The most recent version of this post is available here.
- Home
- What We’re Doing Here
- F A Q
- 119
- Anonymous Asks
- Book Reviews
- The Commentariat Speaks
- Doesn’t Always Mean What We Think It Means
- Flyover Country
- How Not to Crash and Burn
- Inbox
- Just Church
- The Language of the Debate
- Mining the Minors
- No King in Israel
- On the Mount
- Quote of the Day
- Recommend-a-blog
- Semi-Random Musings
- That Wacky Old Testament
- Time and Chance
- What Does Your Proof Text Prove?
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Harlequin Romances, Detective Fiction and the Essence of Prophecy
The most current version of this post is available here.
Labels:
Angels
/
Christ
/
John the Baptist
/
Transfiguration
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Scientific Materialism and The Good Wife
Popular culture is an ocean of leftist muck, propaganda and
uncritical thinking.
Still, there are rare occasions when you run across
something so thought-provoking and strikingly out of place in its lucidity that
you just can’t believe it’s actually on TV.
It is sadly common these days to leave entirely unexamined
the real life implications of one’s philosophical and religious beliefs, or the
lack thereof.
There are about 100 comments that come to mind about the
following scene, but maybe I’ll just let it speak for itself.
Courtroom drama from The
Good Wife:
Alicia: When we left off, Professor,
you said you believed in right and wrong, and that it was wrong to hurt people.
Professor?
Labels:
Materialism
/
Popular Culture
/
The Good Wife
Monday, April 14, 2014
Calvinism: Rotten TULIPs
The most recent version of this post is available here.
Labels:
Neo-Calvinism
/
TULIP
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The Garden of Eden: Stardust
I hope you’ll forgive me a little Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young (or if you prefer, a little Joni Mitchell). I’m going to think a bit about the garden of Eden, and CSNY had something to say about it in their 1970 hit Woodstock.
They close the song this way: “We are stardust”.
I understand, scientifically, that appears to be the case: we are formed from the same sort of heavy materials and elements that form stars. So I think, scientifically, they were on to something.
I understand, scientifically, that appears to be the case: we are formed from the same sort of heavy materials and elements that form stars. So I think, scientifically, they were on to something.
I’m not entirely sure what they mean by adding in the next breath “we are golden” but, being generous, I'll grant a little poetic license.
So I largely agree with their science, and when the penultimate line of the song is “we are caught in the Devil’s bargain”, I find I can agree with their theology too.
But when they close with, “We’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden”, I’m not sure that I can agree with their eschatology.
This whole “getting back to the garden” notion is appealing. It’s a nice idea. Implicit in the statement is a recognition that there is something terribly wrong with the world we live in now. And CSNY suggest that a solution — maybe — is to get back to the state we were in in the garden.
They were talking about the garden of Eden. Now the garden of Eden, of course, is one of ‘those’ stories.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Friday, April 11, 2014
Inbox: Practical Sanctification
I remember sitting through a lot of sermons about theological concepts as a teenager and wondering “What am I supposed to do about that?”
Or maybe I just wasn't listening as carefully back then.
Or maybe I just wasn't listening as carefully back then.
Anyway, I received an email this morning from a full-time Bible
teacher currently traveling across Canada that takes one of those five-syllable
spiritual ideas and makes it extremely practical, something I still appreciate. An excerpt:
“Sanctification therefore is not principally an experience: it is God using the truth, or God using His Word — and the Holy Spirit bringing it to us, opening our understanding of it, and then enabling us to apprehend it. We are then to take this truth and apply it to ourselves or to our lives day by day.”
Read the whole thing here.
Labels:
Sanctification
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Christians and the Law: Answering the Challenge
“And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’ ”.
These words in Acts 15:1 introduce an issue that challenged
the Christian church soon after its inception and would continue to be debated
among the believers for years to come.
But how did the apostles deal with this challenge to the
gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Peter’s attempt to persuade his brethren was based on his
personal experience of how God had worked in the hearts and lives of the
Gentiles who had believed through his ministry. He described how God had not
only directed him to share the gospel with pagan people, but had showed His
approval by bestowing the Holy Spirit on those who had believed.
By giving the Spirit He had clearly shown that in His sight the Gentile
believers were no different from and no less privileged than the Jewish
believers.
This being the case, what grounds were there for saying that
the uncircumcised Gentiles were inferior in God’s sight and needed to do more
to complete their salvation?
Had God Himself made a mistake in giving the Spirit
prematurely to people who were not truly saved?
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
A Further Thought about Screaming Kids
One thing I neglected to mention in today’s post that my
parents did which, as I’ve gotten older myself, has begun to make perfect sense
to me, is that they established control over their children early.
I think maybe once you’ve shown, through consistent
reinforcement, that the war is won, you don’t have to fight it every single
day.
I don’t remember NOT respecting my parents. I remember
disagreeing with them, sure, but not being prepared to outright defy them to
their faces.
On one occasion later on in my high school days, my father
and I were having words in the hall by the front door as 9:00 a.m. drew
closer and closer. Wanting to put an end to his lecture, I announced that “the
government says I have to be at school, so we’ll have to deal with this later”.
My father simply replied, “Well, **I** say you need to stay
here and finish this conversation”.
I was several inches taller and fifty or sixty pounds
heavier than my father at that point. There was no physical contest to be had.
But guess who got his way? It wasn’t me.
Labels:
Parenting
Screaming Kids and the Harvest of Righteousness
I’m fairly emotionally robust, a product probably of both nature
and nurture. I’d like to think I’m not completely insensitive, but it takes a
fair bit to hurt my feelings, let alone do any kind of serious damage. I can’t
imagine what someone would have to do to me to cause permanent harm to my
worldview, self-image or confidence. (My family may, of course, wish to offer
their own take on any spirit of self-congratulation that sneaks into such a
self-assessment.)
But that’s not true of everyone. It wasn’t even always true
of me. In Grade 5 when I first encountered bullies (or more accurately, they
first encountered me), I was insecure, terrified and conflict-avoidant. Mostly
I was perpetually astonished at the intensity of their venom, which as far as I
could tell was directed my way for no reason at all. I walked miles out of my
way to get home from school without being pummeled silly.
Nowadays, at least in Canada, bullying in school is frowned
upon and a token effort, at bare minimum, is made to manage it. When I was a
teen, there was not much you could do except fight back (if you were able) or
run for the hills. Taking your sad tale to a teacher or principal didn't
accomplish anything positive, something I learned rather quickly.
But even being bullied is merely a manageable annoyance if
you have a good home and a loving family to retreat to.
The really emotionally destructive stuff happens at home. No
stranger or acquaintance can hurt you like a loved one can.
Labels:
Colossians
/
Ephesians
/
Parenting
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Christians and the Law: Controversy
“And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’ ”.
These words in Acts 15:1 introduce an issue that challenged
the Christian church soon after its inception and would continue to be debated
among the believers for years to come.
But why was it such a crucial matter for the early church?
Paul’s background as a Pharisee certainly gave him a ready understanding of the Judaizers’ position, but on the
basis of his knowledge of the gospel of grace, he strongly opposed their
teaching. Years later he would explain to the Galatians:
“A man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus ... by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified ... if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:16,21)
Paul and Barnabas fought the Judaizers in Antioch for some
time before it became clear that the debate must be officially resolved.
At last the church at Antioch decided to send a delegation, led by Paul and
Barnabas, to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and elders there.
Whatever was
decided at the council would determine the practice of the Gentile believers
throughout the Roman Empire and throughout subsequent history.
Monday, April 07, 2014
God’s Sovereignty, Man’s Responsibility and the Two Witnesses
In his recent post on Calvinism,
Immanuel made the point that pretty much every Christian believes in God’s sovereignty.
The debate, he says, is not really about whether
God is sovereign, but:
“… what they disagree about is how prescriptive His management of the universe has to be in order for that to be true. Does He have to mandate the movement of every molecule that twitches? Or is it possible that God allows human beings some measure of freedom of choice and action? How “tight” does sovereignty have to be in order to remain sovereignty?”
My personal conviction, and that of many fellow believers
(obviously including Immanuel), is that Scripture teaches both the sovereignty
of God and the responsibility of man.
The “two witnesses” of Revelation 11 appear to me to illustrate
both these principles, and one way in which the two might co-exist (I’m not
suggesting that in every instance the two work together in precisely this way).
Let’s suppose in analyzing the chapter that its words are intended to be taken at face value; that is to say, that when John writes “if anyone would”, it means “if anyone would” (as opposed to something along the lines of “if the sovereign God compels anyone to”).
If we do that, is it possible to see the sovereignty of God on display at the same time as man’s will?
Let’s suppose in analyzing the chapter that its words are intended to be taken at face value; that is to say, that when John writes “if anyone would”, it means “if anyone would” (as opposed to something along the lines of “if the sovereign God compels anyone to”).
If we do that, is it possible to see the sovereignty of God on display at the same time as man’s will?
Labels:
Free Will
/
Freedom
/
Revelation
/
Sovereignty
/
Two Witnesses
Sunday, April 06, 2014
Tolerating Evil: Moral Relativism and the Slippery Pole to Hell
The most current version of this post is available here.
Labels:
Hell
/
Relativism
Saturday, April 05, 2014
Christians and the Law: Why the Confusion?
“And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’ ”.
These words in Acts 15:1 introduce an issue that challenged
the Christian church soon after its inception and would continue to be debated
among the believers for years to come.
But where did this controversy originate?
The Cause
In order to trace this issue back to its roots, one must go
back to the Old Testament and consider what it has to say about the relationship
between Jew and Gentile.
Friday, April 04, 2014
Culture, Politics and Christianity
I’ve been asking myself lately where my loyalties really
lie.
Christendom is part of the cultural mainstream. That is not
news to anyone. That Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, at a cost of something in the neighbourhood of $130,000,000,
would get released at all in
2014 is evidence that Hollywood thinks there are plenty of Christianized or at
least vaguely Christian-influenced pockets out there to be picked.
(No, this is not going to turn into a movie review. Matt
Walsh and Ben
Shapiro have done such fine jobs eviscerating the movie that I
wouldn’t take a crack at Noah even
if I’d bothered to see it. Think three words: “Perversely pagan mess”. That
should about do it.)
And of course, in addition to cross-pollinating with popular
culture, we have our own “vibrant” Christian subculture going on. We have our
own fiction writers, our own music, t-shirts, bumper stickers, and now even our
own films.
They’ve infected us. We’ve (kinda) infected them, at least
to some degree. We’ve become mercantile. And they’ve become aware that
we’re a market, and they’re not so uncompromisingly leftist (yet) that they’re
willing to let a buck pass without grabbing their share.
In this miasma of kinda-sorta Christendom that doesn’t seem
a whole lot like the first century church in the book of Acts — at least not by
any spiritual metric I can easily locate — one wonders what exactly the Lord
would have to say about us, assuming we’d stop to listen.
Labels:
Multiculturalism
/
Politics
Thursday, April 03, 2014
Relativism: Facts, Foolishness and Faith
The most recent version of this post is available here.
Labels:
Relativism
/
Truth
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Tolerance and Relativism
The most current version of this post is available here.
Labels:
Relativism
/
Truth
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
On Christians and Hypocrisy
“Christians are hypocrites.”
When people say it — and they do — they are often thinking of unscrupulous TV evangelist-types whose greed and hypocrisy have been publicly exposed, or perhaps their own bitter personal experience with a person who claimed to be a follower of Christ but acted in a very un-Christlike way.
It is certainly a great shame when people claim to be followers of the Lord Jesus but live lives of self-centredness and prejudice. Often these people make the matter worse by assuming an air of false piety and loudly condemning those who do not match up to their lofty standards of conduct — standards they themselves do not even follow.
When people say it — and they do — they are often thinking of unscrupulous TV evangelist-types whose greed and hypocrisy have been publicly exposed, or perhaps their own bitter personal experience with a person who claimed to be a follower of Christ but acted in a very un-Christlike way.
It is certainly a great shame when people claim to be followers of the Lord Jesus but live lives of self-centredness and prejudice. Often these people make the matter worse by assuming an air of false piety and loudly condemning those who do not match up to their lofty standards of conduct — standards they themselves do not even follow.
Is there a Biblical response to this sort of thing? How should a genuine believer respond?
Labels:
Hypocrisy
/
TV Evangelists
Monday, March 31, 2014
Believers That Sin & A God In Whom Is No Darkness At All
A more current version of this post is available here.
Labels:
Holiness
/
John the Apostle
/
Service
Sunday, March 30, 2014
All Things Dull and Ugly: Monty Python and the Millennium
In 1848, a song with the title All Things Bright and Beautiful appeared for the first time in Mrs.
Cecil Alexander’s Hymns for Little Children.
It subsequently became a Christian standard, and you are probably familiar with
at least some of the lyrics (and almost surely the general concept), so I won’t
include them here.
Also, they are considerably less amusing than the lyrics to
the parody version written by British comedian Eric Idle for Monty Python’s Contractual Obligation Album
in 1980. I include a couple of verses
to give you the general idea:
“All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot
Each nasty little hornet
Each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did”
Each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did”
It goes on in much the same vein for four or five stanzas,
but you get the picture. You can read the whole thing here if you care to, or
if you don’t recall it (it has been nearly 35 years). As a teenager, I thought
it was hilarious … until I didn’t.
My point is actually not
to bang out a few paragraphs about how the members of Monty Python are (or
were) horrible, irreverent human beings on their way to hell. They did, in
fact, take more than a few shots at religion, but many of their targets made
themselves more than fair game.
No, my interest in this particular ball of snark hurled at
the cultural wall is its uncanny accuracy.
You see, they really do a nice job of making Scripture’s
point for it, at least on this topic.
Labels:
Eric Idle
/
Millennium
/
Monty Python
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)