A classic Chandler rant...

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

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

- Romans 16:20

An Opportunity to Help a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Need

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

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

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

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

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

More videos

Happy Birthday Em!

Jephthah's Tragic Vow pt.. 2

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)?

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

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

 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

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?

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

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!

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

You might be crazy

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

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?

HT

Silence is golden

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

"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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

"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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

Did Jesus rise from death?

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

Resurrection Q&A

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

The Hope of Resurrection

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

Prophecies of the Resurrection

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

What is Resurrection?

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

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?

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

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”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

ABC Debate: Does Satan Exist?

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).