runs throughout the Bible, and this includes references to the human family (such as "mankind"), and allusions to a male God (such as "the Father"), and the use of male pronouns (such as "he"). They argue that Bible descriptions are authoritarian and gender distinctive and in our day such terms are no longer useful; Biblical language must accommodate itself to the insights of the modern age.
For some time it has been quite evident that there are those working diligently to perform a major sex-change operation on the Bible's language. This is a high-priority agenda item for some people. And although I believe the trend toward inclusive language is not all bad, I believe it has gone too far. And the "too far" for us has to do primarily with the attempt to eliminate all male references to the God of Scripture.
Some Inclusivist Examples:
In our day, the feminist critics are calling for a number of word changes that would make our language more inclusive of men and women. It is true that there have been some biases built into the words and phrases that are commonly used in church circles. It is not always helpful, for example, to refer to a congregation as "men" or "brethren." In sensitivity to other persons, we can make an effort to be inclusive. We do not object to using the phrase "men and women" (instead of "men") when referring to people, nor is it offensive to speak of "chairpersons" instead of chairmen," or to say "mail carrier" instead of mailman."
It is okay with most people to say that "utility men" are "utility persons" and that "manholes" are "person holes." It doesn't bother most of us if inspectors want to work in "sewer holes" instead of "manholes." And certainly all of us should intentionally avoid use of stereotypes such as 11 woman driver" or "scatterbrained female." However, the present-day discussion in church circles is not primarily concerned with typical references to people. The more serious concern centers around language which is used in reference to God.
There are groups within our churches that call for widening the terms used for God so that the language includes female images of God. They want all exclusive male references to God removed from the Bible. The language and wordpictures used in the Bible, they say, must be changed. The National Council of Churches, for example, has prepared inclusive translations of Scripture passages for use in its Lectionaries. In the NCC-sponsored Inclusive Language Lectionary, language for people is changed to include women as well as men. For example, it can be helpful to translate "Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly" (Psalm 1:1) as "Blessed are those who walk not in the counsel of the ungodly" -and to render "Let your light shine before men" (Matthew 5:16), as "Let your light shine before others"--and to say, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men and women," instead of the translation formerly used. But to change language about God (to speak of God as Father "and Mother," and Christ as "Child" of God) is unacceptable and can lead to some serious consequences, some of which I will briefly mention:
(a) God as Mother
The Scripture translations for the Inclusive Language add the words "and Mother" whenever there are references to God the Father. It is true that in several Old Testament texts, God is pictured as a woman giving birth, as a mother tending a small child, as a nursing mother, as a woman putting food and water on the table, etc. Christians down through the years have often referred to the motherly tenderness of God. It is true that in some ways God is like a mother-but God is never called "Mother." This is something significant. When we speak of God as "Father," we are including not only His fatherly (but also His motherly) qualities.
The word "Father" is the most distinctive name that Christians use for God. It is interesting to note that Muslims have 99 names for God (Protector, Provider, etc.), but not one of them is "Father." Christians have learned to use the name "Father" by following the example of Jesus; this was the name by which He knew God. Even as a boy, Jesus said, "Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" (Luke 2:49 NKJV). The last words of Jesus on the Cross were, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, He said, "Say, Our Father who art in heaven." And it is dangerous for us to tamper with those words. The prayer begins with "Our Father," and goes on to say, "Hallowed be thy name." What name? The name which opens the prayer—" Father." To use the word "Father" when referring to God is simply to follow the example which Jesus set for us.
There is also a trend in hymnwriting that uses feminine imagery for God. British poet Brian Wren is a leader in the trend in hymnwriting. One of Wren's most controversial hymns is entitled "Strong Mother God." The hymn begins by calling God "Mother." Later verses address God as warm, father God; great, living God; old, aching God; and young, growing God." For the feminists, the hymn "God of our Fathers" becomes "God of the Ages." The line of another hymn is changed from "Like a loving father" to "Like a loving parent."
(b) Jesus as Lord
Inclusivists say that to sing songs like "The Church's One Foundation is Jesus Christ Our Lord"-is to use sexist language and is not sensitive to the concerns of women. They say that the Bible (with all its talk about "lords" and “kings") reflects an ancient feudal society which is not acceptable in our day.
The feminist critics find something grievously wrong with the beginning of the Twenty-third Psalm. The sentence "The Lord is my shepherd," they say, has a male-oriented sound, and so it is translated "God is my shepherd." In their view, no one is in a position of "lord" over another. The words of Sarah recorded in I Peter 3 make them cringe: "So once the holy women who hoped in God ... were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" (I Peter 3:5-6, RSV). The word "lord" is a four-letter "no-no" in feminist thinking.
Dropping the term "Lord" (in reference to Jesus) is a serious departure from truth. Early Christians repeatedly declared that "Jesus is Lord.” This was in direct contradiction to the loyalties of citizens in the Mediterranean world. Citizens of the Roman Empire were required to declare that "Caesar is lord" (meaning that "Caesar is God")-and precisely because Christians confessed that Jesus is Lord, many early Christians lost their lives. They refused to bow their knee to Caesar. If we drop the word "Lord" (when referring to Jesus), we are in effect denying the totality of who Jesus is, and we are not giving due credit to the special relationship which Jesus has with the Father, who (along with the Holy Spirit) are one God manifest in three Persons.
In the new translations, Jesus is no longer "Son of God" or "Son of man," but He is now "Child of God" or "Human One." And the sentences are re-written so that the pronouns "he" and "him" do not appear. Thus, in the new translations, John 3:16 reads, "For God so loved the world that God gave God's only Child, that whoever believes in that Child should not perish, but have eternal life."
What’s the Result of All This?
What is behind all this call for change in language? Where might it eventually lead us? Since meaning is bound up in language and God has decided to reveal himself to us most directly in the form of words, surely one cannot change the language for God without altering his understanding of who God is.
The result of changing the description of God from "Father" to "Mother/ Father" is to create the picture of a partly male and partly female God. And to make Christ "the Child" instead of "the Son" is to picture Him as immature. To speak of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-as "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier"- may at first seem like an innocent change. But the terms "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" have a precise theological meaning which is not communicated by any other terms. The words "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" are functional names (focusing on God's deeds), whereas "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are names that focus on God's own essence and the nature of His being. There are a number of results that rise out of attempts to tamper with the names for God.
(a) Questions the Validity of Special Revelation
To believe that God is creator is self-evident; it is something which all religions believe and teach in some form or another. But to believe in God as Father is not self-evident; that belief comes to us especially through what Jesus tells us about God. In Matthew we read, "...no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matthew 11:27b, NIV).
(b) Takes Lightly the True Authority of Jesus
God is referred to as "Father" in twenty-five of the New Testament Books. Thus the teaching about God as "Father" is not an obscure doctrine.
Was Jesus wrong in telling us to pray to God by saying, "Our Father who art in heaven"? And if Jesus was wrong in teaching us to address God as "Father," He might be wrong about other things as well. To eliminate the word "Father" when referring to God is to deny that Jesus had any valid authority.
God is a deliberate God. He is not random or haphazard in his judgments. He is infinitely wise and sovereign. And if we believe so, we should believe and accept his revelation to us as "Father" as perfect and pleasing and acceptable.
(c) Diminishes God to the Level of the Mundane
To present God as "Mother and Father" is not only clumsy, but also repulsive to concerned Christians. God (when called "Mother and Father") becomes a side-show freak instead of the supreme Person who deserves our highest reverence. If people are allowed to describe God at whim, most any image could appear.
Furthermore, to add "and Mother" when referring to God the Father, has (at some places) an awkward implication. For example, in the NCC translation of John 15:26, Jesus promises "the Spirit of truth who proceeds from [God] the Father [and Mother].- This seems to add a heretical Fourth Person to the Trinity.
Is the controversy surrounding the God-language debate more serious than most people are willing to admit? I think the evidence is mounting that what is happening in the church is not simply a change in language, but a change in faith.
In conclusion then, it is not a serious infraction of good judgment to try and eliminate an overuse of the male pronouns when speaking of people. The pronoun "he" has long been used in our English language to include both men and women. We say, "A school student must study his lessons if he expects to pass the test." The statement refers to boys and girls who are students in school. Such a use of the masculine pronoun "he" is acceptable, but to re-word the sentence so as to limit the use of the masculine pronoun is certainly proper. Instead of saying, "The average American drinks his coffee black," we can say, "The average American drinks black coffee." And in the Bible, minor editorial changes which avoid overusing the male pronoun can be a healthy improvement in translation. Instead of, "If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in" (Revelation 3:20), it is not offensive to say, "if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in" (as translated in the New International Version).
The real concern, which Christians like myself have, have arises out of the dangers which surface when attempts are made to re-write the language pertaining to God.
Honestly, as well meaning as some of the people in the inclusivist camp may be, I believe the strong endeavor at language change as another in a long list of attempts to undermine the authority and finality of the Word of God. Tinkering with the Bible's words cannot be done without changing the Bible's message. Sometimes I wonder if those who are so unhappy with God as Father are really satisfied with Him as God at all.
More Questions…
Does anybody really feel left outside God's offer of salvation and grace because the words do not always specifically refer to all genders? Must "children" and "boys and girls" always be mentioned along with grownups for them to know that they are not excluded from God's plan? Are there really some women and girls who honestly believe that the use of male terms or masculine pronouns in Holy Scripture has barred them from the promises of God?
For some time it has been quite evident that there are those working diligently to perform a major sex-change operation on the Bible's language. This is a high-priority agenda item for some people. And although I believe the trend toward inclusive language is not all bad, I believe it has gone too far. And the "too far" for us has to do primarily with the attempt to eliminate all male references to the God of Scripture.
Some Inclusivist Examples:
In our day, the feminist critics are calling for a number of word changes that would make our language more inclusive of men and women. It is true that there have been some biases built into the words and phrases that are commonly used in church circles. It is not always helpful, for example, to refer to a congregation as "men" or "brethren." In sensitivity to other persons, we can make an effort to be inclusive. We do not object to using the phrase "men and women" (instead of "men") when referring to people, nor is it offensive to speak of "chairpersons" instead of chairmen," or to say "mail carrier" instead of mailman."
It is okay with most people to say that "utility men" are "utility persons" and that "manholes" are "person holes." It doesn't bother most of us if inspectors want to work in "sewer holes" instead of "manholes." And certainly all of us should intentionally avoid use of stereotypes such as 11 woman driver" or "scatterbrained female." However, the present-day discussion in church circles is not primarily concerned with typical references to people. The more serious concern centers around language which is used in reference to God.
There are groups within our churches that call for widening the terms used for God so that the language includes female images of God. They want all exclusive male references to God removed from the Bible. The language and wordpictures used in the Bible, they say, must be changed. The National Council of Churches, for example, has prepared inclusive translations of Scripture passages for use in its Lectionaries. In the NCC-sponsored Inclusive Language Lectionary, language for people is changed to include women as well as men. For example, it can be helpful to translate "Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly" (Psalm 1:1) as "Blessed are those who walk not in the counsel of the ungodly" -and to render "Let your light shine before men" (Matthew 5:16), as "Let your light shine before others"--and to say, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men and women," instead of the translation formerly used. But to change language about God (to speak of God as Father "and Mother," and Christ as "Child" of God) is unacceptable and can lead to some serious consequences, some of which I will briefly mention:
(a) God as Mother
The Scripture translations for the Inclusive Language add the words "and Mother" whenever there are references to God the Father. It is true that in several Old Testament texts, God is pictured as a woman giving birth, as a mother tending a small child, as a nursing mother, as a woman putting food and water on the table, etc. Christians down through the years have often referred to the motherly tenderness of God. It is true that in some ways God is like a mother-but God is never called "Mother." This is something significant. When we speak of God as "Father," we are including not only His fatherly (but also His motherly) qualities.
The word "Father" is the most distinctive name that Christians use for God. It is interesting to note that Muslims have 99 names for God (Protector, Provider, etc.), but not one of them is "Father." Christians have learned to use the name "Father" by following the example of Jesus; this was the name by which He knew God. Even as a boy, Jesus said, "Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" (Luke 2:49 NKJV). The last words of Jesus on the Cross were, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, He said, "Say, Our Father who art in heaven." And it is dangerous for us to tamper with those words. The prayer begins with "Our Father," and goes on to say, "Hallowed be thy name." What name? The name which opens the prayer—" Father." To use the word "Father" when referring to God is simply to follow the example which Jesus set for us.
There is also a trend in hymnwriting that uses feminine imagery for God. British poet Brian Wren is a leader in the trend in hymnwriting. One of Wren's most controversial hymns is entitled "Strong Mother God." The hymn begins by calling God "Mother." Later verses address God as warm, father God; great, living God; old, aching God; and young, growing God." For the feminists, the hymn "God of our Fathers" becomes "God of the Ages." The line of another hymn is changed from "Like a loving father" to "Like a loving parent."
(b) Jesus as Lord
Inclusivists say that to sing songs like "The Church's One Foundation is Jesus Christ Our Lord"-is to use sexist language and is not sensitive to the concerns of women. They say that the Bible (with all its talk about "lords" and “kings") reflects an ancient feudal society which is not acceptable in our day.
The feminist critics find something grievously wrong with the beginning of the Twenty-third Psalm. The sentence "The Lord is my shepherd," they say, has a male-oriented sound, and so it is translated "God is my shepherd." In their view, no one is in a position of "lord" over another. The words of Sarah recorded in I Peter 3 make them cringe: "So once the holy women who hoped in God ... were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" (I Peter 3:5-6, RSV). The word "lord" is a four-letter "no-no" in feminist thinking.
Dropping the term "Lord" (in reference to Jesus) is a serious departure from truth. Early Christians repeatedly declared that "Jesus is Lord.” This was in direct contradiction to the loyalties of citizens in the Mediterranean world. Citizens of the Roman Empire were required to declare that "Caesar is lord" (meaning that "Caesar is God")-and precisely because Christians confessed that Jesus is Lord, many early Christians lost their lives. They refused to bow their knee to Caesar. If we drop the word "Lord" (when referring to Jesus), we are in effect denying the totality of who Jesus is, and we are not giving due credit to the special relationship which Jesus has with the Father, who (along with the Holy Spirit) are one God manifest in three Persons.
In the new translations, Jesus is no longer "Son of God" or "Son of man," but He is now "Child of God" or "Human One." And the sentences are re-written so that the pronouns "he" and "him" do not appear. Thus, in the new translations, John 3:16 reads, "For God so loved the world that God gave God's only Child, that whoever believes in that Child should not perish, but have eternal life."
What’s the Result of All This?
What is behind all this call for change in language? Where might it eventually lead us? Since meaning is bound up in language and God has decided to reveal himself to us most directly in the form of words, surely one cannot change the language for God without altering his understanding of who God is.
The result of changing the description of God from "Father" to "Mother/ Father" is to create the picture of a partly male and partly female God. And to make Christ "the Child" instead of "the Son" is to picture Him as immature. To speak of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-as "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier"- may at first seem like an innocent change. But the terms "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" have a precise theological meaning which is not communicated by any other terms. The words "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" are functional names (focusing on God's deeds), whereas "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are names that focus on God's own essence and the nature of His being. There are a number of results that rise out of attempts to tamper with the names for God.
(a) Questions the Validity of Special Revelation
To believe that God is creator is self-evident; it is something which all religions believe and teach in some form or another. But to believe in God as Father is not self-evident; that belief comes to us especially through what Jesus tells us about God. In Matthew we read, "...no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matthew 11:27b, NIV).
(b) Takes Lightly the True Authority of Jesus
God is referred to as "Father" in twenty-five of the New Testament Books. Thus the teaching about God as "Father" is not an obscure doctrine.
Was Jesus wrong in telling us to pray to God by saying, "Our Father who art in heaven"? And if Jesus was wrong in teaching us to address God as "Father," He might be wrong about other things as well. To eliminate the word "Father" when referring to God is to deny that Jesus had any valid authority.
God is a deliberate God. He is not random or haphazard in his judgments. He is infinitely wise and sovereign. And if we believe so, we should believe and accept his revelation to us as "Father" as perfect and pleasing and acceptable.
(c) Diminishes God to the Level of the Mundane
To present God as "Mother and Father" is not only clumsy, but also repulsive to concerned Christians. God (when called "Mother and Father") becomes a side-show freak instead of the supreme Person who deserves our highest reverence. If people are allowed to describe God at whim, most any image could appear.
Furthermore, to add "and Mother" when referring to God the Father, has (at some places) an awkward implication. For example, in the NCC translation of John 15:26, Jesus promises "the Spirit of truth who proceeds from [God] the Father [and Mother].- This seems to add a heretical Fourth Person to the Trinity.
Is the controversy surrounding the God-language debate more serious than most people are willing to admit? I think the evidence is mounting that what is happening in the church is not simply a change in language, but a change in faith.
In conclusion then, it is not a serious infraction of good judgment to try and eliminate an overuse of the male pronouns when speaking of people. The pronoun "he" has long been used in our English language to include both men and women. We say, "A school student must study his lessons if he expects to pass the test." The statement refers to boys and girls who are students in school. Such a use of the masculine pronoun "he" is acceptable, but to re-word the sentence so as to limit the use of the masculine pronoun is certainly proper. Instead of saying, "The average American drinks his coffee black," we can say, "The average American drinks black coffee." And in the Bible, minor editorial changes which avoid overusing the male pronoun can be a healthy improvement in translation. Instead of, "If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in" (Revelation 3:20), it is not offensive to say, "if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in" (as translated in the New International Version).
The real concern, which Christians like myself have, have arises out of the dangers which surface when attempts are made to re-write the language pertaining to God.
Honestly, as well meaning as some of the people in the inclusivist camp may be, I believe the strong endeavor at language change as another in a long list of attempts to undermine the authority and finality of the Word of God. Tinkering with the Bible's words cannot be done without changing the Bible's message. Sometimes I wonder if those who are so unhappy with God as Father are really satisfied with Him as God at all.
More Questions…
Does anybody really feel left outside God's offer of salvation and grace because the words do not always specifically refer to all genders? Must "children" and "boys and girls" always be mentioned along with grownups for them to know that they are not excluded from God's plan? Are there really some women and girls who honestly believe that the use of male terms or masculine pronouns in Holy Scripture has barred them from the promises of God?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
For the Movie-Goers
Consider this graphic Hollywood plotline: A man travels to Las Vegas to retrieve his cheating wife. On the way back to Los Angeles, the two stop at a rundown motel in Death Valley. During the night, a mob of sexual degenerates surrounds their cabin, threatening to sodomize the man. Hoping to appease the bloodlust, the man throws his wife outside—and when morning comes, the mob has left nothing of her but a corpse. The man cuts up her body and sends pieces of it to his friends… But that's nothing compared to the bloodbath that follows.
No, this isn't the synopsis for Saw IV or the latest Quentin Tarantino gore-fest. It's an update of a not-so-familiar biblical story from Judges 20-21. But imagine if that story were made into a film. How the critics would rant, Christian and otherwise. If told without flinching, the story would earn an NC-17 rating for sure; and there's probably no way to tell it in a fashion that would cut the rating to PG-13. Of what possible redemptive value could such a story be?
But there it is in Scripture, nonetheless. Why? In the context of the book of Judges, it sums up, in brutal clarity and with little or no ethical commentary, what it looks like when a society does what it pleases, with no moral authority to guide it. In the larger context of pre-exile history, it demonstrates how Israel abandoned God's headship in favor of corrupt human governance. In the context of God's plan for salvation, it shows how man's self-preoccupation can run counter to God's agenda: Israel's retribution in this story almost wipes out the tribe of Benjamin, from whom Jesus' human lineage—and the Apostle Paul's—later springs.
Context is everything.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Is a fetus part of a woman's body?
Andrew Coulson of The Ganteloupe wrote in to offer an answer:
When you write about abortion, it isn't clear whether you really fail to understand the abortion rights position, or you are simply feigning ignorance as a rhetorical device. If it's the former, I'd like to answer your question on the difference between a fetus and an infant.
Many supporters of abortion rights consider self-ownership to be the most elementary and inviolable right of all: We are all the owners of our own bodies. The difference between a fetus and an infant is that a fetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body whereas an infant is not. Libertarians do not want the very visible hand of government rooting around in women's uteruses, telling them what they can or can't do with any fetuses that happen to reside there. Any rights of a fetus are secondary because its existence is secondary to (and until late in the pregnancy, entirely dependent on) the woman in whose womb it is located.
The fact that abortion is a sad business is moot.
--------
James Taranto responds, by arguing that "self-ownership" is an archaic concept, that human as property has been long discredited, and that no mothers speak of carrying a "fetus."
Here are four other arguments. Perhaps there are more--feel free to suggest some in the comments section below.
1. If a "fetus" is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then they would have a common genetic code, since a "part" of a body is defined by its having the same genetic code as other "parts" in the body. (For example, the lungs and legs and livers of Person X all have the same genetic code.) An unborn baby is a genetically distinct being; therefore it is not a part of its mother's body.
2. If a "fetus" is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then if the woman died, the part would die as well. (For example, lungs and legs and livers don't live on when a woman dies). But an unborn baby can survive the death of a mother--see Bobbi Jo Stinnett--therefore is it not a part of its mother's body.
3. If a "fetus" is a "part" of a preganant woman's body, then the woman would have four eyes, two hearts, four lungs, etc. And yes, if the "fetus" is a boy, then the mother would also have male sexual organs.
4. Why does Caulson think that a "fetus" is "part" of a pregnant woman's body? There's only two possible reasons I can think of: (a) because the "fetus" is inside the woman; (b) because the "fetus" is dependent on the woman for survival. But both are absurd criteria: (a') being in the hospital doesn't make me part of the hospital (in that sense that I'm am no longer an individual, distinct entity); and (b') being dependant upon a life-support machine does not make me a part of the life-support machine.
When you write about abortion, it isn't clear whether you really fail to understand the abortion rights position, or you are simply feigning ignorance as a rhetorical device. If it's the former, I'd like to answer your question on the difference between a fetus and an infant.
Many supporters of abortion rights consider self-ownership to be the most elementary and inviolable right of all: We are all the owners of our own bodies. The difference between a fetus and an infant is that a fetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body whereas an infant is not. Libertarians do not want the very visible hand of government rooting around in women's uteruses, telling them what they can or can't do with any fetuses that happen to reside there. Any rights of a fetus are secondary because its existence is secondary to (and until late in the pregnancy, entirely dependent on) the woman in whose womb it is located.
The fact that abortion is a sad business is moot.
--------
James Taranto responds, by arguing that "self-ownership" is an archaic concept, that human as property has been long discredited, and that no mothers speak of carrying a "fetus."
Here are four other arguments. Perhaps there are more--feel free to suggest some in the comments section below.
1. If a "fetus" is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then they would have a common genetic code, since a "part" of a body is defined by its having the same genetic code as other "parts" in the body. (For example, the lungs and legs and livers of Person X all have the same genetic code.) An unborn baby is a genetically distinct being; therefore it is not a part of its mother's body.
2. If a "fetus" is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then if the woman died, the part would die as well. (For example, lungs and legs and livers don't live on when a woman dies). But an unborn baby can survive the death of a mother--see Bobbi Jo Stinnett--therefore is it not a part of its mother's body.
3. If a "fetus" is a "part" of a preganant woman's body, then the woman would have four eyes, two hearts, four lungs, etc. And yes, if the "fetus" is a boy, then the mother would also have male sexual organs.
4. Why does Caulson think that a "fetus" is "part" of a pregnant woman's body? There's only two possible reasons I can think of: (a) because the "fetus" is inside the woman; (b) because the "fetus" is dependent on the woman for survival. But both are absurd criteria: (a') being in the hospital doesn't make me part of the hospital (in that sense that I'm am no longer an individual, distinct entity); and (b') being dependant upon a life-support machine does not make me a part of the life-support machine.
Friday, June 1, 2007
When Cussing Isn't Cussing
The folks over at DesiringGod posted this today and I thought it was worth reposting. Be sure to read Andrew's thoughtful article before closing your mind today.
Here it is:
Andrew Jones posts a thoughtful article (see below) on how offensive language is relative and constantly changing.
Sometimes it seems like there are two extreme camps in this recurrent Christians-and-cussing debate. One group can come across as saying, "Any words we don't like, God doesn't like either." And the other group can seem equally loving: "I'll say whatever I want. Get over it."
Jones is in neither of these camps. He makes it clear that no words can be objectively immoral in themselves, but this does not mean there is license to use any language you want to, regardless of who's listening.
From his conclusion:
Again, let's use words to build people up. Lets NOT use our words or our blogs for slandering others or expressing our anger. Give your anger to God and let him deal with it. Words can tear down or build up. Lets build each other up and not grieve the Holy Spirit.
...
And when it comes to choosing words to express oneself, I try to keep in mind my audience. ...Why offend when we have a message to get across? But its not always easy to express oneself fully to multiple generations.
And if the person i am listening to uses a word that offends me, I will be quick to believe the best (1 Cor 13) and assume that they have walked a different path, and what i consider offensive may not necessarily be the same standard by which they judge their words. But there is still a place for rebuke and correction.
Andrew's "thoughtful article" can be found here:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2007/06/offensive_langu.html
Here it is:
Andrew Jones posts a thoughtful article (see below) on how offensive language is relative and constantly changing.
Sometimes it seems like there are two extreme camps in this recurrent Christians-and-cussing debate. One group can come across as saying, "Any words we don't like, God doesn't like either." And the other group can seem equally loving: "I'll say whatever I want. Get over it."
Jones is in neither of these camps. He makes it clear that no words can be objectively immoral in themselves, but this does not mean there is license to use any language you want to, regardless of who's listening.
From his conclusion:
Again, let's use words to build people up. Lets NOT use our words or our blogs for slandering others or expressing our anger. Give your anger to God and let him deal with it. Words can tear down or build up. Lets build each other up and not grieve the Holy Spirit.
...
And when it comes to choosing words to express oneself, I try to keep in mind my audience. ...Why offend when we have a message to get across? But its not always easy to express oneself fully to multiple generations.
And if the person i am listening to uses a word that offends me, I will be quick to believe the best (1 Cor 13) and assume that they have walked a different path, and what i consider offensive may not necessarily be the same standard by which they judge their words. But there is still a place for rebuke and correction.
Andrew's "thoughtful article" can be found here:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2007/06/offensive_langu.html
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
God in The Office
Of all the shows on television, I think that The Office ranks as one of the smartest and funniest. First of all, yes, I’m talking about the U.S. version so all the British Office purists can stop reading if they feel disgusted that I would make such a statement. Anyway, one of the funniest things about The Office is that I meet people like the characters on the show in real life everyday. Most of us, like the writers of the show, have probably had an obnoxious boss like Michael or a sycophantic co-worker like Dwight at their workplace. This is part of what makes The Office so relevant.
In particular, there is one character whom I believe speaks volumes to me about people in reality. Angela Martin is the harsh, judgmental accountant at the Scranton Branch of the Dunder-Mifflin paper company with an extreme negative streak. She is strict, stark, and, unfortunately, she is the only representative of the Christian faith at the office. Angela’s M.O. is to respond coldly to everyone she meets and cast icy, disapproving glares at anyone who does not adhere to her rigid moral standards. When asked to pick three books that she would take on a desert island, she chose the Bible, A Purpose Driven Life, and refused to pick another one. Even as I laugh at her frequent self-righteous tirades, I can’t help but think, “Is that how people see all Christians?” “When people find out I’m a Christian, do they automatically see me as an uptight stickler who wields his values like a no-holds-barred license to judge? A frigid killjoy with a paltry sense of humor?”
This got me to thinking about how I come across when it comes to my opinions about others’ moral standards. I’m just being paranoid right? I can’t be that bad! Or can I? Come to think of it, I often find myself adopting an aloof attitude and thinking “How could any self-respecting person do that?” I won’t usually verbally accost the “offender” in public, but taking pride in my moral “superiority” isn’t any less wrong. Especially after a particularly rousing sermon, my morality sensors are on full alert and I am quick to set judgment phasers to kill when I see someone sinning in ways I wouldn’t be caught dead—at least in the last few weeks anyway. God wants us, as Christians, to be holy. To be holy is to be set apart, but it seems like some Christians tend to interpret “set apart” to mean “set above.” This can seriously hinder our ability as Christians to be everything that we can be in Christ. God also calls us to reach out to and connect with people who don’t know him yet. Seriously, who would want to connect with someone who frowns at any glimmer of humor and throws out labels like “whorish” or “hussy” (some of Angela’s favorite insults) with startling frequency? I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s a definite turn-off for me.
Sure, God doesn’t want us to go out and blend right in with the rest of the crowd who don’t care about His holiness, but that’s where being “set apart” comes in. There is a difference between loving/accepting a person’s actions and loving/accepting a person. When it comes to dealing with a person’s sin, can we just let things slip? Can we go without reprimanding the sinner when he or she sins? The answer is yes. Never once are we given the authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner to a sinner like some sort of Dirty Harry-style vigilante (Do you feel holy? Well, do you punk?).
According to the Bible we can’t even begin to diagnose another person’s faults (compared to a speck in their eye) without removing our faults (compared to a giant board in our eye—check out Matthew 7:4). Judging is God’s job, and he’s the only one with the experience and references to qualify. So next time you cast a haughty glance in your unbelieving co-worker’s direction, remember you’ve probably still got a plank obscuring your view of that glance’s intended recipient. In conclusion, here’s a little something to think about: Angela may be a humorous character created from exaggerated negative Christian stereotypes, but be careful, one day she just might be you.
In particular, there is one character whom I believe speaks volumes to me about people in reality. Angela Martin is the harsh, judgmental accountant at the Scranton Branch of the Dunder-Mifflin paper company with an extreme negative streak. She is strict, stark, and, unfortunately, she is the only representative of the Christian faith at the office. Angela’s M.O. is to respond coldly to everyone she meets and cast icy, disapproving glares at anyone who does not adhere to her rigid moral standards. When asked to pick three books that she would take on a desert island, she chose the Bible, A Purpose Driven Life, and refused to pick another one. Even as I laugh at her frequent self-righteous tirades, I can’t help but think, “Is that how people see all Christians?” “When people find out I’m a Christian, do they automatically see me as an uptight stickler who wields his values like a no-holds-barred license to judge? A frigid killjoy with a paltry sense of humor?”
This got me to thinking about how I come across when it comes to my opinions about others’ moral standards. I’m just being paranoid right? I can’t be that bad! Or can I? Come to think of it, I often find myself adopting an aloof attitude and thinking “How could any self-respecting person do that?” I won’t usually verbally accost the “offender” in public, but taking pride in my moral “superiority” isn’t any less wrong. Especially after a particularly rousing sermon, my morality sensors are on full alert and I am quick to set judgment phasers to kill when I see someone sinning in ways I wouldn’t be caught dead—at least in the last few weeks anyway. God wants us, as Christians, to be holy. To be holy is to be set apart, but it seems like some Christians tend to interpret “set apart” to mean “set above.” This can seriously hinder our ability as Christians to be everything that we can be in Christ. God also calls us to reach out to and connect with people who don’t know him yet. Seriously, who would want to connect with someone who frowns at any glimmer of humor and throws out labels like “whorish” or “hussy” (some of Angela’s favorite insults) with startling frequency? I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s a definite turn-off for me.
Sure, God doesn’t want us to go out and blend right in with the rest of the crowd who don’t care about His holiness, but that’s where being “set apart” comes in. There is a difference between loving/accepting a person’s actions and loving/accepting a person. When it comes to dealing with a person’s sin, can we just let things slip? Can we go without reprimanding the sinner when he or she sins? The answer is yes. Never once are we given the authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner to a sinner like some sort of Dirty Harry-style vigilante (Do you feel holy? Well, do you punk?).
According to the Bible we can’t even begin to diagnose another person’s faults (compared to a speck in their eye) without removing our faults (compared to a giant board in our eye—check out Matthew 7:4). Judging is God’s job, and he’s the only one with the experience and references to qualify. So next time you cast a haughty glance in your unbelieving co-worker’s direction, remember you’ve probably still got a plank obscuring your view of that glance’s intended recipient. In conclusion, here’s a little something to think about: Angela may be a humorous character created from exaggerated negative Christian stereotypes, but be careful, one day she just might be you.
cc: Jordan Keyes
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Damning Yourself for $500, Alex.
Damning yourself can prove to be quite entertaining and inexpensive.
According to The Rational Response Squad, your instructions seem simple:
Tim Challies writes:
The irony of this site is that it is based on a lie at worst, or a significant misunderstanding at best. It is based on a false understanding of the sin or the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The members of the Rational Response Squad say "Some liberal Christians may throw out the parts of the Bible that they don't like, but Christians who believe in the Bible as the word of God do believe that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the single unforgivable sin." And this is true. The Bible speaks twice of an unpardonable sin (Mark 3:29 and Matthew 12:31). Matthew 12:31 reads "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven" and Mark 3:29 echoes it, saying "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." This unpardonable sin has perplexed both Christians and non-Christians. Many Christians have wrestled with the meaning of these verses and have wondered if they have, perhaps unwittingly even, committed this sin. And now there are many atheists who are trying to deliberately commit this sin.
Atheists such as Brian Flemming and the members of this Squad teach that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is, very simply, denying His existence. Hence they instruct people to utter these words: "I deny the Holy Spirit." This, they teach, will be a one-way road to perdition. The trouble with this view is that it is, quite frankly, wrong. It removes the verse from its context and, conspicuously, always focuses on the verse as given in Mark 3:29 not as we read it in Matthew 12:31. And not only is this interpretation wrong, but it is unsupported, as far as I can see, by credible teachers of the Bible (and, of course, by the Bible itself). Speaking personally, I have been a Christian for at least fifteen years now and have been listening to the Bible taught since infancy. I have never heard anyone teach that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is as simple as denying Him. Of course what I have been taught represents only a narrow slice of what Christians teach, so I dug deeper, searching for what other Christians teach on this subject. I searched all the Bible commentaries I could find and searched other resources written by highly-regarded teachers and scholars. I once more came up with nothing that would support this view.
Admittedly there is some level of disagreement about what exactly constitutes this sin. But the vast consensus is this: that the blasphemy against the Spirit involves ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit, accomplished through Jesus Christ, to Satan. To commit this sin you must know that Jesus Christ is God and, despite that knowledge, ascribe the Spirit's work through Him to the devil. Reverend Richard Phillips, pastor at First Presbyterian Church Coral Springs, Margate, Florida, says "There is no sin so great that the precious blood of the Son of God -- of infinite value before God -- is not sufficient to pay for it. The issue is that forgiveness comes only to those who believe on the Lord Jesus. And someone who knows who Jesus is -- who realizes that his work is by the Holy Spirit -- and yet so refuses to believe that he actually ascribes the Spirit's work to the devil, cannot possibly be saved. Why? Because that person is not just ignorant, but they willfully, knowingly, reject Jesus as Messiah, as proved by the Holy Spirit. So this passage describes not someone who in a fit of anger or temptation commits blasphemy, but someone who refuses to believe on Jesus as the Messiah, even when he recognizes the Holy Spirit at work." So the great irony, based on what the Bible teaches, is that this sin cannot be committed by one who considers himself an atheist! This sin presupposes seeing and acknowledging the work of God, but then attributing it to Satan.
As we begin to understand this sin we see that it is not so much that a particular sin cannot be forgiven as that there comes a point at which the Holy Spirit will no longer convict a person of sin and thus drive him to repentance. The Scripture is clear that any sin for which we ask forgiveness will be forgiven. But we only seek true forgiveness and only express true repentance when the Holy Spirit works in us. John Piper, a popular author, pastor and scholar writes "The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws for ever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven."
If the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was as simple as denying Him we would all be guilty of this sin. The Bible teaches that, as human beings, we all hate God and that we are all firmly and deliberately opposed to Him. Genesis 6:5 says "The Lord saw that...that every intention of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil continually." In Ephesians 5:8 we read the Apostle Paul saying "for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light" and in 2:1-2 says "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience." We all sin and we all hate God. We all hate Him, that is, until He changes our hearts so we see Him and know Him and love Him. I used to hate God. I was no different from Brian Flemming in my denial of God and my hatred towards Him. To continue this passage from Ephesians 2, I carried out the desires of my body and mind, and was by nature a child of wrath, like the rest of mankind. The next two words are among the most simple but the most glorious in all of Scripture. "But God." The passage goes on to say (and I've taken the liberty of personalizing it) "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved me, even when I was dead in my trespasses, made me alive together with Christ. For by grace I have been saved through faith" (Read it here). I was the blasphemer, the sinner, but Christ intervened and stooped to save me despite who I was and what I had done.
Brian Flemming and the Rational Response Squad and others who use these passages about the sin against the Holy Spirit deliberately neglect the first portion of Matthew 12:31. It reads "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people." Forgiveness remains for those who blaspheme. If you have made a video and have denied the existence of God, of His Son or of His Spirit you have blasphemed. You have sinned. Sin is a serious matter and one that God will deal with. But you have not committed an unpardonable sin. Do not be too secure in what you have done for Christ offers forgiveness, even for this. The Bible tells us that Jesus has come to seek and to save the lost. Christians are often prone to speak of "seekers" as those who go looking for God. But the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ is the one who seeks and if Christ seeks after you, He will find you whether or not you've denied Him. He will graciously change your heart and allow you to see the beauty and glory of God. Being rich in mercy He will love you, even while you are dead in your sin, and will make you alive with Christ. You, too, can be saved by grace through faith if only you will believe in Him. There is forgiveness for all. God desires that you, too, be saved and gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Look to Him.
According to The Rational Response Squad, your instructions seem simple:
You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in yourSo they encourage their readers to shoot such a video, to upload it to YouTube and to send them the link. To this point is seems that 830 people have played along. There is something more than a little inflammatory about this site and the challenge it provides. Yet it is in no way shocking to me or to most other Christians.
video you must say this phrase: "I deny the Holy Spirit."
Why? Because,
according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy
Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Jesus will
forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the
existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you're taking here.
Tim Challies writes:
The irony of this site is that it is based on a lie at worst, or a significant misunderstanding at best. It is based on a false understanding of the sin or the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The members of the Rational Response Squad say "Some liberal Christians may throw out the parts of the Bible that they don't like, but Christians who believe in the Bible as the word of God do believe that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the single unforgivable sin." And this is true. The Bible speaks twice of an unpardonable sin (Mark 3:29 and Matthew 12:31). Matthew 12:31 reads "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven" and Mark 3:29 echoes it, saying "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." This unpardonable sin has perplexed both Christians and non-Christians. Many Christians have wrestled with the meaning of these verses and have wondered if they have, perhaps unwittingly even, committed this sin. And now there are many atheists who are trying to deliberately commit this sin.
Atheists such as Brian Flemming and the members of this Squad teach that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is, very simply, denying His existence. Hence they instruct people to utter these words: "I deny the Holy Spirit." This, they teach, will be a one-way road to perdition. The trouble with this view is that it is, quite frankly, wrong. It removes the verse from its context and, conspicuously, always focuses on the verse as given in Mark 3:29 not as we read it in Matthew 12:31. And not only is this interpretation wrong, but it is unsupported, as far as I can see, by credible teachers of the Bible (and, of course, by the Bible itself). Speaking personally, I have been a Christian for at least fifteen years now and have been listening to the Bible taught since infancy. I have never heard anyone teach that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is as simple as denying Him. Of course what I have been taught represents only a narrow slice of what Christians teach, so I dug deeper, searching for what other Christians teach on this subject. I searched all the Bible commentaries I could find and searched other resources written by highly-regarded teachers and scholars. I once more came up with nothing that would support this view.
Admittedly there is some level of disagreement about what exactly constitutes this sin. But the vast consensus is this: that the blasphemy against the Spirit involves ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit, accomplished through Jesus Christ, to Satan. To commit this sin you must know that Jesus Christ is God and, despite that knowledge, ascribe the Spirit's work through Him to the devil. Reverend Richard Phillips, pastor at First Presbyterian Church Coral Springs, Margate, Florida, says "There is no sin so great that the precious blood of the Son of God -- of infinite value before God -- is not sufficient to pay for it. The issue is that forgiveness comes only to those who believe on the Lord Jesus. And someone who knows who Jesus is -- who realizes that his work is by the Holy Spirit -- and yet so refuses to believe that he actually ascribes the Spirit's work to the devil, cannot possibly be saved. Why? Because that person is not just ignorant, but they willfully, knowingly, reject Jesus as Messiah, as proved by the Holy Spirit. So this passage describes not someone who in a fit of anger or temptation commits blasphemy, but someone who refuses to believe on Jesus as the Messiah, even when he recognizes the Holy Spirit at work." So the great irony, based on what the Bible teaches, is that this sin cannot be committed by one who considers himself an atheist! This sin presupposes seeing and acknowledging the work of God, but then attributing it to Satan.
As we begin to understand this sin we see that it is not so much that a particular sin cannot be forgiven as that there comes a point at which the Holy Spirit will no longer convict a person of sin and thus drive him to repentance. The Scripture is clear that any sin for which we ask forgiveness will be forgiven. But we only seek true forgiveness and only express true repentance when the Holy Spirit works in us. John Piper, a popular author, pastor and scholar writes "The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws for ever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven."
If the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was as simple as denying Him we would all be guilty of this sin. The Bible teaches that, as human beings, we all hate God and that we are all firmly and deliberately opposed to Him. Genesis 6:5 says "The Lord saw that...that every intention of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil continually." In Ephesians 5:8 we read the Apostle Paul saying "for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light" and in 2:1-2 says "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience." We all sin and we all hate God. We all hate Him, that is, until He changes our hearts so we see Him and know Him and love Him. I used to hate God. I was no different from Brian Flemming in my denial of God and my hatred towards Him. To continue this passage from Ephesians 2, I carried out the desires of my body and mind, and was by nature a child of wrath, like the rest of mankind. The next two words are among the most simple but the most glorious in all of Scripture. "But God." The passage goes on to say (and I've taken the liberty of personalizing it) "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved me, even when I was dead in my trespasses, made me alive together with Christ. For by grace I have been saved through faith" (Read it here). I was the blasphemer, the sinner, but Christ intervened and stooped to save me despite who I was and what I had done.
Brian Flemming and the Rational Response Squad and others who use these passages about the sin against the Holy Spirit deliberately neglect the first portion of Matthew 12:31. It reads "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people." Forgiveness remains for those who blaspheme. If you have made a video and have denied the existence of God, of His Son or of His Spirit you have blasphemed. You have sinned. Sin is a serious matter and one that God will deal with. But you have not committed an unpardonable sin. Do not be too secure in what you have done for Christ offers forgiveness, even for this. The Bible tells us that Jesus has come to seek and to save the lost. Christians are often prone to speak of "seekers" as those who go looking for God. But the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ is the one who seeks and if Christ seeks after you, He will find you whether or not you've denied Him. He will graciously change your heart and allow you to see the beauty and glory of God. Being rich in mercy He will love you, even while you are dead in your sin, and will make you alive with Christ. You, too, can be saved by grace through faith if only you will believe in Him. There is forgiveness for all. God desires that you, too, be saved and gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Look to Him.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Inconvenient Life
Today’s New York Times reports: “About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.”
Denny Burk:
This clash is not about “preventing disability.” That’s a euphemism that every rational person should reject. It’s about whether or not we should execute disabled persons before they can become a “burden” to their parents and society.
On this issue Christians must offer a prophetic word to the culture. All people are created in God’s image (including people with Down Syndrome) and are thereby to be treated with the dignity that God commands towards those who bear His image. To kill innocent humans because they are inconvenient or unwanted is an assault on the image of God.
A just community does not execute people who are financial and emotional burdens to their families or to society. On the contrary, a just community tries to find ways to care for them. Why would we treat people with Down Syndrome any differently?
cc: Between Two Worlds
Denny Burk:
This clash is not about “preventing disability.” That’s a euphemism that every rational person should reject. It’s about whether or not we should execute disabled persons before they can become a “burden” to their parents and society.
On this issue Christians must offer a prophetic word to the culture. All people are created in God’s image (including people with Down Syndrome) and are thereby to be treated with the dignity that God commands towards those who bear His image. To kill innocent humans because they are inconvenient or unwanted is an assault on the image of God.
A just community does not execute people who are financial and emotional burdens to their families or to society. On the contrary, a just community tries to find ways to care for them. Why would we treat people with Down Syndrome any differently?
cc: Between Two Worlds
Friday, May 4, 2007
Watch Your Toes . . .
Have you ever considered what Satan finds pleasurable?
1. When men of God abandon the preaching of the gospel to become "would be politicians" consumed with the political affairs of men.
2. When the preaching of God's Word is substituted with relational anecdotal experience, personal happiness programs, and human potentiality makeovers.
3. When pastors no longer shepherd God's people and the pulpits have become playgrounds.
4. When psychology has replaced biblical discipleship.
5. When men of God are flattered to become "late night talk show guests" on cultural and spiritual issues, but never once open up the Bible to develop their answers; or call the nation, other guests, or the talk show host to repentance by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation; they've simply become culturally acceptable biblical motivational speakers thinking that access to mainstream media means they are making an impact.
6. When the vicar of Rome is acknowledged as the vicar of Christ.
7. When sin is called sickness; when disobedience is called disease; and when adultery is called addiction.
8. When money becomes a prerequisite for ministry by charging people for the gospel, worship, discipleship, counseling, evangelism, Christian music, etc.
9. When we are liked by all people; when the world is not offended by the message we represent and relates to us for being "nice".
10. When church becomes just another predictable program we do one hour a week, one day a week.
11. When prayer becomes passé and the seldom thing we do.
12. When brothers and sisters hold ought against each other in bitterness and unforgiveness.
13. When church discipline of sin ceases.
14. When irreconcilable differences becomes an acceptable reason to break the covenant of marriage.
15. When the goal of faith is no longer holiness, but happiness.
16. When the object of faith is no longer Christ, but self.
17. When the foundation of faith is no longer the Scriptures, but my personal experience.
18. When error is tolerated and finally accepted as truth.
19. When Christians partner with nonbelievers in the work of the ministry.
20. When ministries are enticed to give up their autonomy and become owned by the world for just a little more money and a little more personal promotion.
21. When the worship and glory of God is treated as entertainment.
22. When the church bowes the knee to the seminaries and surrenders her duty to train men for pastoral ministry; thinking that the academic schools of religious learning actually can make a pastor when all they can do is make students.
23. When men can personally profit from the sale of God's Word.
24. When repentance is no longer part of the gospel.
25. When salvation is no longer proclaimed as being by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, on the Word alone, to the glory of God alone.
26. When Romanism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Church of Christ (Bostonian), Seventh Day Adventists (and dare I say but to be consistent I must) Islamic moralists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. are indirectly legitimized as being "morally sound and culturally chaste" by some naïve evangelical leaders who have forgotten their heritage, sold their spiritual birthright, and have laid down sound doctrine for the sole purpose of partnering with those same "religious" and individually politically-correct alliances to try and turn back the tide of social ills through cultural cobelligerence. In doing so, they have purposely divorced the centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ from their burden for social change; this is foolish and the delight of hell.
27. When the offense of the cross is removed for cultural acceptance, media accessibility and endorsement
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
1. When men of God abandon the preaching of the gospel to become "would be politicians" consumed with the political affairs of men.
2. When the preaching of God's Word is substituted with relational anecdotal experience, personal happiness programs, and human potentiality makeovers.
3. When pastors no longer shepherd God's people and the pulpits have become playgrounds.
4. When psychology has replaced biblical discipleship.
5. When men of God are flattered to become "late night talk show guests" on cultural and spiritual issues, but never once open up the Bible to develop their answers; or call the nation, other guests, or the talk show host to repentance by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation; they've simply become culturally acceptable biblical motivational speakers thinking that access to mainstream media means they are making an impact.
6. When the vicar of Rome is acknowledged as the vicar of Christ.
7. When sin is called sickness; when disobedience is called disease; and when adultery is called addiction.
8. When money becomes a prerequisite for ministry by charging people for the gospel, worship, discipleship, counseling, evangelism, Christian music, etc.
9. When we are liked by all people; when the world is not offended by the message we represent and relates to us for being "nice".
10. When church becomes just another predictable program we do one hour a week, one day a week.
11. When prayer becomes passé and the seldom thing we do.
12. When brothers and sisters hold ought against each other in bitterness and unforgiveness.
13. When church discipline of sin ceases.
14. When irreconcilable differences becomes an acceptable reason to break the covenant of marriage.
15. When the goal of faith is no longer holiness, but happiness.
16. When the object of faith is no longer Christ, but self.
17. When the foundation of faith is no longer the Scriptures, but my personal experience.
18. When error is tolerated and finally accepted as truth.
19. When Christians partner with nonbelievers in the work of the ministry.
20. When ministries are enticed to give up their autonomy and become owned by the world for just a little more money and a little more personal promotion.
21. When the worship and glory of God is treated as entertainment.
22. When the church bowes the knee to the seminaries and surrenders her duty to train men for pastoral ministry; thinking that the academic schools of religious learning actually can make a pastor when all they can do is make students.
23. When men can personally profit from the sale of God's Word.
24. When repentance is no longer part of the gospel.
25. When salvation is no longer proclaimed as being by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, on the Word alone, to the glory of God alone.
26. When Romanism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Church of Christ (Bostonian), Seventh Day Adventists (and dare I say but to be consistent I must) Islamic moralists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. are indirectly legitimized as being "morally sound and culturally chaste" by some naïve evangelical leaders who have forgotten their heritage, sold their spiritual birthright, and have laid down sound doctrine for the sole purpose of partnering with those same "religious" and individually politically-correct alliances to try and turn back the tide of social ills through cultural cobelligerence. In doing so, they have purposely divorced the centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ from their burden for social change; this is foolish and the delight of hell.
27. When the offense of the cross is removed for cultural acceptance, media accessibility and endorsement
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
I LOVE MOMS!
Reuters: "If the typical stay-at-home mother in the United States were paid for her work as a housekeeper, cook and psychologist among other roles, she would earn $138,095 a year, according to research released on Wednesday. . . .The 10 jobs listed as comprising a mother's work were housekeeper, cook, day care center teacher, laundry machine operator, van driver, facilities manager, janitor, computer operator, chief executive officer and psychologist, it said. The typical mother puts in a 92-hour work week, it said, working 40 hours at base pay and 52 hours overtime."
Proving God in 13 Minutes on ABC
NEW YORK, May 3 (UPI) -- Actor Kirk Cameron and author Ray Comfort will square off in New York with two atheists to debate the existence of God live on ABC.com.
The debate will be Wednesday after the network rescheduled it from Saturday to capture a larger audience, Comfort said in a news release.
Comfort, who says he can prove God exists scientifically, said ABC originally offered him four minutes to present his case. After conferring with Cameron and the atheists, the time was raised to 13 minutes.
"I'm ecstatic. I can prove the existence of God in that amount of time," Comfort said.
The debate will be Wednesday after the network rescheduled it from Saturday to capture a larger audience, Comfort said in a news release.
Comfort, who says he can prove God exists scientifically, said ABC originally offered him four minutes to present his case. After conferring with Cameron and the atheists, the time was raised to 13 minutes.
"I'm ecstatic. I can prove the existence of God in that amount of time," Comfort said.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Jesus, Jack & Karl
Today is 24day.
Also known as the “Jack Bauer Power Hour”, or Monday, 24day is a national holiday and generally the best day in any self-respecting person’s week. For both of you reading this from some backwoods fundamentalist church who have not watched 24, there is still time for you to repent. The first 5 seasons are on DVD and you have time to catch up by the season’s end. But, be warned, you will be up all night like a crack addict wanting another fix and the odds are good that your entire April/May will be spent in your jammies staring at your television to finish up in time for the dramatic conclusion of season six.
All this adrenaline and excitement from 24 got me thinking about Karl Barth. Weird, I know. Just hear me out. Barth makes it explicit from the beginning that God is the unknowable and indescribable God. The hidden God remains hidden. Even when we say we know him our knowledge is of an imcomprehensible Reality. Consider, for instance, the personality of God. Barth writes: "God is personal, but personal in an incomprehensible way, in so far as the conception of his personality surpasses all our views of personality."
----24 is a television show, but a show in an incomprehensible way, in so far as the conception of its script surpasses all our views on television itself.
Barth also contends that even when God reveals himself to the man of faith, or, more accurately, to the man to whom he gives faith, still that man with faith "will confess God as the God of majesty and therefore as the God unknown to us. Man as man can never know God: His wishing, seeking, and striving are all in vain.
----24 is a show of majesty, known, yet utterly unknown. Man as man can never know 24: His wishing, seeking, and striving are all in vain. (WARNING: Patient endurance is necessary in watching 24 for any extended period of time)
On Romans 1:19, 20, Barth says: “We know that God is He whom we do not know, and that our ignorance is precisely the problem and the source of our knowledge. The Epistle to the Romans is a revelation of the unknown God; God chooses to come to man, not man to God. Even after the revelation man cannot know God, for he is ever the unknown God. In manifesting himself to man he is farther away than before.”
----Yes. You heard it right. 24 came to you. You did not choose to come to 24. Even after the first five seasons have been released on DVD and sixteen hours have passed by in season six, man cannot know 24. 24 is ever the unknowable show. In manifesting itself to man, it is farther away than before.
“The more we know of God the more he is yet to be known.”
----The more we know of 24, the more there is yet to be known.
“When attempts were later made to speak systematically about God and to describe His nature, men became more talkative. They spoke of God's aseity, His being grounded in Himself; they spoke of God's infinity in space and time, and therefore of God's eternity. And men spoke on the other hand of God's holiness and righteousness, mercifulness and patience. We must be clear that whatever we say of God in such human concepts can never be more than an indication of Him; no such concept can really conceive the nature of God. God is inconceivable.”
----No mortal can really conceive the nature of 24.
Below are some of my favorite Karl Barth quotes for your reading pleasure:
“The finite has no capacity for the Infinite.”
“There is no way from us to God. The god who stood at the end of some human way--even of this way--would not be God."
Also known as the “Jack Bauer Power Hour”, or Monday, 24day is a national holiday and generally the best day in any self-respecting person’s week. For both of you reading this from some backwoods fundamentalist church who have not watched 24, there is still time for you to repent. The first 5 seasons are on DVD and you have time to catch up by the season’s end. But, be warned, you will be up all night like a crack addict wanting another fix and the odds are good that your entire April/May will be spent in your jammies staring at your television to finish up in time for the dramatic conclusion of season six.
All this adrenaline and excitement from 24 got me thinking about Karl Barth. Weird, I know. Just hear me out. Barth makes it explicit from the beginning that God is the unknowable and indescribable God. The hidden God remains hidden. Even when we say we know him our knowledge is of an imcomprehensible Reality. Consider, for instance, the personality of God. Barth writes: "God is personal, but personal in an incomprehensible way, in so far as the conception of his personality surpasses all our views of personality."
----24 is a television show, but a show in an incomprehensible way, in so far as the conception of its script surpasses all our views on television itself.
Barth also contends that even when God reveals himself to the man of faith, or, more accurately, to the man to whom he gives faith, still that man with faith "will confess God as the God of majesty and therefore as the God unknown to us. Man as man can never know God: His wishing, seeking, and striving are all in vain.
----24 is a show of majesty, known, yet utterly unknown. Man as man can never know 24: His wishing, seeking, and striving are all in vain. (WARNING: Patient endurance is necessary in watching 24 for any extended period of time)
On Romans 1:19, 20, Barth says: “We know that God is He whom we do not know, and that our ignorance is precisely the problem and the source of our knowledge. The Epistle to the Romans is a revelation of the unknown God; God chooses to come to man, not man to God. Even after the revelation man cannot know God, for he is ever the unknown God. In manifesting himself to man he is farther away than before.”
----Yes. You heard it right. 24 came to you. You did not choose to come to 24. Even after the first five seasons have been released on DVD and sixteen hours have passed by in season six, man cannot know 24. 24 is ever the unknowable show. In manifesting itself to man, it is farther away than before.
“The more we know of God the more he is yet to be known.”
----The more we know of 24, the more there is yet to be known.
“When attempts were later made to speak systematically about God and to describe His nature, men became more talkative. They spoke of God's aseity, His being grounded in Himself; they spoke of God's infinity in space and time, and therefore of God's eternity. And men spoke on the other hand of God's holiness and righteousness, mercifulness and patience. We must be clear that whatever we say of God in such human concepts can never be more than an indication of Him; no such concept can really conceive the nature of God. God is inconceivable.”
----No mortal can really conceive the nature of 24.
Below are some of my favorite Karl Barth quotes for your reading pleasure:
“The finite has no capacity for the Infinite.”
“There is no way from us to God. The god who stood at the end of some human way--even of this way--would not be God."
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Does Luck Exist?
“Do you believe in luck?”
No, there is only the sovereign providence of the living and personal God.
How often do you here people attribute the source of averted accidents, healing, blessing, or other prosperous occurrences to luck? On the flip side how often do you hear “bad things” attributed to being unlucky? Perhaps even as a professing Christian you may say things like, “Man, he is lucky” or “It is not my lucky day”.
Is this thinking biblical?
The Bible presents a God who is absolutely sovereign over all of the affairs of the world (Ps. 115.3). He is in complete control and he has ordained all things to come to pass. There is absolutely nothing that escapes his notice. He is not only sovereign over your salvation (Eph. 1) but he also is sovereign bird feeder (Matt. 6.26). He is sovereign over the weather, whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (Matt. 5.45; Job 38). For we even learn in Scripture that God is sovereign over the outcome of a role of the dice (Prov. 16.33). There is nothing that comes to pass by chance, but rather all things come to pass through the sovereign providence of God.
I am not trying to be nit-picky here. But I do want to challenge you if you talk like a pagan and deny God of his glory through providence. Think about it. How ugly is it for you receive the blessed artwork of divine providence, which God works together for his glory, and then you turn around and smudge out God’s name from the authorship only to inscribe the nebulous, impersonal and fictional name “luck” at the bottom right corner of the artwork? Since God does all things for his glory and causes all things to work together for good for those who love him (Rom. 8.28) how dare we insult God through our careless speech?!
Let’s use this as an exhortation to recognize and ascribe the personal hand of God to our understanding of the universe and all things in it. Let’s delete the words fate, luck, happenstance, and the like from our vocabulary and use words that reflect truth such as providence, sovereignty and God. In this understanding and application of the doctrine of divine providence we will no doubt become keenly attuned to the work of God in and around our lives and more inclined to give him praise for his good providence.
cc: IrishCalvinist
Friday, March 30, 2007
Song of the Year
The band All Star United has released some good and fun songs over the years. Unfortunately I've sometimes found them to toe the line a little bit with their humor. On the whole, though, they write some memorable songs and songs that tend to speak to some of the trends in the Christian world. They have an album coming out in a few weeks and one of the songs is called "Song of the Year." Written by Ian Eskelin, who does most of all of the band's writing, it pokes fun at the trend of handing out awards for the best worship music. Here is a portion of the lyrics:
This is the song of the year
Let the message be clear
I don't need you to adore me
Cause it's all about God's glory
Something's gone really wrong
If we're chasing the song of the year
Testimony TestimonyTestimony Testimony
I'll never be the same
Holy holy worthy worthy
something something something something
That rhymes with Jesus' name
It's the song of the year
But God's still unimpressed
With our radio success
This is the song of the year
Let the message be clear
I don't need you to adore me
Cause it's all about God's glory
Angel choirs sing along
If it's really the song of the year.
This is the song of the year
Let the message be clear
I don't need you to adore me
Cause it's all about God's glory
Something's gone really wrong
If we're chasing the song of the year
Testimony TestimonyTestimony Testimony
I'll never be the same
Holy holy worthy worthy
something something something something
That rhymes with Jesus' name
It's the song of the year
But God's still unimpressed
With our radio success
This is the song of the year
Let the message be clear
I don't need you to adore me
Cause it's all about God's glory
Angel choirs sing along
If it's really the song of the year.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Jesus In A Pink Dress Overlooking The Grateful Dead, Part 1
At St. Louis' Mardi Gras celebration this year I found myself "missionally" checking out a Grateful Dead cover band. The venue was an old church in the process of being converted into a bar. The massive crowd, pushing and squeezing through the double doors longed not to hear about Jesus but "the Dead." "Hey, ya wanna take a shot," I was asked the moment I walked in. I declined. I'm too holy for "shots." As a devout Bible-thumping Jesus freak I pondered how this church became a bar? Then I saw it! I looked up and thought that maybe the church's death had something to do with the huge, pathetic mural of a sandy brown-haired Jesus wearing a pink dress.
Actually, it was a robe, but pink nonetheless. Seriously, in the mural Jesus was extending a slightly bent arm with a warm, soft hand to rescue Peter from drowning after failing to walk on water (Matthew 14:22-33). However, Peter's arms and forearms were ripped like a Muscle and Fitness magazine cover model in need of a steroid detox program. Peter, another white dude, was a lot more masculine than Jesus. I didn't know that.
Why was Jesus a blonde-haired white guy wearing a pink dress?
The cornerstone of the church building read "Gravois Avenue Church of God, December 13, 1942." Sadly, some 65 years later the building was now packed full of alcohol abusing, weed-loving, sexually liberated "Dead-heads," surrounded by 6 Jesus freaks (me and my friends), listening to incredible musicians.
Will your church devolve into a music venue for cover bands in two generations?
I don't know which was worse the effeminate pink-dressed Jesus or the fact that this church is now a music venue that served cheap beer. At one point I wanted to interrupt the show, grab a microphone, and start preaching (like a good "bullhorn guy"): "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near! Hell is knocking at your door!" But then I realized that behind me would have been Jesus wearing a pink dress.
After my short sermon one of those hippie guys could have retorted, "Hey, Mr. black-guy-listening-to-Grateful-Dead-music-with-the-rest-of-us, the Kingdom of God is led by a dude in a pink dress?" The answer, of course, is "NO!!" The kingdom of God is led by a man who battled Satan and secured victory for his people (Matt. 10:34; 1 John 3:8).
Leon Podles, is his book, The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, laments the feminized Christianity of the pink-dressed Jesus: "Christianity is now seen as a part of the sphere of life proper to women rather than to men, it sometimes attracts men whose own masculinity is doubtful. By this I do not mean homosexuals . . . rather religion is a safe field, a refuge from the challenges of life and therefore attracts men who are fearful of making a break with the secure world of childhood dominated by women. These are men who have problems following the path of masculine development."
Maybe this church died because the men had no mission? They were never initiated into the masculine image of Christ and therefore never entered into the battle of local mission.
David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going To Church, reminds us that 61% of the average adult U.S. church attendance is women, 80% of attendees at midweek church activities are women, and 90% of boys raised in the church will abandon it by time they turn 20-years-old.
If you combine the image of Jesus in a pink dress with the soft-spoken, effeminate "sharing" that some churches call "sermons" by preachers/teachers who sound like one of the Teletubbies having confused words like "meek" and "gentle" with androgeny, we may understand how churches become bars: churches without the Gospel, and God-made masculine men, eventually die.
Pastor Teletubby stands up on Sunday in a quiet, non-offensive voice, whispering pink platitudes, after people sing a love ballad or two to a pink-dressed Jesus, instead of preaching the hard, painful, inviting, comforting, electrifying, liberating, convicting, offensive, loud, unraveling, authentic, transforming, truth of the Gospel of Jesus who alone empowers and enables his people to fight in the ancient redemptive mission of God to redeem the whole creation.
"Men are looking for a real man to follow: dynamic, outspoken, bold, sharp-edged. They want a leader who is decisive, tough, and fair. They respect a man who tells it like it is and doesn't mince words, even when it makes them mad. Men most respect a leader who doesn't care what others think of him," says Murrow. Satan is real, hell is real, people are dying, sin is alive, repentance is needed, healing is necessary and people need a Jesus who bears a sword and fights for them and men pursuing death for the same cause.
Pastor Teletubby, offering a pink-dressed Jesus, is not capable of leading a church into the gloriously dangerous sufferings of Gospel-driven local mission advancing the Kingdom of God "wherever the curse is found." More to come. . .
http://theresurgence.com/ab_blog_2007-02-08_jesus_in_a_pink_dress_part_1Monday, February 5, 2007
Driscoll, Emerging Types, and Biblicist Theology
In a book entitled Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Churches, Mark Driscool writes a chapter concerning the emerging church and biblicist theology.
He writes,
"This chapter is my attempt to address three of the hottest theological issues in our day and to correct emerging error with biblical orthodoxy. As a devoted biblicist I am seeking to be as faithful to Scripture as possible, which explains the many Scripture references in this chapter.
I will explore what is arguably most distinctive about Christianity, namely the nature of God’s revelation, the nature of God, and the means by which God has chosen to save some sinners. The topics the publisher chose for this book are the essential elements of the Christian gospel according to the apostle Paul, who said that the second member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, atones for our sins by his death and resurrection in fulfillment of the Scriptures."
Mark Driscoll is an important voice in the American church for our generation. I encourage you to look into this book and pray that the Lord continues to steel his heart and upholds him in faith and integrity.
You can read a excerpt of his chapter in PDF format here.
He writes,
"This chapter is my attempt to address three of the hottest theological issues in our day and to correct emerging error with biblical orthodoxy. As a devoted biblicist I am seeking to be as faithful to Scripture as possible, which explains the many Scripture references in this chapter.
I will explore what is arguably most distinctive about Christianity, namely the nature of God’s revelation, the nature of God, and the means by which God has chosen to save some sinners. The topics the publisher chose for this book are the essential elements of the Christian gospel according to the apostle Paul, who said that the second member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, atones for our sins by his death and resurrection in fulfillment of the Scriptures."
Mark Driscoll is an important voice in the American church for our generation. I encourage you to look into this book and pray that the Lord continues to steel his heart and upholds him in faith and integrity.
You can read a excerpt of his chapter in PDF format here.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
This Is Abortion
Whether you believe in the sanctity of human life or the sanctity of human choice, this video shows the graphic reality of what really happens.
WARNING: The following video contains graphic and disturbing images of severe injustice. Viewer discretion is advised.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Abortion
John Piper lists some Sources to Help You Speak Against Abortion. Though I once would have vehemently disagreed with his conclusion, I now concur wholeheartedly: "May the Lord give you courage to address the carnage. I find it appalling that there are pastors and churches that NEVER address this issue."
Seriously, go through these resources. I must warn you, there is footage of an actual abortion that is pretty graphic; however, I would advise that you watch as much of it as you can. There really is no way to understand what abortion is all about until you see one.Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Potty-Mouth Piper
At the Passion07 breakout session, Piper used language that seemed inappropriate to some.
Just for the record, God kicks ass...and so does Piper.
Interested yet??? Go read Piper's resonpse.
Just for the record, God kicks ass...and so does Piper.
Interested yet??? Go read Piper's resonpse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
