a brilliant example of contrast

Posted on January 17, 2009 by bkingr

on August 1, 2007, an interstate highway bridge collapsed in minneapolis, minnesota. This collapse and the internet combined to allow all of us to see an almost real time contrast between arminian and calvinist views of God’s sovereignty in the midst of a tragedy.

Many of you know that John Piper’s church is in Minneapolis. Here is what Pastor Piper wrote shortly after the horrible tragedy.

here is a snippet:

Tonight for our family devotions our appointed reading was Luke 13:1-9. It was not my choice. This is surely no coincidence. O that all of the Twin Cities, in shock at this major calamity, would hear what Jesus has to say about it from Luke 13:1-5. People came to Jesus with heart-wrenching news about the slaughter of worshipers by Pilate. Here is what he said.

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Jesus implies that those who brought him this news thought he would say that those who died, deserved to die, and that those who didn’t die did not deserve to die. That is not what he said. He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don’t repent, we too will perish. This is a stunning response. It only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God.

All of us have sinned against God, not just against man. This is an outrage ten thousand times worse than the collapse of the 35W bridge. That any human is breathing at this minute on this planet is sheer mercy from God. God makes the sun rise and the rain fall on those who do not treasure him above all else. He causes the heart to beat and the lungs to work for millions of people who deserve his wrath. This is a view of reality that desperately needs to be taught in our churches, so that we are prepared for the calamities of the world.

The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.

another former citizen of minneapolis, minnesota is Dr. Roger Olson now of Waco and the Truett Seminary at Baylor. Here is what Dr. Olson had to say about the tragedy.

here is a snippet:

What a strange calamity. A modern, seemingly well-engineered bridge in a major metropolitan area collapsed in a moment without any forewarning of danger.

Something similar could happen to any of us anytime. Similar things do happen to us or people just like us — innocent bystanders passing through life are suddenly blindsided by some weird tragedy.

So where is God when seemingly pointless calamity strikes? Some religious folks say, “It was God’s will.” Let’s just focus on Christians here.

A well-known Christian author and speaker pastors a church within a mile of the collapsed bridge. To him and his followers, God foreordained, planned and indirectly (if not directly) caused the event.

A popular Christian band sings “There is a reason” for everything. They mean God renders everything certain and has a good purpose for whatever happens. The pastor and the band are Christian determinists. Both happen to adhere to a form of Protestant theology called Calvinism.

This theology is sweeping up thousands of impressionable young Christians. It provides a seemingly simple answer to the problem of evil. Even what we call evil is planned and rendered certain by God because it is necessary for a greater good.

But wait. What about God’s character? Is God, then, the author of evil? Most Calvinists don’t want to say it. But logic seems to demand it. If God plans something and renders it certain, how is he not culpable for it? Here is where things get murky.
…..
Many conservative Christians wince at the idea that God is limited. But what if God limits himself so that much of what happens in the world is due to human finitude and fallenness? What if God is in charge but not in control? What if God wishes that things could be otherwise and someday will make all things perfect?

That seems more like the God of the Bible than the all-determining deity of Calvinism.

In this world, because of our ignorance and sinfulness, really bad things sometimes happen and people do really evil and wicked things. Not because God secretly plans and prods them, but because God has said to fallen, sinful people, “OK, not my will then, but thine be done — for now.”

And God says, “Pray because sometimes I can intervene to stop innocent suffering when people pray; that’s one of my self-limitations. I don’t want to do it all myself; I want your involvement and partnership in making this a better world.”

It’s a different picture of God than most conservative Christians grew up with, but it’s the only one (so far as I can tell) that relieves God of responsibility for sin and evil and disaster and calamity.

Now. Which view of God is more comforting? The God who works everything for his glory and for our good? or the God who would say “OK, not my will then, but thine be done — for now.”?

Notice which one of the two distinguished scholars above based their view on scripture and which one based their view on logic.

Go read both articles in their entirety. Think about them. Maybe take a look at Tom Ascol’s take on the contrast. very fascinating stuff.

here is how Tom concludes his post:

Olsen writes that the “God of Calvinism scares” him because he is “not sure how to distinguish him from the devil….In light of all the evil and innocent suffering in the world, he must have limited himself.”

Such rationalism should submit to the revelation of God in Christ. No, Dr. Olsen, Calvinism does not offer a “seemingly simple answer to the problem of evil.” Rather, it bows in humility to what God has revealed. And it gazes with faith and hope at the zenith of that revelation in the crucified Savior. When understanding fails and questions remain, we look at the Jesus of the scars and remember that our God–the only God there is–was wounded for us, and we let His wounds speak to ours.

amen.

UPDATE: Larry Thompson (clicking this link takes you to his comment page where you then have to click “show original post” to read the text.) is worth reading on this incident as well. He points out the absence of scripture in Dr. Olson’s assertions and deftly uses scripture to refute those assertions. an example:

Olson also says “What if God is in charge but not in control?” He means God could control things but chooses not to. That, my friend, is not Christianity, but Deism, the idea that God made us then sat back to see what happens. Besides, again, the Bible tells us God is in control. Daniel 4:17 says the Lord rules the kingdoms of men. Daniel 4:35 says he does according to his will. He works all things according to the counsel of his will according to Ephesians 1:11. He says not one sparrow falls to the ground apart from him (Matthew 10:29).

UPDATE II: Reformed Baptist is also very much worth reading on this topic.

Olson: The God of Calvinism scares me; I’m not sure how to distinguish him from the devil. If you’ve come under the influence of Calvinism, think about its ramifications for the character of God. God is great but also good. In light of all the evil and innocent suffering in the world, he must have limited himself.

I do not doubt that the “God of Calvinism” scares Olson, but I would assert that it is really the God of the Bible that scares Him, a God who cannot be so easily put in the “limited” box in which Olson wishes to place Him. And if Olson can’t seem to distinguish Him from the devil, it is an indictment on Olson rather than on God (or on Calvinists who are simply repeating what God has said about Himself). Many believers throughout the history of God’s dealings with mankind have had no problem at all making such a distinction, believers such as Job and Joseph… and the Calvinists who believe their word over that of men such as Olson.

To all those who would say that God has to be limited in some way because that is the only way we can fully understand what he is doing — which seems to be Olson’s point of view — I would remind you that it is idolatry to reshape God into our image, into someone who can fit into our understanding, rather than to humbly accept Him for who He says that He is.

Posted in church, teaching | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

pulpit magazine is back

Posted on January 17, 2009 by bkingr

Pulpit magazine took a hiatus back in November, but has returned with a bang. One of the highlights of the return has been a series on Calvinism by Phil Johnson.

so far there have been five parts, but none of them have been very long. take some time this weekend to peruse them in their entirety.

here are the pages:

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5

and here is a bit from part 5 for a tease, but you should go read all five parts in their entirety.

At the end of the previous post, I described how even in my Arminian days, I affirmed an awful lot of truth about the sovereignty of God: I would have affirmed with no reservation whatsoever that God is God; that He does all His good pleasure; that no one can make Him do otherwise; that He is in control and in charge no matter how much noise evildoers try to make; and not only is He in charge, He is working all things out for my good and His glory. As a matter of fact, my confidence in the promise of Romans 8:28 was what motivated my prayer life.

That’s Calvinism. If you believe those things, you have affirmed the heart of Calvinism, even if you call yourself an Arminian. Those are the basic truths of Calvinism, and if you already believe those things, you are functioning with Calvinist presuppositions.

In fact, the truths of Calvinism so much permeate the heart of the gospel message, that even if you think you are a committed and consistent proponent of Arminianism, if you truly affirm the gospel you have already conceded the principle points of Calvinism anyway.

Posted in church | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Friday Fotos–Bokeh

Posted on January 16, 2009 by bkingr

Bokeh is the out of focus “oof” area on a picture. smooth creamy oof areas are generally felt to be more pleasing to the eyes.

here is a mosquito on a landscaping log taken with a 105mm f2.8 nikkor
tighter crop on the bug

and here is a short tree in winter with the 80-200mm f2.8 nikkor
bokehlicious

and here is an entirely oof picture of people, a christmas tree and some blinds with the 50mm f1.4 AF nikkor showing the “circles of confusion.”
bokeh extravaganza

Posted in photography | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

brave new digital world

Posted on January 15, 2009 by bkingr

Vitamin Z points to a First Things article called iPhones Have Consequences.

Sally Thomas takes a look at the effect that internet access ubiquity has had on the education of kids. It is not a pretty picture. Here are four quick hits, but you have to go read the whole thing.

The project of Emory professor Mark Bauerlein’s new book, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future; or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30, is to confront and dismantle the claim that digital technology is producing a higher-powered, better-informed, all-around smarter new generation than, say, the .01 percent of the Facebook population born in the 1960s.
…….

But he also asks why, with all these advantages, so many young Americans sound like the high-school student who called a talk-radio show to complain about “all the boring stuff the teachers assign,” like “that book about the guy. [Pause] You know, that guy who was great.” “You mean The Great Gatsby?” asked the host. “Yeah,” said the caller. “Who wants to read about him?” The cultural candy shop is open as it’s never been open before, but evidence suggests that the kids aren’t buying.

……

Their ignorance would seem outrageous if it didn’t sound just like the kind of thing my college-professor husband has been reading in student papers, hearing in conversations with students, and seeing in course evaluations for years. This is a 100-level course, and we shouldn’t be expected to do such complex reading, griped an entire chorus of students from a world-religions 101 course, for which the core text was a trade paperback that myhusband’s father, a college dropout, had once been assigned in a Sunday School class. In another religion class, a student paper referred repeatedly to something called the momentous island, a phrase that mystified my husband until he realized that what the writer meant was that infamous school-prayer compromise, the moment of silence.

…..

At its heart, Bauerlein’s book is not about machines at all but about what he calls “The Betrayal of the Mentors.” Simply put, the educational and cultural establishments have sold out tradition and authority in favor of “collaborative-learning” models and objectives like “working with every young person’s sense of self.” The average teenager, not surprisingly, views himself not as a student in need of enlightenment but as a kind of automatic savant.

……

Ideas have consequences and, according to Bauerlein, the consequence of this particular idea will be the coming of age of successive generations who know less and less about the ideas that gave us Western civilization, and who therefore have less and less investment in its continuation. “Knowledge,” writes Bauerlein, “supplies a motivation that ordinary ambitions don’t.”

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

God is Sovereign

Posted on January 14, 2009 by bkingr

Todd Burus is on the same wavelength that I was on in the comments to this post.

God is sovereign. Honestly, I don’t think there are nearly as many people who believe this as there are that say it. Ask any ol’ Baptist biddy why it is that she is maintaining faith even though her health is failing and her husband died and she will say with a sigh, “God is sovereign.” Ask her if she believes that God has chosen for himself a people unconditionally from the foundation of the earth though and prepare to be chastised. “God is sovereign,” as I’ve learned in Southern Baptist vernacular, does not mean that ‘God is sovereign,’ as much as it means ‘I’m doing alright, or at least I’m pretending like I am because I don’t know what else to say.’

But what if we recovered the true meaning of this phrase? What if, instead of saying “God is sovereign” as a default comfort in times of trial we really grasped it as the supreme comfort in all situations, how much impact would that have on how we relate to God?

….

Sure, we say “God is sovereign,” but our theology, and our pride, overrule our words and display what we really think of God: that he is subservient to our “free will” and impotent to do anything unless we open the door for him first. That little seems like a God who is worthy of worship, and even less like the great God we read of in the Bible, who loved us so much that he appointed a worm to demonstrate just how sovereign he really is!

go read the rest of it and see his wonderful example from Jonah 4:7. God provided, prepared, appointed, sent a worm. For his purposes and for his glory.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

NY Times on Mark Driscoll

Posted on January 14, 2009 by bkingr

the New York Times Magazine has written a long article on Mark Driscoll. Who he is, where he came from, his ministry, his doctrine, Mars Hill Church, calvinism….the whole shootin’ match. here are four brief excerpts from a four page article. go read it all. very interesting stuff.

Mark Driscoll is American evangelicalism’s bête noire. In little more than a decade, his ministry has grown from a living-room Bible study to a megachurch that draws about 7,600 visitors to seven campuses around Seattle each Sunday, and his books, blogs and podcasts have made him one of the most admired — and reviled — figures among evangelicals nationwide. Conservatives call Driscoll “the cussing pastor” and wish that he’d trade in his fashionably distressed jeans and taste for indie rock for a suit and tie and placid choral arrangements. Liberals wince at his hellfire theology and insistence that women submit to their husbands. But what is new about Driscoll is that he has resurrected a particular strain of fire and brimstone, one that most Americans assume died out with the Puritans: Calvinism, a theology that makes Pat Robertson seem warm and fuzzy.
…..
On that Sunday, Driscoll preached for an hour and 10 minutes — nearly three times longer than most pastors. As hip as he looks, his message brooks no compromise with Seattle’s permissive culture. New members can keep their taste in music, their retro T-shirts and their intimidating facial hair, but they had better abandon their feminism, premarital sex and any “modern” interpretations of the Bible. Driscoll is adamantly not the “weepy worship dude” he associates with liberal and mainstream evangelical churches, “singing prom songs to a Jesus who is presented as a wuss who took a beating and spent a lot of time putting product in his long hair.”
……..
New Calvinists are still relatively few in number, but that doesn’t bother them: being a persecuted minority proves you are among the elect. They are not “the next big thing” but a protest movement, defying an evangelical mainstream that, they believe, has gone soft on sin and has watered down the Gospel into a glorified self-help program. In part, Calvinism appeals because — like Mars Hill’s music and Driscoll’s frank sermons — the message is raw and disconcerting: seeker insensitive.
……
Yet while some initially come for mundane reasons — their friends attend; they like the music — the Calvinist theology is often the glue that keeps them in their seats. They call the preaching “authentic” and “true to life.” Traditional evangelical theology falls apart in the face of real tragedy, says the 20-year-old Brett Harris, who runs an evangelical teen blog with his twin brother, Alex. Reducing God to a projection of our own wishes trivializes divine sovereignty and fails to explain how both good and evil have a place in the divine plan. “There are plenty of comfortable people who can say, ‘God’s on my side,’ ” Harris says. “But they couldn’t turn around and say, ‘God gave me cancer.’ ”

hat tip to Jonathan Dodson at the Creation Project.

Posted in church, culture | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

manliness

Posted on January 13, 2009 by bkingr

Father Richard John Neuhaus passed away this week. I have been reading his publication First Things for a long time (since a friend of mine introduced me to it back in law school). I didn’t always agree with him about everything, but to disagree meant having to bring the A+ game because his positions were very well thought out.

here is a clip posted on The Corner where he talks a bit about what it means to be a man. It goes along so well with conversations that I have been having with my sons, that I thought that I might as well post it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqFiOOBp51o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

what is the target?

Posted on January 13, 2009 by bkingr

Ed Stetzer has some interesting thoughts about the gospel that we are preaching and the goal of conversion according to that gospel. Here is his full article at catalyst.

the excerpts that Ed posted on his blog follow:

I continue to see movements gaining traction among Christians that do not seem to have many converts. In other words, they have recruits to their cause, but few converts to Christ. And, I am concerned. I am concerned that in the name of “fixing the Church” we are not proclaiming the Church’s gospel.
…

So, my Reformed friends, let’s not only read 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John (that is, John Calvin, John MacArthur, and John Piper), let’s go plant some more churches. My emerging church friends, let’s take a pause from the theological rethink and head into the neighborhood and to tell someone about Jesus. My missional friends, let’s speak of justice, but always tell others how God can be both “just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” My house church friends, let’s have community, but let’s be sure it is one focused on redemption. My Baptist friends, let’s focus more on convincing pagans than Presbyterians. And, my charismatic friends, let’s focus less on getting existing believers to speak in tongues and more on using our tongue to tell others about Jesus

…

If you want to convince me (and the body of Christ) to your cause, you must show me it is a better way. You must tell and show something different. You must not just protest what is, but you must show me what should be.

hat tip to Vitamin Z

while we are at Vitamin Z, here is a quote from D.A. Carson that may be related to what Ed is talking about:

“For complex reasons many in the Western church came to speak of ‘the simple gospel’, by which they at one time meant the gospel summarized in convenient and simple form, usually for evangelistic purposes. The result is that for many today ‘the gospel’ or ‘gospel preaching’ refers not to the glorious, comprehensive good news disclosed in scripture but to a very simple (some would say simplistic) reduction of it. Some churches distinguished between ‘worship services’ and ‘gospel services’: one wonders which term, ‘worship’ or ‘gospel’, has been more seriously abused. Doubtless the motives behind these developments were often excellent. But the fact remains that a variety of serious problems were thereby introduced. For many, evangelistic preaching became identified with simplistic preaching. Worse, ‘the gospel’ came to be associated in their minds exclusively with the initial steps of faith rather than with God’s comprehensive good news that not only initiates salvation but orders all our life in this world and the next.”

–D. A. Carson, “The Biblical Gospel,” in For Such a Time as This: Perspectives on Evangelicalism, Past, Present and Future (ed. Steve Brady and Harold Rowdon; London: Evangelical Alliance, 1996), 82.

Posted in church, culture | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

"probably"

Posted on January 12, 2009 by bkingr

800 British buses carry a message paid for by British atheists. The winning persuasive message?

“There’s probably no God,” the advertisements say. “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

first of all the “probably” is funny. nothing quite like having the courage of your convictions. at least it is honest. Honest atheists admit that they can’t prove there is no God.

Then the juxtaposition of worry and enjoyment. As if the presence of God leads to worry and lack of enjoyment for folks who believe in him. on the contrary, God liberates us from worry and allows us to to truly enjoy life.

I would say that the atheist who happened upon this slogan may be open to becoming a christ follower. in fact, this may actually be a subversive attempt by a christian copy writer at an advertising firm to spread the gospel.

Hat tip to Al Mohler again who says:

I must admit that I find the British campaign nearly humorous. In any event, it is certainly not threatening to the Christian message. No one is really likely to be converted to atheism by seeing a sign on a bus — and almost certainly not by a sign that declares that “there’s probably no God.” Probably?

In some sense, this campaign almost looks like a joke on atheists planned and performed by believers in God. The use of the word “probably” does more to demonstrate the weakness of the atheistic argument than could ever be done by outright condemnations of atheism.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

this morning's expedition

Posted on January 11, 2009 by bkingr

a couple from this morning’s expedition

moon set
moon set

sunrise
sunday sunrise

Posted in photography | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

James 3:1

Posted on January 10, 2009 by bkingr

James 3:1 says that not many of us should be teachers because we who teach will be judged more strictly. Teaching the word of God to the people of God is a huge responsibility and should be approached with an intense awareness of this responsibility and the constant need for assistance from the Holy Spirit to rightly divide the word.

The activity of theologians and priests described by Anne Hendershott in this article is chilling in light of James 3:1. check this out.

In some cases, church leaders actually started providing “cover” for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights. At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a “clear conscience.”

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book “The Birth of Bioethics” (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.

Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that “distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue.” It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians “might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order.”

Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: “The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion.”

hat tip to Al Mohler who has similar thoughts about this event. Dr. Mohler concludes:

There are important lessons here, to be sure. One lesson must be this: There will be theologians who seem ever ready to find a way to subvert the teachings of their church, even as they seek to remain in its employ and trust. The second lesson is like unto the first: There will ever be politicians who are looking for political cover, and will gladly receive this cover from those willing to subvert their church’s teaching. These lessons are by no means limited to the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted in church, culture, politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

the Bible

Posted on January 9, 2009 by bkingr

another one of Challies’ Wednesday links was to this article.

Ray Ortlund discusses some statistics detailing the shockingly high levels of biblical illiteracy in the general population and among christians. he then gives six excellent suggestions for dealing with this huge problem.

an example of the statistics:

According to 82 percent of Americans, ‘God helps those who help themselves,’ is a Bible verse. Those identified as born-again Christians did better–by one percent. A majority of adults think the Bible teaches that the most important purpose in life is taking care of one’s family. . . .

one of Ray’s suggestions for fixing this problem:

4. Preach from the Bible, and from the Bible only. Again, does this need to be said? One thing’s for sure. The Bible is fascinating, disturbing, offensive, sweet, alarming, comforting, stretching, shocking, controversial, caressing, strengthening. No way are you and I that interesting. Let’s put the Bible front and center and let it be itself and do its thing, whatever the impact. Submerging the Bible for the sake of our cool personas isn’t really cool at all. It’s a way of avoiding risk, chickening out.

Go read the rest of Ray Ortlund’s post.

As you know if you have spent any time at all reading my blog, this particular topic is a passion of mine.

the second post and the very first substantive post on this blog was about the importance of actually reading the Bible. (this was the first post)

God breathed out a book for us. A book that is promised to make us complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work. Do we really believe that? or is just something we say?

Posted in bible, church, culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

bart ehrman's new book

Posted on January 9, 2009 by bkingr

Bart Ehrman has written a new book and Methodist bishop William H Willimon takes it down with style in this review.

here is how the review begins, but take some time and go read the rest.

Bart Ehrman has written another book that is probably destined to be a best seller. God’s Problem is a lively, though thoroughly conventional and utterly predictable, dismissal of Jewish and Christian views of God. It is a real page-turner, quickly written by an author who assumes a position of moral and intellectual superiority to just about everyone who is unlucky enough not to be a tenured professor in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

God’s Problem begins not with God but with Ehrman, and with antitheology as autobiography. We learn that suffering has “haunted” Ehrman “for a very long time” and that it is the reason he lost his faith. The faith he lost was Christian evangelical fundamentalism, which, as we are told, crumbled under “critical scrutiny.” Ehrman told NPR’s Terry Gross that for a while he tried the Episcopal Church, finding its rituals aesthetically pleasing, but that he eventually left because “even in the Episcopal church they say the creed.” Even Episcopalians were too gullible and credulous for the agnostic Ehrman.

Being subjected to the puerile theodicy of undergraduates while he was teaching courses in religion at Rutgers was the coup de grâce for what was left of Ehrman’s faith. So the professor ventured forth on the journey that he apparently considers heroic, even though it has been made by millions in the West before him: the journey of taking God less seriously and himself more so. While this is now an old story, Ehrman seems invigorated by the telling of it—I presume because it his own story. The radical subjectivity and narcissism of evangelical pietism must be tough to shake.

While reading God’s Problem, I kept asking myself, why bother? There are no new insights or discoveries here. All of this is common knowledge to anyone who has taken a few Bible classes in any first-rate, state-funded, secular department of religion. And if one no longer believes in God, why attempt theodicy in the first place—who cares whether the God who isn’t is just or unjust, caring or uncaring? Any argument against the goodness of God that begins with the announcement that God probably doesn’t exist is a strange argument. Why beat a dead horse?

Hat tip to Challies

Posted in books, culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

foto friday

Posted on January 9, 2009 by bkingr

a few more Colorado photos.
a pretty day

saint malo center

don't even think about it

Posted in photography | Leave a comment

the church as an organism

Posted on January 8, 2009 by bkingr

Ligonier has put up an article about the Church as an organism instead of an organization. I love this part:

By contrast, to say that the church is an organism, we immediately sense that an organism is alive. An organism throbs with life and constantly grows and expands. It takes an all-encompassing approach to life: the rearing of children in a Christian home; the relationship of husband and wife in an atmosphere of love and trust; the guiding and directing of teenagers to live a life that honors God; reaching out to those who are in need and supplying their wants; visiting the sick and the elderly; praying fervently for the coming of God’s kingdom.

In other words, the church is not merely a place where people gather on Sunday morning for an hour or two. It is not merely listening to the pastor’s sermon, which often is forgotten within twenty-four hours. It is taking the Word of God seriously into all the components of everyday life and applying Scripture’s teachings to business and labor, to the relation of medical doctors and patients, to lawyers and their clients, to teachers and students, to the duties of government officials and ordinary citizens, to presidents, prime ministers, and legislators, and to every one of us in respect to those who have been given authority over us.

is that church for you? why not?

Posted in church | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

christians and culture

Posted on January 7, 2009 by bkingr

Carl Trueman is raising a contrary voice to the current fashion of cultural engagement in evangelical churches and doing it with style. This article holds together tightly and is not very amenable to slicing out a piece for a tease, but here is the introductory paragraph anyway. you really should go read the whole thing. It is a hoot. And I mean that as a compliment. Any time somebody takes this strong of a position and does it with this kind of style, then I like it.

One of the modern shibboleths of the evangelical church, particularly the evangelical church in the West, is that of culture. One must be interested in culture, or one is simply irrelevant. Books and organizations abound on Christian approaches to various aspects of modern culture; there are magazines and e-zines dedicated to the topic; and numerous conferences are held, some local, some national, some international, which address cultural issues in terms of the categories and so-called world-and-life-view of Christianity. Now, I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater: sure, we need to understand the language and idioms of our culture to the extent that we need to communicate the gospel in such a context in a meaningful, comprehensible way; but I do believe that fascination with culture is now way out of hand in Christian circles and has come to eclipse more important, more central things. Indeed, even as I say that it is important to understand context to communicate the gospel effectively, I am conscious that this seemingly obvious statement needs to be tempered by the fact that some of the greatest preaching ever known was designed precisely not to communicate to the contemporary culture. Just check Isaiah’s commission in Is. 6, and the use of that text in Jesus’ ministry to see how not communicating in comprehensible categories as determined by the immediate culture is a critical sign of judgment on an idolatrous people.

I don’t think that Carl is saying anything substantively different than I did in this post yesterday.

Nor do I think that Carl is saying anything substantively different than Mark Driscoll is saying in this video:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WuKIxQszJw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

or in this message.

I believe that we have to know enough about the culture we live in so that we can engage it with truth, but that we have to engage it with the truth of the gospel. That is what Mark Driscoll is saying as well. I think that Carl’s caveat that I bolded in the introductory paragraph above is saying the same thing.

What do you think? how far should the church go to engage the culture?

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

the purpose of the church

Posted on January 6, 2009 by bkingr

this is what I was trying to say to cschande in the comments to this post.

From Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics v.4.3.2 – The Doctrine of Reconciliation

To sum up, we may say there is committed to it the gospel, I.e. The good, glad tidings of Jesus Christ, of the real act and true revelation of the goodness in which God has willed to make and has in fact made Himself the God of man and man His man. This great Yes is its cause. It has no other task besides this. (page 800)

you may ask, “well then, why post anything about Obama and abortion at all?” To which I would respond, excellent question.

I believe that we need to be aware of the political and social currents in our culture if we are to have any hope of speaking a common language with the rest of the people in this culture. I think that a very important part of our job as ambassadors for Christ entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation is being conversant with the political winds and social language being spoken around us. We will never have any hope of “persuading others” if we don’t have a common language among us. Denying the reality of the status of the culture and fighting against it in a secular “aggrieved interest group” manner is actively harmful to our primary job as persuasive ambassadors for Christ.

Recognizing and pointing out positions and trends is not the same thing as making fighting those trends our primary task to the exclusion of the gospel. We must be about spreading the good, glad tidings of Jesus Christ. We must do so with awareness of and in language that connects with our shared secular culture.

I thought that it was interesting that Joseph Bottum described Obama’s position as what comes after fanaticism. That resonated with reality and struck me as precisely correct. To Obama and millions of others, the fight is over and there is simply no legitimate opposition to abortion as a “choice.” In order to spread the gospel of Christ and hopefully be persuasive in the moment when a potential young mother is making this “choice” we need to be aware of her cultural referents. The idea of Bottum’s that there is a post fanaticism position helps us in approaching this topic with the culture in light of the gospel.

But never should we waste time tilting at windmills instead of imploring men and women to be reconciled with God.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

how to pray

Posted on January 5, 2009 by bkingr

here are 9 suggestions from John Piper regarding how to pray.

Here are the first three to get you going, but go to Desiring God for the other six.

Here are some ways to pray for yourself so that you’re praying in sync with the way God works.

1. For the desire of my heart to be toward God and his Word.

Incline my heart to Your testimonies and not to gain. (Psalm 119:36)

2. For the eyes of my heart to be opened.

Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your law. (Psalm 119:18)

3. For my heart to be enlightened with these “wonders.”

[I pray] that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened. (Ephesians 1:18)

really good stuff. hat tip to Ramblin’ Pastor Man.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

public v. private

Posted on January 4, 2009 by bkingr

Carl Trueman has some some thoughts on the economic trouble that Playboy is in and why this might not be the good news you would think it would be. very interesting. here is a tease:

The mainstreaming of pornography, and the rise of amateur web pornography, witnesses not simply to the insatiability of the fallen human appetite for sexual pleasure; it is also an (albeit extreme) piece of evidence that the whole idea of what is public and what is private is being radically reconfigured in our society; indeed, the distinction may, just possibly, be about to be abolished in its entirety. When `reality TV shows’ top the viewing polls, when the internet allows anyone to observe my town, my street, my house, by satellite cam, when anybody can post video of themselves doing anything — from the mundane to the obscene — online, then the distinction of the public and the private — and the concomitant notions of decency and decorum upon which the distinction depends– is rendered meaningless. What is left is little more than a hedonistic wasteland inhabited by exhibitionists and voyeurs, where the tawdry and the trivial must inevitably triumph.

go read the rest. hat tip to vitamin z.

BTW, if you are struggling with pornography, then do yourself a favor and read the free pdf book linked to in this post.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama on abortion

Posted on January 3, 2009 by bkingr

Joseph Bottum has a well written and insightful piece on the politics of abortion under Obama. Here are some clips but go read the whole thing.

On abortion, Obama is the complete man, his support so ingrained that even his carefully controlled public speaking can’t help revealing it. He’s not a fanatic about abortion; he’s what lies beyond fanaticism. He’s the end product of hard-line support for abortion: a man for whom the very question of abortion seems unreal. The opponents of abortion are, for Obama, not to be compromised with or even fought with, in a certain sense. They are, rather, to be explained away as a sociological phenomenon—their pro-life view something that will wither away as they gradually come to understand the true causes of the economic and social bitterness they have, in their undereducated and intolerant way, attached to abortion.

The result is already clear, with an announcement from Obama’s transition team, only days after the election, that the new president will remove all restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research immediately on taking office. The Mexico City policy (which requires all groups that receive federal funds not to perform or promote abortion abroad) will disappear the first day, as well. Back in 1992, the Clinton administration gave social policy at the United Nations and other treaty organizations—all the minor jobs in international affairs—to the far left as part of its spoils in the Democratic victory, and the first signs suggest that the Obama administration will do the same.
The Freedom of Choice Act currently before Congress is as extreme a measure as the nation has ever seen, invalidating for the entire country all restrictions on abortion before viability, including parental notification, waiting periods, and partial-birth abortion bans. Obama was one of its sponsors in the Senate, and in July he announced at a Planned Parenthood event that “the first thing I’d do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”
….
More to the point, such advice is probably unnecessary. Without resistance from the White House, the congressional Democrats are certain to push beyond the general public’s views on the life issues. And when they do, the Republicans will be forced to trumpet the Democrats’ extremism. That’s an inherent pressure on the politics of opposition, and it will keep the life issues in the news, whatever pro- Roe Republican pundits and activists wish.

Meanwhile, what should the pro-life movement do? The reasoning offered by some of the Catholic public figures who supported Obama was embarrassingly bad, but we should not, for that reason alone, admit to the perpetual tying of the pro-life cause to the Republican party. The Republicans have done some good and some ill for the cause since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, but, however one weighs it up, the results are not full repayment for the support pro-lifers have given the party over those years. The coming fights promise no new seriousness on the part of the Republicans. They talk a better game than they play, in Congress at least, and they have often been better on the life issues when they are out of power than when they are in.

emphasis added

Posted in culture, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

friday fotos

Posted on January 2, 2009 by bkingr

I just kept stopping to take pictures.
view while driving

just enough clouds to reflect the pink light
sunrise 12/29

the other side of the valley
sunrise 12/29

Posted in photography | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

resolutions

Posted on January 2, 2009 by bkingr

Challies has put up a resolutions post. Good stuff. I have already decided to read the Bible through again using this plan.

My interest was piqued by John Piper’s recommendation to fast in 2009.

Here is his recommendation for how to fast.

How to Fast

Pick a day of the week or a day of the month and plan to fast in 2009. Plan which meal or meals to skip. Skip them entirely, or do it with only juice or only water. There are no rules. There is only spiritual hunger being spoken and stoked with physical hunger.

Take some of the time you would have spent eating and read some scripture and take time to tell God why you are doing this and what you long for.

He then gives six biblical aims of fasting. Go take a look.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

a new year

Posted on January 1, 2009 by bkingr

Happy New Year to everyone. Isn’t it interesting the way that you never know what the new year holds?

Last year at this time, I was about to start a new job after a year of self employment and things were looking up for us. In less than four weeks from that point, Julie had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer, had had surgery and was about to start chemotherapy and radiation. our year took a completely different track than we were anticipating/planning.

Isn’t it interesting that both Paul and James make the point that we don’t know what is coming next but that God does. When we plan, we ought to make room for God’s will to be done in spite of our intentions.

James puts it this way:

13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. 17 So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

emphasis added.

we don’t have a clue what tomorrow will bring. We really truly don’t know anything about what is coming next. Only if it is God’s will, will our intentions turn into actions. It is incredibly presumptuous on our part to lay out our course and then retroactively ask God (or it seems increasingly as if we insist that God) bless it.

Paul had a similar train of thought (albeit in the midst of much tougher circumstances) going when he wrote the following:

3 I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day. 4 As I remember your tears, I long to see you, that I may be filled with joy. 5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. 6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, 7 for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, 10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, 12 which is why I suffer as I do. 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. 13 Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

emphasis added

God is working out his plan for his own purpose and grace. Our job is to know in whom we have believed and to trust that he is able to keep us until the end.

So make your plans this year. Be prudent. But remember in your planning that it is God at work for his own purpose and grace and that he is the one who holds tomorrow. Trust in his sovereignty in the events to come even when these events deviate from your plans. Even when the deviations from your plans are highly unpleasant.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

read your bible

Posted on December 31, 2008 by bkingr

this is the time of year when people make resolutions. like Todd Bumgarner says, Resolve to Read Your Bible.

Todd links to and describes a number of reading plans. here is a direct link to the ESV plans which are all on the web to use every day.

here is the one that I plan to use this year.

Posted in bible | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A friend of mine has passed away

Posted on December 31, 2008 by bkingr

While we were in Colorado this weekend, I received several emailed emergency prayer requests and eventually the awful news that a friend of mine had passed away Monday.

Jim McMurtry was in good health and celebrating Christmas with his family on a cruise when he became ill. He was rushed to the hospital in Houston when the ship returned. Surgery was performed, but was ultimately unsuccessful in saving his life.

Jim was a great man. I have known him for more than ten years. I have seen him perform under intense stress and I have seen him perform when everything was smooth and silky. In both kinds of situations, and in everything in between, Jim was the same. He didn’t get rattled. He prayed instead. He was a calming Godly influence in every situation.

Jim was a great man. He loved his first wife and cared for her when she became ill with a brain tumor. He selflessly devoted himself to her care and treatment till the end of her life. Linda was loved and sacrificed for as much as a man could do.

Jim was a great man. He married again and found happiness and renewal with Debbie. He made her a part of his family and they experienced happiness together in the brief time that God in his grace allowed them to have.

Jim was a great man. He was a successful and kind attorney. He was smart, careful and tenacious. His clients were cared for as people in addition to having their matters cared for with much attention to every detail. In addition, he was a successful businessman. He bought a sausage company and made it more successful than ever. He cared for his employees and expanded the business in a smart and prudent fashion.

Jim was a great man. He loved his kids, his kids’ spouses, and his grandkids. He loved them with his words. He loved them with his time. And he loved them with his actions. They loved him back. I have been friends with one of his son-in-laws for some time. I know that Jonathan loved and respected Jim as a man, christ follower, husband, father, grandfather, lawyer, boss, confidante, business partner, friend and so on and so on.

Jim was a great man. He was one of the good guys. As I write this through tears, I wish there was more I could say. Jim was great example to us who are younger than him. I admired him. I respected him. I learned from him. I will miss him. I wish God had given him more time with us.

I think often of II Corinthians 4:7 through 5:21. I know that Jim has now been “swallowed up by life”. I also know that every one of us will take the same journey and that we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Since we know what it is to fear God, we seek to persuade men.

Jim exemplified in every aspect of his life what it means to be a new creature and an ambassador for Christ. I will remember and seek to follow his example.

Posted in friends | Tagged , , | Leave a comment