we went camping last weekend.
he caught one
these daisy looking flowers had less diameter than a dime
waiting for a bite
Matt Carter is doing a sermon series at the Austin Stone Community Church on the Biblical christian response to trials and suffering. I have listened to the April 26 message twice already and I highly recommend it. I have downloaded the May 3 one and I will listen to it on the way to work this morning.
Like Matt says. The one thing the believers have the power to do differently than the rest of the world is to “suffer well.” and like Piper says: that makes God look glorious.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTc_FoELt8s&hl=en&fs=1]
Michael S. Horton confronts the modern iteration of the prosperity gospel here with a particular emphasis on Joel Osteen.
Oh my goodness, it is magnificent. here are some clips, but go check it out in full when you have some time to read it carefully.
In the Wal-Mart era of religion and spirituality, every particular creed and any denominational distinctives get watered down. We don’t hear (at least explicitly) about our being “little gods,” “part and parcel of God,” or the blood of Christ as a talisman for healing and prosperity. The strange teachings of his father’s generation, still regularly heard on TBN, are not explored in any depth. In fact, nothing is explored in any depth. Osteen still uses the telltale lingo of the health-and-wealth evangelists: “Declare it,” “speak it,” “claim it,” and so forth, but there are no dramatic, made-for-TV healing lines. The pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, TX, which now owns the Compaq Center, does not come across as a flashy evangelist with jets and yachts, but as a charming next-door-neighbor who always has something nice to say.
…..
As community philosopher Karl Marx said of a consumer-driven culture, “All that is solid melts into the air.” Religion, too, becomes a commodity—a product or therapy that we can buy and use for our personal well-being. Exemplifying the moralistic and therapeutic approach to religion, Osteen’s message is also a good example of the inability of Boomers to mourn in the face of God’s judgment or dance under the liberating news of God’s saving mercy. In other words, all gravity is lost—both the gravity of our problem and of God’s amazing grace. According to this message, we are not helpless sinners—the ungodly—who need a one-sided divine rescue. (Americans, but especially we Boomers, don’t take bad news well.) Rather, we are good people who just need a little instruction and motivation.
……
A TIME story in 2006 observed that Osteen’s success has reached even more traditional Protestant circles, citing the example of a Lutheran church that followed Your Best Life Now during Lent, of all times, “when,” as the writer notes, “Jesus was having his worst life then.” Even churches formally steeped in a theology of the cross succumb to theologies of glory in the environment of popular American spirituality. We are swimming in a sea of narcissistic moralism: an “easy-listening” version of salvation by self-help.This is what we might call the false gospel of “God-Loves-You-Anyway.” There’s no need for Christ as our mediator, since God is never quite as holy and we are never quite as morally perverse as to require nothing short of Christ’s death in our place. God is our buddy. He just wants us to be happy, and the Bible gives us the roadmap.
emphasis added.
Michael has this culture and especially this religious culture nailed.
for further reading making similar points you might check out my post on Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and the links therein.
Also, Francis Chan’s book Crazy Love is directly opposed to the Joel Osteen “God is my buddy” version of christianity prevalent today. I read it already and I am currently reading it again with a group of guys. difficult and powerful. I highly recommend it.
hat tip to Vitamin Z.
C. Michael Patton has written an obituary for the emerging church after 15 years.
It got some cries out, made some very good points, called for changed [sic], and then died. Its leaders are disappearing or have disassociated themselves from the movement. Publishers won’t even entertain books with this title. Those, like myself, who were very well acquainted with the “movement” get nauseous when the topic is even brought up. In fact, I am nauseous now.
Patton gives four reasons for the death, but I found number 4 to be particularly true.
4. Heretical Tolerance Theory: Oh, and then there was that. The Emerging church refused to stand up for anything. As the old song goes, “You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.” The Emerging Church fell. It ran out of fuel. It called on everyone to leave their base and fly with them. Many of us came along for the ride. The problem is they never did land anywhere. They just flew and flew. They wanted to wait five or ten years to decide who they were. In the meantime, the fuel ran out. They did land and it was (mostly) not on friendly ground. From there they definitively cried out against Evangelical orthodoxy kicking us in the most sensitive areas: Abortion, Atonement, Justification, Assurance – and then there was the attempted burial of our belief that homosexuality was a sin. Oh, did I mention the attacks on Hell and the Exclusivity of Christ? They quickly moved from an insightful teen who might have some good things to say to crowd of disconnected enemies on the attack.
fascinating stuff from someone who thought of themselves as emerging.
Hat tip to Vitamin Z, who adds:
I think I just have a hard time taking seriously a movement that just seems to be a recycled version of early 20th century liberalism. We all know where that led us. If it has something new to offer, it will probably last the test of time and at that point let’s take it seriously and talk about it.
All I can add is that when one of your leaders rejects foundational doctrines like Original Sin and openly embraces heretics like Pelagius without any pretense, then your movement is going nowhere fast. When your followers snarkily encourage critics to “let the Bible speak for itself” while they call its language with which they disagree “extreme imagery,” then you know the movement is in a seriously incoherent state and probably not long for this world as a cohesive force of anything.
Ask me sometime how these bugs represents us and sin. Or better yet, you tell me.
This is an iPhone picture of a spoon that was used to dip delicious sour cream into wonderful frito pie Friday night at camp.
Todd Burus is reading a book by David Powlison called Seeing with New Eyes.
Following this Powlison argues for how God’s love in better than unconditional, how it embraces and yet goes further than some aspects of unconditionality, and how the idea of unconditional love is in some ways inadequate to explain God’s love for his people. Of these the one that struck me the most, and what I believe is the impetus behind why true biblical counseling must be different than secular psychology, is the fact that speaking of God’s love as unconditional misses the point that “God’s grace is intended to change people.” Powlison says that,
There is something wrong with you! From God’s point of view, you not only need someone else to be killed in your place in order to be forgiven, you need to be transformed to be fit to live with. The word ‘unconditional’ may be an acceptable way to express God’s welcome, but it fails to communicate its purpose: a comprehensive and lifelong rehabilitation, learning ‘the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.’ (pp.168-169)
These words are so important for us to hear today. I would argue that probably 95% of the people in our congregations would affirm that God’s love is unconditional– I might even have raised a hand in agreement to this at the start of the day– but when pressed to define what the Bible really says about God’s love we have to acknowledge that the modern secular psychological concept of “unconditional positive affirmation” (the jargon equivalent of “unconditional love”) is in no way sufficient to speak of what is revealed to us.
Do you get that? transformation must occur. Philippians 1:6 and II Corinthians 3:18 speak of the surety of this process as a result of God’s loving power.
Without understanding or believing in a love of God that requires transformation, we fall into all kinds of traps. Like Todd says:
But even further than this, I think that by referring to God’s love as unconditional we have begun importing the cultural understanding of this concept into our Christian practice. We are tolerant of all sorts of devaint behavior and sin, especially our own, and so is “God”. We want to be able to pray a prayer and then go back to business as usual and so that’s what “God” commands. We have trouble speaking up about the Bible’s comments on gender roles and sexuality and so we find inventive ways to change “God’s” mind on them. From all of this we get things such as easy believism, free grace theology, and even Christian universalism, which in my mind is the next big conflict rising within the church.
If you don’t believe this is happening, then you aren’t paying attention.
Sunday morning after breakfast. Rained a bit this morning, but no storms. Just raised the humidity level.
Here we are out at Bastrop State Park again camping for the weekend
Kirby and Rod are enjoying it.
Challies points to a post by John Piper regarding I Corinthians 7:3-5.
here is the passage:
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
John Piper points out the difficulty with this passage.
This is paradoxical counsel to married couples, and I think Paul knows it. It does not give either spouse the right to demand certain sexual acts from the other that he or she does not want to give. It is more complex than that. Follow the thought with me.
What is paradoxical and delicate about this text is that logically it doesn’t work. What it does is call the couple to a profound effort to please the other without settling who will wind up getting the most pleasure, especially because each person will get pleasure in not asking the other to do what the other finds unpleasurable.
Here’s what I mean. If her body is his and his body is hers and each has authority over the other’s body, then he has the authority to ask her to do something he would find pleasurable, and she has the authority over his body to ask that he increase her pleasure by not asking that she do that.
Stalemate.
This is real life. I have dealt with it in my own marriage, and I have seen it in many couples. Logically, the text leads to stalemate. And I think Paul knew it. He was leading them beyond logic in this matter.
go read the rest for his explanation of the issue. Excellent stuff.
by the way, for more Piper on marriage, you can download his book This Momentary Marriage in pdf form here for free.
I am sorry that i missed last Friday. moving messed up my routine and I forgot. have I mentioned that I hate moving?
yellow flowers
tree
mexican hats
I really don’t want to be or to come across like one of those black helicopter conspiracy theory nuts, but we have been down this road of unfettered Federal government control before.
It was not pretty then and it will be less so now due to the lack of the restraining hand of a shared semi-christian culture.
Any time a group of people who are convinced that they are smarter than everybody else and that they care more than everybody else assumes reins of power (incidentally, with the white house, the house of representatives and now 60 votes in the senate, make no mistake, the power of these “do-gooders” is completely unfettered), then the rest of us will pay the price for their hubris.
Here is an excellent post summarizing some of the greatest hits of centralized American government in the past and how they are connected to now.
To an outsider, the Fernald school in Waltham Massachusetts looked like any other educational institution. During the school’s hay day in the 1920’s and 30’s, few passers-by would have guessed the dark secret lurking behind the brick walls – a secret penetrating to the heart of American liberalism.
Fernald was no ordinary school. Set up in 1848 with funds from the Massachusetts State Legislature, the institution was designed for the incarceration of “feeble-minded” children. Throughout the early 1900s, hundreds of thousands of low-intelligence (though not necessarily retarded) children were warehoused at Fernald in unspeakable conditions. Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.
In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D’Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
It was not until the 1960s that the school began releasing their children to live in the outside world.
……..
Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood and the pre-1960’s Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes. Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.
The underlining premise behind the American eugenics movement was the view that irresponsible individualism in breeding would act as a cancer on the human gene pool, harming posterity. Government held the future of the human race in its reigns and could improve the evolutionary direction of the nation – and indeed the world – through strategic intervention.
……
Nevertheless, the ideological coordinates behind these abuses remain as intact as ever within the minds of American left, although they have found a myriad of different expressions.
Consider, for example, the widespread assumption that the state has the vocation to act as a supra steward of the human race. In January, James Hansen of NASA (known as the “father” of the global warming movement), told the Guardian that Obama “has only four years to save the world.” Hansen painted a chilling picture of the apocalyptic future awaiting us if government failed to assert drastic measures like the “carbon tax.”
It is not hard to see the continuity Hansen’s remarks have with the eugenics politics of the last century. In both cases, the underlying premise is that the state holds the future of the human race in its reigns, and unless significant freedom is surrendered over to them, irresponsible individualism will destroy our chances – or our children’s chances – on this planet.
…..
The American left has not departed from this basic utilitarian criterion. Consider the justification liberals are constantly giving for using taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research (which involves the destruction of humans at the embryonic stage). They tell us that such research is justified because it can save lives. In other words, the end justifies the means when the end is the greater good of the human race. We see this same callous utilitarianism in the other ethical debates over killing innocent human beings: whether the killing of innocent humans occurs at the embryonic stage (certain forms of stem cell research), the foetal stage (abortion) or the elderly stage (euthanasia), these practices are defended by an appeal to the greater good either of society or (in the case of euthanasia) of the individual who elects to kill himself. As with the social Darwinism of the 20th century, the casualties of this utilitarian approach are inevitably the weakest and helpless members of society.
emphasis added.
Go read the rest of the post and also get the book. I am telling you that Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, is one of the most timely and important things you can read to understand the current political moment.
Have you noticed that the treasury department is taking over banks and not letting them pay back the money that gave the treasury control? have you noticed that GM and Chrysler are being unceremoniously delivered over to ownership by the government and the United Auto Workers Union? Do these things worry you any at all? they should.
We are on a very bad path. a very bad path indeed.
hat tip to vitamin z
Paul reminded the Ephesian church that only with truth would there be mature Christian unity and only if truth was spoken in love.
Truth cannot be ducked or minimized in any way, but it must be softened with compassion. It is not compassionate to downplay or minimize or disregard truth.
Dr. Mohler wrote about this the other day in the context of homosexuality.
first the truth:
The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure. Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue?
Not hardly. Scientific surveys and informal observation reveal that we have experienced a significant loss of conviction among youth and young adults. No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children. Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.
Our churches must teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality–and taught to esteem marriage as God’s intention for human sexual relatedness.
The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender–what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God’s gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight.
but with compassion:
And yet, even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well–compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.
Liberal churches have redefined compassion to mean that the church changes its message to meet modern demands. They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer. But, in the culture of political correctness, this argument holds a powerful attraction.
Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception. True compassion demands speaking the truth in love–and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion.
Go read the rest. Great stuff.
Keith Mathison has reviewed James Le Fanu’s book Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves.
It sounds interesting:
What is potentially more interesting in this case is that Le Fanu does not raise his doubts from the perspective of Christianity or even Intelligent Design. On the existence of a Creator, Le Fanu seems to be agnostic (p. 122). His argument is more basic. He argues that Darwinism should be objectively judged like any other scientific theory and concludes that if it is judged objectively, we have to conclude that Darwinism is insufficient to account for all of the facts of nature. To demonstrate this, he focuses most of his attention on the discoveries of the New Genetics, in particular the Human Genome Project, as well as research into the workings of the human brain. He argues that purely physical and material processes alone do not account for all that we encounter and that there must be some kind of non-material biological phenomenon in existence as well.
Le Fanu spends a considerable amount of time criticizing the weaknesses of Darwinism as science. He claims that Darwinism has survived as long as it has only because it is often formulated in such a way that it becomes immune to any and all criticism. Furthermore, he argues, in this one case, scientists prefer what many of them know to be a bad theory to no theory at all. This, he believes, results in Darwinism being a hindrance rather than a help to good science. He writes, “The greatest obstacle to scientific progress, after all, is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge” (p. 108). Darwinists, he argues, have locked themselves into a self-made intellectual prison that prevents them from seeing, much less exploring, the truly interesting questions about life.
I would like to recommend again the book Who was Adam for anyone interested in seeing creationists’ attempt to formulate a truly scientific model for creation that accounts for the fossil evidence and genetic advances.
Don McElroy has been relentlessly pilloried by the media and “scientific community” for having the temerity to express doubts about darwinian evolution that are similar to those expressed by Le Fanu. His confirmation as Chairman of the Board of Education is currently pending in the Texas Senate. This might be a good time to express support for him to your Texas state senator, especially if you live in Senator Watson or Shapleigh’s district.
Mathison expects the same treatment for Le Fanu from the notoriously open minded, tolerant, willing to learn and admit error scientific community:
One does not have to be a prophet or the son of a prophet to predict the response that Le Fanu’s book will receive from the defenders of Darwinist orthodoxy. (Simply witness the response to Ben Stein’s film Expelled). We can expect shrill and dismissive book reviews, articles, and blog comments accusing Le Fanu of everything from incipient senility to mental illness to (worst of all) being a “creationist.” Ironically, most of these comments and “reviews” will be written by people who have not read Le Fanu’s book. In the scientific world, Le Fanu has committed the equivalent of blasphemy. He is the newest “Danish cartoonist” of Darwinism.
Have you noticed that “tolerance” these days is a one way street. Basically it means we all have to like and celebrate whatever gets crammed down our throat and in return we get to be mocked hated and ridiculed.
As Exhibit A, take the way Miss California was treated during and after the recent Miss U.S.A. pageant when she expressed her belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Andrew Breitbart says it was a set up.
At the point in the pageant when the young lovelies are asked questions by those who pick the winners, the flamboyantly gay man (who by day pries into the private lives of stars and scrawls human DNA-spewing phalli under the faces of those he doesn’t like) asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she approved of gay marriage.
It was a setup.
Miss Prejean is a student at San Diego Christian College – the kind of place activist gay leftists are at war with, where Christians preach what they practice.
Andrew has also noticed how the activists are selective in the targets for their concerted outrage.
On display at the Miss USA event was the activist left’s pageant of selective bullying, a concerted strategy to go after low-hanging fruit like Mormons. But the left leaves off its hit list members in good standing of its normal coalition – its “rainbow” coalition. In California, one of the gayest places on the map, blacks and Hispanics – who disproportionately disapprove of same-sex marriage – get a stunning pass from outraged proponents of gay marriage.
Since 9/11, the highly organized gay left has also been deafeningly silent on Islam’s anti-modern approach to homosexuality – let alone same-sex unions. The mullahs in Iran somehow get a major pass while the director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento is targeted for ruin. This contradiction is not subtle. Indeed, it’s obvious and pathetic
and Andrew wonders if this approach will have success for the homosexual community.
I fear the vicious and hypocritical path that the activist gay left is headed on will eventually be met with a backlash. If it already hasn’t. Activism goes both ways and somehow the majority has a way of having its say. Unless the gay community polices itself better and registers its displeasure against these pitiful and selective acts of political retribution, many tolerant Americans who hold the same beliefs on marriage as Mr. Obama and the Dalai Lama are going to begin to register their displeasure at the voting booth and through consumer boycotts against those who employ or support the thuggish tactics of Perez Hilton and his ilk.
our response to these kinds of tactics from the likes of Perez Hilton is obvious. But I wonder if the contradictions inherent in their approach will ever catch up with them in the larger population. I doubt it.
Driscoll is doing a series of articles on spiritual gifts. Since he is charismatic, his series would be different than mine, but it is quite good nonetheless.
His latest post is on the spiritual gift of wisdom.
defined:
The gift of wisdom is the ability to have insight into people and situations that is not obvious to the average person, combined with an understanding of what to do and how to do it. It is the ability to not only see, but also apply the principles of God’s Word to the practical matters of life by the “Spirit of wisdom” (Eph. 1:17).
how to know if you have it:
Here are some questions to ask yourself:
When studying God’s Word, do you find that you discover the meaning and its implications before others do?
Do you seem to understand things about God’s Word that other believers with the same background and experience don’t seem to know?
Are you able to apply biblical truth in a practical way to help counsel others to make good life choices?
Do you get frustrated when people make foolish decisions that damage their quality of life, because you know what they should have done instead?
Do you find that when people have important decisions to make, they come to you for prayer and biblical counsel?
Do you find that when you counsel people, God the Spirit gives you wisdom to share with them from Scripture, which they accept as God’s truth to them through you?
Kevin DeYoung points to Exodus 1:17 for a lesson in faith from Hebrew midwives.
here it is:
“17But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.”
and here is Kevin’s conclusion:
The bottom line is that we will never display strength in the face of temptation, or courage in the face of opposition, or boldness in the face of disapproval unless we think it a bigger deal to disobey God than to disappoint men. In Jesus’ day, many believed in him, “but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God” (John 12:42-43). Without the fear of God in our lives, we may manage to look like decent, respectable, nice people, but we will not receive the glory that comes from God. We will not shine as light and preserve as salt. And we would have killed Moses.
Now for further study, reconcile Exodus 1:17 with Romans 13:1-7
Kevin Roose, raised a liberal Quaker, from Brown University enrolls at Liberty University in order to write a book. Hilarity ensues.
Bryan P emailed me this story last night and it is kind of intriguing.
two bits in particular struck me:
Yet, some students also grilled him about his relationship with Jesus and condemned non-believers to hell.
After a gunman at Virginia Tech killed 32 people in April 2007, a Liberty student said the deaths paled next to the millions of abortions worldwide — a comment Roose says infuriated him.
….
Roose said his Liberty experience transformed him in surprising ways.When he first returned to Brown, he was shocked by the sight of a gay couple holding hands — then shocked at his own reaction. He remains stridently opposed to Falwell’s worldview, but he also came to understand Falwell’s appeal.
Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly — for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.
He’s even considering joining a church.
First, as a side note, have you ever noticed how simplistic the prose is in USA Today? I haven’t either until I was snipping these two quotes. Wow.
Second, I wonder why did that comment about abortion infuriate him? Any time there is anger, I get curious.
Third, isn’t it interesting that Roos professes to be more open to the faith now? Even after experiencing Liberty University’s version?
Here is R.C. Sproul Jr.’s take on making our churches culturally relevant.
Tell me if you understand the point he is trying to make. I may be too sleepy to get it, but I don’t.
It starts well enough:
There is a tension among the people of God that reflects a delicate balance to which the Bible calls us. Paul, you will recall, argued that in his passion for the gospel, he wished to be all things to all people, that by all means some might be saved (1 Cor. 9:22). On the other hand, Jesus tells the disciples that when they brought the good news and were not received, they were to wipe the dust off of their feet as they left the town (Luke 9:5). They’re both legitimate perspectives on the lost. Where, we wonder, does earnestly contending for lost souls end and pandering to the lost begin?
But it ends like this:
When we come to worship we come in ourselves still unclean. We as a bride are too besmirched and stained to feign haughtiness. We are too conscious of our own sin to be looking down our noses at others. But we come seeking to be made beautiful, confident that our Groom can bring this to pass. We have given up the world, with all its arrogant slovenliness. We have turned up our noses at the world’s studied indifference to beauty. We do indeed speak English, but it is not the English of the court fool. It is the King’s English.
and in between he talks about wisdom, latin masses, preaching in clown suits and weddings. You tell me what he means.
sometimes in the midst of heartbreak and pain, it is easy to lose sight of God. We get overwhelmed. Platitudes and cliches in that moment don’t help.
That is why I love the Psalms. David was an emotional guy on an emotional roller coaster. Compare Psalm 35 (David on a bad day) with Psalm 37 (David on a good day).
the point is that when we are in the middle of the storm is not the time to be making four part logical scriptural arguments about how God intends for this to all work out for our good. Instead, as the waves wash over our heads and we feel like just letting go and drowning, all we can do is cling to the Rock of our Salvation.
We have to rest secure in what we know even when it varies from what we feel. What we know is in whom we have believed. When Paul wrote that, waves of disappointing events and problems were hitting him one after the other. people were letting him down, deserting him to save their own skin, execution imminent. But he wrote: “12 ….. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.”
When the chips are down and people disappoint us, we have to use our head and rest in what we know, no matter how we feel.
We know that our God is the God “who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.”
We know that this God made us alive, loves us, saves us, and prepares work for us to do.
I love this song:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOufqWodFNo&hl=en&fs=1]
also, there isn’t a video for this one on YouTube that I could find, but it is fantastic. Alli Rogers is a great singer/writer
Vitamin Z has posted Mute Math’s new video “Spotlight.” Z also has a quote about how it was made. Pretty cool.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry6GAwDCI2I&hl=en&fs=1]
and of course, my favorite Mute Math is “Typical.”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAtXKS9ZxvM&hl=en&fs=1]
Paul Trip has a new conference DVD out on marriage called “What Did You Expect?”
here is a video of excerpts. It looks quite good. Justin Taylor has more links to various related materials including links to free downloads of the leader’s guide and the discussion guide.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CWth5M8twY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]
some B&W pictures on film (Kodak 400 Tri-X)
Joe Thorn reminds us that as Christians we need to “hate well”.
If you follow Jesus, cherish the gospel, and love God and neighbor you will hate well. If you do not hate, you will find yourself more susceptible to temptation, slower to respond to corruption, and unmotivated to contend for the faith. Hate is a real part of your faith – don’t forget it.
go read the rest to see what he is talking about.
Today is the day for the big move to the new house. The Uverse is already disconnected here so this is posted from my iPhone.
I love the rain, but we really need it to stop soon so that we can get everything done that needs to be done.
I hate moving.
A demographic time bomb is ticking in the far east. here is the horrible truth in dry medical journal language:
Conclusions In 2005 males under the age of 20 exceeded females by more than 32 million in China, and more than 1.1 million excess births of boys occurred. China will see very high and steadily worsening sex ratios in the reproductive age group over the next two decades. Enforcing the existing ban on sex selective abortion could lead to normalisation of the ratios.
as Al Mohler says, “Millions of Chinese young men will have no opportunity to marry. The sociological impact is beyond imagination.”
the sociological impact of systemized femicide in the womb is beyond imagination. what comes next? we simply don’t know.
On a side note. Reckon what Jesurgislac, the feminist, thinks about this use of abortion to exterminate a generation of defenseless girls in a nation. a bit of cognitive dissonance perhaps?
UPDATED: added the link to Dr. Mohler. sorry about that
