i do confess

Book Review of John Bunyan by Kevin Belmonte

2010-04-04T16:22:00.000-05:00

I have signed up with Thomas Nelson publishers to receive free books in exchange for posting my review at www.booksneeze.com. My first review is for a short biography of John Bunyan.

The book gives a brief overview of John Bunyan's life, and shows some interesting snapshots of his struggle as a poor working-class tinker, and eventually as a fearless preacher of the biblical Gospel in the face of a strict political-religious climate in the second half of 17th century England.

The books also gives some background and premise for Bunyan's great work Pilgrim's Progress. Writing it while in prison for refusing to attend services of the Church of England, and instead preaching to the "heathen" in his surrounding community (an activity forbidden by the religious leaders), it quickly gained great notoriety and spread across his small home town and eventually all over Europe, even into the hands of the great John Owen who would plead for Bunyan's release from prison. Bunyan spent around 12 years in prison for what would seem today to be hardly a crime. 12 devastating years away from his wife and small children (one of whom was blind, his oldest Mary).

I found this book to be a very good brief overview of a man whom I have never read about. I would recommend reading it and I hope to read more about John Bunyan in the future.

Highlights from our anniversary trip to Mexico

2010-03-03T09:55:00.000-06:00

Go to this link to read: http://danielyates.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/highlights-from-our-anniversary-trip-to-mexico/.

I got fed up with some annoying formatting problems on this blogger, so I did it on a different site.

A classic Chandler rant...

2009-12-22T06:30:00.001-06:00

So true...

(On single people in the church)

So you're single and you can't seem to find a godly woman, you can't seem to find a godly man. You know you're supposed to be steadfast and okay with your singleness, but it just seems to war on you and it's not what you really want, but in church and in group you say that's what you want because someone has lied to you and told you that as soon as you become content, that's when you'll get the other deal. And so, they feel overwhelmed.

- From Ecclesiastes series part 16.

My view on war and peace

2009-12-21T10:57:00.000-06:00

The God of Peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

- Romans 16:20

An Opportunity to Help a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Need

2009-08-28T16:20:00.002-05:00

I saw this via JT and it is important enough to pass along:

A lot of people wonder if there is anything practical and helpful they can do to reduce abortion and to help hurting women in need. One of the best ministries with boots on the ground is Heartbeat of Miami (started by John Ensor). But they are seriously hurting these days and they may have to close their doors. Mike Seaver has a helpful post explaining their need and how you could help:
Heartbeat of Miami is a crisis pregnancy center that was strategically planted in Miami, Florida, the city in the USA with the highest abortion rate. John Ensor and others had a vision for planting these centers in strategic cities and this was their first one. Here are some staggering statistics.
They are the only crisis pregnancy center in that part of the city and there are 37 abortion clinics.

In 3 years that Heartbeat of Miami has been open, over 4000 ladies have been served and over 1000 babies have been saved.

Their financial support is down 48% this year.
Please consider making a donation...even a $5 donation to help unborn babies have the gift of life. You can go here to donate. There is also a matching program through the end of August 2009, so if you give $5...it is acutally like giving $10. If you give $50...it is like giving $100. Please pray and if you feel the Lord leading you, please give.

See their vision video below:

Mainstream media on health care

2009-08-24T14:29:00.009-05:00

The media seems, in my very limited perspective, to at least in part be shifting its concerns some regarding some of the recent legislation being pushed.

From Time magazine:

For Stupak, the pro-life Democrat, the battle over abortion in health-care reform is certain to continue when Congress returns from recess. "We are going to do everything we can to stop the rule, or the bill, from coming to the floor," Stupak says, adding that as many as 39 Democratic members of Congress may join him in the effort. It remains unclear how the Senate will deal with the abortion issue. There is also no consensus within the Democratic Party about whether a public option should be included in final health-care-reform legislation.

In the meantime, Stupak says that Obama's statements during recent public events signal one of two things: either he does not fully understand the current House bill, which Stupak maintains has the effect of publicly funding abortion, or "if he is aware of it, and he is making these statements, then he is misleading people."

Also, this clip from ABC's 20/20 is interesting.

Matt Chandler in Philly on Philippians

2009-08-21T07:00:00.038-05:00

Matt Chandler gives a powerful, almost soulful, Gospel delivery in a "hip-hop" church in downtown Philadelphia. I highly recommend hearing both of these:

Legalism vs the Law

Philippians

One of my favorite Chandler stories of all time is about something at a youth group called J-A-M (Jesus and Me), where apparently the teacher was saying if you listened to Journey you would do crystal meth and kill your parents.

Can't resist it when he makes fun of youth groups.

Lesson of the day

2009-08-20T18:30:00.002-05:00

From here:

It is better to work on important things slowly and inefficiently than to work on the wrong things with great speed.

A delightful irony

2009-08-19T12:06:00.009-05:00

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary, presents a shocking new perspective (at least to me) on the abortion issue. He says abortionists (an historically feminist movement), in the name of women's liberation, are actually unintentionally contributing to the cause of male dominance. I bet they wouldn't see this one coming!:

The obvious question is this -- how is it that feminists, the abortion industry, and the advocates of abortion rights get away with their claim that abortion liberates women? In truth, the availability of abortion has served to liberate irresponsible men from duty, morality, and responsibility. Of course, the even greater tragedy is the death of unborn children by the millions. Only the Culture of Death would present the slaughter of the innocents as liberation.

Awesome whiz kid on guitar, playing Extreme's More Than Words, and many others

2009-08-18T12:05:00.001-05:00

Happy Birthday Em!

2009-08-16T05:00:00.001-05:00

Jephthah's Tragic Vow pt.. 2

2009-08-05T18:15:00.001-05:00

After looking into it some more, there are some debates on this passage as to what it actually means. Some commentators say this is not at all talking about human sacrifice, but merely the devoting of the daughter to religious service to God, presumably in the temple or likewise (this is what John Wesley says, and he notes Henrys' commentary below in doing so). The word used for burnt offering, according to these commentators, can be used for this type of meaning also. Also, she did not "bewail" death, but only her virginity, which may indicate that she was not being put to death, but merely about to vow an oath of chastity for the rest of her life in service to God and in honor of her father.

Matthew Henry's commentary highlights the differences of opinion among the commentators he knew, but in the end simply states that it is unclear and we cannot know for certain.

Among those who say it IS talking of a real sacrifice (the daughter is killed), some commend him for his faith (as Hebrews 11 would, though perhaps not for the killing, it is simply mentioned in passing) though it was manifested in a "deformed and imperfect" way (as Calvin calls it), and some condemn him for doing so (which is not consistent with Hebrews, though it is conceivably possible Hebrews references a different event in Jephthah's life, perhaps even one that is not mentioned in the Canon, but in other traditions, though unlikely).

Additionally, John Gill's commentary gives quite a good answer as I deem it. I especially like the interpretation of the end where the girls of Israel are visiting the daughter yearly to comfort her in her solitude rather than lamenting her death, though I think my own desires for the meaning of the text may be an influence here. I wish it not to be the case that he killed his daughter, but it may well be so.

Regardless, the commentaries are enlightening, and explain the possibilities well. I am a little bit comforted.

Who is Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Obama)?

2009-08-05T17:34:00.000-05:00

A very interesting and poignant article regarding all the media debacles with the President that raises questions of his overall honesty of himself and his background (birth certificates, speeches, etc.) as well as the media's glaring lax in reporting these and investigating them, especially considering the amount of shadowy things about him. I didn't know he has fabricated so much, including a story in his autobiography about his first job:

What’s unnerving about this is that it is so gratuitous. It would have made no difference to anyone curious about Obama’s life that he, like most of us, took a ho-hum entry-level job to establish himself. But Obama lies about the small things, the inconsequential things, just as he does about the important ones — depending on what he is trying to accomplish at any given time.

Another quote:

The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented “transparency”: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?

Jephthah's Tragic Vow

2009-08-05T12:01:00.004-05:00

This is maybe one of the craziest stories in the Bible (Judges 11:29-40, it should be read in context). I don't recall ever reading this in my life, but I came to it this morning. Wow. There are so many things to say of this, of which are these few observations:

The mighty character of a man as to uphold a vow he made to the Lord, even at the greatest cost to himself and his family
The risk that we take when we make a vow to God, especially when it's put on chance (or at least what seems to be chance)
The value with which the daughter and the people of Israel held for virginity (perhaps almost too much)
The trust the daughter had for her father
The poor choice of a vow Jephthah made, and the sadness of this scene. The final slaughter of the daughter is mentioned in a very soft way

Then the Spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh and passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whatever [4] comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it [5] up for a burnt offering.” So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the Lord gave them into his hand. And he struck them from Aroer to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a great blow. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel.

Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And as soon as he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.” And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the Lord; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.” So she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: leave me alone two months, that I may go up and down on the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my companions.” So he said, “Go.” Then he sent her away for two months, and she departed, she and her companions, and wept for her virginity on the mountains. And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made. She had never known a man, and it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

Obama vs. Lincoln

2009-07-27T11:39:00.000-05:00

The below is an excerpt from an astute article regarding Obama's history with the abortion issue in comparison to Lincoln's history with the slavery issue:

In speech, action, and deference to the Constitution and laws, the contrast between Lincoln on slavery and Obama on abortion could hardly be plainer. While Lincoln was clear in speech, moderate in action, and put the Constitution above his most cherished policy goals, Obama has been obfuscatory in speech, immoderate in action, and has put his personal policy goals above the Constitution — including letting those goals strongly influence whom to nominate to the Supreme Court.

The Illogic of Abortion

2009-07-22T13:58:00.003-05:00

A great brief story of victory on the abortion issue in Louisville, KY:

Go to story here

And a good quote from a related post on the illogic of abortionists:

Pro-choice individuals claim to have the best interest of the mother in mind (by the way, why do they refer to expecting ladies as “the mother” if they don’t believe there is a life?)

What would it take for us to make civil war today?

2009-07-20T12:06:00.002-05:00

Just a random thought I had today. Today we are much more pacifist than we would probably admit, and it is a stark contrast to the revolutionaries and abolishers of the America's glorious past. What would it take for a significant number of American people to revolt? I don't believe in murdering abortion doctors, but if we really believe this is genocide and on par with the atrocities of slavery or tyranny, what is the proper response to something like this?

This is probably a controversial thing to say, but I'm mostly must being hypothetical. Perhaps that says more about the pacifism than anything, that I'm blogging about it instead of pursuing actual justice.

Michael Jackson's memorial service

2009-07-08T12:05:00.001-05:00

I didn't watch it but I caught some clips and appreciate this insight from Tim Challies:

Jackson's service was an representation of just the kind of pluralism that has marked India. Everybody involved wanted to invoke God's name, as you're supposed to do when remembering a loved one, but it was clear that most of them invoked a god made in their own image. Even those who spoke of Jesus or who prayed to Jesus did so without any clear reference to the Jesus of the Bible. They spoke of a Jesus who accepts all and even (or perhaps especially) those who had rejected him. Never did Michael Jackson give any evidence of putting his faith in Jesus Christ, yet those who watched were assured, time and again, that he was now safe in the presence of the Lord, waiting there for the rest of us to arrive. Words and phrases invoked God and used the Christian lexicon but without any reference to the gospel, the true gospel, the gospel that saves. Lost men declared to other lost men untruths about the god they wish for, not the God who is.

I'm now a true liberal - Happy Independence Day!

2009-07-04T05:00:00.016-05:00

What True Liberalism Is

The principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, by the way, are what “liberalism” really is. Today the term “liberal” is used to refer to policies that seek to expand the place of government and give it a greater role in people’s lives. That’s not liberal — that’s conservative.

It’s conservative because it seeks to conserve the way the world functioned for thousands of years before the American Revolution — namely, a world where government saw its power as ultimate, rather than the God-given rights of the people as prior to the power of government.

What today is called “conservatism,” on the other hand, actually used to be called political liberalism because it advocated for change from the government-first ideology that dominated for almost all of human history before that. It advocated for the principles that we see outlined in the Declaration. That’s why on my Facebook profile I put my political views as classical liberalism.

How enlightening, what a great idea.

Read the whole thing

Drive-through church, this is pretty funny and sadly true

2009-06-22T07:30:00.001-05:00

You might be crazy

2009-06-20T07:30:00.005-05:00

An interesting article regarding sleeping and dreams, which are possibly related to mental disorders according to the study.

Perhaps, even, by simply addressing sleeping habits, doctors could potentially interrupt the emotional cycle that can lead to suicide. "There is an opportunity for prevention," Bernert says.

The new findings highlight what researchers are increasingly recognizing as a two-way relationship between psychiatric disorders and disrupted sleep. "Modern medicine and psychiatry have consistently thought that psychological disorders seem to have co-occuring sleep problems and that it's the disorder perpetuating the sleep problems," says Walker. "Is it possible that, in fact, it's the sleep disruption contributing to the psychiatric disorder?"

The TV tells us how to live

2009-06-19T10:35:00.007-05:00

This is a very interesting quote I just read:

"Television is our culture’s principal mode of knowing about itself. Therefore—and this is the critical point—how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged"—Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985).

I don't know the full context within which this statement was made, but it appears to be saying that the way we think and the way we know things (in other words, our epistemology) is being shaped largely by the television. And I think this is deadly accurate. No longer do we read books and go to the library or to a university to hear professors and philosophers tell us their theories (I assume that's how they used to do it), we now just flip on the TV and have our worldviews handed to us via entertainment. Watching TV is more of a philosophical journey than we may give it credit for, I don't think it's solely just entertainment. It's a very interesting notion...what do you think?

Silence is golden

2009-06-17T07:45:00.002-05:00

This post by Al Mohler makes an interesting point (as I listen to music on my earbuds while I type this), that the idea of having silence in daily life is something our culture is moving away from. Perhaps I should take off my earbuds...

How does President Obama’s admission there are moral and ethical aspects of the abortion debate help the pro-life cause?

2009-06-16T12:23:00.007-05:00

Speaking of Scott Klusendorf, here is an interview with him regarding the same issues in my previous blog post. His answer to the title's question:

Scott Klusendorf: It exposes the vacuous logic in the President’s position. He says abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision” and we should seek to reduce it.

But why is it heart-wrenching? And why seek to reduce it? If elective abortion does not take the life of a defenseless human being, why worry about the number of abortions each year?

This is liberal doublespeak: You implicitly condemn abortion with your words, but make sure there’s not one shred of legal protection granted to unborn human beings.

True, the President did speak of moral aspects to the abortion debate, but he did so with a faulty appeal to moral equivalency. He said we should “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Let’s be clear: For Obama, women can only achieve equality by trampling on the rights of their unborn offspring. That’s what he means by equality. But never once did he say why treating the unborn human this way is morally and legally permissible.

And if the President truly cares about “sound science,” how about starting with the undeniable scientific truth that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings? In short, Obama is adept at saying one thing and doing another.

YOU can't stop abortion

2009-06-15T18:05:00.007-05:00

This is an expected response to the murder of George Tiller, they will merely fill his position with someone else, although I am not as optimistic that changing the law will prevent abortions. People will still have abortions, it's just a matter of whether the mother will be put in danger or not because of the lack of medical license to perform them. While it's a truly sad situation on all aspects, I believe mothers are responsible for their actions and should they choose to abort their children their lives are in their own hands. But the laws on abortion must change.

Approaching this subject as social commentators, the question is whether we will be reductionistic or not. What I mean is, we sacrifice all considerations/ aspects on the issue reducing the level of complexity of questions, save one: the one we focus on. For example, we could approach it by proposing any number of things to fix the problem, such as:

The murder of abortion doctors outside of the law (see how logical this argument is)
Changing the laws
Protesting abortion
Start organizations
Blog about it (I love contradicting myself)
etc.

The "pro-life movement" has dabbled in all of these (if we can even include doctor murderers in this), but it is naive and foolish (and I would argue a tad idolistic) to think that we can fix this problem if we just do these things. Granted, Christians (and those who believe in the humanity of the unborn) should stand up for the truth, but at some point there must be recognition that our efforts are very limited. We cannot control the actions (much less the thoughts, if we are to believe Jesus' teaching on murder, Mt. 5:21) of others and make them be obedient to God, especially if they are unbelievers. It is cruel and foolish to think that we can force those who do not know God know him and obey his commandments, including the issue of abortion. Regardless of what the law is, people are going to continue breaking it and/or doing what they want. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change the laws to honor God's laws (to avoid being reductionistic on the other side), but we should behave with prudence regarding all aspects of the issue and accept where we are powerless, and obey the statues of the land we live in.

The solution as I see it is this: we must trust in God. In his justice, in his laws, in his power, in his involvement in the world, and in his empowerment of his followers to do the right things we must trust. This means we do all we can to stop the murdering of the unborn by changing the laws, while living in the land we do with the laws we have, which we must respect because of God's appointing of all world leaders. We should speak and publish and protest to defend the pro-life position (see Scott Klusendorf whose work on abortion is impressive and much better than this blog, this argument is unbeatable, also this one, which is shorter). Perhaps above all, we should pray for the country, that God would enact justice where it is due and have mercy on all.

Funeral Parlor Theology

2009-06-10T17:07:00.000-05:00

I find it interesting to drive down the street and see advertisements for funeral homes called "Eternal Rest" or that say "Take a few moments to plan your eternity."

It is a funny thought. I guess these pagan funeral directors have not been reached with the news of the Gospel of resurrection. I don't plan to spend the rest of eternity turning into plant food. Haha.

Moral of the story, fellow Christian: Don't get buried by a funeral parlor that thinks you will be there for the rest of eternity. These are for atheists.

Why do you believe Christianity is true?

2009-06-09T17:20:00.000-05:00

What's to distinguish from belief in a general God from belief in Jesus as God? Surely it has to be more than personal experience, saying basically that it "works for me" or because I have "experienced it in my own life." Surely that has to be more than that, but if you ask the average person (as this excerpt from a radio program attempts to show) this is likely what you will hear. Now perhaps the people haven't fully thought out their answers, but their imemdiate response says something about the state of Christianity today and how the faith is being defended, or perhaps not defended. This radio program makes the point that Christianity is true because it is grounded in the historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus and attested to by the reliable books of the New Testament that was written by eyewitnesses of these events. If Jesus was not raised, then we are fools. Why do you believe Christianity?

Death announcements

2009-06-03T13:29:00.001-05:00

I have a random thought. Why is it that the only thing ever said in death announcements in the news to be positive about the deceased is that they "loved life"? What does that mean? And why are they the only positive words that seem to come to mind for the average person? I guess we never hear about the people that hated life.

Octomom will have a new reality show...gag me

2009-06-02T15:26:00.000-05:00

Almost all of this article about TV created using Americans as the subject and viewed by Europeans, specifically the infamous Octomom, makes me sad and a little ashamed to be counted among them.

A good quote, one I could learn from

2009-05-28T08:56:00.006-05:00

"No unwelcome tasks become any the less unwelcome by putting them off till tomorrow. It is only when they are behind us and done, that we begin to find that there is a sweetness to be tasted afterwards, and that the remembrance of unwelcome duties unhesitatingly done is welcome and pleasant. Accomplished, they are full of blessing, and there is a smile on their faces as they leave us. Undone, they stand threatening and disturbing our tranquility, and hindering our communion with God. If there be lying before you any bit of work from which you shrink, go straight up to it, and do it at once. The only way to get rid of it is to do it."

-Alexander MacLaren (1826–1910), Scottish preacher

4 things to define a Christian

2009-05-27T07:30:00.000-05:00

Matt Chandler gives our culture's definition of a Christian (around 26:20):

1. I attend church regularly
2. I don't cuss in front of you.
3. I have some scripture memorized that I can quote in certain situations.
4. I can give you moral advice.
If I can do those 4 things then I am a godly man or woman in our culture.

I would add any number of things to this list including: I don't drink alcohol, I only listen to Christian music, I only wear cool clothes, or I only wear really nerdy/ unattractive clothes for that matter. The possibilities are endless.

But doing those things do not at all exemplify what I believe scripture teaches is the characteristic of the truly converted, that which he describes as one dealing with the dark places in the heart and being obedient not to the arbitrary rules of religion but actually having communion with God, a relationship with the divine for which we were created.

I know I suck here. I haven't always, but always more than is acceptable. I suppose anything lacking is unacceptable since I don't see where you could draw the line and say "I'm alright now," since that would be making arbitrary religious rules too. Funny how that works.

Real Hope

2009-05-21T07:30:00.002-05:00

I found out that someone I knew from college died this past Sunday, suicide. It's extremely sad. However, my friend Marcus points out where the real hope lies for her, and everyone one day.

A Celibate Priest's Sex Book?

2009-05-20T07:30:00.001-05:00

It's a confusing thing when a Catholic monk writes a book about sex. How would he know anything? This is somewhat disturbing to me. Maybe it's a good thing for the Catholics?

What is Religious Tolerance?

2009-05-16T09:30:00.001-05:00

D.A. Carson points out (at around 16:00) that the notion of "tolerance" was once defined in popular culture by what Voltaire said, if not directly, to the effect of:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This illustrates a great American value, the freedom of speech. But Carson makes the observation that this definition has changed and today it is in fact considered wrong to even suggest that someone is wrong in their beliefs, religious or otherwise. Despite the self-contradicatory nature of saying this, most people we know would agree. I find it interesting the evolution, or rather devolution, of the freedom of speech or what we could call "tolerance" as Voltaire once defined it.

In fact, this so-called tolerance (as currently held) is not tolerance at all, since you have to disagree with someone's beliefs before you can actually be tolerant of their right to believe them (if this is in fact what the big idea of freedom of speech is about, isn't it?), and what you don't have to agree with to be tolerant is the notion that it is wrong to say those beliefs are wrong, indeed this is something very different than what it means, as Voltaire defined it, to be tolerant of someone's beliefs! Is it not?

Now, to be tolerant as a good Westerner means that you have to agree with the set of beliefs that asserts that it is wrong to say someone else is wrong in their set of beliefs. But what if I say my particular set of beliefs asserts that this notion of tolerance, being that which states that it is wrong to say someone's beliefs are wrong, is wrong? What then? Am I accepted with open arms in the society of tolerance? Probably not. I think I would be socially shunned by the broad culture and maybe labelled as one lacking an enlightened mind, as has the population of these "narrow-minded" folk, which includes these freaks called Christians.

I really wish someone would try to answer this accusation.

Tim Keller @Google

2009-05-15T07:05:00.020-05:00

Here, Tim Keller presents his arguments for belief in God at Google last year. This is an excellent thing to watch, and it is amazing to listen to someone so esteemed and researched. I recommend his book also which goes further into this content, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

Trying to make sense of things

2009-05-14T07:30:00.014-05:00

Sometimes I find myself lost and confused in a sea of information and data bytes that is the world we live in with its internet and exponential daily growth. There is no way anyone can keep up with the amount of information that you are bombarded with every day, much less the amount of information that we are missing every day, which is gargantuan.

Sometimes I feel like I'm searching for all this information, whilst in my peculiar daily philosophical meanderings that I call a search for truth and learning, even one small bit of this sea of information, and trying to grasp onto it, but once I grab hold there is the next monumentally crucial task of knowing what to do with it.

And once I know what to do with it, there is the next painful task of knowing how it relates to the one I just got done with, and so on until there appears a shape through the fog that all this small bits often seem to be pointing to.

Sometimes I can feel that I'm getting near some grand truth that signs and quotes and points are pointing me to, but I can never quite grab a hold of it and it slips through my fingers and out of sight, out of mind. I have nothing much specific to say here, but it is an itch that constantly bugs me, that the scratches of reading and listening and discussing can never quite satisfy. I guess our knowing is limited and that is that. But how can we know our knowing is limited? Maybe we can't, but that would seem to prove the statement anyway.

Just some more random thoughts.

What the crap...

Wilson vs. Hitchens

2009-05-13T07:30:00.001-05:00

Doug Wilson has one of the most entertaining styles of writing, which I enjoy. I've recently taken delight in his takes on Christopher Hitchens' polemic God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Suppose you went to see some fantastic illusionist, and he did something remarkable, like levitate himself. His beautiful assistant with insufficient clothing -- and this might have something to do with the success of the trick -- comes out on stage and passes some metal hoops every which way around the floating body. Jeepers, you think, and head on home scratching your noggin. When you get there, you find yourself in a discussion with your cousin who used to do a small time illusionist act of his own down at the local Ramada Inn, and he explains to you how the trick is done. He doesn't have to be a big time headliner -- he just has to have enough experience to be able to explain how such tricks are pulled off.

I am the Ramada Inn guy, only drop the illusionist aspect now. I write a lot, like Hitchens, and I know how to put a sentence or two together. I believe I also know how to make a metaphor crawl up your back and make an unpleasant smacky noise in your ear. Or, more pleasantly, to get a couple of cute zephyrs to fool around with your hair on a warm spring day. Here, pick a card, any card.

A good quote I heard recently

2009-05-12T07:30:00.002-05:00

"Sorry this report is so long, I didn't have time to make it short."

Sometimes it takes more effort to make something simple than to make it complex.

And sometimes it's okay to be a nerd and notice these things and write a blog post about it. I can smell the comment coming from my wife :) You know you were thinking it.

Collision: Hitchens vs. Wilson

2009-05-11T07:05:00.002-05:00

Here are the first 13 minutes of the upcoming film, Collision, answering the question: "Is Christianity Good for the World?" This looks to be a very well done movie (great music) and one I'm interested in seeing, although I've already viewed the entirety of one of these debates at Westminster Seminary between Wilson and Hitchens on YouTube, which is quite entertaining and beneficial. I would highly recommend it. Or you can read the written debates that prompted the creation of this debate tour and book.

COLLISION - 13 min VIMEO Exclusive Sneak Peak from Collision Movie on Vimeo.

via

"The Hand of Hope"

2009-05-09T18:05:00.002-05:00

This is a cool story about the baby boy, who's now 9 years old, who was photographed grasping a doctor's hand when a surgery was being performed on him from his mother's womb. Here's the link for the photos (caution, these are graphic).

Samuel, now 9 and living in Villa Rica, Ga., said the photo likely gave countless "babies their right to live" and forced many others to debate their beliefs on abortion, something he's proud of.
"It's very important to me," Samuel said of the photograph. "A lot of babies would've lost their lives if that didn't happen."

Good quote

2009-05-08T12:05:00.003-05:00

If there is a sound downstairs during the night and it might be a burglar, you don’t say to her, “This is an egalitarian marriage, so it’s your turn to go check it out. I went last time.” And I mean that–even if your wife has a black belt in karate. After you’ve tried to deter him, she may finish off the burglar with one good kick to the solar plexus. But you’d better be unconscious on the floor, or you’re no man.

- John Piper, This Momentary Marriage

via

Kicking Caffeine

2009-05-08T07:05:00.001-05:00

Like most people I know I have been addicted to caffeine for a while to where I will get a back headache if I don't have it. This article offers a generally insightful take on the matter stating that we're a culture obsessed with feel-good food and drinks and use caffeine to feed our overly busy lifestyle, although it does offer some slightly whacko solutions at the end, like rubbing your chest, clapping your hands above your head, and even talking to yourself with nonsensical selfish affirmation (Stuart Smalley-esque). I've for the most part weened myself down to about half a coke in the morning and I'm fine the rest of the day. Hopefully I can eventually stop drinking them every day and only enjoy them every once and a while.

Just how did we manage to get addicted to caffeine? There are numerous reasons as caffeine often seems like a harmless quick-fix when we are not getting enough sleep and not making the time in our busy lives to fulfill our emotional and physical needs. Addiction also includes our over-identifying with products and images that are socially accepted and encouraged. It has become noble to always be on the run. "Busy" has come to be seen as important, secure and fulfilled, but is it really? Perhaps the biggest hook of all is that we have bought into the myth ourselves that we need caffeine to wake us up and to keep us going, and have thus become slaves of habit.

Putting Kindergarteners to the Test

2009-05-07T18:05:00.005-05:00

This New York Times article explains that kindergartens today are starting to put little kids through a rigorous testing program. I share Voddie Baucham's analysis in that we should just let kids be kids while they can:

Many of our children (especially boys) are being drugged by their parents and teachers in an effort to make them sit still for all of this teaching and testing when all they want to do (and what God put in their hearts to desire) is to run and play. Don’t buy the lie. Our children are behind in math and science because our system is broken, not because we aren’t starting early enough. Slow down. They grow up fast enough. Enjoy the kindergarten years. You’ll never get them back.

Anyone heard of this?

Hilarious Craig's List resume

2009-05-06T20:12:00.000-05:00

I was just curious and this was one of the first ones that popped up. Will gladly fight Samurais! I don't think there's anyway this is real, but this is priceless:

I am a longswordsman in search of a bodyguard position. Student of the lichtenauer tradition. Will provide for own weapon. Will fulfill a variety of duties including protection of clients (may include pre-emptive protection). Ten years worth of protection experience. Expect payment in the form of gold bullion but rates are negotionable. Will gladly fight Samurais.

Member of the CCCP (conservative conquestador party)

it's ok to contact this poster if you are a potential employer or other principal
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job seeker.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

My Idea for a Song: Thug Jesus

2009-04-30T07:00:00.006-05:00

I can think of few images in all of literature more striking and provocative than that of Jesus in Revelation 19. I can't write songs for crap, but if I could I think I would write about Jesus in Revelation 19 on a white horse with his title "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" written (or tattooed perhaps?) down his leg, or as has been termed cleverly before, Thug Jesus:

Why haven't there been worship songs written about this text? I'm aware of none. Not to denigrate anyone's preferences and likes/dislikes because I respect them and can identify with some of it, but I think an understanding of this text and the picture it paints of Jesus in the reality of his glory and righteousness would change our perception of some of the cheese (my opinion) that's put out a lot of times in the name of Christian music.

Revelation 19:11-21:

11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in [4] blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, [5] both small and great.” 19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence [6] had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. 21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

Watching TV is expensive

2009-04-29T18:00:00.004-05:00

There is a lot of time we devote to watching TV, surprisingly. This post makes an interesting and good point that we could be immensely more productive if we would watch less and that it's costing us in the long run. I should reevaluate my time.

Writing cheesy Christian songs

2009-04-24T18:07:00.010-05:00

This is a funny post by Josh Harris (all in good fun) with the 22 essential words for writing cheesy Christian songs, and some funny comments as well:

1. Mountain
2. Love
3. River
4. Ocean
5. Amazed
6. Imagine
7. Valley
8. Believe
9. Waves
10. Running
11. Deep
12. Shout
13. Stillness
14. Moment
15. Arms
16. Tears
17. Walk
18. Hills
19. Reaching
20. Waters
21. Joy
22. Peace

My answer as a religious relativist to people forcing birth control on cultures with large families that are "overpopulating the world" and "not being green"

2009-04-24T12:05:00.003-05:00

How dare they impose their religious worldview on other people!!!

Did Jesus rise from death?

2009-04-24T07:05:00.001-05:00

Yet another explanation from Mark Driscoll on the resurrection of Jesus. Overload yes.

Resurrection Q&A

2009-04-24T07:00:00.003-05:00

Mark Driscoll answers questions at the end of this sermon on the resurrection of Jesus.

The Hope of Resurrection

2009-04-23T18:08:00.006-05:00

Mark Driscoll explains how the resurrection of Jesus is the great and only hope of the world.

Prophecies of the Resurrection

2009-04-23T12:00:00.002-05:00

Mark Driscoll shows how the resurrection of Jesus was predicted from Old Testament passages.

What is Resurrection?

2009-04-23T07:35:00.002-05:00

Mark Driscoll explains well what resurrection means. It is not, contrary to a near-majority's understanding of the subject, merely life after death where we "go to heaven" as widespread evangelicalism would have us believe, but it is rising back into a bodily existence, as modeled by the prototype of Jesus' resurrection back into his body (be it a newly glorified body).

Objections to the Resurrection

2009-04-22T18:07:00.004-05:00

Mark Driscoll answers some of the primary objections to the resurrection as historical fact, discussing some material from N.T. Wright.

Patriotism Same as Racism?

2009-04-21T18:07:00.002-05:00

I don't believe this is necessarily true, but taken to the degree many Americans do (as well as other nations as well), I believe it can certainly be considered coming close to racism. Matt Chandler makes a strong point for this in this strong (and hilarious: he talks about Star Wars at the beginning in classic Chandler, Brian Regan-like, humor) sermon:

If my nation [America] is ultimate [in importance], does that not then force me to look down upon other nations, nationalities, and cultures? It absolutely does. If we're the best, if we're ultimate, then that means everyone else is secondary, and that's not too far away from racism. You put anything else as ultimate [other than God] and things start to break down.

His point is that sin is the root of all of our problems. The reason we have war is sin, and problems in the economy in America were caused by sin, greed especially. We Americans don't want to hear that though. It's never really spoken of that way in the media or by the president. Instead of being honest and assigning blame where it's due, it's always, "man, we are just having some rough times so we need some more bailouts and stimulus checks." I think the underlying root of all this is the sinful pride of extreme patriotism. I'm not against being proud to be an American, but I think it is idolatrous to put up any place as the promised land above another that God has created.

This is especially interesting since most Americans value things like "tolerance", where presumably the attitude above would be far from close. But a little hypocrisy never hurt anybody...

Interview with Matt Chandler

2009-04-18T07:47:00.002-05:00

John Piper interviewed Matt Chandler following a recent conference (via Desiring God):

Part 1 - Chandler tells his story up to about 20 years old.
Part 2 - More on Chandler's story, through becoming a pastor.
Part 3 - Chandler's thoughts on being a pastor, a Calvinist, and a Complementarian.
Part 4 - Chandler and Piper finish up with some advice for pastors.

“We just haven’t loved adulterers enough”

2009-04-17T07:35:00.000-05:00

Voddie Baucham weighs in on homosexual marriage with some good points:

I have quoted from Kirk and Madsen’s book, After the Ball on a number of occasions. Their comments are no less relevant to this topic. With sarcasm dripping from their pens, they write:

“Some of the more forgiving churches have taken a lenient stand: they will permit the [homosexual] to remain in their congregation so long as these unfortunates renounce vile, [homosexual] practices. Love the sinner, hate the sin! After all, it is plainly the godforsaken [homosexual] lifestyle that makes these creatures so suicidally miserable. (p. ix-xx)"

Kirk and Madsen are mocking what all homosexual activists despise. Unfortunately, many Christian “leaders” haven’t gotten the memo. The gospel is offensive! It always has been, and it always will be. Homosexuals don’t hate us because we have loved them insufficiently; they hate us because “this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.” (John 3:19 ESV) Does this mean I hate homosexuals? Of course not! I don’t hate homosexuals any more than I hate fornicators, or adulterers. However, when the Bible calls any one of those things sin, I agree. (funny how no one goes around saying, “We just haven’t loved adulterers enough”)

Myths of Columbine

2009-04-16T07:30:00.002-05:00

USA Today has an article on myths of the attack at Columbine High School in 1999. A lot of the things that have characterized this event are actually distortions of the truth or complete fabrications, according to the article's research. This is very interesting.

A decade after Harris and Klebold made Columbine a synonym for rage, new information — including several books that analyze the tragedy through diaries, e-mails, appointment books, videotape, police affidavits and interviews with witnesses, friends and survivors — indicate that much of what the public has been told about the shootings is wrong.

Atheist Finds Faith Again

2009-04-15T18:01:00.001-05:00

This is a cool story about a man named A.N. Wilson who became an atheist after long being a Christian, and who recently came back to Christianity upon observing nature and things music and love. Here is a good quote:

My departure from the Faith was like a conversion on the road to Damascus. My return was slow, hesitant, doubting. So it will always be; but I know I shall never make the same mistake again. Gilbert Ryle, with donnish absurdity, called God “a category mistake”. Yet the real category mistake made by atheists is not about God, but about human beings. Turn to the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge – “Read the first chapter of Genesis without prejudice and you will be convinced at once . . . ‘The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’.” And then Coleridge adds: “‘And man became a living soul.’ Materialism will never explain those last words.”

Catch also the Q&A link.

The Implications of Resurrection for Real Life

2009-04-13T18:10:00.001-05:00

Matt Chandler explains what the implications of the resurrection of Jesus and of ourselves means for everyday life, that it demands that we "get on mission".

His "rant" at the end was really convicting to me. The real resurrection life is not just about talking about and studying the Gospel and the Bible. It is about actually living it and engaging with people about it (in the office, neighborhood, on a plane) so that Jesus is what's made much of, and not our status in society or who likes us and thinks well of us. It's easy to forget that the Gospel is not just a written account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. The words in the commission are written to us today.

Man, this is a challenge, and I believe it's the challenge of Jesus from his own mouth in the Gospel accounts.

General Thoughts on the Resurrection

2009-04-12T12:18:00.001-05:00

I feel like the resurrection of Christ and of people in general tends to get shoved to the back of the line in a lot of Christianity, at least in my experience in churches. It doesn't always seem to be mentioned in such a way as to carry the criticality the Apostle Paul put on it in 1 Corinthians 15. With Paul, it appears to be the very hope of our existence. Jesus' resurrection (along with his crucifixion, death, and burial, since they are all are parts of the same story) is where life of humanity is reborn and what accomplishes for Christians the same promise of life after "life after death", as N.T. Wright has put it so clearly. It is not just life after death, in some disembodied angelic cloud world that so much of evangelicalism has mistakenly preached, that the resurrection accomplishes. The resurrection means that our bodies and the whole of creation will be remade and redeemed by the work of Jesus into that of which it was all intended to become by God's initial act of creation. The way I understand it is that through Christ, we who love and trust in him will have the same: all of man, including Adam onward, will be redeemed back into what God created us to be, to be glorifiers of him in all we do. And not only this, but we will continue on into eternity continually becoming that which he created us to become. This was initially disrupted by the Fall in which the whole of humanity collectively participated in rebellion against God and his creation, and in turn this created all acts of death and decay by God's curse on creation. But Christ's resurrection restores all that was lost and puts man back on the intended path of bringing glory to God and of enjoying him in everything forever.

The weight of this hope I don't feel is always stressed in evangelicalism. It's more of a hope of heaven and a vague "being with God" which to me conjures up images of floating on clouds and wearing diapers and playing harps (which sounds more like hell to me), than it is the New Heavens and New Earth, and our Resurrected Bodies, as it were, where our lives carry on in many ways as they do right now, but without sin, without suffering, only with pure joy in being with Jesus who has saved us and with people we love who do also.

I wish the resurrection of Jesus were more explicitly understood as being the core of the hope of the world. Sometimes this hope is only spoken of as being evident in the bloody death of Jesus, and mention is not always made of his resurrection (often only as a period to the sentence). While Jesus' crucifixion and death are the object of hope for the atonement of sin, forgiveness, and reconciliation with God (they are!), the resurrection is also our promise that God is not only forgiving us, but allowing us to actually live life in holiness and glory (instead of sin, pain, and suffering) with him forever! This includes not only being with Jesus forever, but participating in the community of saints, singing, dancing, loving, working, and rejoicing always in the lives that have been given to us, indeed redeemed, by Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection on our behalf.

The Resurrection of Jesus

2009-04-12T06:27:00.001-05:00

Happy Easter! This is the day Christians everywhere celebrate the fact that Jesus has risen from death and that it is for those who love and trust Jesus as the Messiah of God and King the impetus of our own resurrection, that we will also rise one day to live forever with him, reigning with him in a new and glorified body over a new creation. What could be better than that?

Also, Mark Driscoll provides a helpful summary of N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God, which echoes some of the things I have been writing about it here:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Gay Marriage in Iowa and Vermont

2009-04-10T07:42:00.005-05:00

The recent ruling in Iowa and Vermont to allow gay marriage because it is now deemed to be a constitutional right sparked a couple of thoughts and questions in me. First, it may not be an obvious one, but one thought is: (1) regardless of whether or not gay marriage really is “constitutional” (I personally cannot see the connection), why is the American constitution elevated above the constitutions of other world governments? (2) Another question is: Why does it seem so suspicious that “constitutional” is being substituted for the idea of “worldliness”?

As for question 1, doesn’t it go against Western/American values to elevate one culture (or religion for that matter) above another? Isn’t this seen as “intolerant” by the majority of enlightened American values? Wouldn’t it be seen as “close-minded” to say that the American constitution is better than, say, a French constitution and that we shouldn’t even entertain legal notions embraced by the French (I have nothing in mind here, it is simply a random example)? I will give a different illustration. If a country were founded by homosexuals, and they created a constitution distinctly favoring the homosexual lifestyle, would this be seen as especially “enlightened”, or especially “intolerant”? My confident guess is that, in light of current American values, it would be seen as especially enlightened and highly-evolved. Isn’t it intolerant to view the values of other cultures as less-evolved or even as primitive?

I will allow the issues emerging from question 1 to be addressed by question 2 also since they are closely related. I hope the connection is made.

To attempt to restate question 2, why does it feel like using the word constitutional is simply the reason given to justify the changing of laws based on the degree that the new law actually does fit the constitution, when it feels oddly (perhaps more) like the law is being changed based on the particular whims of the current culture? What prevented the Founders and the few hundred years of courts, judges, adjudication, and legislation to realize that gay marriage is actually a value allowed and perhaps upheld by the constitution? Why now? Why not 200 years ago, or fifty years ago, or one year ago? I anticipate the answer to this question is that the majority values of the population have shifted, or even perhaps something along the lines of: our legal system has evolved from the “primitive” to the “enlightened.”

While this observation could easily expand into a host of other ethical questions (e.g. Isn’t it arrogant to assume people living in another century are primitive simply because they held different values?), I want to for now simply keep the question on the level of the spirit of question 2, that pertaining to cultural influence. Is it permissible that our laws seem to only reflect the current values of our culture, which could change in 50 or 100 years? Maybe it is not enough that I ask this. Perhaps I am forced to dig deeper here upon realizing that the entire concept of democracy is based on the answer to this last question being in the hearty affirmative. I am not so much suggesting that the ideals of democracy be changed to substitute them for something else, but I would go so far as to challenge what it is about American culture that allows the laws regarding what is right and wrong to be changed based solely on what the values of our culture are. What are these values and why do we have them? If it is enough for our culture to simply go with the majority rule and decide ethical standards based solely on what most people think is permissible, then it begs the question of the foundation of these standards? If they can change tomorrow, what good are they? Why should people in fifty years follow the standards of today? Or should they? If not, why not? If this cannot be answered sufficiently, I would submit that the “Republic in Which We Stand” is made of not rock but sand, and we are in the end no better off than nations in bondage to dictators since tomorrow we could find ourselves in chains also, if it be found best to do so in the majority opinion.

Who’s to say this is out of the question for “enlightened” citizens? This same so-called enlightenment type thinking, specifically the ideals of Darwin played out to their logical conclusions (e.g. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life), produced the horrors of Hitler and Stalin in the 20^th Century. Who’s to say if we can keep our footing in the shifting sands of cultural values and avoid the same sort of “enlightened” atrocities? Is Western culture really above these horrors?

I don’t think much is accomplished by any of what I just said, but I think bottom-line it’s pretentious to put too much stock in the opinions of the masses.

Who's the Hero?

2009-04-09T07:35:00.000-05:00

ABC Debate: Does Satan Exist?

2009-04-08T07:47:00.000-05:00

This debate was aired in March 2009 at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, featuring a panel of Mark Driscoll and Annie Lobert answering "yes", and Deepak Chopra and Carlton Pearson answering "no" (sort of). As I pretty much expected from mainstream media like ABC hosting something like this, this was not much of a debate, as far as debates go. The "debate" quickly evolved from opening statements and rebuttals into a disorganized scuffle with plenty of non-sequiturs to go around. However, it is something very interesting to watch and hear the different arguments, though not much is accomplished in what appears to be an intensely edited version of the event. It is interesting to take a look at, if you can stand the slightly terrible interface with this website (beware of ad overload).

How can you explain the resurrection? 4

2009-04-07T07:41:00.000-05:00

I finished the book, fittingly on Palm Sunday in the morning. It has been tremendous to read this wonderful scholarly work on the resurrection of Jesus. There is an enormous amount of information in it, and I struggle to see how anyone could be so dedicated to a topic to devote so much energy into developing an argument such as this one. I am immensely impressed with N.T. Wright as a scholar on this topic and I hope to read some more of his books at some point.

Regarding the content, I am obliged to agree with Tim Keller’s exclamation when he put it down at the end, and say “Wow, it did happen!”

This is Wright’s argument throughout the book, that something did in fact happen on the first Easter, and that something was that Jesus really was bodily raised from death after three days. The explanations modern scholars have come up with simply fall flat when examined, two of which include: what is called “cognitive dissonance”, basically meaning that the “supposed eye-witnesses” simply wanted to believe that Jesus came back; and what is best described as a “spiritualization” of the supposed events, meaning that Jesus didn’t actually rise from death, but the resurrection language used in the Gospel accounts is there because it represents something metaphorical about Christian faith, that Jesus is alive in some spiritual way in the faith of believers, and was not physically brought back from death.

But Wright shows in his next to last chapter how improbable these explanations are in light of the accounts of (1) the discovery of the empty tomb and (2) the appearances of Jesus to his followers, including women as the primary witnesses. Wright shows how (1) and (2) are sufficient and necessary historical conditions for the subsequent belief that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

By sufficient, it is meant that the empty tomb and the meetings with Jesus sufficiently explain the subsequent Christian faith and belief that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.

By necessary, it is meant that the empty tomb and meetings with Jesus are necessary to explain the subsequent belief in his resurrection from death.

The necessary condition is essentially the attempt at proving that the resurrection is true, though I believe Wright intended it to carry a little less force logically (as he stated in The Resurrection of Jesus, Fortress Press January 2006, pg. 22). I would think though that this is what he truly thinks, that it does in fact serve as near proof of the historical reality of Jesus’ resurrection.

It’s fascinating stuff. I recommend reading this book. It appears to be an almost comprehensive survey of all scholarly work on the resurrection from the perspective of history.

Tim Keller speaking at Stanford

2009-04-06T18:06:00.002-05:00

Tim Keller did a speaking tour a little while back, in which he discussed his book The Reason for God (which is superb). Below is a video of one such session at Stanford University. Also below is the Q&A session, which is especially good. For all the other sessions, you can go to the Veritas Forum website and click to Tim Keller's page. For other Tim Keller related media, there is this page devoted to providing all the links.

Q&A:

Em

2009-04-04T09:30:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I like to brag on my wife Emily. There are many things about her that have blessed me incredibly. This is a small list of some of my observations about her. They include:

Her loveliness. I've said it before but it bears repeating. She is distinctly stunning outwardly. But I mean more than just physically, everything that she stands for exudes a certain mysterious beauty that is unmistakable yet I can't grasp it. It's just who she is.

Her gentle spirit. It's that quality of meekness, like that of Jesus. She's not a loud mouth, but always conducts herself with appropriate behavior. It's a leadership quality, but it's a sort of subversive version compared to the world's definition of leadership. She does not shout it, she quietly goes about her business but with a strong dignified air that demands respect.

Her wisdom. I've heard wisdom described as knowing who to talk to, how to talk to them, what to say, and doing so with appropriate respect and prudent speech.

Her good counsel. She is one of those people you envy as your friend, and someone who has deep friendships. People can't help but notice what a good friend she is and it's obvious she is surrounded by a great group of people in her life that know her and speak into her life. I wish everyone would have and be a friend like her.

Her strong family. They are good people with good theology, not only in what they believe but also what they practice and what their characters point to. It shows where she is rooted.

Her mom. Her hospitality and her loving nature shows who Emily is patterned to be like, although one could make a good case that Emily is nothing at all like her mom.

Her knowledge of scripture and of who Jesus is. She knows her Bible and understands grace.

Her faithfulness and trust in God. It is obvious. She is who I think of when I think of Eugene Peterson's definition of discipleship as: "long obedience in the same direction." She doesn't stray much, and before I knew her, she was being faithful to her Lord for a long time.

Her purity of character. She is always consistent to who she is and what she stands for.

Her cuteness and playfulness. I laugh a lot when I'm around her and it's always enjoyable to be with her.

Her laugh. It's one of the best things I can think of.

Her singing. It's one of the sweetest things I've heard.

Her frugality and practicalness. She is tremendously practical and a good steward.

Her intelligence. I mean she went to Duke and has a master's degree. Her ability to multi-task amazes me.

Her responsibleness. She is absolutely dependable and does not slack a bit with her duties. She's a great employee.

Her good credit. It sounds silly but it's a tremendous blessing considering how big a problem this is in America. I found out how good it was when we bought a home together.

How she is always cold and likes me to warm her up. This is just fun.

I wish every unworthy dude like me the same things.

New Texas tax favors strip clubs

2009-04-03T18:14:00.001-05:00

Bad news for the state. I didn't know nude dancing was protected by the First Amendment. Is this really what the Founders has in mind? What the...

How is going to Hell fair?

2009-04-02T18:04:00.000-05:00

Tim Keller gives a great answer:

We run from the presence of God and therefore God actively gives us up to our desire (Romans 1:24, 26.) Hell is therefore a prison in which the doors are first locked from the inside by us and therefore are locked from the outside by God (Luke 16:26.) Every indication is that those doors continue to stay forever barred from the inside. Though every knee and tongue in hell knows that Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11,) no one can seek or want that Lordship without the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3.This is why we can say that no one goes to hell who does not choose both to go and to stay there. What could be more fair than that?

How can you explain the resurrection? 3

2009-03-27T16:25:00.003-05:00

I am nearing completion of N.T. Wright's work on the resurrection that's taken me close to 4 months to accomplish. I have read all the way through roughly 650 pages (including all footnotes), except the remainder of the section on early Christian writings (I read the first half or so and saw the development of his point and skimmed through to see that this point was continually supported in the rest of the chapter). I've just now gotten to the "good part", which is to say the part where the accounts of Jesus' resurrection are actually examined. Up until now, it has been regarding only the "pagan" writings (referring to works outside the realm of Judeo-Christian theology, such as Homer), Jewish and pre-Christian writings (including the Maccabees), and early Christian writings (including mainly the Apostle Paul and also all New Testament writers, but also many of the early Christian fathers and those such as Justin Martyr and Ignatius). It is remarkable to say I am about 9/10 through the book and the Gospel accounts have not been directly discussed. I am anxious to hear the remainder of the historical argument, and his conclusions (not that I already don't have suspicions about what that may be). I highly recommend the book if you can handle the in-depth often trudging nature through scholarly work. There are points when I've wanted to check out, but I've stayed with it the best I can and it has been enormously profitable to read I feel.

One point that stands out to me is the view, consistent in all four of the New Testament Gospel accounts, that a few frightened women were the heralds of the news of Jesus' (or is it Jesus's?) resurrection. This fact is unprecedented for the time period since women were not viewed as having any credibility when it came to public (or private I assume) testimony (in a trial or otherwise), and to have THEM be one of the few consistent matters of fact within the all the Gospel accounts is simply amazing. Were the accounts completely fabricated or distorted for political (or otherwise) reasons, as is so often contended by biblical scholarship on the more liberal side, it makes absolutely no sense why anyone would leave in the fact of the women's first testimony. Unless it were all true. I don't see much of any good argumentation against this point, and the most reasonable explanation, the explanation that Wright is putting forth and in my view which we are ultimately forced to consider, is that the account of Jesus' bodily resurrection is simply and historically true according to the eyewitness testimonies in the New Testament. This I feel is the gist of Wright's argument, and I am hard-pressed to see it in any other way.

How can you explain the resurrection? 2

2009-01-23T11:53:00.003-06:00

If you don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, you are taking a bigger leap of faith historically than you are if you believe in it. Since there is virtually no evidence that anything other than the resurrection took place (other than some wild speculation centuries later at best), and that making sense out of the ensuing happenings in the Roman empire and the rest of the world within short time is almost impossible apart from the truth of the resurrection of this man, the only path left for the skeptic is to invent some improbable conspiracy theories about "what really happened", which can only be loosely based in history, if even we can say that (which I would highly doubt).

Sometimes it's discouraging when I look at the world with all its division and problems, especially in the realm of Christianity it is difficult to cope with. But really, it is all simplified down to one thing: that being what happened the first Easter. It screams for a verdict to be rendered. There is no way to avoid it. This one event clears away all the fog and opens the mind to think clearly. As Paul said, if Christ has not been raised then faith in Jesus is futile and Christians are the most pitiful people that ever lived (1 Cor. 15 ). History and reality both hinge on this fact. If Christ is buried somewhere, the stupidest and most pathetic thing you can do is be a Christian, despite some people's attempts at claiming that it does not matter. But if he has been raised from death, the only thing in the world that makes sense is to love and trust Jesus because he is the only one who can defeat the most relentless and unstoppable perils there are: suffering, injustice, and death. And his defeat is once for all. Because he lives, we who trust in him will live also because God was pleased for all humanity in Jesus' life, death, burial, and resurrection. As N.T. Wright has put it, this pattern of life seen in Jesus is the prototype for humanity and hope, and is the pattern that has been promised by God thousands of years ago and that awaits all human beings. He is the human race's representative and imputes his resurrected life into ours if we believe in him through faith.

How can you explain the resurrection?

2009-01-21T17:50:00.003-06:00

If you do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus after 3 days of burial following his crucifixion at the hands of the Roman government, what is the explanation for the change of the Roman world from pagan to Christian and the parallel explosion of the church and exponential growth and continuance today? Jewish followers of professing "messiahs" in the ancient world, when their leaders died or were killed, either ceased from following these fakers or found someone new to follow. The movements did not continue. But how can the Jewish movement of Jesus be explained apart from the historicity of the resurrection? Why did those professing Jesus as Lord continue to do so after he was killed if he wasn't raised from a state of death?

I'm currently reading N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God. I'm at approximately page 250 of 800, and it's taken me since Christmas to get there.

Online Dating

2008-11-14T10:52:00.004-06:00

If you didn't know, I met my wife on eHarmony. It's been weird to say that, but it's getting easier. Online dating is gaining popularity quickly and its acceptance among more "traditional" types is also growing. Though there are many cautions to say about it, but the benefits include (via Josh Harris):

• Online dating allows for interaction with a much larger group of singles.

• If used wisely, it can provide a context to evaluate a potential date before meeting face-to-face.

• In addition, many singles who invest the amount of time and energy into online dating are generally interested in a serious relationship.

• Finally, there are positive examples of couples who have met and got engaged/married through these services.

If used properly, I think online dating can be greatly benefited from. It is much like anything in the world, it can be used for good or for evil. I am absolutely not trying to defend it simply because I have used it (I hope), and I certainly do appreciate the valid concerns put forth by theologians and authors. I think we must also recognize that God’s providence is always at work, even through mediums such as the internet. Ruth “happened” to come and work in Boaz’s field. The point being that from Ruth’s perspective (or perhaps the author’s—Samuel?), it seemed like chance that she would happen to come across this great man's field, but in fact it was God’s invisible hand of providence working itself through circumstantial “happenstance.” Furthermore, if we keep reading the Bible, we find out that Jesus was a descendant of this couple, so certainly God's hand of providence was involved in bringing Ruth to Boaz's field! More than just "happenstance," wouldn't you say?

Much of the objection to online dating is based on the estimation that less than one percent of those that subscribe get married, out of millions of people (according to eHarmony). My question is, what percentage of the total online dating world is actually looking for marriage in the right way, or even just looking for marriage? Even though online dating has gained popularity in the mainstream, it's easy to forget its shady roots in the cyber-world of "casual encounters" and chat rooms. There are legitimate people searching for spouses, but I would submit that the majority is simply looking for a good time, or at best looking for just a girlfriend or someone to cure loneliness. It is not necessarily wrong to want to have a "good time" (assuming this does not mean sinful), nor is it wrong to have a "girlfriend" or to want to have someone because you are lonely (God said it wasn't good for Adam to be alone ). But if the goal of doing so is not to be married according to God's design and will, then serious questions should be asked as to whether or not one is in sin in his/her approach to relationships with the opposite sex and marriage in general. It can not be forgotten that our culture is not one that esteems marriage in a very high regard as Scripture does and as God does through his creation of the man and the woman. The world is still greatly fallen in its understanding and worldview. It is too easy to let the secular mindset influence how we view dating, courtship, marriage, and gender relations.

Great resource available for any amount

2008-10-29T08:36:00.002-05:00

Reformation Study Bible for Any Amount

Celebrate Reformation Week with a genuine leather Reformation Study Bible (ESV) for a donation of any amount.

The New Media Frontier

2008-10-28T17:44:00.002-05:00

I don't like change. I don't adapt well. I want to keep doing things my own slow way. There's this silly notion circulating out there that the internet has revolutionized media and the way that information is handled and distributed. Who would believe that? I'm stupid for writing that, as I am currently using the technology I am denouncing, sort of like those philosophers that like to use logic to explain away everything, including the logic used to reach their conclusion. Oh well, I guess I can accept it.

Anyway, there is a new book that came out recently called The New Media Frontier: Blogging, Vlogging, and Podcasting for Christ. It's all about how the internet is revolutionizing the way Christian ministry is being done, at least in terms of the means (media) of how ministry is being done and communicated, for surely no one is breaking new ground in how to help people know the Savior. This is the same across generations because the truth never changes. But ministry in the 21st century with its internet is vastly different than that of olden days, like when Gutenberg unveiled his shiny press and Bibles were printed for the first time in history. Or when the first primitive motion picture camera was invented by Thomas Edison who offered to give the patent to the church, which rejected the generous proposal in swift culturally-retarded fashion (from The History Channel's documentary The Passion: Religion and the Movies). As some would say, the methods have changed, but the message stays the same. That's not to say that the medium doesn't preach, because it does. This helpful book attempts to draw the line between preserving the message of the Gospel and letting the medium shape the message.

The "new media" is the new landscape which the internet has been formed into. This includes the infamous blog, where any schmuck with an opinion (myself included) can broadcast it worldwide in an instant without paying a dime. Never before in history has something so useful, and at the same time so dangerous, come into being. To quote a somewhat cheesy but great movie, "with great power comes great responsibility." It's the same with all potentially useful things. Books can be used to praise God or they can be used to control people. Likewise, the internet can be used for beneficial ministry or it can be the breeding grounds for sex offenders (watch Law and Order). This book points out the tremendous potential for good to be done through the "new media", while staunchly warning against its misuse. I would recommend it to anyone wanting to know more about technology that is shaping our world currently, and specifically its influence on Christian ministry.

Past Few Years - Part 6 - My Wife

2008-10-21T09:47:00.001-05:00

My series about reflecting on the past few years is dragging out a bit, but I didn't expect it to go by quickly. Perhaps it will be ongoing. It was supposed to be a methodical, deliberate way for me to recount on the most significant things that have happened in my life in recent years. And I tend to be slow in thought (deliberate as I like to say) so it is taking a while. Plus it's difficult to find enough time to actually be able to reflect and write about things since I'm so slow. But I wanted to provide a quick interim to write a little about the most important person in my life. This is supposed to be sort of the climax of my series here, since this is where much of what preceded culminates. But I feel anxious to get to the best part, so I will give a sneak peak if you will.

When I first started talking to Emily, I immediately was drawn to her beauty. Beauty not only outwardly (wow), but beauty inwardly and all around. She just exuded a sense of beauty; not only beauty but specifically purity. She carried herself with this air of goodness, like I knew and could tell just by being around her that God resided in her and she loved him with all her heart. This was not in arrogance or selfishness, but with confidence in who she was and a contentedness in her soul. It was as clear as day to notice it, yet I'm still mystified by it. I could instantly sense a difference between her and every girl I'd ever met, yet I could not put my finger quite on it.

Not to be overpoetic, as if all moments are dreamy with her, but all moments are real with her. She is practical, hardworking, and reliable. She is pleasant, hilarious, and a joy to be with. I don't deserve the love she has given me, and the willingness and desire she has to serve and minister to me. She is the sweetest blessing I have in my life. How many men could say they have a wife that wants to please them? I suspect this is a rarity in today's selfish and self-serving culture. "An excellent wife who can find?" She truly is far more precious than jewels. Not that I want jewels, but I suppose the point there for me is that she is worth far more than the ring I've given her. The ring is simply a symbol of her worth, yet she is worth far more.

Not only is she beautiful, but she is fun. She is my best friend, and I enjoy being with her more than anyone. She made me get on this slingshot thing at the State Fair that fires you up in the air with giant rubber bands and spins you around. If we would have died, we would have gone out together. It would have been a fun way to go out with her sitting next to me.

She knows Jesus better than I do, and she's been faithful to him better than I have. I know that before we met, she was being faithful to him and trusting him even in the hardest times of her life. She was patiently loving me before I even met her by guarding herself and entrusting her life to God and not to her feelings or her own selfish desires like so many of us, including me, do constantly.

I am a wretched dude. I don't deserve her. I don't deserve a wife or any blessings I have received. Too many times, I don't behave like I should or I turn from my responsibilities. But God has graced me in giving her to me because he has chose to do so in his love. God forbid I forget this fact that all of life is grace and that God is the giver of all things in Christ.

I pray that every man desiring a wife would have someone like my wife Emily. I pray that I would lead, serve and love her well her whole life. Far more to come. Thank you Jesus.

Mark Driscoll on Spiritual Warfare Pt. 4

2008-09-01T22:13:00.002-05:00

Below is the concluding Q&A session on spiritual warfare. The overall learning from this for me is a new perspective and a better biblical basis for understanding what the Christian life is and how it is played out, specifically in the context of spirituality--good and bad alike. So many people these days talk about spirituality as if it's a completely positive thing to be "spiritual." I think we often forget that there are good spirits (angels that love God), but also there are bad spirits (angels that hate God) that are in rebellion against God but sometimes emulate their leader Satan by "[masquerading as angels] of light," (2 Corinthians 11:14) and can be very deceptive. It is vital that discernment is practiced and grown by constantly "[testing] the spirits," as the Apostle John commands (1 John 4:1-4).

Abortion and Obama

2008-08-27T18:15:00.001-05:00

I think that the abortion question, about when the unborn becomes a human or not, stems historically from the farce of evolutionary scientists (Ernst Haeckel, Stephen Jay Gould, etc.) that upon conception of the egg the early phases and development of human life in the womb resembles closely that of a fish, an amphibian, a primate, and the rest of the evolutionary steps leading to humans. This leads to the conclusion that the young fetus is in essence the same as a fish or an amphibian, and is therefore equal in value and can be aborted without moral concern. This argument has virtually been laughed away I believe in the scientific world, as well as the civil discourse world, but I feel the heart of the argument is still being pushed in the same circus of a debate between the left and right, by the new tactic involving avoiding addressing the question anymore. Why, have we reached a national consensus on it? Are we closer to solving the problem? Is there a question that precedes this one in urgency? Perhaps there is. Instead, the real question is being skirted and dealt with very diplomatically (read: political cowardice). Obama says the question is "above [his] paygrade." (in Rick Warren’s “Civil Forum on the Presidency” August 16) What a cop out to an honest and necessary question. There is no one on this planet that doesn't have an opinion on abortion; why can't he just answer the question? All for the sake of avoiding division I presume. How freaking spineless can you be? I don't get it.

The pro-choice culture’s opinion about abortion has the same stance it has since the days of Roe v. Wade, but completely lacks in its argument now that this evolutionary-type answer has been discarded, showing its ridiculousness. The position is still the same: abortion is morally okay. But there is no longer any substance to back it up. Not that there ever was much.

Mark Driscoll on Spiritual Warfare Pt. 3

2008-08-26T18:15:00.002-05:00

In part 3 of this teaching series, Mark Driscoll expounds even further on demons and spiritual encounters. This is an intensely practical (as well as extremely disturbing, not to mention controversial) message where he walks through how he deals with demonic "trials" in Christian counseling, including verbal communication with demons, their militaristic organizational structure, and many examples from his experience. I am sort of stunned after listening to this and not sure what to make out of it. While I am tempted to dismiss it all as craziness, I cannot help but believe this man who has had such a profound impact on my life through his preaching and teaching (just through the internet). I have listened to and read 95% of what he has produced and what he has written, as well as what has been written about him (though I can't account for the immense amount of blog activity on him, positive and negative alike), and I can say with certainty that he is sincere and this is not a facade. I see the total biblical credibility of this teaching, but I still cannot mentally grasp the reality of the spirit realm. It's shocking and unbelievable to me, yet so painfully real that perhaps it is simply overlooked out of fear. I just picked up reading Night by Eli Wiesel last night, and the atrocities committed during the Holocaust in concentration camps I can only begin to explain by utterly evil forces at work in the world. I cannot conceive of a human soul concocting these acts alone. There have to be spiritual influences, pure evil from out there and from within. I don't believe humans are capable of behaving in such ways apart from demonic guidance and temptation, but rather originally created in the image of God and imbued with dignity and goodness at heart. Sadly, I think the fall is so far-reaching and man's rebellion so increasingly incumbent in the world, that the line between the two has been horribly blurred and spiritual discernment is rarely practiced well. I've never heard this topic so much as mentioned with much sincerity (perhaps only Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis), and certainly never heard anyone teach about it. I'm grateful for this teaching series which has been a small revolution in my thinking on the subject. There is still part 4 to come, which I think will be a Q&A session.

As well, Driscoll has added his notes from this teaching here.

Mark Driscoll on Spiritual Warfare Pt. 2

2008-08-19T18:15:00.003-05:00

This is part 2 of 4, where Pastor Mark Driscoll continues his lecture on spiritual warfare, discussing what he calls the "ordinary demonic." This encompasses such seemingly "bland" run-of-the-mill sins such as rebelling against authority, lying, gossiping, and even avoiding sex with your spouse per 1 Corinthians 7. Driscoll rightly points out that these are not exactly what we think of when we think of something as being "demonic" or even "satanic." This is however exactly what they are, as these Scriptures explicitly state over and over again. Additionally, he briefly discusses the "unordinary demonic," which is more what we think of in the realm of demonic spirituality, including such things as satanic accusations, spiritual-physical attacks and torments, false miracles/healings, and demonic possessions. As well, this is a tremendously practical teaching and puts a perhaps new twist on how to view the Christian spiritual life, specifically as in a context of warfare and how to guard against the works and effects of Satan and his minions.

Interview with Lecrae

2008-08-18T18:15:00.002-05:00

Pastor Tim Interviews Lecrae from Mars Hill Church on Vimeo.

Mark Driscoll on Spiritual Warfare Pt. 1

2008-08-12T13:39:00.006-05:00

There's a lot of freaky sounding stuff in here. He is the only person I've ever heard of talking about encountering spirits/demons/forces that doesn't sound like a whacko and that I actually believe. There's some pretty helpful and practical material here also. The reason why is that he makes an effort to say that people who normally talk about this subject and claim to have supernatural experiences with demons are very open about it and will talk arrogantly about their power in whacko-fashion (think the crazy preachers on TV). Driscoll makes it clear that handling spiritual warfare biblically is primarily a humble activity that does not boast about one's experiences with demons and spirits in worldliness, but boasts only about Jesus in humility, following the example of Paul.

Past Few Years - Part 5 - Confession

2008-08-05T21:40:00.001-05:00

As I've said before, I was raised in a Christian home. But there was one aspect of being "raised Christian" that I was not exposed to: youth group. A church youth group is one of the most common organization features within any church. (The only exception I know of is the peculiar group of "Family-Integrated Churches", which are quite stringent about having a church environment where all age groups are represented in a more family-based approach to church. I've only seen this model in really conservative, quasi-presbyterian/baptist churches. I actually agree with them a lot in principle, and I think that a church should be like one big family and we shouldn't always segregate people by age, but all church age groups can learn from other age groups much like a family can. Also implied in the whole idea of a youth group being treated primarily according to its age i.e. younger, and therefore much more immature, is the theory of "adolescence," which in these days of modern psychology is rarely questioned. There is a refutation of this entitled "the myth of adolescence," which is part of the book the Harris twins wrote called Do Hard Things (I wrote about it here)). My parents decided to leave the church I was raised in before I was old enough to experience any sort of community as a semi-adult in the youth group (that darn adolescence). Most, or all of what I know about church (college student ministry doesn't quite count), I know from when I was a child. I will admit, though I know my parents would probably lament this, that I feel like this has stunted me greatly not only in my experience in a church community, but also in my maturity as a Christian (the two, however, are undeniably related). I do not at all intend to say that this was my parents' intent, but rather think that it was the only thing they could have done given the situation and that our family was better off to no longer be a part of that church. The details aren't really important, but I will just say that the church eventually split because of some crazy political and leadership issues related to power-corruption and immaturity. That's what the body of Christ is all about right? It's ridiculously sad to think about.

What I want to say about it is that while it probably was best to leave that church, I still had a far way to go in terms of church community. I still do. I still struggle with being able to commit myself in service to a group of people in a church. I still feel unable to stay focused and keep plodding with people in my life. Contributing to this I think is my strong dependence on family. Maybe it's an idol for me. Deep inside me, at some point, was put the assumption that things will get done by someone else, that I don't have to take an active part in community, that someone will make that committment in my place. When I was a kid, it was my parents and my family that filled the need for community. These days things must be done by me or else nothing will ever happen. And this responsibility is not something I've felt super prepared for in my growing up. In almost every area of my life I have struggled with the idea of a personal responsibility on myself to make sure things are done the way they need to be, whether it be making friends, money management, morality, health, etc. There's some flaw deep inside me that wants so badly to be lazy and let other people take care of the things that are up to me. The responsibility of community is just one aspect of the deeper problem of what I believe is laziness in me.

But I think it's getting better. I know it's gotten better. But the first thing that occurred in me was to actually wake up to the real problem. I think this hit me like a ton of bricks when I got into college and started depending on myself instead of my parents. I got involved with the Wesley Foundation at Texas A&M, which was what I could call my "youth group replacement experience." This is not to say that it was equivalent to a youth group in that it was full of a bunch of silly kids, but more that almost everyone there did have that youth group experience that I missed and it was an obvious trait in them. So in many ways, it was sort of a culture shock to me. I had never experienced a community like that, especially how the Wesley Foundation there is, in which students hang out there all day, and sometimes all night. It was in many ways like a second home for me and many other college students, and some of the best times in my life occurred there. It was also the staging ground for much of my growing up and learning how to be a Christian. I was confronted with my own sin there, though much of it was more a result of just the college environment, and broken down to my confession of it. With this confrontation of my own sin of course led to being tempted precisely in my weakest areas, and let's just say I not only learned of my sin and confessed it, but I also gained the experience of anguishing it. As an understanding of the Law goes, and conversely the Gospel, the more one knows of one's own transgression of the Law, the more one want to transgress it. As Romans 7:7-15 says:

Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

As this says, it is not the commands of the law to blame as if they are intrinsically at fault, but simply to point out the great propensity of human beings to violate the statutes of the law based upon their knowledge and awareness of the law. Implied here is the truth that we have a sin nature in us from birth that is the default mode of the human heart, and the greater moral knowledge that is fed to it, the greater its potential violation. The problem when this enlightenment of the Law occurs in the Christian is a harsh confrontation with one's own total depravity and incapability to live in accordance with its commandments. True humility, I believe, is in part the ability to see oneself in the light, without personal biases towards the truth or falsehood of one's moral characteristics. It is seeing sin where there is sin, and virtue where there is virtue. It does not call pride a virtue, but rather a vice, much to the chagrin of the hardworking American who prides himself in, well--pride.

That's the gist of what I faced in college, in terms of sin realization, learning to confess it, and repent from it. But repentance is really its own entity. I believe confession without repentance is the definition of hypocrisy. More on this next...

Past Few Years - Part 4 - Predestination concluded

2008-07-28T18:46:00.002-05:00

Perhaps that's enough on predestination. I'm reluctant to end my writing on it at this point though, because sometimes I feel like I've misrepresented it and reduced it down to merely its simplistic label. The vast amount of opinion on the subject is vehemently opposed to it, and foams at the mouth upon the hearing of the word. So I don't want to fall prey to this or give license to this oversimplified reaction to what I believe is among the most complex and beautiful, as well as misunderstood, concepts there is. If I've presented it at all in a simpleminded way, I apologize and perhaps the only reason I did so was for novelty, since I am aware of the great amount of emotional response attached to this subject that lends a lot to its attractiveness.

Hiatus

2008-07-21T18:30:00.000-05:00

Sorry to anyone that reads this and has noticed the drought in posting. I have been adapting to a new job at DNV in Houston (Det Norske Veritas) via the referral of my headhunter friend Ryan Morton, as well as going on vacations to Dallas and Vegas, and attending my brother Tim's wedding this last weekend. I promise I am continuing on with writing about my life, so you can stop holding your breaths. New posts are coming soon.

Past Few Years - Part 3 - Predestination cont'd

2008-06-27T07:10:00.003-05:00

Here's what I meant, picking up from last time. I don't mean that everyone acknowledging Christ claims the label of Calvinist (obviously this is not true). There are reservations I have with taking the label as well, since it seems awfully focused on John Calvin, rather than on Jesus and the Scriptures. But my point is that every true Christian believes that God is sovereign over all, that it's Jesus and his power that saves us and it's not ourselves or our abilities that do so. Truly, this is the heart of what it means to be a Christian, to be humbled and ask for forgiveness of sins from God. However, it is my contention that Arminian theology does not hold to this, even though some claim it as their own that truly are Christians. A quote from Spurgeon, which is him caricaturing a prayer of an Arminian, illustrates this better than I can say:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, 'Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.'" (taken from a sermon entitled Free Will--A Slave)

The underlying problem with the Arminian system (meaning that ultimately it is the choice of a fallen human to believe in Christ and be saved) is that in the end the Arminian believer must boast in himself for his salvation, rather than in Christ. The reason is that Armianism (as opposed to Calvinism) espouses a system of doctrine teaching that all humans are given the same amount of grace to believe (termed prevenient grace by John Wesley), and some choose to accept it to their salvation and some choose to reject it to their damnation. This inescapably makes the work of Jesus on the cross merely a powerful suggestion (if we can say it has power at all), rather than a great work of redemption. Now I will fully admit that few Arminians would claim that their salvation was of their own doing, but if questioned logically they are left with no other possible path to take. All Christians, when squeezed in the press of rational consistency, must reveal the pulp of Calvinism. The Christian heart is inevitably Calvinist, since our hope is not in our own abilities, but in the sovereign power of God. (I know some may take great issue with this, so I reiterate here the secondary importance of this doctrine in being a Christian, though as I have noted I believe Calvinists and Arminians would all agree on the main point of God's sovereignty here, despite the stark difference in label and professed doctrinal loyalty.)

Many of my friends that I met in college would hold to the teachings of John Wesley (inevitable since this was at the Wesley Foundation of the United Methodist Church) and those of Jacobus Arminius by association, since Wesley was an adherent to this system of theology. Also, for the person I was closest to in college (no names mentioned), this was a large source of our conflict and eventual falling out, so I am quite familiar with the sentiment of the debate's other side.

I am also familiar because I have often taken the Arminian side, and have switched between the two a few times, whether for emotional reasons or for what I perceived as biblical ones. I was raised in the free will side of the Baptist church and given pretty much the standard Arminian stance: Jesus died for all sin and we just have to accept it to be saved, or: God chose everyone, we just have to choose him back. When I was confronted with the concept of Calvinism, I wrestled for a good while with it, and eventually aligned with it. Upon interacting with others in debate over this, I was forced to evaluate harsher the claims of the predestination clan, and was convinced for a time that it was not biblical. This turning back was due mostly to the influence of these few things (listed with how they were corrected afterwards):

The audio teaching of Dennis McCallum (from Xenos Church in Columbus, Ohio) on Romans 9. McCallum, whose teaching was invaluable to me in much of my understanding of the Gospel in college, interpreted this passage to mean that the Jews were chosen, as it were, to be the vessel by which all the nations of the Earth would be blessed, and not chosen in the sense that they received forgiveness of sin and salvation. This was very intruiging to me and convinced me for a time, but it simply did not hold up in the context of Romans (though this is what he claimed), and especially by the verses that follow which speak very clearly of salvation (10:1). The purpose of this text is to point out that Israel does not believe and has rejected its Messiah, and that God has now opened wide the door of his blessing and salvation for Gentiles. Indeed, Christ the Messiah is the very blessing which the witness of Abraham and Israel pointed to. This is the promise spoken in the old days of a blessing to the nations--Jesus.
Appeals to emotion and personal reasoning. This is the argument used most of the time by those that despise predestination. Admittedly, it simply doesn't seem right when we think that God predestines some for salvation and leaves the rest to their own devices. It also seems to violate the principle we call "free will." While I do agree with the notion of the free will of man, I also think that the majority's conception of it is critically erroneous. I believe that we have a choice to obey God or not, and the decisions we make everyday can be made either way. But I also believe that man's "free" will (which is a bestowal on us from God's perfect creation) has been indeterminably bent towards sin. We are forever free to sin and to will our own defiance from God. We are not free, however, to turn our hearts to the Lord on our own power, since we are endowed with the curse of Adam from birth. We can do the right thing from time to time, but we can never please God with the filthy rags of our righteous deeds (Isa. 64:6). We need the impartation of God's Spirit to us, a regenerated heart to be able to willfully love him, and a new nature to turn from sin and obey Jesus. And it's only by God's free action to give us these gifts and enable us to have faith in him again. In other words, our wills are in bondage, as Luther would say. Think of it this way: Adam's initial standing with God was perfect because God made it to be that way. Adam chose to sin against God by a free action. But Adam could not right the wrong he did through any amount of "free" action unless God came looking for him and granted him forgiveness (which he did), eventually by providing the ultimate sacrifice in Christ. The restoration of their relationship was made only by God in dying for the sin Adam committed, since it is by definition a divine act to forgive and redeem.
My Methodist surroundings. I was surrounded by Methodists, 99.9% of which were Arminians. This isn't meant to be denigration since I have so much to owe to the environment I was placed in at Texas A&M, but merely an account of its truth. The environment you find yourself in is a big influence on the beliefs you lean towards. If you took a Methodist and put them in the opposite situation (perhaps in a PCA Church), I would bet that they would struggle with predestination also. Seeing people you love have different beliefs, and the character and integrity you see them draw from those beliefs is a strong witness to their veracity. Some of the strongest and most devout people I know are Methodists. I love my Methodist friends and I am indebted to the fellowship I have had with them (heck, my wife grew up Methodist), but I just simply disagree with a significant chunk of the doctrine. I just don't see it in the Bible. Much of this disagreement has nothing to do with predestination mind you, but is more along the lines of church practice. A lot of it has to do with the view of women in ministry (more on this later), as well as some of its practical stances on Scripture, homosexuality, etc. On the whole though, I see them as brothers and I would never separate myself from fellowship with them unless a bigger issue arose.

In the midst of struggling so much with all of this and leaning one way or the other, I discovered a preacher that would shape me the most in my life and my understanding of Christian truth. Not by a long shot does this only apply to predestination, but to a large degree its truth was solidified in my heart through the preaching of Mark Driscoll. Odd as it may seem, since he's been known by some sketchy identities (the Cussing Pastor, for one, as labeled by Donald Miller in Blue Like Jazz), but I was moved by his passion for the Scripture and for the Reformed faith, while maintaining his real personality. As he would say, he's a "boxer-wearing Calvinist (not briefs)." In some ways I feel like I've been swept up in the new wave of Calvinism among younger people, which is weird to say. Something about it appeals to white guys in their 20s. I'm not sure what. I think a lot of it has something to do with the whole emerging thing, with the younger generation wanting something new and different from Christianity and the church than the older traditional approach. Like any division, people go to the left (Emergent) and to the right (Calvinism), though I think the orthodox thrust of it is somewhere in the middle. Driscoll's theological push is for the church and its members to view themselves as missionaries in the culture, much like an overseas missionary would in a different nation. The goal is the same: to win people to Christ and disciple them. This is the historical view of the church. The Emergent side would claim something similar, to love people where they are and in the culture they inhabit, but they simply reject the foundation of historical Christian truth and seek to forge new territory.

But this is getting far off topic, so I will end this post here and continue later...

Past Few Years - Part 2 - Predestination

2008-06-25T17:20:00.003-05:00

Reader beware: a post about predestination is required to be really long, so I have broken this one into two (but maybe three or four) sub-posts, if you will.

Perhaps the most challenging question, both theologically and personally, I've ever faced, and one I know has puzzled more than a few people, is that of predestination. It's a subject that is tackled by philosophers as well as theologians and laymen everywhere, and one that has caused so much discussion, debate, and even animosity that few topics can rival it. Everyone breathing has an opinion on it, and many that take a side can be fairly opinionated about it, even rabid in some cases. Well, I've been known to be fairly opinionated and on this topic also, and perhaps even rabid at times. The funny thing is, I've been on both sides of it a few times. I've gone back and forth over this question as my understandings of the Bible, of church history, and of theology have grown and changed.

My encounter with this most difficult of doctrines was not isolated in my study and was never a simple question, but rather has been and continues to be perhaps the broadest and most encompassing of all mysteries of the Christian truth (at least for me). If understood correctly (as I think that I at least have done in part), it cuts straight to the heart of Christianity and into the nature of who God is. Though this was my first genuinely conscious exposure to the idea of God's absolute sovereignty in all things (election/predestination) and its personal relation to myself occurred at a specific time in college, it was merely part of a much broader, larger shift that took place in all of my thinking and in my heart as to the nature and character of God.

To start, my conceptions of God when I began college were insufficient at best, and injurious at worst. Not only was my faith under a time of testing during this period (see Part 1), what was already established in my beliefs was sorely deficient. My idea of God was someone who hated when you drank alcohol and would hurt you somehow if you did. Also, he hated gay people and was just waiting to unleash hell on them. These, I'm afraid, have been the predominant erroneous convictions of conservative evangelicals growing up, especially Southern Baptists (of which I grew up as). (Note: I do still believe that God will let no sin go unpunished, since he is fully just and no one who is identified as an idolater, adulterer, homosexual, drunkard, thief, or whatever will inherit the kingdom of God but rather those that have been washed from these [since we have all broken the whole law by the guilt of only one violation of it - James 2:10] and given new identity in Christ [as in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11]).

Not that these are completely without truth, for surely those that abuse alcohol and sexuality will be held accountable, but this is simply a gross understatement of what God is about. God is not primarily the moral police. This belief is a seriously tragic oversight from the beauty and mystery of the eternal God. It is apparently the same pit the Pharisees of Jesus' day were infamous for falling into--Legalism. Legalism is an attempt to justify oneself apart from God's grace, to any degree I believe. If you think about it, we do it all the time. Every time you say, "well that person is not as good as me because I tithe, or I don't drink, or I pray 3 times a day and he only does 2 times a day, or I have a quiet time," it is so often based upon a legalistic attitude. One problem with this is that it ignores God's grace to me in allowing me to have anything. All are allocated different measures of grace and expected to be faithful with them in whatever amount they are given (Mt. 20:1-16). Another problem is that it ignores the utter falsehood in assuming that we are good merely because of what we do or don't do, and in doing so inevitably leaves the state and motive of the heart out of the question.

This is the jist of what I came to think about God, mainly because I wasn't thinking about him or reading anything. I just assumed that I had him all wrapped up in my little brain and knew what he expected from me (which wasn't much). Further, I wasn't even able to live up to my own standards of what I thought God demanded and all the more I became greatly remorseful over my shortcomings upon learning that what he demanded was nothing short of perfection (Mt. 5:48).

My first serious consideration of the concept of election/predestination was through my brother Tim and a sermon he gave me to read by Charles Haddon Spurgeon entitled "Election". Prior to this, I had heard the word predestination before, but it was always in the contextual assumption that this was a crazy notion and that certainly my Bible did not teach this, despite the fact that the word "predestine" was in there numerous times in several different forms. This sermon made me actually realize that if it is true that there even exists this word in Scripture, then there certainly must be some sort of predestination of something. Spurgeon's words spoke so clearly about what the Bible said that it was startling to me. It was startling because so few preachers actually teach in a plain way so as to just let the Bible speak for itself (that is, expositionally) instead of contorting it to say what they want it to say, injecting sarcasm and disdain for those that may disagree, and not facing the honest, immediate problems and questions that surface when the text is read. Instead, the assumption is made about the text, that it is truly and faithfully understood, before it is taught for reasons such as not wanting to ask honest questions, wanting to please the congregation, or wanting to appear as an expert before people (I would imagine at least).

The same felt true from some of the people I know that didn't seem to take the honest questions seriously. Pat answers were common. To their credit, I do believe that they are convinced in their own minds of their beliefs and that on the whole, the "free will camp" falls under the realm of Christian fellowship, and I would never "major on this minor." But, I would like to try and maintain that this question of predestination really does cut to the heart of the mysteries of God's grace. Believing it doesn't change our ability to be Christians, but it can reveal a lot about God and make a lot of sense out of the world, as well as drastically change how we worship and view him. For me, pat answers are simply not enough to explain Scriptures like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1-2, of which first impressions can leave the reader grasping at straws when based on Arminian assumptions. There is also the question of suffering: is God really in control of it or is he just powerless to do anything about it? I have yet to hear an Arminian argument about suffering that is sufficient without making God merely an old man in the sky with his fingers crossed (this essentially amounts to open theism or process theology if taken to its logical conclusions).

The central issue that seemed to bug me constantly through this is really the age-old question of who God is. The choice of what to believe here about the nature of God and how to behave accordingly is the crux of the entire human dilemma, and I would submit that all error and sin falls under this heading. I want to be my own god and not let him be God. It's the first mistake of mankind and has been ever since. As Martin Luther put long ago, the breaking of any of the ten commandments, indeed any sin or violation of the Law, is really just the infraction of the first two: to worship God alone and not idols. Furthermore, and getting back to my main point, I would submit that everyone that really believes in Christ and trusts God with their lives, truly are what we can call--Calvinists. Wow, that should cause a stir! More on this in the next post...

Past Few Years - Part 1 - Starting College

2008-06-19T07:30:00.002-05:00

I was raised in a Christian home and my parents are the most faithful and trustworthy people I know. I professed my sins at an early age (7-10?) and I know at that time that I understood the Gospel: that I was a sinner and that only Jesus’ payment on the cross in my place was sufficient to “wash away my sins,” and “make me white as snow,” acceptable to God, and take me to heaven. I remember singing that song with my mom when I was very young. I also remember attempting to witness to one of my Mormon friends when I was in 2^nd or 3^rd grade, and realizing that he just didn’t understand what I was talking about. I remember quoting Romans 6:23 to him: that he would die for his sins and without hope if he didn’t have Christ. I remember feeling genuine sadness that he didn’t seem to understand what I was saying about Jesus. I know I was a Christian at this point and that God had completely changed where I was headed in my life through the love and security of my parents.

But the worldview I developed, almost upon stepping into my dorm room into a new universe was without the security and the easy answers to life’s hardest questions I knew back in my parents’ home. Actually the first encounter I can remember with skepticism (which was what I faced in college) was in high school at a book store with my mom. She was looking for a book in the Christian section, so I browsed with her. I came across a book that suggested something about the question of how we know the Bible is true (I can’t remember exactly what it was). I remember being dumbfounded at the notion of questioning the Bible’s veracity, so I immediately began to grasp at straws as to why I believed it. But I came up with next to nothing. In a conversation with my mom at that bookstore, she came near tears when I bluntly asked her “how DO we know the Bible is God’s word?” I guess the shock of her discovering that I didn’t know combined with my shock at the same was hard to swallow. I remember being terrified inside as to the implications of my inability to answer this question. Was everything I said believed a sham? Was I just adopting my parent’s beliefs? Was the Bible the word of God or just an old book?

Later, in college, I would write an essay titled: “Why Do You Believe the Bible?” I sent it out to almost everyone I had the email address of, which in hindsight probably made me the weirdest person some of these people knew. Some of the email addresses I stole off of another guy’s email list in college. So I didn’t even know a large chunk of the people I was sending this out to, and I even gave credit to him as the one who provided the email addresses. I think I was just starting to really use email to communicate with friends, so I didn’t realize how weird it would be to do this. Plus, my first line in the email was: “DON’T DELETE BEFORE READING ALL OF IT”. As I was informed later by the email list guy, this looked very much like a chain letter, though I had never even heard of such a thing. So basically I was a complete idiot. But I sent it out with pride in what I wrote, hoping that it would mean something to them or make someone think. For the most part, as far as content, it was a good paper and reflected the study and research of the Bible I had done on my own time and found to be compelling. The paper itself, however, was shaky in structure, awkward in phrasing, disjointed, unclear, oversimplified, bigoted, judgmental, and expressed well my inability to coherently write (some may ask what has changed since then). But it was sort of my baby (though only 6 pages long) and reflected the immense amount of change I experienced in the first few semesters of my college experience. I had learned a great deal in the field of apologetics without me even knowing the term. And eventually, I had some college papers under my belt that helped my writing style quite a bit.

How I got to that point was a hard road, and lasted about a year (since I emailed the paper around October 2003 and started college September 2002), which actually isn’t that long but it felt much longer. Much of this time was spent alone, since I had a lot of trouble making friends in college, especially during the first semester where I generally didn’t hang out with anyone. I stayed in on the weekends and tried to find any excuse I could to go back home. My first roommate was a 5^th year senior, and was basically the party animal and social king of the dorm (Walton!). I was also noticeably awkward in almost every interaction with him and everyone else in the dorm. Later in the year though, we were decent friends and got along pretty well. But I owe a lot to the influence that my friends in the Wesley Foundation had on me in shaping my spirituality and grounding me in fellowship and support, even if I had some significant disagreements with some of the teachings of Methodism, what with developing Calvinist tendencies and all (perhaps later on this one). That sort of sounds like developing homosexual tendencies. Ha, funny. Anyway, having the Christian surroundings and environment brought to the fore the importance of knowing what I believed and why, especially being in theological disagreement as I was. It helped me face head-on the doubts and questions I had about scripture and Christianity, and forced me to open up the Bible, read books, listen to teachers, and find answers.

Some of the most compelling of arguments for the Bible’s truth for me were those of a more traditional, evidential approach, a la Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel type thinkers that argue for the evidence of Christianity, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and biblical inerrancy. McDowell’s The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (that my mom bought me in high school) was an instrumental guide in helping me discover the Bible’s amazing historicity and accuracy, as well as prophetical consistency and fulfillment. For example, one of the strongest points I ever read was concerning a prophecy in the book of Daniel (9:24-26) which predicts the exact time period, maybe even the exact day, of Jesus the Messiah, the King’s arrival into Jerusalem riding on a donkey’s back in 33 A.D. (Zech. 9:9), his subsequent execution, and the destruction of the temple following. (A recap of this is provided by someone here).

Many more things like this contributed to my increase of faith in the scriptures. Another greatly beneficial experience was listening to an open-air preacher named Tom Short speak on the campus square about Jesus and Christianity at Texas A&M (which was quite controversial I might add, but he was simply a good apologetic evangelist). Some trails I followed, however, seemed great on the front end, but ended up being kind of silly and unfounded, such as the Bible code theory.

All in all, this was one of the most important and shaping times in my life, and I can only credit God in doing a great work on my heart and mind in my first couple of years of college. At this point, I still had many, many problems and shortcomings such as arrogance, close-mindedness, and pride; but it also included times of great humbling and learning about the Bible, which I know have been crucial in my understanding of Jesus and his mercy to me as a sinner. I was also still (perhaps even more) confused as to what it actually meant to be a Christian, to repent from sin, and to walk with God daily (I still do; who doesn’t?). I came to realize just how hard this actually was since I was now responsible for myself in a way that you can’t understand when you’re living with your parents.

That is what college was to me: a great awakening. It was coming to understand that I am to be a man now. No more games. I needed to put away my childishness and move on to maturity. As I was to learn more about later, actually being a man of God and loving Christ was much more than I thought I was bargaining for in these first few years. But I’ll save that for later post(s). Peace out.

Reflection on the Past Few Years - Introduction

2008-06-15T07:30:00.000-05:00

I don’t know about you, but I’ve gone through a lot of stages in my life where my beliefs have taken dramatic changes in course. By changes in belief, I mean significant adjustments in thinking and/or behavior as they relate to God, religion, and spirituality. These changes are acquired largely through interaction with others within the context of the church and, perhaps more significantly, through personal study, solitude, struggle, and sin where much of the real meat of life resides, waiting to be experienced. What I mean is that for me, while much of these “changes” were induced by contact with other Christians and personal relationships, so much of my own spiritual direction has taken its cues from great amounts of time spent alone, in prayer or in thought; or, as I have come to discover about myself, from my own sins and immaturity. I mean to discuss those changes which were beneficial, but also those that were detrimental. A lot of the changes have often been fueled by pride or by critique of others. The most significant changes, however, have been for the better and in the direction of growth.

The times of immaturity (which I still go through all the time) are laced with pride and idealism, and are greatly characterized by some serious plank-speck problems. This is where I criticize others and point out the flaws I see (probably most of which are good observations), but in doing so I overlook my own defects (which are legion) and downplay them by pointing out the admittedly more glaring (or at least more public) errors and sins of others. I don’t know how common this is with others, but I feel like it’s a constant struggle to not fall into this trap of hypocrisy. I feel I am getting better at it, or at least I am becoming more aware of it, which I hope is a step in the right direction in terms of growing and eventually weeding out the pride.

Usually when this happens (the weeding that is), I notice more growth in maturity and in holiness. For one, as of late, I have vastly reduced the anger I experience in the car, or at least I have learned how to control it better. I drive slower (which also helps with gas mileage I might add) and am more content with not getting somewhere as fast. I, along with my culture, am obsessed with getting places faster and jamming more things into the day at lower quality than if I just paced myself and accomplished tasks at a higher quality. But I’ve learned to accept the plight of transportation in Houston, TX a little better and am not in such a rush all the time. Lest I become prideful about my humble patience, I will stop here and merely say that there have been a number of significant times where I have noticed growth like this.

In some of my following posts, I would just like to chronicle them in some way so as to perhaps provide a little perspective for myself and where I am headed, and maybe help someone to know me a little better. Much of my experiences in the past few years (generally starting around my time in college) have shaped me into who I am today, which I know is far advanced from where I started. I would just like to try and trace this path the best I can, and perhaps spur myself on into more growth as I reflect on my past. This is really more like my own personal journal of belief, so in some ways this is purely a practice in spiritual matters and not so much something I really need to share with others, but I don’t have too much reservation spilling some of this so I will broadcast it without hesitation. And just maybe it might resonate with some and cause something good to come.

Religion and Revelation

2008-06-13T17:30:00.004-05:00

I was thinking about my statements on religion, and I had a couple more things I wanted to say. More broadly, if you think about mankind in its context in the universe purely from a naturalistic, relativistic, man-centered point of view (as the culture would have us believe), then religion and anything abstract simply becomes comical in its absurdity. That is, if you take a cue from postmodern culture today and believe that all religions, worldviews, and truth claims from the perspective of mankind are in effect the same (or they are all viewed as parts of the whole truth, much as in the popular blind men/elephant parable**), then you are really left with a ridiculous notion. This notion being that religiosity does not extend past the minds of humans; or, more accurately, that religion (or anything abstract that mankind comes up with) is imposing meaning and purpose on the universe that is not warranted whatsoever.

If the universe is just material, having a beginning in time with a “Big Bang”, and extending on until all the matter is sucked back into the singularity from which it began, then there really is nothing else to the universe. It simply is what it is. There is no reason for religion if this is all the universe is; humans are nothing but exceedingly complicated conglomerations of chemical reactions and electrical impulses that arose from highly intricate evolutionary changes, initiated from the inception of life that originated in intensely fine-tuned cosmological, geological, climatal, and chemical circumstances. Now I do not claim to be a biology expert and I do not know the extent to which parts of the theory of evolution may be true, but I do know that if what hard-core evolutionists teach about the nature of life and reality is true, then there is absolutely no purpose or reason that humans, and the universe exist. According to this theory, it all began with a bang, and it will all end with a bang; with silence in between the end of this universe and the beginning of the next one. There will be no life, no love, no religion, no meaning whatsoever; just elements, planets, rocks, collisions, fire, explosions, and eventually more life-forms that will be annihilated when the next sun burns out. How could there possibly be meaning in this? And how dare anyone claim meaning and religion that claims this naturalistic theory?

Meaning is something that must be infused into something. An engineer designing a machine must begin with a purpose for the machine. If purpose is not defined, then the machine will never come to be; or if it is made with an unknown purpose, the purpose will never be discovered unless the engineer explains it. If the universe (like a machine in many ways) made itself, as the aforementioned atheistic scientists will claim, then there is no knowing anything as to the purpose of it, except that it has no purpose because no mind, no designer, created it to have one. If this is believed, then anything that is thought about the nature of reality is absolute bunk. You have no basis for claiming how something ought to be, and you certainly have no basis for being religious, since the foundation of all religion (indeed all rational human thinking) is inconveniently plagued with purpose and morality.

The best any atheist (or anyone for that matter) has done to explain religion is to claim that the mind’s sense of religiosity and pursuit of meaning is merely an evolutionary strategy that has arisen to help us survive (this belongs I believe to Richard Dawkins). The problem with this statement, as Tim Keller has pointed out recently, is that if this is true, if all human thinking and beliefs are merely vehicles for human survival as a species, then doesn’t the act of believing in evolution fall into this category as well? Isn’t the scientist’s cerebral act of believing purpose arose from chance merely an evolutionary trick played on the scientist’s mind to help him survive?

What we are left with if this premise is taken to its logical conclusion is the absolute destruction of all human achievement. If there is no purpose in anything (and we can’t avoid this), then that is all there is to say. All creations of man are in the end are just whimsical and nonsensical ingenuity. We are highly decorated and complicated sticks of dynamite, waiting to explode into nothing and into nowhere. Yippee.

While I do not want to give the impression that I am anti-scientific (because I am not), I do want to maintain the utter ridiculousness of believing that the material is all there is and simultaneously claiming purpose for one’s own life. In fact, if the material is all there is, one can make all kinds of unprovable statements about the nature of reality and there is no objective way to denounce them since there is no outside or universal standard of which to view them. For example, I can say that the only purpose in the universe is for me to eat corn everyday, or to learn how to juggle, or for you to learn how to juggle, or to care for the needy, or to always wear a 3-cornered hat. You cannot prove that these are true or false, just like I cannot prove that they are true or false. But we are both left with the fact that neither of us can prove anything, so there is no reason to judge behavior or truth claims since all there is material.

The same can be said about morality. If there is no universal set of morals, then I am just as pleased to kill, maim, rape, and steal as you are to love, give, care, and thank. There is no reason why killing is worse than loving, since we’re all just bunches of arbitrary chemical and electrical reactions. Who’s to say that one is better than another?

But of course no one who has ever claimed relativism will take it this far, to where it logically demands to be taken. This is because everyone has the knowledge and restraint of morality built into their natures and into their consciences. We are all made in the image of God, and as much as we try to escape it, it never escapes us.

The end of my claim is that God, revealed in the man Jesus, is the only possible source of ultimate truth and reality. Since he is the only one ever to have claimed to “come down from heaven”, and historically proven it to be true in the resurrection of his dead body, he is the only one with the credentials to establish himself as such. Man’s search for truth, redemption, and the promised-land on his own merit is useless. All our attempts to get beyond ourselves and get into heaven are futile in comparison with God’s attempt to come to us, and bring us to heaven. Religion is useless. We need Revelation.

** There are literally dozens of different versions of this story that I have seen briefly by searching the internet, but all are essentially the same. Quoting it in the way it is most commonly done is fatally flawed, as pointed out by Lesslie Newbigin in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society:

In the famous story of the blind men and the elephant, so often quoted in the interests of religious agnosticism, the real point of the story is constantly overlooked. The story is told from the point of view of the king and his courtiers, who are not blind but can see that the blind men are unable to grasp the full reality of the elephant and are only able to get hold of part of the truth. The story is constantly told in order to neutralize the affirmation of the great religions, to suggest that they learn humility and recognize that none of them can have more than one aspect of the truth. But, of course, the real point of the story is exactly the opposite. If the king were also blind there would be no story. The story is told by the king, and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth which all the world’s religions are only groping after. It embodies the claim to know the full reality which relativizes all the claims of the religions and philosophies.

(pg. 9-10)

The Emergent church - I guess this is the continuation of my crappy series a while back that I never did much with...so Part 2

2008-06-08T07:30:00.006-05:00

Doug Pagitt makes this statement in the perspectives book Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: “The idea that there is a necessary distinction of matter from spirit, or creation from creator, is being reconsidered.” (pg. 142)

Earlier in this section, Pagitt relates this “reconsidering” of historically accepted Christian doctrine (specifically of God being separate from his creation, as in Genesis 1:1) to the discoveries of quantum physics and their partial overturning of understood Newtonian science in the modern world (specifically, the idea of the wave-particle behavior of light is addressed). In doing so he makes the assumption that Christian doctrine is much like science, in that its “discoveries” are merely products of human ingenuity, rather than revelation from God. Therefore he warrants the idea of a theological evolution of sorts since this opens the door for Christianity to no longer be defined solely by Scripture, but instead by any which way that the prevailing culture may take it.

It seems to me that these emergent folks, in efforts to try to see value in other religious ideas (of which I would say I agree with), are actually stepping over the boundaries of Christianity and into what we might just be able to call heresy.

It seems like they do so only for the sake of rebelling against accepted tradition, and to try and forge a new path and new traditions. The funny thing is that 50 or 100 years down the road, I would bet that those that are following this emergent trend (if there are any left) will be firmly established in the “new” traditions of the apparently-still-emerging church. It is impossible I believe to avoid tradition in any organization. Even if you’re trying at all costs to go against the tides of how things have been done in the past, your tradition then simply becomes rebellion. And if your organization is based on rebellion, on always trying to find a different way to do something, then in the end you are left only with questions and empty hands rather than answers and hands full of God’s words, since the real business of trusting what God says is never gotten around to and is pushed to the bottom of the priority list. I am fully for asking questions and demonstrating humility by having the courage to say “I don’t know,” but when all you have are questions and loosy-goosy theology, when your beliefs are challenged and pressed, you may find that the foundations of sand have washed away. In order to get somewhere, there needs to be a solid foundation to walk on, and not as Rob Bell says a “trampoline” of theology. Instead of jumping up and down on the trampoline of theology, and in effect getting nowhere but back to where we started, we need to stop playing around, set our sights on Christ, pack our bags, and walk to him. Just an opinion though J.

Facebook

2008-06-07T07:30:00.001-05:00

I was thinking about how Facebook and other social networking sites are (and blogs for that matter). I think it’s supposed to be really informative about people you know, and help share ideas and info; and communicate better. I think in theory it really can be this way, but I find that I have used it more for the purpose of feeling like I am prying into someone’s personal life without them really asking and wasting any opportunity to actually learn something. In theory I think it’s a great idea, but it seems like the majority of the time I find myself using it in a completely pointless kind of way. Like trying to find out how to add some stupid application or looking at what groups people are in. All of which are complete time wasters and don’t really accomplish anything in terms of getting to know people better or (even crazier) actually communicating with people in a valuable way. I guess that’s not really the point, and it’s supposed to be a huge time waster, but it seems like it has a lot of potential to be a good tool to share information.

I compare it to AOL instant messenger, which was pretty different in that you have access to a much more limited area of personal expression via the profile, which was just a small window. Facebook (and MySpace) has an almost unlimited amount of information that could be displayed on the profile, and many more avenues for communication. And in that way it is more valuable.

But I find that with the greater potential there is also a greater amount of effort put into developing your own profile as opposed to learning more about others and their thoughts. Granted, most of the time the information provided by other people (and probably myself) is plain useless, but sometimes there are things written or shared that are worthy of notice. Maybe I just wish there were more focus on thoughtful posts and discussions, and less on some of the pointless stuff like being a member of a group that doesn’t accomplish anything whatsoever and is just a placeholder because the title of it is funny (or not funny).

Anyway, those were just some thoughts on that.

Blog

2008-06-06T21:00:00.000-05:00

I’ve switched around the blog quite a bit, and modified the title since I think it is a bit discouraging to someone that may come across it. While that was sort of the intention in naming this blog since I was trying to make a strong point with it, I think it may be in a little bit of bad taste to have WHORE written across the top. Plus I deleted a bunch of the clutter that was sort of not happening and pointless. I hope it’s more pleasing to the eye and also more beneficial to read, since I’ve been more regular in writing stuff. There still is the issue of whether people will actually read this, which I think is a slim possibility, but I still enjoy writing so I will continue even if my wife is the only one who looks at it. Peace out.

Tim Keller on Predestination

2008-06-06T17:30:00.001-05:00

This audio clip of one of Tim Keller’s Q&A sessions is very interesting, and he makes the point that even if you don’t believe in predestination, you are still left with an unsolvable theological problem…

3 cheers for my wife!

2008-06-06T16:35:00.002-05:00

I love Emily more than anything on this planet. She’s really cool, and hilarious, and cute. And beautiful J. Just in case you were wondering. More thoughts on this later…

I have a wife…crazy thought…

Religious Nuts

2008-06-04T18:00:00.003-05:00

I recently met a Buddhist lady. But she was not a Buddhist simply because she was drawn to the particular teachings of this religion, but (as I assessed it) more as a rebound from some bad experiences she had in “Christian” churches (I use the term loosely). She was subject to some serious abuse from what sounded like preachers of the “prosperity gospel”, meaning that members of the church should give all their money to the preacher and in turn they will be blessed all the more. Meanwhile, the pastor is driving a Ferrari and living in a mansion, while those givers are left with nothing but desperate faith in the preacher’s rotten character. She was very hurt from these experiences and ended up leaving the church and Christianity as well.

But she took it too far and denounced all of Christianity as evil, based on her few experiences in a small, hick Texas town. Surely the perspective of the cultural transcendence of the Gospel from the backwoods of Texas can be blurred a bit. She said she liked Jesus (even loved him), but “couldn’t stand his crazy-ass friends.” I would be very prone to agree with her that there are plenty of people who claim to follow Jesus that are nuts, and sometimes even wolves in sheep’s clothing. But to dismiss them all by a blanket generalization is just plain reckless. I think there’s a lot of people that are nuts from other religions and worldviews, but I can’t judge the truthfulness and value of their substances based on the character of their proponents. I can look at atheists I would say seem nuts, as well as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc. Really, the only common denominator in the nuts of all these groups is that of humanness. People are nuts! And sinful. People do terrible things, regardless of their religious affiliations. This is just one way of expressing the Christian doctrine of total depravity, which says that no one is righteous (Psalm 14:3) and we all do evil, as it is the nature of our unregenerate hearts.

She became Buddhist when she was invited to a temple and felt a feeling of great peace when she prayed there, contrasted to the spiritual chaos that she had experienced in church. While she admittedly had no idea what Buddhism teaches, her affinity for it developed from what she perceived as possessing value, as giving her peace and a sense of acceptance and non-judgment.

But the thing is, like all humanistic religions, that her religion is essentially her preconceived preferences, not particularly Buddhism or Christianity. In effect, she is not appealing to Buddhism and rejecting Christianity as if they are absolutely mutually exclusive (at least in some moral principles). She is merely appealing to what she already believes, indeed knows, is true. She has already formulated her beliefs prior to investigating Christianity or Buddhism, or whatever. It is whatever gives her peace, acceptance, warm feelings, etc. And this is sort of the prevailing wind of this world pertaining to spirituality. In effect, it is just paganism—a certain breed of selfishness that props up its own religion, worldview, and preferences above what is revealed from God. What characterizes man-made religion is that it always originates from the person. It is always man looking up to heaven speculating about what God (or whatever) is like. If this is, in fact, all that religion is (including Christianity), then it is logical that the tenets of relativism are true: there is no religion better than another; in fact, they are all useless in the end since none of them can knowingly make contact with reality. But humans don’t behave this way. Religion is built into us, even when we want to claim relativism. Take these three common sayings claiming relativism from our religious culture:

“I don’t like this religion; I like THIS one”: This saying essentially appeals not specifically to the religion of the speaker’s liking because it’s superior, but to himself and his own beliefs. This is the opposite of Christianity which says truth comes from God and not from religion or from our perspectives and preferences.
“All religions are the same”: This statement says so in an attempt to be accepting and tolerant, but this is actually just another statement of belief/doctrine and immediately defeats the point it tries to make if applied to itself. The insistence that all religions are the same is, in effect, itself a religion, and the chosen one of secularism.
“Doctrine isn’t important, let’s all just love each other”: This statement of the unimportance of doctrine is actually making a doctrinal statement, since I could make the opposing unprovable statement that rather we should hate everyone. Love (the real type of love Jesus demonstrates by dying for his people, and for his enemies) is very much a Christian doctrine, and not to be confused with the emotional type of love that an American “Christian” may purport.

All this is in effect simply pride in oneself instead of in God. It’s all elevating the human ability to discover truth, instead of in God’s ability to reveal it. Surely it’s an arrogant view that props up the religious musings of the fallen sinner’s depraved mind over the mystery-revealing, all-knowing mind of God who created all.

Jediism Among Other Religions: The Height of Absurdity

2008-05-27T18:00:00.003-05:00

There is apparently a new religion in England about being a Jedi, the hailed light-saber-wielding warrior-monks from Star Wars, called Jediism. It appears to be a group of uber-nerds who have for some reason formed a church based on the teachings of the fictional Jedi character from the George Lucas movies. They have religiously embodied the philosophical theme put forth in the movies called “The Force”, and have sought to abide by it, learning how to channel the Force to do good (as is part of the Jedi code). (This can be seen in the movie as Luke moving something with his mind i.e. using the Force.)

On the whole, in my opinion, this is one of the stupidest and most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of, and reflects partly the decay of Western thinking and our world’s religiously secular futility of relativism. It appears to be the religion mostly of white guys that can’t get dates and spend their days and nights watching Star Wars and playing video games in their parents’ basements, instead of growing up, getting a job, and realizing that Star Wars is a story written by another nerd in the 20^th Century and there is completely no value in allowing it to affect your life in the way it has for these geeks since no one cared in the 10,000 years before now, and no one will care in 50 years or less.

I can think of few things more absurd than what I’ve just briefly looked at about this Jedi religion. I can’t believe people have taken a movie and created a religion from it. I didn’t think idolatry was possible in the vivid way it is in “primitive” cultures, such as in ancient Babylon or in India where gods are formed from wood and metal. But I think this qualifies as a sort of modern-day idolatry of art, in this case a film. The funny thing is, if you read their little “Jedi Code” of what they believe, it’s exactly the same as the spirit of this age. They teach human rights, dignity, equality, tolerance, secularism (separation of church and state), democracy, and—most definitively—relativism. Go here to read their “code” of what Jedis believe. Also, I think one of the main “teachers” is this guy, who is not super inspiring but I think would be a good candidate for mega nerd of the century. I wish it weren’t the right thing to do to mock them, but I see no other choice when something this ridiculous arises.

But if you think about it, any old religion can be seen in this way. If you break Jediism down, it’s basically just rehashed eastern philosophy presented as something “new”. If you look at any man-centered religion, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Voodoo, or any other religion from the grab-bag, it will inevitably involve some sort of speculation created by someone or some culture that offers ideas about what reality is like, exactly in the same way that Jediism does with the Force. The thing that is in common with all these is that none of them really offers anything in the end. They are all just products of the Zeitgeist, or the “wisdom of the age,” as Scripture calls it (1 Cor. 2:6), and are “doomed to pass away”. All of these religions, with perhaps the exception of radical Islam¹, promise precisely nothing if they are taken to their logical conclusions. The best they can do is offer some sort of moral code that may help you feel better as a person, all the while ignoring that there really is no standard that we are expected to uphold and we still stand condemned at the end of the day since there is no real and tangible eternality to them. Or they may offer some sort of “enlightenment” when we die, where we empty our minds and become one with nothing (literally). None of these offers a shred of hope. But Christ offers the “wisdom” and “power” of God (1 Cor. 2), which is the gospel that Jesus has done what no man can do: overcome death and sin and given us life in him.

I wonder how the Jedis (or any religious people) would respond to me inventing a religion that's main tenet is that specifically their religion is wrong. I wonder if they would be tolerant…

Note 1: I think fundamental Islam would teach a salvation acquired by radical sacrifice involving the killing of the “infidel.” This is, in a contrasting way to most religions, a different sort of thing. This sort of Islam promises the fulfillment of all sorts of base human pleasures and desire, since I hear they get a bunch of virgins in heaven to do with what they please. In the end then, this religion teaches that a bunch of murderers and perverts will inherit the kingdom of heaven. This doesn’t seem like the best path to go with either.

My Wife

2008-05-26T08:00:00.014-05:00

I’ve known my wife Emily for almost a year now, and been married for about 3 months. It’s crazy. Sometimes it just kind of hits me like, “a girl sleeps in my bed now.” This girl I’ve known for a year is now going to be with me, virtually by my side the whole time, for the rest of my life. It’s hard to believe because it happened so fast, and I’m still getting used to the idea. Our dating relationship, which took place only on the weekends, seemed like one long vacation with timeouts for workweeks. It was hectic with plane rides, luggage, delayed flights, cancelled flights, late Friday nights getting in, early Monday mornings leaving (to the tune of 4:30am), airport food, and lots of emotional hellos and goodbyes. In retrospect, it was easily the best time of my life up to that point, as well as one of the most exhausting. Since then, things have settled down greatly since Fridays are no longer filled with rushing to the airport after work and anxiously waiting for the flight to land in Memphis (or whatever city we happened to be in). It’s also a great time now precisely because there’s no more of that! Ecclesiastes says there is a time for everything:

a time to be born, and a time to die;a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;a time to kill, and a time to heal;a time to break down, and a time to build up;a time to weep, and a time to laugh;a time to mourn, and a time to dance;a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;a time to seek, and a time to lose;a time to keep, and a time to cast away;a time to tear, and a time to sew;a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;a time to love, and a time to hate;a time for war, and a time for peace. -3:2-8

And even though this verse was ripped off by a hippie band in the 60s, it still rings true. Life changes, a lot of times without your control, but each season has its good things, and each season is inhabited by God’s grace. On a graver and somewhat unrelated note, I’m reminded of the tragedy of Horatio Spafford, in which he lost his 4 daughters in a shipwreck. Despite the horror, he somehow managed to see God’s love and providence in any season of life no matter how horrible, and he penned these paradoxical words: When peace, like a river, attendeth my way/When sorrows like sea billows roll/Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say/It is well, it is well with my soul.

I wish I had that kind of faith.

Anyway, I’m enjoying being married to her. She is a wonderful gift from God and an answer to my prayers. It’s a good season.

The Dangers of Reading

2008-05-23T18:00:00.002-05:00

I think I am addicted to buying books. Amazon.com and half.com have books for much lower prices than you find in Barnes and Noble, and I don’t think I can stay away. For the last few years I’ve really developed a hunger for good books. It’s weird because I used to despise reading in school. In English class, I did my work without reading the assigned books, and always tried to find a short-cut by hunting for Cliff’s Notes or existing book reports so I wouldn’t have to read the actual thing. In retrospect, I probably put more effort towards cutting corners and created more stress for myself by procrastinating like mad and getting bad grades than if I had just read the dang book. Particularly, I really hated history. I couldn’t understand the point of studying the past. When I asked my history teacher in high school about my frustration, I heard the oft-quoted sentence by philosopher George Santayana: “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I understood that it was valuable for important people, such as presidents and kings, to learn history so as not to repeat past mistakes in world policy or whatever, but how did this apply to me, some skinny schmo in high school with a serious social deficiency? Well, I’ve grown out of this immature view, which frankly was mostly fueled by my disdain for reading my history book, and I’ve really become very interested in history. I think the truth is much stranger than fiction; and much more interesting in my opinion. As a result, I rarely buy fiction books.

The danger though I see with my reading, especially with books pertaining directly to Christian theology and practice, is that it can easily lead to the reinforcing of a false dichotomy between theory—that which pertains to my mind, and practice—that which pertains to my actions. This is an Aristotelian distinction, reinforced greatly by the ‘supreme’ mind of Descartes, and does not reflect the philosophy espoused in the Bible. It basically says, as I understand it, that intellectual life consists of that which you observe and ponder abstractly (theoria), and that which you tangibly act on (praxis). So according to this as it pertains to reading books, I can set up my own theory about how life should be—perhaps an idealized Christian-y world where things make sense and I’m content to feed my brain and muse, and the actual world—filled with pain and failure that falls far short of the ideal. This topic is too grand for me to try analyzing here, but I will offer the explanation offered by Lesslie Newbigin in his book Proper Confidence: that in fact the duty of a Christian who knows God as he has revealed himself, is not characterized by this separation dichotomy of theoria and praxis, where life is compartmentalized into that which is in my head, isolated from that which my hands grasp (dare I say vaguely Gnostic?). Rather, it is characterized simply by the single act of belief and obedience. That is, our lives are based on the fact that God speaks truth, and we respond simply by believing him through obedience to him.

Most times, the world does not want to behave this way; instead we want to speculate, brainstorm, navel-gaze, and work up our own utopian theory of how life should be (religion, politics, etc.), and then maybe, if we get around to it, enact the policy or whatever to accomplish the ideal that has originated from our brains. The Bible presents an alternate (and better) solution to the confusion that our world offers. He offers himself as the king, who is to be loved, trusted, and obeyed in all things. There is no speculation required, but simply trust in him who is the Father that knows all.

So how does this relate to reading? Well, I guess the point is that when I read it is sometimes easy to slip into a world of fantasy where I somehow take the true spiritual concepts I read in the book, and wrongly attach them to my own life as if my mind’s resonance with the truth were the same thing as me living the truth that I read. If that’s confusing, I will try and put it in other words: I selfishly ascribe the truth which I recognize when I read it, to my own life even when the two don’t line up. I don’t know if anyone else has this problem, but it is convicting to me that I have recognized this about myself. Perhaps to a certain degree, this ascribing business is due to the notion I put forth, which is I think for the most part subconscious, that because I make an effort to read challenging books, whereas so many people don’t in our culture, I am somehow more righteous than those who don’t. Therefore, since I revere so much the truth that I read, I link the righteousness conveyed in the truth with the very fact that I’m reading it. It’s pretty sick. It seems though that this might be something more common than most realize. I’ve seen some things in other people that suggest this. When they read some new popular book on “how the church should be” or something, and then blog about it because they are apparently such superior Christians because they read it and now want to haughtily promote the ideas in the book (perhaps on Facebook or something), even though they themselves are a far cry from what the book teaches. I believe to some degree, it’s the theoria-praxis dichotomy in action, but at bottom it’s just an intellectualized, churched-up version of pride and lazy theology combined.

I would do much better to simply believe in God’s truth and be humbly obedient to it.