"Great damage has been done to the cause of Christ by those who have sought to promote the Kingdom by compromising the gospel, the only power given to the church that can change hearts, and hence change societies." - James White in his The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration.
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement and I also agree with other points made by White ... but not enough (in this case) to say I should not have signed.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
male female
I'm a complementarian. I understand egalitarians - I just don't agree.
But there's another group I don't understand, for conversation, let's call them "morons". These can be found in both of the aforementioned groups. One of these guys, who happens to be in the egalitarian camp, recently wrote, "And my bullshit detector went off because I couldn’t help but think, 'It’s kind of convenient that all the book[s] about submission are written by guys?'"
I don't know which irks me more, that this guy equates complementarianism with some kind of perverted male dominance position or that because books are written by men they should be discounted. Interestingly he lists several great books on the topic but clearly hasn't read them because he thinks they are talking about male over female rule. As with other distortions of truth this guy makes elsewhere in his blog, he cites his unfortunate upbringing as proof that the positions he opposes must be wrong. He's convinced that his sad childhood accurately reflects these positions and he ignores any reference by those on the other side which confronts the kind of error he grew up with.
Of course his commenters aren't much brighter, one writes, "Unfortunately, there *are* books by women promoting the 'male headship' weirdness. That's always seemed tragic to me - women encouraging other women into such dysfunction."
But why am I on about this now? I just read Jeff Robinson's Q&A with Dorothy Patterson. You can go read that if you'd like but the point is that here's an intelligent woman who is part of my "weirdness" crowd ... and it's easy to see why ... she thinks Scripture means what it teaches. I guess she doesn't understand that the experience of the blogger I'm referring to above, especially with his fine-tuned bullshit detector, should trump Scripture.
But there's another group I don't understand, for conversation, let's call them "morons". These can be found in both of the aforementioned groups. One of these guys, who happens to be in the egalitarian camp, recently wrote, "And my bullshit detector went off because I couldn’t help but think, 'It’s kind of convenient that all the book[s] about submission are written by guys?'"
I don't know which irks me more, that this guy equates complementarianism with some kind of perverted male dominance position or that because books are written by men they should be discounted. Interestingly he lists several great books on the topic but clearly hasn't read them because he thinks they are talking about male over female rule. As with other distortions of truth this guy makes elsewhere in his blog, he cites his unfortunate upbringing as proof that the positions he opposes must be wrong. He's convinced that his sad childhood accurately reflects these positions and he ignores any reference by those on the other side which confronts the kind of error he grew up with.
Of course his commenters aren't much brighter, one writes, "Unfortunately, there *are* books by women promoting the 'male headship' weirdness. That's always seemed tragic to me - women encouraging other women into such dysfunction."
But why am I on about this now? I just read Jeff Robinson's Q&A with Dorothy Patterson. You can go read that if you'd like but the point is that here's an intelligent woman who is part of my "weirdness" crowd ... and it's easy to see why ... she thinks Scripture means what it teaches. I guess she doesn't understand that the experience of the blogger I'm referring to above, especially with his fine-tuned bullshit detector, should trump Scripture.
Technorati Tags: women
manhattan declaration
I signed the Manhattan Declaration ...
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
Download the declaration here ...
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
- the sanctity of human life
- the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
- the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Download the declaration here ...
i had a birthday
I had a birthday last week, my 48th ... Psa 90.10, 12 ...
I've lived 17,532 days. If I live according to Psalm 90.10, I have between 8,035 and 11,323 left. Am I living them right? One thing for sure, while I thought they should get easier, they have not. Lord grant me strength.
I've lived 17,532 days. If I live according to Psalm 90.10, I have between 8,035 and 11,323 left. Am I living them right? One thing for sure, while I thought they should get easier, they have not. Lord grant me strength.
scam v. scammers
Ok - just because there are scammers among the manmade global warming crowd doesn't prove the theory is a scam ... but ... it reinforces that what many have taken as scientific fact simply has not been proven and there is unreconciled evidence to the contrary.
And on the lighter side ...
And on the lighter side ...
Technorati Tags: current events
Sunday, November 22, 2009
stockdale paradox
"This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”
Listen to James C. Collins tell of his conversation with James Stockdale regarding his coping as a Vietnamese POW. Click on The Stockdale Paradox.
Listen to James C. Collins tell of his conversation with James Stockdale regarding his coping as a Vietnamese POW. Click on The Stockdale Paradox.
Technorati Tags: leadership
conscience competence
I learned the Conscious Competence ladder today ...
Level 1 - Unconscious Incompetence (You Don't Know that You Don't Know) At this level you are blissfully ignorant: You have a complete lack of knowledge and skills in the subject in question. On top of this, you are unaware of this lack of skill, and your confidence may therefore far exceed your abilities.
Level 2 - Conscious Incompetence (You Know that You Don't Know) At this level you find that there are skills you need to learn, and you may be shocked to discover that there are others who are much more competent than you. As you realize that your ability is limited, your confidence drops. You go through an uncomfortable period as you learn these new skills when others are much more competent and successful than you are.
Level 3 - Conscious Competence (You Know that You Know) At this level you acquire the new skills and knowledge. You put your learning into practice and you gain confidence in carrying out the tasks or jobs involved. You are aware of your new skills and work on refining them.
You are still concentrating on the performance of these activities, but as you get ever-more practice and experience, these become increasingly automatic.
Level 4 - Unconscious Competence (You Don't Know that You Know - It Just Seems Easy!) At this level your new skills become habits, and you perform the task without conscious effort and with automatic ease. This is the peak of your confidence and ability.
Level 1 - Unconscious Incompetence (You Don't Know that You Don't Know) At this level you are blissfully ignorant: You have a complete lack of knowledge and skills in the subject in question. On top of this, you are unaware of this lack of skill, and your confidence may therefore far exceed your abilities.
Level 2 - Conscious Incompetence (You Know that You Don't Know) At this level you find that there are skills you need to learn, and you may be shocked to discover that there are others who are much more competent than you. As you realize that your ability is limited, your confidence drops. You go through an uncomfortable period as you learn these new skills when others are much more competent and successful than you are.
Level 3 - Conscious Competence (You Know that You Know) At this level you acquire the new skills and knowledge. You put your learning into practice and you gain confidence in carrying out the tasks or jobs involved. You are aware of your new skills and work on refining them.
You are still concentrating on the performance of these activities, but as you get ever-more practice and experience, these become increasingly automatic.
Level 4 - Unconscious Competence (You Don't Know that You Know - It Just Seems Easy!) At this level your new skills become habits, and you perform the task without conscious effort and with automatic ease. This is the peak of your confidence and ability.
Technorati Tags: leadership
Freedom from Self-Preservation
Ray Ortlund on Freedom from Self-Preservation
Peter denied Jesus, to preserve himself physically (Mark 14:66-72). Later he denied the gospel, to preserve himself socially (Galatians 2:11-21). But by the time he wrote his first letter, his heart had been set free: “I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it” (1 Peter 5:12).
What is “the true grace of God”? Not survival, physical or social, but the privilege of sharing in Christ’s sufferings that we may also rejoice when his glory is revealed (1 Peter 4:13). Whatever life thrusts upon us, the true grace of God is to stand firm in that hard place and embrace identification with Jesus.
HT:PC
Peter denied Jesus, to preserve himself physically (Mark 14:66-72). Later he denied the gospel, to preserve himself socially (Galatians 2:11-21). But by the time he wrote his first letter, his heart had been set free: “I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it” (1 Peter 5:12).
What is “the true grace of God”? Not survival, physical or social, but the privilege of sharing in Christ’s sufferings that we may also rejoice when his glory is revealed (1 Peter 4:13). Whatever life thrusts upon us, the true grace of God is to stand firm in that hard place and embrace identification with Jesus.
HT:PC
Saturday, November 21, 2009
mercy
“Mercy is a command of God, yet it cannot simply be a response to a demand. It must arise out of hearts made generous and gracious by an understanding and experience of God’s mercy. It is the hearts of the congregation that must be melted until they ask, “Where is my neighbor?” ~ Tim Keller, Ministries of Mercy, p 135
the gospel
"The law cannot create faith because it tells us what is to be done. It can only announce to those who transgress it what they have not done; consequently, it brings despair in its wake.
The promise [of the gospel], by contrast, tells us what has been done by someone else. That is why it brings life.
Once the law's just sentence has been satisfied in Christ, it is no longer our executioner, but instead plots the course for our gospel-driven life...."
-- Michael Horton, "The Gospel-Driven Life" p. 139
The promise [of the gospel], by contrast, tells us what has been done by someone else. That is why it brings life.
Once the law's just sentence has been satisfied in Christ, it is no longer our executioner, but instead plots the course for our gospel-driven life...."
-- Michael Horton, "The Gospel-Driven Life" p. 139
same old opposition
"In every generation, Christians face opposition to the word of God that they profess. Sometimes the attacks are subtle. Sometimes they are not. The issues vary, but the opposition from the enemy does not. His line of attack is ancient: "Hath God really said?" (Gen 3:1). Has God really said that there is only one way of salvation? Has God really said that you cannot serve God and your money? Has God really said that you shouldn't lust after that woman who is not your wife? And the attacks go on and on." ~ Denny Burk
Technorati Tags: Scripture
gw haox
Well, it's not final, and I'm sure someone will find some way around this, but for those of you that continue to insist global warming isn't a hoax, it's getting harder for you.
Technorati Tags: current events
whiplashing
I'm 50/50 (qualitatively speaking, not quantitative) on what Ken Silva claims as true. That is, I think his quotes are technically correct but he makes links and implications that I don't always see. In that, and due to his general 'tone', to me, he comes across as harsh and unhelpful. Even when I agree with his point, it takes a bit of effort to weed through the rhetoric to get to the issue he is exposing. From my vantage point, I see more harm than good.
One of the harms is that he has created a backlash. I see some who defend those Silva attacks not because they agree with the person or group but because they are driven to be a defender. While I think this is noble, I don't understand why they jettison truth along the way. Others embrace the accused because they simply do not want to be associated with the ugliness they perceive among Silva's ilk. Sadly, they haven't sorted out that truth can still be upheld in a loving way.
Coincidently, I just read Silva's QUEERMERGENT ADELE SAKLER AND EMERGENT VILLAGE while a friend of mine just did an on-line interview with Adele Sakler. In Silva's post, he rightly builds on the postmodern innovator's rejection of knowable truth. For some reason, because we cannot know all truth the postmodern has decided we cannot know any truth. Since they now suppress the truth (Rom 1.18), it is a simple step for them to embrace sin (namely homosexuality - Rom 1.26-27).
Sakler boasts about McLaren, Rollins, and others who have helped her question Scripture and thereby enable her to embrace her sin.
Sakler writes more:
That caused me to wonder if I am "hyper-concerned" with this but then I realized, only in reaction to the onslaught of ideas trying to pervert God's truth. I do not seek these out. I do not mention it except when I find it in the course of my normal reading. And these days it seems the attack on Biblical truth is everywhere.
Note Sakler's enlightened state. The position that homosexuality is sin is to her "rhetoric", outmoded and out-of-context religious interpretations. Wow.
But now to my friend's interview with Sakler. In fairness, I stopped 34 minutes into the 71 minute interview but I didn't sense it was going to change course. In the interview I hear my friend say some concerning things. I sense he desperately wants to model the heart of Jesus but in doing so made some off-target points.
First my friend is learning to "love people without an agenda" because "Jesus accepted me as I am". While I get the 'spirit' behind this he misses the point. Yes Jesus loved him, suffered and died for him while he was still a rebel sinner. But Jesus had a clear agenda, he did this to (among other things) redeem us from lawlessness, to purify us, and make us zealous for good works (Titus 2.14). Jesus then instructed us to do the same. That is, go love the sinner but do so with an agenda (Matt 28.19).
My friend's message is that love is unconditional but he confused unconditional love with us not having a mission, i.e., an ultimate goal. He reinforced this wrong thinking by stating that we all have "junk in our lives" and spoke at length about sin in the church which he and Sakler (1) identified as hypocrisy and (2) as justifying homosexually as consistent with Christian living.
First, yes we have sin. Even as the redeemed, we sadly still sin. But we call it that. We do not embrace it and state that it is who we are - lashing out at those that dare call it sin. My friend infers this by calling it "junk". But the homosexual is not calling homosexuality "junk". They are saying it is ok. Why my friend misses this is beyond me.
Contrary to 1 Cor 6.9-10, my friend and Sakler believe there is nothing inconsistent with "being gay and having a relationship with Jesus." Sakler states that "no one can judge me except God" and that she is "saved by grace". God has already spoken on the matter in if she were saved by grace (which is the only way for all of us), then she would see that. She would read 1 Cor 6.11 as a promise not as "outmoded and out-of-context religious interpretations" used by fundamentalists to beat up others.
Second, it's interesting that they want to say that the homosexual "Christian" deserves kindness and understanding but the Christian struggling with some other sin is "hypocritical". So are these things sin or not? And is the person in sin struggling or hypocritical?
Finally, if I'm struggling with sin, it seems they would have me embrace it rather than speak out against it. Does that make me a hypocrite? Well, that depends on my heart. If I'm honestly wrestling to overcome and simply speaking God's truth on the matter, than no, I'm not. But they don't seem to see this.
Sakler proclaims in regard to her homosexuality, "I'm great with it and fine with it ... and God embraces me ... I'm the happiest that I've ever been." She throws out the Bible as a story that has and needs to change through the generations and accepts her 'story' as the truth - the error of the postmodern (although not new at all) mind.
I could go on but it's basically more of the same. Bottom line, I get - and respect - my friend's compassion. But I'm deeply concerned with his ultimate approach to this sin. In contrast, I also just read John Starke's An Open Letter to Adele: A Response to Queermergent. I found Starke most compassionate in that he spoke kindly yet upheld truth. To speak kindly at the cost of truth is not compassion, it is fear.
Starke challenges Sakler (and McLaren and Rollins) with, "We should not base our knowledge on what we can know but what God has made known to us.
In response to Sakler saying, "There were more important things in kingdom living than where we go after we pass from this world to the next, like poverty, AIDS, the environment, etc." Starke writes:
I agree with him. And I love his closing challenge:
I encourage my friend to continue in love but to add a balance of truth.
One of the harms is that he has created a backlash. I see some who defend those Silva attacks not because they agree with the person or group but because they are driven to be a defender. While I think this is noble, I don't understand why they jettison truth along the way. Others embrace the accused because they simply do not want to be associated with the ugliness they perceive among Silva's ilk. Sadly, they haven't sorted out that truth can still be upheld in a loving way.
Coincidently, I just read Silva's QUEERMERGENT ADELE SAKLER AND EMERGENT VILLAGE while a friend of mine just did an on-line interview with Adele Sakler. In Silva's post, he rightly builds on the postmodern innovator's rejection of knowable truth. For some reason, because we cannot know all truth the postmodern has decided we cannot know any truth. Since they now suppress the truth (Rom 1.18), it is a simple step for them to embrace sin (namely homosexuality - Rom 1.26-27).
Sakler boasts about McLaren, Rollins, and others who have helped her question Scripture and thereby enable her to embrace her sin.
In 1997 I moved to Los Angeles and began living a double life as a Christian and as a gay woman. I began to read Brian McLaren and found him writing things I had felt inside but was very afraid to express outwardly to anyone. In 2002 I went to Northern Ireland to do a DTS (Discipleship Training School) with YWAM.
I met the great Peter Rollins and we developed a great friendship. His teachings and writings on postmodernism and Christianity radically shaped how I viewed my faith. I could no longer hang onto certainty with regards to interpreting scripture. (Online source)
Sakler writes more:
Evangelicals are hyper-concerned with pointing out how being queer is a sin, and that the Bible explicitly denounces homosexual acts. Trust me, I get it all firsthand. But I’m not buying the rhetoric. I disagree with what I have come to consider outmoded and out-of-context religious interpretations. (Online source)
That caused me to wonder if I am "hyper-concerned" with this but then I realized, only in reaction to the onslaught of ideas trying to pervert God's truth. I do not seek these out. I do not mention it except when I find it in the course of my normal reading. And these days it seems the attack on Biblical truth is everywhere.
Note Sakler's enlightened state. The position that homosexuality is sin is to her "rhetoric", outmoded and out-of-context religious interpretations. Wow.
But now to my friend's interview with Sakler. In fairness, I stopped 34 minutes into the 71 minute interview but I didn't sense it was going to change course. In the interview I hear my friend say some concerning things. I sense he desperately wants to model the heart of Jesus but in doing so made some off-target points.
First my friend is learning to "love people without an agenda" because "Jesus accepted me as I am". While I get the 'spirit' behind this he misses the point. Yes Jesus loved him, suffered and died for him while he was still a rebel sinner. But Jesus had a clear agenda, he did this to (among other things) redeem us from lawlessness, to purify us, and make us zealous for good works (Titus 2.14). Jesus then instructed us to do the same. That is, go love the sinner but do so with an agenda (Matt 28.19).
My friend's message is that love is unconditional but he confused unconditional love with us not having a mission, i.e., an ultimate goal. He reinforced this wrong thinking by stating that we all have "junk in our lives" and spoke at length about sin in the church which he and Sakler (1) identified as hypocrisy and (2) as justifying homosexually as consistent with Christian living.
First, yes we have sin. Even as the redeemed, we sadly still sin. But we call it that. We do not embrace it and state that it is who we are - lashing out at those that dare call it sin. My friend infers this by calling it "junk". But the homosexual is not calling homosexuality "junk". They are saying it is ok. Why my friend misses this is beyond me.
Contrary to 1 Cor 6.9-10, my friend and Sakler believe there is nothing inconsistent with "being gay and having a relationship with Jesus." Sakler states that "no one can judge me except God" and that she is "saved by grace". God has already spoken on the matter in if she were saved by grace (which is the only way for all of us), then she would see that. She would read 1 Cor 6.11 as a promise not as "outmoded and out-of-context religious interpretations" used by fundamentalists to beat up others.
Second, it's interesting that they want to say that the homosexual "Christian" deserves kindness and understanding but the Christian struggling with some other sin is "hypocritical". So are these things sin or not? And is the person in sin struggling or hypocritical?
Finally, if I'm struggling with sin, it seems they would have me embrace it rather than speak out against it. Does that make me a hypocrite? Well, that depends on my heart. If I'm honestly wrestling to overcome and simply speaking God's truth on the matter, than no, I'm not. But they don't seem to see this.
Sakler proclaims in regard to her homosexuality, "I'm great with it and fine with it ... and God embraces me ... I'm the happiest that I've ever been." She throws out the Bible as a story that has and needs to change through the generations and accepts her 'story' as the truth - the error of the postmodern (although not new at all) mind.
I could go on but it's basically more of the same. Bottom line, I get - and respect - my friend's compassion. But I'm deeply concerned with his ultimate approach to this sin. In contrast, I also just read John Starke's An Open Letter to Adele: A Response to Queermergent. I found Starke most compassionate in that he spoke kindly yet upheld truth. To speak kindly at the cost of truth is not compassion, it is fear.
Starke challenges Sakler (and McLaren and Rollins) with, "We should not base our knowledge on what we can know but what God has made known to us.
In response to Sakler saying, "There were more important things in kingdom living than where we go after we pass from this world to the next, like poverty, AIDS, the environment, etc." Starke writes:
I believe you have made an "over-correction" to the Church's neglect of these social concerns. There are "other" important things in kingdom living like poverty, AIDS, etc, but the ultimate remedy to these things is the hope that we have in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not our efforts to remedy them in this life. Just the simple truth of "what does a man gain if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" should speak loudly to this. If we look to remedy the poor and sick without remedying their sinful condition, we have only prolonged their suffering.
I agree with him. And I love his closing challenge:
Please repent and stop what you are doing and approving of at Queermergent. Consider the consequences of your practices and your hearty approval of the practices of others. You say, "About 2.5 years ago I FINALLY came to terms with my sexuality. I found peace with myself and with God." Finding peace with God is not coming to terms with yourself and concluding what is or is not acceptable in life. Finding peace with God is only found in the Gospel - the forgiveness of our sins through the cross of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). Please don't abandon the Gospel. The peace, reconciliation, love, and community you and others are blogging about at Queermergent can be found at local any YMCA or community center. The peace, reconciliation, love, and community you speak about is not Christian, because it is not centered around what God has done on our behalf. The hope for change from homosexuality and any sin in this life is not to (as you put it) "pray the gay away" or even making your best effort to be straight. But the hope for change is found in trusting in the power of the Gospel because it is the power of God.
I encourage my friend to continue in love but to add a balance of truth.
Technorati Tags: Emerging Church, homosexuality
marriage and christ
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5.25)
When we befriend the world we are adulterers (James 4.4). The image of Christ and His Church as a marriage union is an important one and is reflected in human marriage. It is a mystery and has only one proper manifestation (pure, love-based, male-female, etc., Eph 4, Gen 2.24). Marriage is meant to make Christ's love for his people more visible in the world (Eph 5.32). There is only one true love and it is found in and through Christ alone.
When we befriend the world we are adulterers (James 4.4). The image of Christ and His Church as a marriage union is an important one and is reflected in human marriage. It is a mystery and has only one proper manifestation (pure, love-based, male-female, etc., Eph 4, Gen 2.24). Marriage is meant to make Christ's love for his people more visible in the world (Eph 5.32). There is only one true love and it is found in and through Christ alone.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
a real view of god
“The design of every false scheme and system of religion is to depict the character of God in such a way that it is agreeable to the tastes of the carnal heart, acceptable to depraved human nature. And that can only be done by a species of misrepresentation: the ignoring of those of His prerogatives and perfections which are objectionable, and the disproportionate emphasizing of those of His attributes which appeal to their selfishness—such as His love, mercy, and long-sufferance. But let the character of God be faithfully presented as it is actually portrayed in the Scriptures—in the Old Testament as well as the New—and nine out of every ten of church-goers will frankly state that they find it impossible to love Him.” The plain fact is, dear reader, that to the present generation the Most High of Holy Writ is “the unknown God.” — A. W. Pink (1886–1952)
HT:The Bororean
HT:The Bororean
the gospel
“Were I asked to focus the New Testament message in three words, my proposal would be adoption through propitiation, and I do not expect ever to meet a richer or more pregnant summary of the gospel than that.” — J.I. Packer, Knowing God
HT:OFI
HT:OFI
Sunday, November 15, 2009
god's will
Kevin DeYoung on God's will ...
DeYoung again:
- that we live holy, set-apart lives (1 Thess 4.3)
- that we always rejoice, pray, and give thanks (1 Thess 5.16-18)
- that we know God's will so that we can bear fruit and know Him better (Col 1.9)
- that we be full of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5.17-21)
And what is that will [of God}? Is it some specific, secret plan God has for us and wants us to spend days, weeks, even years discovering? Not at all. Rather it consists of a sober life, living in the power of the Holy Spirit, and offering praise and gratitude to God for his goodness. Paul's main concern is about how believers conduct themselves in ordinary life.
DeYoung again:
Simply put, God's will is your growth in Christlikeness. God promises to work all things together for our good that we might be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom 8.28-29).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)