Mark Driscoll has a new book out explaining difficult theological words. (words, by the way, that the ESV generally uses, which is one of the reasons that I use it.)
I wish that I could embed the video, but every time I hit “save” with the code on here, it disappears.
Steve Bradley figured it out. The right way to do church. the whole thing is such an excellent post. here is a bit of it:
What if local congregations were seen as the various parts of Christ’s body, and not just individuals? Could it be that God expects each local gathering of believers to do church in a stunningly unique way — a way that makes the best redemptive connection within their context, using their unique backgrounds, collective potential, sense of calling, leadership leanings, desires, failures, triumphs, etc.?
Marlow was on the same trail last Friday. Check this out:
I would find my own story. I have a huge concern that many planters see some leader they admire and they want to duplicate that admired leaders story, You can’t…So don’t try. You can read, listen and learn from them. But you must find your voice.
God uses different scenarios to work in different ways. In the Evangelical West, we tend to get way to much credit to those in leadership and not enough credit to the work of the Holy Spirit.
some lantana, up close
narrow depth of field
working with the off camera flash
Jesus said that he came to bring life. To seek and to save those who were lost. to protect His sheep. The way of Jesus doesn’t allow partiality based on what the proposed recipient of grace brings to the table. Romans 5:6-8 says that Jesus died for us at the right time while we were completely powerless and sinful. Once we are saved, we have no right to show partiality based on the characteristics of another person.
The invitation of Jesus is to everyone. Everyone matters equally. Each soul is important and valued regardless of position, station, wealth, strength etc.
There is an opposing framework. It is a framework inhabited by real live vandals like the Joker. This framework says that people get to live who are useful. This framework says that I will only make time for people who can be of assistance to me. This framework questions whether or not it is a good thing for any person to ever be born. This framework understands that it is in direct opposition to the framework of Jesus described in brief above.
“After ruling our thoughts and our decisions about life and death for nearly two thousand years, the traditional Western ethic has collapsed.”
On this triumphant note, Professor Peter Singer begins his milestone book, Rethinking Life and Death. It conveys an attitude of revolutionary confidence that brings to mind another atheistic iconoclast, Derek Humphry, who has said, “We are trying to overturn 2,000 years of Christian tradition.”
and this
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother’s preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood – “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness” [23]- and therefore “[s]imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.”[24].
or this (I obtained this quote off of a description of the book when it was released that I saved to a word file. I don’t know better than that from whence it came.):
Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether they should bring others into existence—-rather than having children without even thinking about whether they should—-they presume that they do them no harm. Better Never to Have Been challenges these assumptions. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm… The author shows that there are a number of well-documented features of human psychology that explain why people systematically overestimate the quality of their lives and why they are thus resistant to the suggestion that they were seriously harmed by being brought into existence. The author then argues for the ‘anti-natal’ view—-that it is always wrong to have children—-and he shows that combining the anti-natal view with common pro-choice views about foetal moral status yield a ‘pro-death’ view about abortion (at the earlier stages of gestation). Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct.
My point in bringing this up is to emphasize that Ephesians 6:10-18 is true. We are engaged in a struggle and we must put on the full armor of God.
Jesus told his disciples when he sent them out that they needed to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
We have an obligation to know we are in a fight and to prepare to fight it with love, joy, peace, gentleness, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and self-control.
I am kind of a nut about Bibles. Here are some links that some of you may be interested in, if you share my nuttiness in this area:
here is the ESV Bible Blog. It is a place where they make announcements of upcoming editions as well as news and reviews of the ESV version of the Bible.
And here is the freshly opened for business ESV Study Bible Blog. It is devoted to introducing the upcoming ESV Study Bible with samples and links to interviews of those involved in the work of makin the ESV Study Bible.
Here is Mark Bertrand’s Bible Design and Binding blog. Mark reviews bibles and posts pictures of them on here. Very well done and helpful if you are looking for a Bible.
as mentioned before, the Foolish Galatian also shares the Bible bug and posts reviews and pictures of them.
Logos, the maker of the Libronix system of Bible software products has a general blog and a site for macintosh users to download the latest Alpha version of their software.
Blue Letter Bible and Bible Gateway are free resources with a lot of useful stuff.
The thing is that we Christ followers have no excuse in this country at this time in history to be ignorant of the Bible. We are swimming in Bibles and resources to assist with their use.
II Timothy 3:16-17 says that all scripture was breathed out by God and is useful for the follower of God.
Do you believe that God breathed a book for you to know Him better? Do you really?
Is it possible to combine elements that the emerging church is using to connect with the culture, with correct doctrine? are they antithetical? or can they be complimentary and fill the gaps in each other’s approach? Must we choose one or the other?
Here is a review of a performance of the Church Basement Road Show. Robert Sagers concludes his review with these questions:
….what is it about the emergent church that is so attractive to so many in our churches? Perhaps it’s the fact that so much of what leaders from within the movement have to say is right, and true.
What if our churches began to preach the whole counsel of God as a narrative of redemption, a story that is good specifically because it is a story that is true? What if we began to declare the full-orbed gospel of cosmic reconciliation in Christ, without de-emphasizing the reality of personal enslavement to a personal devil and the need for personal evangelism and personal repentance of personal sin and personal faith in the risen Lord?
What if we began to preach and display grace, truth, and love as fully embodied in the person and work of Jesus Christ, without abandoning the fact that the Spirit of this same Christ has breathed out every jot and tittle of the Bible–making every word of Scripture equally grace-filled, truthful, and loving? What if our churches were characterized by great love for God and for one another, without casting aside the need for confessional fidelity? And what if we began doing even more good works in Jesus’ name, proclaiming that the impetus for such works is the life, death, resurrection, and promised return of our King?
After attending “The Church Basement Road Show,” I am more convinced that if more of our churches did these things, it would be even easier to dismiss certain aspects of the emergent church as heresy and some of its leaders as marginalized false teachers. For Christians have good news to proclaim, and if some of the emergent church’s challenges to contemporary evangelicalism drive us back to greater fidelity to the faith once for all delivered to the saints, evangelicals can be thankful indeed.
Is it possible?
Newbigin in the quotes from my post below says that we, as Christians, should try to understand the culture from the point of view of the Gospel. In other words, we should be countercultural and have a different framework for viewing information than that of the rest of the world. Newbigin recognizes the partially subjective nature of what we know, and he encourages us, as Christians, to shift our viewpoint to that of the scripture.
The result will be for us to be in a position to challenge cultural assumptions from a coherent platform. The result will also be that the words we use will sound “absurd” to the rest of the culture remaining within the framework. Jesus telling the woman at the well that he could give her a drink such that she would never be thirsty again. Jesus telling the crowds that unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood, they could not follow him. (His own disciples thought this was a “hard saying.”) Jesus telling the crowds that in order to follow him, they must hate their own family and even their own life. These propositions sounded absurd to the listeners. Only from a different, gospel based, viewpoint do they make sense.
So how do we connect with a culture completely and totally dominated by another framework for viewing facts and events? This is where the insights of Jason Steorts come into play.
Jason is talking about how to make conservatism relevant to this culture, but I don’t think we do great violence to his prose or his ideas by substituting the Gospel in place of conservatism. The problem is the same. Taking a framework or viewpoint that is alien to the dominant culture and trying to make a connection so that people trapped within the other viewpoint, take a chance on trying out a sneak peak at the world from our different point of view.
Here is Jason’s diagnosis of the problem:
The question what one should do springs from the presupposition that choices are free — even of the reason that seeks to determine them. From this point of view, ethical propositions are only conditional imperatives. “If you choose to pursue this good, perform (or not) that action.” “If you choose to act rationally, do (or not) thus and such.” A yawning gulf sunders reason from action, and reason alone is powerless to cross it. It merely stands on one side, a collection of lonely little shoulds evoking pictures of possible realities and conjoining them with the implicit statement: “Here’s a way we might make the world. Take a look and see what you think. But it’s up to you. I told you at the start that you didn’t have to heed me.” *
As a culture, this is where we are. Ethical moral propositions are reduced to merely a cacophony of competing shoulds trying to get a little attention and airtime. They might be lucky and get a temporary testing trot out depending solely on the subjective value system of the individual hearer.
and here is why Jason brings any of this up:
I would like us [christians] to understand this, because I worry that we occasionally waste time giving people the wrong pictures. This is not to say that our pictures have no use, or correspond to no reality (when they imply claims about reality). It is not to say that we should no longer offer them. It is rather to say that a picture is no good when someone is not prepared to accept it.
[Christians] have two very good reasons not to shy away from moralistic and religious pictures: First, they believe in them; second, so do many of the people who have traditionally formed part of the
conservative coalitiondominant Christian culture. But that fact of history guarantees nothing about the future, and “moral relativism” is the regnant doctrine among the most important shapers of popular opinion: Hollywood, the music industry, the media, and the otherwise übercool.The world is full of those in thrall to the übercool. These people tend to be skeptical of moral absolutes. They tend to have nowhere to go of a bright Sunday morn when the birds sing sweet and the carillon doth chime. And they tend to say: “I’m sorry, but I don’t see the rules your way. I don’t think your 18th-century professor got it right. Or your 13th-century monk. Or your very dead Greeks and your even deader Hebrews. Of this, at least, I feel sure. And I feel pretty sure that your rules are silly and old-fashioned, and can’t be proved unless you assume part of what it is you’re trying to prove. And I’d like you to shut up now, because I’m going to close my eyes and listen to my iPod.”
Instead of telling them to go to church or review their Kant, we may find it more effective to say: “Sure, no rules, you win. Go to sleep now. But don’t forget that you have preferences about what you see when you wake up.” These words are admittedly no reason to do what we should like to call “moral”; but if deployed the right way, they point very clearly to the absence of any reason to do what we should like to call “immoral.” And we might be surprised how far that can go.
emphasis added and I changed “conservative” to “christian” and I changed “conservative coalition” to “dominant christian culture.”
So what do we do to reach the bored young person with their iPod who has personal preferences about the kind of world to live in, but exists in a framework that leaves them at the mercy of persons with no subjective personal values; vandals like the Joker?
How do we communicate the gospel to that person?
maybe more importantly, how do we get the earbuds out of his or her ears long enough to get two sentences heard?
What two sentences do we then give?
What challenge do we issue to them to get them to at least think about it?
Paul said that since we know what it is to fear God, we seek to persuade men. He implored/begged/pleaded/ with his audience to be reconciled to God through Christ. Paul said that he was willing to become all things to all people so that by all means, some might be saved. Paul’s message was simply Christ and him crucified.
what are we doing for fear of God? how are we seeking to persuade our fellow men? What lengths are we willing to go to in order to make a connection with the culture? What message do we have when we finally get somebody to take out the earbuds for a couple of minutes?
here is a great illustration of our relationship to our fleshly nature before and after salvation.
good stuff.
Friends, what we view in media becomes our meditation. It either feeds our desire for godliness or it feeds our flesh. Which one are you feeding?
If you added up the time you spend reading God’s word, praying, listening to sermons or reading Christian books, how would it stack up against time spent watching TV and movies? If you give more of your time to worldly entertainment and pursuits, is there any reason to be surprised that sinful desires are so strong in your life? No. If we’re feeding the flesh, it’s no mystery that we’re not growing in holiness.
Hat tip to the Foolish Galatian
here are some of Jason Lee Steort’s ruminations on moral philosophy also known as Lessons From the Joker. go read it a couple or three times, think it over and then report back here to discuss the similarities of Steort’s pictures and those of Newbigin below.
In case, you were wondering, yes, I do want everybody’s head to be as close to exploding as mine is today. welcome to my world.
I have been crashing on Newbigin this morning. Some deep thinking to get my mind going. A bracing shot of metaphorical cold water to the face as a wake up call.
I first re-read his 1985 article/presentation “Can the West be Converted.”. This was one of the things that woke me up back five years or so ago.
Check out this diagnosis of the problem from “Can the West be Converted”:
[in our current world culture which divides facts from values] That human beings exist to glorify God and enjoy him forever is not a fact. It is an opinion held by some people. It belongs to the private sector, not the public. Those who hold it are free to communicate it to their children and church; it has no place in the curriculum of the public schools and universities. And since the publicly accepted definition of a human being excludes any statement of the purpose for which human beings exist, it follows necessarily that (in the ordinary meaning of the word “fact”), no factual statement can be made about what kinds of behavior are good or bad. These can only be private opinions. Pluralism reigns. Here, I submit, is the intellectual core of that culture which, at least from the mid-eighteenth century has been the public culture of Europe, and has – under the name of modernization extended its power into every part of the world. Two hundred years ago it was hailed in Europe as, quite simply, the dawning of light in the darkness: the Enlightenment.
and then look at this framework for the answer from the same article:
Let us attempt something quite different from what Berger proposes. Instead of weighing the Christian religious experience (along with others) in the scale of reason as our culture understands reason, let us suppose that the Gospel is true, that in the story of the Bible and in the life and death and resurrection of Jesus the creator and lord of the universe has actually manifested himself to declare and effect his purpose, and that therefore everything else, including all the axioms and assumptions of our culture have to be assessed and can only be validly assessed in the scales which this revelation provides. What would it mean if, instead of trying to understand the Gospel from the point of view of our culture, we tried to understand our culture from the point of view of the Gospel?
oh yeah! make me stand up and holler! Yes. Yes! YES!. Now, what does that mean for us, practically, here in this world, in this time right now? Newbigin’s 1989 answer from “Our Missionary Responsibility In The Crisis Of Western Culture” (for some reason the article in the bibliography is entitled “Mission and the Crisis of Western Culture: Recent Studies”):
To take this position means, of course, to be a minority in our culture. It means questioning the things that no one ever questions – like the Christian missionary in India questioning the law of karma and samsara. And it means, I believe, being enabled to find a more rational way of understanding and coping with our world than that which is offered in our contemporary culture, a culture which is enormously productive of means but unable to speak about ends, fertile-in finding new ways to do things, but incapable of answering the question: ‘What things are worth doing?’ It is not, let me insist, a matter of appealing to ‘revelation’ against ‘reason’. This absurd opposition is, I am sorry to say, a commonplace in English discussions. Reason is not a separate source of knowledge. It is the power by which we seek coherence in the data of experience and it operates, can only operate, within a complex of language, concepts, symbols, images which make up the ‘fiduciary framework’. No move towards understanding reality is possible except by the use of reason; the question is, ‘Within what “fiduciary framework” is reason operating?’ And when we offer a different fiduciary framework, alternative to the one which is dominant in our culture, we are calling for conversion, for a radical shift in perspective. We need the boldness of the foreign missionary who dares to challenge the accepted framework, even though the words he uses must inevitably sound absurd to those who dwell in that framework. In the contemporary crisis of western culture there is a widespread failure of nerve. There is a widespread tendency to retreat from the whole splendid adventure of western culture and to look elsewhere – especially to the East – for something different. That is a terrible mistake. We cannot run away from our responsibilities. It is we in the West who have developed this culture which is penetrating the whole world under the name of modernization, It is we Christians who have failed to challenge its fundamental assumptions, who have allowed the Gospel to be co-opted into it instead of challenging it. It is upon us that there now rests the formidable responsibility for a task which is both intellectual and practical: to recover a concept of knowledge which will heal the split in our culture between science and faith, between the public world and the private; and to embody in the life of our congregations a style of life which expresses in practice the purpose for which God has created all things: to glorify him and to enjoy him for ever.
emphasis added.
Oh my goodness. as the marxist peasant in Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail would say, “that’s what I’m on about.”
The question is, do we have the faith in God, and the courage to evaluate our culture in light of the values framework of the Bible? Do we have the nerve to face up to our responsibilities as ministers of reconciliation? Go read my rock of offense article to see how Jesus showed us the way to speak the truth in love, meeting the woman at the well where she was in her culture and moving her to faith in Himself.
after two weeks at as work crew at camp, they are still in one piece.
Ok so through several links beginning at the Ramblin Pastor Man, I found the results of an askmen.com poll that are just unbelievable. I would be interested to see how these numbers would look in a survey with better methodology than self-selection.
here are some of the numbers from this admittedly unscientific sample:
Should a couple live together before marriage?
>> 60% say, “Yes, it is a good test to put the relationship through before marriage.”
>> 21% say, “Yes, living together is pretty casual.”
>> 10% say, “No, a man should enjoy his freedom while he can.”
>> 9% say, “No, it is not morally acceptable.”If there was no chance your partner would find out, would you cheat on her?
>> 37% say, “No, I might be tempted, but I love and respect her too much.”
>> 32% say, “No, I might be tempted, but cheating violates my morals.”
>> 15% say, “Yes, but I would feel guilty nonetheless.”
>> 13% say, “Yes, she can’t be hurt if she doesn’t know about it.”
>> 3% say, “Yes, I already cheated on her.”
91% of these men see no moral problem with living together before marriage. 31% have already or would cheat on their partner. Reckon if there is any connection between these two results?
Here is the page where askmen.com keeps their survey results.
Again, notice that 59% would dump their girlfriend if she became fat and 86% are unsatisfied with their sex lives. Any connection? wow.
reminds me of something, and I’m not sure why, but here tis
Galadriel: “For within these rings was bound the strength and will to govern each race.”
Galadriel: “But they were all of them deceived, for another ring was made.”
Galadriel: “In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged in secret a master ring, to control all others.”
and this
12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Steve at Vision Navigator has a post up about the Kingdom of Heaven. It is an interesting idea about using imagination and the post has an embedded bearded Australian man video to boot. In the post Steve links to series of posts about the Church Unique.
the specific article Steve links asks what your church can do better than 10000 others? “The challenge is given to leaders to discover their “Great Permission” within the Great Commission. Or to put in another way, how does your church glorify God and make disciples? The answer is your church’s Kingdom Concept.”
the next page over asks “why doesn’t vision stick?” “To be contagious vision must be robust without sacrificing brevity. Some leaders only stab at the future with a few nifty slogans. Others articulate a theological treatise that acts with the potency of NyQuil.”
I was talking about this issue over lunch earlier this week. I asked the fellow I was eating with what his church’s vision was. What set his church apart from all the other churches in town? He had a response ready because he feels it in his bones. The answer to that question is why he was part of starting the church that he helped start. He didn’t have to think for a while about it, he knew that answer.
Getting all of the people in our congregation that ready to answer that question is key. Better yet, is having the answer to that question be so thoroughly saturated throughout the church’s culture that every new member can recite it without ever having had formal instruction about it.
Any one who has ever spent five minutes in a Hill Country Bible Church service in any location has heard or seen or both “We are a family of believers committed to reaching people with the life-changing reality of Jesus Christ.” This statement saturates everything HCBC does. Sometimes an alternate form is used that says “we are a family of believers committed to reaching the people of the greater Austin area with the life-changing reality of Jesus Christ.” Anybody who becomes a part of any Hill Country church knows that they are pledging to become a part of a family of believers committed to reaching people with the life-changing reality of Jesus Christ.
What is your church’s Kingdom Concept? Does your vision stick? Why do you do what you do? Does what you are doing advance the vision?
answering these questions honestly is essential for church leadership and lay people alike. Much wasted time can thereby be avoided.
here is the event spelled in McCoy’s honor.
the new, the brand new and the established.
I liked the water in this one.
messing around with rear flash
More information is now available on the Desiring God Conference in Austin in October. Thanks to Creation Project for the heads up.
Registration
The registration fee is $25.00 per person if received on or before August 31, and $35.00 per person if received after August 31.
There are no group discounts, reduced rates, or partial registration options available.
Seating is limited, so please register early. Once the conference fills, registration will close.
Register:
Online
By phone: Call 888.346.4700, 8:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M. CT, Monday-Friday
who knew? Ok, the Foolish Galatian did. R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries has a blog. the top post right now is an article called Truth and Consequences by Gene Edward Veith. Gene begins the article like this:
The old atheists maintained that belief in God is not true. The new atheists maintain that belief in God is not good. The atheists’ problem, though, is that however much they attack belief in God, their own worldview lacks all appeal. They get hung up on the last remaining absolute: Atheism is not beautiful. It is so depressing.
and it just gets better after that. He talks about Albert Camus (he shared the existential nihilism of the Joker) and Pullman’s Golden Compass books. Very good stuff.
Ramblin Pastor Man had some good ones up yesterday.
First up was a link to a paper by Tim Keller and David Powlison about passing along bad reports about other people (a/k/a gossip). Well written and extremely practical instruction about Ephesians 4:29. Part of their conclusion is this:
If you hear bad reports about other Christians you must either cover it with love or go to them personally before speaking of it to any others.
The first thing to do is to simply suspend judgment. Don’t pass on bad reports.
The second thing to do is “cover” it in love, reminding yourself that you don’t know all about the heart of the person who may have done evil—and you know your own frailty. Don’t allow bad reports to pass into your own heart.
The final thing to do is go and speak to them personally.
The second big hit was this analysis of the Joker’s worldview. Here is a little tease, but oh my, oh my, how good the whole thing is:
Heath Ledger’s Joker was frightening to me because he was bold enough to really live out the implications of his belief. He lives out what most people in this world are too cowardly to admit: that their rejecting of God as the moral center of the universe leaves them with no ability to declare wrong from right. The result is a world in which people must be freed to pursue their desires to their fullest extent.
Julie wanted me to see this video. It is a remix of the video of one of the best songs on the Remedy CD.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRfcARM8OwI&hl=en&fs=1]
