what should we do with sin?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GEv78335o&hl=en&fs=1]
this bit of the Miami Herald opinion piece quoted below must also be addressed:
Evangelicals divorce, do drugs, drink alcohol, have sex outside marriage, have abortions — you name it, they do it, at the same rates as everyone else.
Perhaps we can quibble about whether the rates of these things is precisely the same as those of non believers, but in general, the statement is probably more correct than not.
As Christ followers, we simply cannot have lives characterized by the same sinful choices as the rest of the world. Paul said that we must have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness and that instead we must live as children of light, finding out what is pleasing to God.
here it is in the NIV:
3. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
….
8. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9. (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10. and find out what pleases the Lord. 11. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret
You may not believe this, but the post below started out as a rant against pornography and its use by Christians, especially Christian men. More on that to come.
It is simply unacceptable for christians to make the same sinful conduct choices as non-christians. We have to be pursuers of God and Godliness. If we aren’t, then it is reasonable for those around us to wonder why they should follow Christ.
Here is another installment in an ongoing series of things that have been said and can’t be said better by me. This one fits in nicely with the post regarding persuasion below.
charles spurgeon on the gospel:
“The gospel is a reasonable system, and it appeals to men’s understanding; it is a matter for thought and consideration, and it appeals to the conscience and the reflecting powers.Hence, if we do not teach men something, we may shout, “Believe! Believe! Believe!” but what are they to believe? Each exhortation requires a corresponding instruction, or it will mean nothing. “Escape!” From what? This requires for its answer the doctrine of the punishment of sin. “Fly!” But whither? Then must you preach Christ, and His wounds; yea, and the clear doctrine of atonement by sacrifice. “Repent!” Of what? Here you must answer such questions as, What is sin? What is the evil of sin? What are the consequences of sin ? “Be converted!” But what is it to be converted? By what power can we be converted? What from? What to? The field of instruction is wide if men are to be made to know the truth which saves. “That the soul be without knowledge, it is not good,” and it is ours as the Lord’s instruments to make men so to know the truth that they may believe it, and feel its power. We are not to try and save men in the dark, but in the power of the Holy Ghost we are to seek to turn them from darkness to light.”
— C. H. Spurgeon
I like how he says that we are not trying to save men in the dark.
from Adrian Warnock.
Paul said that since we know what it means to fear God, we seek to persuade men. Then he said, “we implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” In his earlier letter to the same group he said that he was willing to become whatever he needed to become so that by all means some more people might be persuaded to follow Christ.
I bring all that up, because our goal when we teach or preach (to a group or to our friend over coffee) is the same as Paul’s. Our goal is to persuade people to accept Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord.
We must always be ready to give an answer when asked about the reason for our hope, with gentleness and respect.
Todd Hiestand has an exellent post up about persuasion in sermons. His illustration is the speeches given at the political conventions that just occurred. He believes that most of those speeches at both conventions did nothing more than cement previously held beliefs by the respective partisans. (I would disagree slightly on this point. Lieberman’s speech at the Republican convention [and even John McCain’s, to a certain extent] was not primarily targeted at Republican’s. He was deliberately asking for security conscious Democrats to put that belief above party for the sake of the country.)
Todd wonders how much of his preaching is the same thing. His goal is to provoke thought and consideration by someone who disagrees with him.
as Todd puts it:
Now, I have nothing wrong with believing and speaking things with conviction. In fact, if I did, there would be no point of me continuing to preach. But, a huge challenge to those who preach (and dare I say those who speak in political settings) is to make your case for your side in such a way that allows the other side to begin to see why it is important that you think the way you think.
…….
What I am talking about a difference between being a bully with your words and carefully shepherding with your words.When I get done preaching, I would honestly rather hear someone say to me, “Your sermon was very thought provoking” than to hear someone say, “your sermon was awesome.”
When someone says, “your sermon was awesome” it usual means they already agreed with me and I just reinforced their previously held belief.
When someone says, “that was thought provoking” it means I really communicated well and made them think about the topic a little differently.
It’s easy to effectively communicate with those who already agree with you.
It’s a whole other challenge to communicate effectively with those who disagree with you.
And pissing them off isn’t necessarily effective communication.
Todd’s post is convicting. Ephesians 4:29 requires that we use our communication to minister grace to the hearer and build them up. Let us endeavor to do so.
I posted this briefly last night, then I took it down. I was torn because I don’t want to be heard to be saying that being a follower of Christ necessarily means being a political conservative.
Nonetheless, I do think the following post is a good example of the fact that people have a built in religious impulse that will be indulged. This anthropologist, Jonathan Haidt, expressly desires that the Democratic political party actively co-opt this religious impulse in service of its ideals.
So here is the post again. If anybody has an issue with it, let me know in the comments. Love the opportunity to dialogue.
yet another installment in an ongoing observation that post-christian society does not replace worship of God with secular atheism. You don’t replace something with nothing.
Jonathan Haidt has come to the same conclusion. In this attempt to explain why poor folks vote republican he says the following:
In The Political Brain, Drew Westen points out that the Republicans have become the party of the sacred, appropriating not just the issues of God, faith, and religion, but also the sacred symbols of the nation such as the Flag and the military. The Democrats, in the process, have become the party of the profane—of secular life and material interests. Democrats often seem to think of voters as consumers; they rely on polls to choose a set of policy positions that will convince 51% of the electorate to buy. Most Democrats don’t understand that politics is more like religion than it is like shopping.
……
The Democrats must find a way to close the sacredness gap that goes beyond occasional and strategic uses of the words “God” and “faith.” But if Durkheim is right, then sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns. God is useful but not necessary. The Democrats could close much of the gap if they simply learned to see society not just as a collection of individuals—each with a panoply of rights–but as an entity in itself, an entity that needs some tending and caring. Our national motto is e pluribus unum (“from many, one”). Whenever Democrats support policies that weaken the integrity and identity of the collective (such as multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration), they show that they care more about pluribus than unum. They widen the sacredness gap.A useful heuristic would be to think about each issue, and about the Party itself, from the perspective of the three Durkheimian foundations. Might the Democrats expand their moral range without betraying their principles? Might they even find ways to improve their policies by incorporating and publicly praising some conservative insights?
emphasis added.
Go read the rest of his piece this weekend. Very interesting view from someone who understands that christian conservatives might have a point of view rather than simply dismissing them out of hand.
Hat tip to Jonah Goldberg. jonah wrote a book that is also a very interesting look at fascism’s attempt to replace worship of God with worship of the state. It is a simply excellent book, and I highly recommend it.
Here are some thoughts about dealing with hard discipline and avoiding bitterness. It is wise counsel for all of us.
You must approach tough experiences with maturity and demonstrate a humble and teachable attitude. The season of suffering is meant to produce fruit. It will do that only for those ‘who have been trained by it’ (Heb. 12:11), not for those who’ve missed the training. Indeed, suffering doesn’t automatically produce holiness and sanctification. It can produce the very opposite. Those who’ve gone through tragic circumstances often fall into bitterness and misery.
…
The only way to withstand bitterness is to make sure that you don’t miss the grace of God. Grace, like an effective weed-killer, can get to the root of bitterness and destroy its power. But you must deliberately obtain grace. You must make a specific choice to refuse bitterness, not once but many times. Bitterness will repeatedly knock your door and you must always send grace to answer it.
Go read the whole (short article). There is also a link on the entry to Terry’s bible study on the topic with an action plan.
hat tip to Ramblin’ Pastor Man
the photographer at work
the subject we were shooting
here is a bit of a genetic science lecture that explains quite a bit about genetic determinism. It is cogent and well reasoned.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1]
James Lileks’ bleat from September 11, 2003 remains appropriate here in 2008.
here is the bit towards the end, but the whole thing is worth a careful read and reflection:
The picture at the top of this page is a sliver taken from a 9/11 camera feed. It’s the cloud that rolled through lower Manhatttan when the towers fell. Paper, steel, furniture, plastic, people. The man who took the picture inhaled the dust of the dead. Somewhere lodged in the lung of a New Yorker is an atom that once belonged to a man who went to work two years ago and never came back. His widow dreads today, because people will be coming and calling, and she’ll have to insist that she’s okay. It’s hard but last year was harder. The kids will be sad and distant, but they take their cues from her, and they sense that it’s hard – but that last year was harder. But what really kills her, really really kills her, is knowing that the youngest one doesn’t remember daddy at all anymore. And she’s the one who has his eyes.
Hat tip to Instapundit.
Ligonier has a book review of Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate (NavPress, 2007) by Jerry Bridges.
Tragically, the idea of sin has disappeared in many churches, and where the concept remains, it is sometimes deflected. In other words, we readily condemn those outside of the church for flagrant sins, all the while silently condoning our own sins such as gossip, envy, and discontentment. We do not realize that sin, all sin, is a malignant spiritual cancer that, left unchecked, will destroy us and corrupt those around us.
…..
After dealing with these necessary introductory matters, Bridges moves to a chapter-by-chapter analysis of “respectable sins.” Bridges considers the root sin to be ungodliness: “living one’s everyday life with little or no thought of God, or of God’s will, or of God’s glory, or of one’s dependence on God.” Christians often live in this way, as if God is essentially irrelevant in their day-to-day lives.
My question is this: is it useful to think of sin like this? Is it useful to make lists of things we shouldn’t do? Why would such a list be helpful? why might it be harmful?
How might the “list” concept of sin create unnecessary guilt? How might the “list” concept of sin create an unjustified sense of well being?
Look at the story of the Rich Young Ruler and then look at Romans 14:23. What did Jesus think of the “list” concept of sin? why did he tell the man to sell everything he had and give it all away. What did Paul think of the “list” concept?
Paul describes sin as anything that is done apart from faith. Whether it is on our checklist of actions to avoid or not. Eating apart from faith is sin. driving to work apart from faith is sin. Kissing my children apart from faith is sin.
Romans 14:23 thus expands the universe of sin infinitely. All of us are drowning in sin everyday. I think it is probably more useful to get away from the “list” concept of sin and bear down on the real issue. How can we live all of our life every day in faith? How can we endeavor to trust God with every aspect of our being, our family and our material resources? Failure to do that is sin.
UPDATE: I want to disagree with myself a bit and clarify. Obviously, there are sinful actions that would be on any list. We are told to avoid these things repeatedly. Ephesians 5 is a good example of the contrast. In Eph. 5:3-4 there is a good list of actions that sinful people engage in. However, even in a passage like this Paul is not telling the believers to simply avoid those actions. He is telling them to go beyond conduct modification to avoid the bad stuff they used to do.
He tells them to be imitators of God in verse 1. He tells them to walk as children of the light in verse 8. And he tells them that they must endeavor to find out/discern what is pleasing to God in verse 10 and to make the best use of their time because the days are evil (time is slipping away quickly) in verse 15.
Read Ezekiel 16. In that chapter, God allows Ezekiel to record how God feels about Israel’s betrayal. When you read it, do you get the sense that God is most upset by the actual actions taken by the Israelites? or is He most upset by their placement of their trust in the beauty and stuff that He gave them rather than maintaining their trust in Him?
Two stories from the campaign trail. One of them involves Baby A and the other involves Chloe.
Chloe’s dad Kurt called in to the Rush Limbaugh show and told Rush the story. He then sent Rush pictures. The whole thing is moving and the pictures are awesome. Here is a bit of it, but go read the whole thing.
CALLER: Right. So we accompanied them up the hill, we went right to the bus, where it was, and Governor Palin, Senator McCain, Cindy, Todd Palin, they’re all standing there. We’re in this inner circle with just us and them, and the Secret Service agent, and they came right up to us and thanked us for coming out, said they loved our sign, and Governor Palin immediately said, “May I hold your daughter?” and our daughter Chloe, who’s five, went right to her, and I have some pictures I’d love to send you maybe when I’m done here, but Governor Palin was hugging Chloe, and then her little daughter brought their baby Trig who has Down syndrome from the bus, he was napping, and Chloe went right over and kissed him on the cheek, and my son Nolan who’s nine, he thanked her.
Tracy’s cousin had a similar story also with pictures. Here is a bit, but you have to go read it all. It is wonderful.
Finally, Sarah approached. More from my cousin:
I can’t give you the conversation by word, but she said, “Awwww” and kind of melted when she saw A. She asked her name and age. Then she hugged her. She actually got watery eyes (ed. 3rd and 4th pictures below, you can kind of see that). Remember, even though she is Governor, VP candidate, she is still new to the world of DS. She said she was so glad we brought A to see her. She just kept smiling and looking at A. I told her we brought a gift for Trig and gave her the t-shirt. (ed. Cousin ordered a t-shirt for Trig that said “fearfully and wonderfully made.” I thought that was sweet.) I told her that I have such admiration for her because when A was Trig’s age, I was still crying …. Oh yeah, I just remembered – A blew kisses to both John McCain and to Sarah during our little visits.
Hat tip to the Anchoress for the Baby A story.
Update: the last picture on tracy’s blog post above was taken by Roger Baumgarten who has more (look on pages 7 and 8 of his gallery).
is the age of the megachurch showing signs of beginning to pass? here is a fascinating look at this question in USA Today.
statistical blip or the start of a trend?
On paper, megachurches look like a trend still on the rise. Their total number rose from 600 in 2000 to more than 1,250 in 2005, says sociologist Scott Thumma of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research in Hartford, Conn.
On Outreach magazine’s 2008 list of the largest 100, even the smallest says more than 7,000 people attend. But some of the biggest, including Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston, with 43,500, showed slight declines.
Experts see more troubling concerns than slowing growth: No measurable inroads on overall church attendance and signs that many churchgoers are spectators, not driving toward a deeper faith.
“You can create a church that’s big, but is still not transforming people. Without transformation, the Christian message is not advanced,” says Ed Stetzer, head of Lifeway Research in Nashville, which did the Outreach study.The unchurched remain untouched. While the number of people who say they attend at least once a week hovers around 30% year after year, the number who say they “never” go to church climbs.
emphasis added.
this is a fascinating comment from Bill Hybels of Willow Creek:
Willow is still “seeker-obsessed,” says Hybels. “But today’s seekers are different” than years ago.
Today, he says, “I don’t think anyone is wandering around looking for a mild dose of God. … They want to know: ‘What would a life centered on Christ look like in my life? What would that feel like? How do I go about it?’ “
hat tip to Ligon Duncan at Reformation 21.
isn’t this all you feel like doing?
In a way this whole discussion seems weirdly artificial. All of our life as Christ followers is the gospel. Everything we do or say is because of the presence of God in us.
I am not a preacher (vocational pastor of a congregation). I am a lawyer who teaches (and yes I do preach some) the Bible. Standing in front of a class I feel the weight of James 3:1. I also feel unworthy to teach or preach anything out of my own power. the only reason any of us (seekers, as well as Christ followers) are in that room at that time for that lesson is because of the Grace of God manifested toward us through the provision of His son as the perfect lamb that was slain on our behalf so that we could be reconciled to God.
My goal as a teacher is to wake up within each listener a hunger for God’s glory so that they will pursue Him on their own every day. Teaching the scripture is always an exercise in learning the height and depth and fullness of God’s love toward us. That is why it seems artificial to be having this discussion about evangelism in church services.
All of our life is spent working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. every lesson is an attempt to take hold of that thing/reason for which God took hold of me. the goal of every lesson is to make God look glorious and to persuade the listeners to look at Him in awe and wonder and love.
The gospel permeates and undergirds every lesson, every song. It is the reason for our hope. It is the reason for our joy. It is the reason for our love of the Bible. It is the reason we assemble together to encourage one another and provoke one another to love and good works.
God’s wonderful magnificent sovereign grace is what makes sense of the senseless and it is what gives hope to the hopeless.
What else would we have to talk about in our gatherings?
Ken Stewart, professor of theological studies at Covenant College, had a comment posted to Tony Payne’s thoughts that I mentioned in this post. The comment was elevated to the text of this post
Here is the beginning of what Professor Stewart had to say, “In the abstract, the argument of this post is unassailable. It has a weight of NT evidence behind it.” Now I have to admit a bias of mine. Whenever the weight of New Testament evidence is behind something, then so am I. Period.
But Professor Stewart then says that since Constantine’s time due to the “factoring in of historical realities”, evangelism must be a part of church worship. Again, my built in sola scriptura bias automatically puts me in suspicious mode when an argument like this is made. My initial flippant response is to say “so what?” with regard to factored in historical realities. I am quite suspicious of same.
Professor Stewart doesn’t make the argument any more explicit than that. To be fair, he was writing a comment to a blog post, so more meat on the bone can’t really be expected.
The professor does proceed to make three points which help to illuminate his thinking. These three points are:
1. For those ministering in broad, comprehensive churches in which the spiritual status and allegiance of attenders is doubtful, you will have to preach the gospel for conversion Sunday by Sunday or miss your best opportunity….
2. For those determined to follow the counsel set out, please indicate where, and in what other venues you are preaching the gospel with a view to the conversion of your hearers if by your own admission, you will not belabor this in your Sunday services. If you can name open-air gatherings in parks and on beaches, accepted invitations to speak to service club luncheons and so on, then fine. But to fall into line behind this argument with no such preaching program in place is to join company with a very large company of perfectly orthodox preachers who no longer press the gospel on the unbelieving, because they limit their preaching to the edification of those who believe already.
3. Perfectly orthodox churches need to hear the gospel preached and to witness its power in transforming the curious and unbelieving. So many perfectly orthodox churches are ‘starved’ of the opportunity to observe people visibly responding to the gospel because that response is no longer sought. So, years pass into decades during which no one has been known to be effectually called under the preaching of the Word, because the preacher has not sought any such result.
some responsive thoughts:
1. I agree that there will be nonbelievers present in almost every worship service. Christian preaching requires an emphasis on the gospel no matter what topic is being addressed. The only way we can have Godly marriages is through the power of God demonstrated by the resurrection of Jesus. The only way we can love God with all of our heart soul mind and strength is through His power. The only way we can avoid showing favoritism to the rich and powerful is to see them as Jesus did; lost and afraid like sheep without a shepherd.
Thus, I don’t see how Christian preaching occurs that is not based in the Gospel for its power and application.
In addition, I just disagree that Sunday worship is the “best opportunity” to evangelize the lost. This kind of thinking is what Tony was addressing. Simply asserting it to be so, is not a responsive argument.
2. This is an excellent point. The failure at this point is why churches default to straight proselytizing sermons on Sunday. Pastors who do not expect their members to be ministers of reconciliation will take it upon themselves to bear the full weight of this responsibility. Pastors must insist that their people assume the obligations of being Christ followers and insist that the people share the good news of the Gospel in their neighborhoods, workplaces, gyms, bridge clubs etc. Pastors must be providing specific instruction to their people in this regard. Our preacher Sunday said to the congregation that it is not ok to talk about being missional. We must do it and we must do it now.
3. I agree that churches need to hear the gospel preached. I don’t know what he means by needing to see the curious and unbelieving transformed on Sunday. Sunday service is not the primary place to witness that miracle. In their offices, soccer games, bunko groups is where this miracle should be regularly witnessed by Christ followers. The fact that it isn’t being witnessed in daily life with friends family members and neighbors is the great tragedy and failure of the church today. Again, the professor is assuming the lack of such opportunity and relying on the Sunday service as the last best hope for experiencing the power of God in salvation. This again is the church culture assumption that Tony was arguing against.
My conclusion on this matter is that we need to have a revolution in the church. A revolution of thought and practice that reaches for practices that are unassailable in light of the New Testament. No longer should we be satisfied with churches bound by historical tradition at odds with the example of the church in scripture.
This revolution will never occur if we allow ourselves to keep doing what we have been doing and calling it the best opportunity. It is not the best opportunity. A congregation of believers allowing themselves to be used by God as ambassadors in this world right here and right now can in God’s power transform a city. That is the best opportunity. That is how 11 men plus Paul transformed the Roman empire.
Hat tip to Ramblin’ Pastor Man.
here is a place with three you-tubes of Sarah Palin’s interview on CSpan in February 2008. Just heard the first one so far. It was impressive.
hat tip to Dirty Harry.
The editors of the Washington Post have noticed that Sarah Palin proved palpable political prowess with her work on the natural gas pipeline project. (the Wall Street Journal had already noticed this project.)
their conclusion:
But it is also a sign that Ms. Palin’s outflanking of the oil companies injected some competition and urgency into a process that was previously stalled. Perhaps her Democratic opponent for the governorship in 2006, who campaigned on similar ideas, would have achieved these results. Nevertheless, Ms. Palin actually did.
Hat tip to Jennifer Rubin who adds three excellent points and then this:
“What this suggests is there is indeed a story yet to be told — one of savvy political skills and accomplishment. Provided she successfully navigates her media encounters and the VP debate, she may be even more popular by Election Day as voters learn who the real Palin is.”
I am enjoying two flashes on my macro photography. Now I need some extension tubes to get in really close.
In an earlier post regarding congregationalism, I made the point that God’s model of leadership in the local ekklesia is elder led. Phil Newton has written an article for Tabletalk magazine touching on this topic so I can link to his work.
Here is part of Phil’s introduction and first point, but go read his article for the other three points.
Christ gave elder leadership to the church for its growth, development, and unity. Yet tradition often tugs stronger than biblical order for those refusing elder leadership. Others have elders but neglect applying biblical standards to them. Paul’s letter to Titus offers great help for both cases (Titus 1:5-9).
First, plural leadership is the norm for every church: “appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” “Elders” is plural and “in every town” is singular. It indicates multiple elders serving each church on Crete (1:5). Each reference to local church elders demonstrates plurality as the New Testament practice (see Acts 14:23; 15:22; 20:17 that show this same pattern of plurality). Paul’s reason for plurality within even small congregations makes sense. It provides accountability, support, and encouragement, increased wisdom, and diversity of gifts to increase ministry effectiveness.
this is the question posed by the Ramblin’ Pastor Man and by Tony Payne.
It is a more difficult question than it appears on the surface. Tony makes some good points and here is one of them:
However, even if we acknowledge that there will be ‘gospel’ things happening all over the place in church, it is also important to say that evangelism is not the purpose of Christian assemblies. It is certainly not their focus. In the New Testament, churches are characteristically the fruit of evangelism, not its agent. Evangelism usually takes place outside the assembly—in the marketplace, the synagogue, the prison, and in daily gospel conversation.
More to the point, theologically, the Christian assembly is a fellowship of the redeemed. It is a manifestation, as well as an anticipation or foretaste, of the great assembly that Christ is building—the assembly of the firstborn in heaven that will be revealed on the last Day (Heb 12:22-24). The purpose of our earthly assemblies, therefore, is to fellowship together in what we already share—our union with Christ—as we listen to and respond to him together, and build his assembly by the words we speak.
In addition, Ramblin’ Pastor Man makes the following excellent observation:
I have tended to look to I Corinthians 14 for the answer. I Corinthians 14 seems suggest that… yes… evangelism should be taking place in the church (specifically I Cor 14:22-25), but it is not the primary thrust of the assembly of Christians.
I agree with Tony and Dan that the church gatherings themselves are not primarily evangelistic. Acts 2:42 says that the new church devoted itself to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, prayer and the breaking of bread together. None of these things are primarily evangelistic.
Nonetheless, there is a likelihood that non-believers will be present at the meetings. Some of these will know they are outside the faith and some of these might have a head knowledge of Christ, but not be a true believer yet (Hebrews 6:4 seems to have a group like this in mind).
Christian preaching should always be centered around the Gospel of Jesus Christ and God’s grace toward us. No matter what the particular subject is that is being covered in song or preaching, the foundation for the meeting is God’s grace toward us that has made us alive in Him.
In addition, the group of believers is itself an evangelistic witness to the world when we are obedient to Christ. Jesus told His disciples that He was giving them a new commandment to love one another. And then He added some very important words. He said by this the whole world will know that you are my disciples, “if you have love for one another.”
The love Jesus is talking about is agape love. Selfless devotion to the interests of others over our own self interest. He uses His own love as the example. If we are willing to die for our fellow believers, then the world will notice that. That kind of devotion to brothers and sisters in Christ is our most important worldly calling card. It is the unique thing that the church possesses and it is only possible because of the presence and power of God in our lives.
The local church can also be a community on mission. In other words we can pool our individual talents and resources, filling each other’s gaps as we share the Gospel with our friends and neighbors. I might not know the right way to talk to an atheist computer scientist friend of mine, but I know that a fellow at my church was just like that two years ago. I can make sure that my friend and my church brother get together and spend some time.
Evangelism does have to happen primarily outside of the box. By that I mean that evangelism is not primarily associated with the weekly meeting of the church in the Big Box with a steeple. Some evangelism does occur, but weekly gatherings are not primarily evangelistic.
However, what happens in that box on a Sunday morning or Saturday night or Sunday evening when the church gathers together is a worship event. Worship of the great Gracious God who loves us and sent His only Son to die for us and raised that Son from the dead so that we all could be reconciled to God with a secure hope of eternal life together with Him.
When worship like this occurs, then the people realize the great need of their neighbors and friends to be reconciled to God. When worship like that is occurring, then the church filled with lovers of God and lovers of their neighbors will leave the building on mission as ambassadors for Christ. These lovers of God and lovers of their neighbors will use their spiritual gifts, time, and money to reach their friends, coworkers and neighbors for Christ and will lean on the spiritual gifts, time and money of their fellow God lovers in complementary fashion to accomplish the goal.
Sola Deo Gloria!
you don’t replace something with nothing. here is another manifestation of the phenomenon.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1]
hat tip to the anchoress
UPDATE: in case you were like me and wondering if this was real or The Onion, Reason Magazine’s vote is “real.”
here is an article from the Wall Street Journal about what she did in Alaska.
first, the general problem to be addressed.
Alaska’s politicians—in particular ruling Republicans—roll in oil campaign money, lavish oil revenue on pet projects, then retire to lucrative oil jobs where they lobby for sweetheart oil deals. You can love the free market and not love this
Ms. Strassel then gives the details regarding the natural gas pipeline being negotiated by Governor Murkowski that was the immediate problem.
Enter Mrs. Palin. The former mayor of Wasilla had been appointed by Mr. Murkowski in 2003 to the state oil and gas regulatory agency. She’d had the temerity to blow the whistle on fellow GOP Commissioner Randy Ruedrich for refusing to disclose energy dealings. Mr. Murkowski and GOP Attorney General Gregg Renkes closed ranks around Mr. Ruedrich—who also chaired the state GOP. Mrs. Palin resigned. Having thus offended the entire old boy network, she challenged the governor for his seat.
Mrs. Palin ran against the secret deal, and vowed to put the pipeline back out for competitive, transparent, bidding. She railed against cozy politics. Mr. Murkowski ran on his unpopular pipeline deal. The oil industry warned the state would never get its project without his leadership. Mrs. Palin walloped him in the primary and won office in late 2006. Around this time, news broke of a federal probe that would show oil executives had bribed lawmakers to support the Murkowski tax changes.
the results of Ms. Palin’s work and determination:
Mrs. Palin has meanwhile passed an ethics law. She’s tightened up oil oversight. She forced the legislature to rewrite the oil tax law. That new law raised taxes on the industry, for which Mrs. Palin is now taking some knocks, but the political background here is crucial.
The GOP machine has crumbled. Attorney General Renkes resigned. Mr. Ruedrich was fined $12,000. Jim Clark—Mr. Murkowski’s lead pipeline negotiator—pleaded guilty to conspiring with an oil firm. At least three legislators have been convicted. Sen. Ted Stevens is under indictment for oil entanglements, while Rep. Don Young is under investigation.
Throughout it all, Mrs. Palin has stood for reform, though not populism. She thanks oil companies and says executives who “seek maximum revenue” are “simply doing their job.” She says her own job is to be a “savvy” negotiator on behalf of Alaska’s citizens and to provide credible oversight. It is this combination that lets her aggressively promote new energy while retaining public trust.
Sarah Palin is by all indicators an incredible person and a very gifted politician. I keep in mind advice from James Dobson that christians shouldn’t fall in love with politicians, because that is a good way to get heartbroken and disappointed, (the actual quote is: “You marry a politician you can be a widow pretty quickly.”) but there seems to be something unique here.
She resigned on principle from a position over the Alaska oil and gas industry after she took on directly the conflicts of interest of the state’s Republican party chairman. She then ran in a contested primary race against the incumbent governor of the state and beat him. She then ran in the general election against a former democratic governor of the state and beat him soundly. Once in office, she scotched the sweetheart deal the oil companies were counting on to get state help in building the pipeline. She played chicken with them then, and they blinked, coming up with the money to build their own pipeline.
If she stays straight (and for this end, we should all be in prayer), she has the potential to do much good in this country. She has already simply with her presence on the ticket smoked out and made obvious the worst instincts of the left and the media.
We will see what happens next. I for one will be watching intently and rooting for Sarah Palin. More importantly, I will be praying for her and her family as she has entered a crucible of scrutiny and pressure like nothing she has encountered before.
Hat tip to Kim Priestap at Wizbang for the Wall Street Journal article.
UPDATE: here is Jennifer Rubin’s take on the same article.
I especially liked this part, but its all good:
Several things are remarkable. First, it is not a story which MSM outlets are explaining or acknowledging. Why? Because it runs counter to their concocted storyline that her sole selling point is as a cheerleader for social conservatives, sent to whip up the base at the expense of selecting a competent VP. Second, there is nothing remotely evident in Obama’s record, or Joe Biden’s, frankly, which demonstrates this level of political competence, direction, accomplishment or tenacity. It is not merely a throw away line to say that she is more experienced than Obama, it is factually well established — for those who care to look. And finally, of course, John McCain wants such a person. This is now the essence of his campaign — run against corruption and do-nothing careerism.
Tim Challies has a political post up. He is right that this has been the most entertaining political campaign ever. The primaries were awesome and the general election is positioned at this point to go to the wire.
Challies focus is on the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin. This sentence crystallizes what we have been seeing so far. “People on the Loony Left know they hate Palin but they are struggling with how to hate her.”
here is the summary, but go read the rest. It is typical Challies; thoughtful, well written with lots of links.
And I firmly agree with Amy and Mohler and Kotter. While Christians do want to maintain the focus on the family we have to be careful about stating categorically that a woman has no business running for Vice President. Palin’s decision is one to be made with her family and with counsel from her local church. Beyond that we, as Christians, have to trust her judgment in this kind of disputable matter. Far be it from us to declare that she cannot do both and that she cannot do both with excellence.
