robertson declares himself winner in 2008

Robertson Declares Himself the Winner of the 2008 Presidential Election.
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA

In a bold statement that has upset many the Reverend Pat Robertson, founder of the 700 Club and the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), has claimed victory in the 2008 Presidential election.
"Today, I would like to formally announce that I will win, and therefore have won, the election." Said Robertson at a press conference. "The people have spoken."

During the press conference Robertson, speaking in the past tense, gave a detailed account of how he had received the Republican nomination unanimously, "destroyed" Democratic opponent Jonathan Edwards in two live debates, and finally won the election with 67% of the popular vote and a majority of the votes from the electoral college.

Robertson furthermore, in light of what he called "unstoppable truths," called for all campaigns to end and the 2008 election to be canceled.

"God told me that I was going to be elected to the office of President of the United States. There's no stopping it. Canceling the 2008 election would save our country a lot of time and money, not to mention headaches."

Robertson campaigned unsuccessfully for the 1988 Republican nomination for president, but has since been very involved in politics.

[taken from tominthebox via todd rhodes]

Technorati Tags: humor, prophecy, spiritual gifts

spiritual gift of dodgeball

Charlie Parker's spiritual gift is dodgeball!

HT:TR

Technorati Tags: humor, spiritual gifts

interviews with worshippers

Worship Together, aka New Song Cafe, has published a series of interviews with various artists on YouTube. Here's a sample of Yesterday, Today, and Forever by Vicky Beeching. If you love contemporary worship music, it's worth a visit.

Technorati Tags: music, worship

god's best life now

Nakedpastor got me laughing again ... theologically sound with a sense of humor ... it doesn't get better.

Technorati Tags: humor

bolero

Sorry - that last post wasn't cool enough ... here is Stringfever again with Bolero ... sehr toll.

Technorati Tags: music

history of music

Yes, I'm still here. I've been very busy and the next few weeks don't look like they will be any better. But for your viewing pleasure, here's Stringfever bringing you the History of Music.

Technorati Tags: music

sober times for baptists

According to St. Louis Today, the Missouri Baptist Convention has toughened its alcohol policy for people who receive money from the organization to start new churches.

Individuals who help found new churches were already required to sign a statement agreeing to abide by the organization's policy on alcohol consumption. Some of the new language requires those who receive money from the convention to go a step further and "teach the strong Biblical warnings of the consumption of alcohol for all Christians."

I keep getting in deeper and deeper trouble. According to the Pyro guys I believe in a leaky canon because I speak in tongues and prophecy. Jerry Falwell just called me a heretic because I'm a Calvinist. And now I can't get money from the MBC because I drink alcohol. I sure hope no one finds out about my cigars.

Oops.

Technorati Tags: charismata, current events, humor

gilmore on a boat

I was catching up on some Pink Floyd today and caught these interesting videos of David Gilmore's houseboat recording studio.


And then there is just Gilmore playing.

Technorati Tags: music

reflecting christ

"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," - Hebrews 10.24-26

Building on this (as well as 1 Cor 12, Eph 1.22-23; 4.1-16), Frank Viola states, "From man's perspective, the purpose of the church meeting is mutual edification. But from God's perspective, the purpose of the gathering is to express His Son. We gather together so that the Lord Jesus can manifest Himself in His fulness. When this happens, the Body is edified."

Again, Viola demonstrates both perceptiveness and lack of perceptiveness. I like his point that too often we think about spiritual things backwards. If we would focus, as he suggests, on expressing Jesus, then by definition the body would be edified. We wouldn't then get into the trap of trying to create programs to pump up the body when the real issue is the absence of the Holy Spirit. Too many "churches" are simply corpses propped up by programs of men.

On the other hand, Viola missed it by using the word "meeting". He continues to talk about the Church as a meeting and then compounds his frustration by limiting the meeting to the Sunday morning liturgy.

Yesterday I had "church" several times. I started the day with my wife discussing what our future in Christ looks like. We then joined some friends to go to low income housing to give out Tuna Helper. Before going out we prayed, we discussed what the Kingdom of God looks like, we talked about why Ambassadors of the King were gathering in the cold rain to do what we were doing. While we gave out this Tuna Helper we prayed for a few of the families/individuals and we offered some other simple forms of help. Later in the day some friends gathered at Quiznos to "break bread", talk about what God was doing in our lives, and discuss things we might do in the future to share His love. That evening we had a beautiful couple and their children to our home. We shared our dinner table with them, shared stories of our lives, and discussed our love for Christ and how he is leading us to begin a new small group together. We talked about our value for worship and the Word of God - how we want to include these values in this new group and how we want to ensure that whenever we gather together, that all members participate and share with the group out of their own gifting.

So when I went to bed last night, I thanked God that I was able to "have Church" all day long. Frank Viola should continue to challenge us to not get comfortable with what most are doing on Sunday morning but he would do better to remind us that the key reason for that is that that is not "Church".

Technorati Tags: Christian living, community, ecclesiology, Kingdom of God, missional, outreach

imma heretic

Yep - I've gone full circle. Randy no-blog, in spite of my tongue-talking, promoted me from "heretic" to "in-error" to "misguided". But now Dr. Jerry Falwell, has placed me among Bunyan, Owen, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Carey, Boyce, Mell, Dagg and Lloyd-Jones ... oh, and Randy no-blog.

In his chapel message at Liberty University this past Friday, Falwell said, "We are not into particular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact we consider it heresy."

Phil Johnson (a fellow heretic), wrote eight articles explaining Why I Am a Calvinist. The series is worth reading if you are at all confused and open to hearing some Scripture that might "offend" you comfort zone. Here's his summary.

You might be one of those people who doesn’t want to be referred to as a Calvinist or an Arminian. But the fact is, if you are a Christian at all, you do already affirm the fundamental principle in every one of those truths. You already know in your heart of hearts that you weren’t born again because you were morally superior to your unbelieving neighbors. You were worthy of God’s wrath just like them (Eph. 2:1 3). According to Ephesians 2:4-6, it was God who quickened you and showed you a special mercy—and that is why you are a believer. You already know that in your heart. You don’t really believe you summoned faith and came to Christ in your own power and by your own unaided free will. You don’t actually believe you are morally superior to people who don’t believe. You therefore must see, somewhere in your soul, that God has given you special grace that He has not necessarily shown everyone.

You also believe God is absolutely sovereign over all things. I know you do, because you lean on the promise of Romans 8:28. And that promise would mean nothing if God were not in control of every detail of everything that happens. If He is not in control of all things, how could He work all things together for good?

Furthermore, you pray for the lost, which means in your heart, you believe God is sovereign over their salvation. If you didn’t really believe He was sovereign in saving sinners, you’d quit praying for the lost and start doing everything you could to buttonhole people into the kingdom by hook or by crook, instead. But you know that would be folly. And you pray about other things, too, don’t you? You pray that God will change this person’s heart, or alter the circumstances of that problem. That’s pure Calvinism. When we go to God in prayer, we’re expressing faith in His sovereignty over the circumstances of our lives.

You even believe God operates sovereignly in the administration of all His providence. You say things like, “If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (James 4:15)—because in your heart you believe that God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11), and nothing happens apart from His will.

Nothing is more biblical than these doctrines that are commonly labeled Calvinism. In a way, it is a shame they have been given an extrabiblical name, because these truths are the very essence of what Scripture teaches. The very gist of Calvinism is nowhere more clearly stated than in the simple words of our verse: “We love Him, because He first loved us.”

Technorati Tags: Calvinism, heresy

the church is not promoting health

Frank Viola accurately makes the following charge.

... the institutional church is essentially a nursery for overgrown spiritual babes. Because it has habituated God's people into being passive receivers, it has stunted their spiritual development and kept them in spiritual infancy. (The incessant need for predigested, dished out spiritual food is a mark of spiritual immaturity -- I Cor. 3:1-2; Heb. 5:12-14) ... The church has claimed the ground of a believing priesthood. But it failed to occupy that ground!

As before, I certainly agree with that charge but not necessarily on the same basis as Viola and certainly not with the same solution. One does not have to look far to see that most "believers" see Christianity as a "spectator-sport". Viola points to lack of participation in the Sunday service as evidence of this. I point to daily living.

While I can agree that our Sunday morning forms in part promote this unhealthy behavior, I do not see this as the cause. One could even argue that the problems we see on Sunday morning are more of the symptom rather than the cause. Frankly, even if we attained Viola's vision of Sunday morning, if day in and day out, moment by moment, we are not both proclaiming and demonstrating the Kingdom of God, then we are falling short.

We need the mutual edification, etc., that he calls for every moment of every day.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, Kingdom of God

baptism not necessary

Johnny Mac is doing what he does best, expositing Scripture, today on the topic of whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. The short answer, "no".

Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles’ being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3—note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).

The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter’s message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

I'd add that these folks probably didn't understand TULIP either. ;- )

I'll put off further comment since I'm hopeful that MacArthur will later post why baptism is right for believers. For now, you can reference baptism a la Nacho Libre or baptism a la Piper.

Technorati Tags: baptism

imonk and johnny mac

When he is expounding scripture, Dr. MacArthur is at his strongest. This book contains an excellent study of portions of the book of Jude. Those familiar with Dr. MacArthur’s skill as an expositor and his strong commitment to stay close to the message of scripture will be pleased with this book. Dr. MacArthur does mention that he has covered the Biblical material elsewhere, but this book is more pointed towards the issues of postmodernism, relativism and the emerging church.

When Dr. MacArthur leaves his specialty of exposition, he is a different writer, one far less commendable.

- iMonk, Review: The Truth War by John MacArthur

I must say that I share this view. I learned a lot from MacArthur over the years and still do from Team Pyro and Pulpit Magazine. I can point to no other group who so consistently "nails it" when doing Bible exposition. One wonders why they feel such a strong need to leave exposition and deliver content far below their demonstrated capability.

Technorati Tags: current events, Emerging Church

religion in the church

Nakedpastor just posted this excellent piece on taking our religious selves to church. If you've been reading my blog, you know that I have recently been challenged with the question of "how we do church". I think Naked hits at least one of the nails right on the head when he says, "once we get within the walls of a church, we become something we are certainly not". We have this notion of what church should be. This notion is sadly too often informed by our tradition rather than the Spirit. We then condition ourselves to be less than we are designed to be.

Frank Viola is challenging this by reminding us that it is not right to put new wine in old wine skins. However, based on the above, I am more convinced than ever that comparing the old wine skin to Sunday morning services in the western world is the wrong analogy. He's on the right track in terms of something needs to change but I don't think he has the right target in his sights. I think the target is the people of God, the true church, that somehow equate what they do on Sunday as being the Church. We need to change that paradigm. As Naked points out, we are somehow able to do that at other times, why not on Sunday? Why, when we think of Sunday, do we feel a need to and then ultimately do come up with some special, modified behavior that is not reflective of who we are during the week?

This is the change that must be targeted. I fear that Viola focusing on the problem from the tact he has chosen will only result in another set of problems.

Technorati Tags: community, ecclesiology

we need to die

Will at One Thing I Know posted his sermon Dying So That We Might Live. Here are some excerpts and thoughts.

While preaching a minister asked his church, “Who wants to go to heaven?”
Everyone held up their hands except one young boy.
“Son, don’t you want to go to heaven when you die?”
“Yes sir, when I die, but I thought you was gettin’ up a load to go now.”

The truth is that the words "I'm willing to die" are easier to say than do. Of course there are some things we are willing to die for - or at least claim we are willing to die for. The real question is what are you willing to live for and are you willing to live in a way that is dead to yourself?

Robert Capon says, “Jesus solves the world’s problems by dying." And unless we are willing to see our own death as the one thing necessary for our salvation, we will never be able to enjoy the resurrection, even though Jesus hands it to us on a silver platter. If we refuse to die, we will cut ourselves off from ever knowing the joy of his grace in us...

Jesus modeled how to live a life dead to Himself which included submitting to the point of physical death.

James Forbes ... The church can’t rise because it refuses to drop dead. The fact that it’s dying, he said, is of no use to it whatsoever: dying is simply the world’s most uncomfortable way of remaining alive. If you are to be raised from the dead, the only thing that can make you a candidate is to go all the way into death. Death, not life, is God’s recipe for fixing up the world. And we, as individuals and as church can choose to die, because we believe that Jesus specializes in bringing the dead to life again.

So the truth is that we are dying regardless. We can choose to hang onto our lives (or forms of church or fill in your favorite point) but in doing so we live lives that are less than we ought and in the end, we still die. Or we can choose to die now and live life in Christ Jesus. Then, and only then, can we have abundant life. The Kingdom is come now and will only become more complete. But we must first die. Are you trying to live or die?

Technorati Tags: Christian living, Kingdom of God

the body versus the head

Nakedpastor continues to deliver excellent theology in a single cartoon frame. If you haven't added him to your daily reading I'm concerned about your salvation.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, humor

training fleas

"Coincidentally", as I am doing some reading challenging the way we think about church, I saw this PS2 video about training fleas. I think that too often Christians allow tradition to lock them into a wrong paradigm on what Church is about.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology

phil johnson has gone charismatic

Phil Johnson has posted Here's Mud in Your Eye examining Jesus' startling behavior recorded in John 9.6-7. This is the story of the blind man healed by Jesus on the Sabbath. The interesting piece is that Jesus used mud made from dirt and His own spit. I love this comment by Johnson.

It's remarkable that the blind guy submitted to such a remedy. If you go to a charismatic optometrist and he proposes something like that as a treatment for your nearsightedness, my advice is to find a cessationist doctor.

Charismatic or not, isn't this how most (if not all) of us would respond? Too many of us simply dismiss all things supernatural or that doesn't fit within the closed-system of a world that we have created in our minds. But beyond that, there are a number of us that claim to be open to all that God wants to do yet our love for Scripture and our fear of error has closed our hearts to anything we haven't yet read in the Bible. In fact, I'd venture to say we are closed to a lot of Bible stuff.

I like this caution from my friend Robert Ivy in his excellent post on which way Scripture points.

It is curious, then, how some cessationists claim that charismatics err in making much of the Spirit while cessationists make much of a work of the Spirit.

As we read, meditate, devour, pray over Scripture, are we seeing it as a text book with formula, historic facts, tips for living, prophecy, warnings, etc? Or do we see it as a God breathed inerrant communication from God pointing back to God?

When read wrongly, we get tangled up in Scriptures such as John 9. When read properly we realize that there is likely some "spittle" coming our way. Johnson did a nice job with this text.

Technorati Tags: Scripture, Signs & Wonders

easter for the postmodern

The bodily resurrection of Jesus isn't a take-it-or-leave-it thing, as though some Christians are welcome to believe it and others are welcome not to believe it. Take it away, and the whole picture is totally different. Take it away, and Karl Marx was probably right to accuse Christianity of ignoring the problems of the material world. Take it away, and Sigmund Freud was probably right to say that Christianity is a wish-fulfillment religion. Take it away, and Friedrich Nietzsche was probably right to say that Christianity is a religion for wimps. Put it back, and you have a faith that can take on the postmodern world that looks to Marx, Freud and Nietzsche as its prophets; you can beat them at their own game with the Easter news that the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Those who celebrate the mighty resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore, have an awesome and nonnegotiable responsibility. When we say "Alleluia! Christ is risen!" we are saying that Jesus is Lord of the world, and that the present would-be lords of the world are not. When we sing, in the old hymn, that "Judah's Lion burst his chains and crushed the serpent's head," are we ready to put that victory into practice? Are we ready to speak up for, and to take action on behalf of, those even in our own local community, let alone farther afield, who are quietly being crushed by uncaring and unjust systems?

Are we ready to speak up for the truth of the gospel over the dinner table and in the coffee bar and in the council chamber?

- NT Wright, in Grave Matters. Christianity Today, April 1998

Alleluia! Christ is risen!

HT: TB

Technorati Tags: Christian living, Kingdom of God

michael card redefines worship

Michael Card redefines worship in Today's Christian, The (Broken) Heart of Worship

We must never lose sight of the fact that all these laments flow from that first faithful response in Job 1:20, "then he fell to the ground in worship." They are all connected to that initial act of worship by the threads of lament that weave together the fabric of the entire book. Job stubbornly insists on maintaining the dialogue with the God who, for a while longer, remains infuriatingly silent. He continues to offer up to Him all his suffering, his suicidal groanings, his confusion and hurt, even his own deep disappointment with God. He has come to the desperate understanding that there is no other place to take them but to God. They are the only offering he has left. He cannot lose now because he has nothing left to lose. Despite his heartbroken and heartbreaking accusations against God—that He no longer sees or cares—Job sees with a crystal clarity provided by suffering that he simply has no place else to go.

Today we would ask Job to leave all these negative emotions at the church door. They are not appropriate to, nor do they fit inside the narrow confines of our definition of, worship. And so, likewise, those of us who have nothing else to offer but our brokenness find the door effectively closed in our faces. It cost Job everything to teach us this lesson. It is time we learned it.

Worship is not only about good feelings, joy, and prosperity. If this were true, then according to this modern American understanding of worship, the poor have nothing to say, nothing of value to bring to God. While Jesus would pronounce a blessing on those who mourn, we in modern congregations often pronounce a curse. Those who "labor and are heavy laden" can find no place in our comfortable churches to lay their burdens. We reason, "Who could possibly conceive of a God who would want to receive such worthless, empty offerings?"

But Job desperately clings to such a God, one who encourages us to offer everything to Him, every joy and every sorrow. All our broken hearts. All our contrite spirits. Because He is worth it.

HT: worship.com

Technorati Tags: worship

the fear of the lord

"It seems to me, the closer I get to Jesus, the more sin and self I see in me. Now, it's not that the sin wasn't there before, it certainly was. It's just that I am able to see it so much more clearly now than I ever did before. The good news is, however, that I'm able to catch that sin more quickly and make the appropriate faith choices to relinquish it to God." - somebody

Technorati Tags: Christian living

in the church meeting

Frank Viola quotes Watchman Nee from The Normal Church Life.

In the church meetings' each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation' (1 Cor 14:26). Here it is not a case of one leading and all others following, but each one contributing his share of spiritual helpfulness. . . Nothing is determined by man, and each takes part as the Spirit leads. It is not an 'all man' ministry, but a Holy Ghost ministry. . . An opportunity is given to each member of the church to help others, and an opportunity is given to each one to be helped. One brother may speak at one stage of the gathering and another later on; you may be chosen of the Spirit or help the brethren this time, and I next time. . .Each individual must bear his share of responsibility and pass on to the others what he himself has received of the Lord. The conduct of the meetings should bear the burden together, and they should seek to help one another depending upon the teaching and leading of the Spirit, and depending upon His empowering too. . . A church meeting has the stamp of 'one another' upon it.

This is a build on Viola's premise that every time the church gathers it is for mutual edification (1 Co 14.26, He 10.24-25, Ro 14.19, 1 The 5.11, He 3.13-14). To this I have to say a hearty Amen! ... but I also have to cry foul. These are my small group verses. I think Viola is making the same mistake as many others do regarding our Sunday gatherings. Everyone I know (or whose opinion I value) is at least a little bit dissatisfied with what we do on Sundays. Each person then finds their gift area in Scripture and then says, "see, this is what we should be doing on Sunday."

I think we are all wrong. Our problem is that while we know that form follows function, we have this huge elephant in the room called Sunday morning worship a la Western World and it simple doesn't fit anything we find in the Bible. So we try to force our favorite aspect of daily Christian living into that and it simply will not work - or it will work at the expense of other aspects of daily Christian living.

The verse in Hebrews used by Viola makes the daily living point clear. "... exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today ...'" I don't know Greek but I bet that cannot be turned into "wait for Sunday".

Net - I'm with Viola in that we have so diluted what "Sunday" is about that I suspect it is not effective at anything - well, actually, I think it effectively teaches some wrong things (but that's a separate post). I do not agree with him that it should become what he has so far suggested. His point is a mark of everyday Christian living and not a prescription for the Sunday morning liturgy.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, small groups

rethinking the wineskin ... or church as it were

My dear friends Andrea and Tassos are challenging my thinking on how we do "church". They have sent me Frank Viola's Rethinking the Wineskin: The Practice of the New Testament Church and Pagan Christianity: The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices. Both books should be interesting but I'm in a period of "low reading". My work load is unusually high these days and fortunately I am not doing much travel right now. But the latter is where I get most of my reading done.

Anyway, I will try to blog my thoughts as I read and because of that, you might find me shifting as I work through this as well as being a bit disjointed. Feel free to comment and contribute to my growth.

I must admit that my start point for this material is a bit biased. I presume I will agree with most things Viola will critique about the Church but I will differ in that I do not consider what happens on Sunday as Church. My thinking is that what we see in the western world on Sunday mornings is one of the things that Church does but if I had to pick a meeting as representative of "church", then I'd pick the small group setting.

Even that is difficult because I would not define Church as a meeting or place but if put in a corner, it would be the weekly small group meeting. Sunday "services" then become optional - important, but optional.

I see the key issue with our meetings as one of confusing the intent. We have created the "Sunday morning culture" and in an effort to prop that up, we have lost sight of why we are together both at that time and at other times. So I'm excited to read what Viola has to say.

In his opening chapter, The Church Meeting, Viola starts by deconstructing the four "typical" reasons given for the church meeting.

1. corporate worship
2. evangelism
3. hearing sermons
4. fellowship

On worship, Viola rightly reminds us that worship extends beyond our meetings and that it is more than the singing of songs. His conclusion is therefore worship is not the chief aim of why we come together. Of course argument can be extended to say that this is the only reason we come together. That is, we come together as a response to who God is and what He is doing. Net, Viola provides a good reminder of what worship is not and thereby sets straight a large numbers of believers but he hasn't completed the conversation regarding worship in the corporate setting.

On evangelism, Viola rightly reminds us that the majority of evangelism in Scripture occurred outside of the corporate setting and that Paul teaches that the church gathering is primarily for believers. Again I say AMEN - great reminder. Too many wrongly think that the Church is the Sunday gathering and further that error by recognizing the western culture norm of non-believers showing up at those meeting. They cannot resist the opportunity to "witness" to those and in their zeal completely lose sight of what the Church needs.

The next point is on the manner of sharing the teaching of the Apostles. Viola suggests that "preaching" by a special speaker is not normative in the regular gathering but reserved for special meetings. I'm not completely convinced at that same time I completely agree that we have abdicated all teaching to the paid speaker and taken away from the believer all responsibility for learning and teaching. This is very wrong. But I'm not as concerned as Viola about the format of the experience on Sunday morning because I liken that to the special meeting and not the primary gathering that he is dealing with.

Finally comes the point regarding fellowship. As with the above points, I agree with the concern. Fellowship is a value. It is an outflow of all that we do as believers. We do not gather for fellowship but as we gather, fellowship happens. I have been part of many "committees" charged with how to increase the fellowship at the church gatherings and I am sickened by the suggestions. They ultimately evolve to abandoning the true purpose of our gathering and substituting this with potlucks, name tags, welcome centers, etc.. It's unbelievable how far a well-intentioned believer will go once they forget why they are there.

So - I'm looking forward to the challenges Viola offers. Feel free to join in my learning.

Technorati Tags: Christian living, community, ecclesiology

murphy on technology

Murphy's Technology Laws

1. You can never tell which way the train went by looking at the track.
2. Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
3. Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.
4. Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.
5. If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
6. The opulence of the front office decor varies inversely with the fundamental solvency of the firm.
7. The attention span of a computer is only as long as it electrical cord.
8. An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
9. Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
10. All great discoveries are made by mistake.
11. Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
12. Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget.
13. All's well that ends.
14. A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.
15. The first myth of management is that it exists.
16. A failure will not appear till a unit has passed final inspection.
17. New systems generate new problems.
18. To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.
19. We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything.
20. Any given program, when running, is obsolete.
21. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
22. A computer makes as many mistakes in two seconds as 20 men working 20 years make.
23. The faster a computer is, the faster it will reach a crashed state.
24. Nothing motivates a man more than to see his boss putting in an honest day's work.
25. Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.
26. The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the fabricator and impossible for the serviceman.
27. To spot the expert, pick the one who predicts the job will take the longest and cost the most.
28. After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done.
29. Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable and three parts which are still under development.
30. A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.
31. If mathematically you end up with the incorrect answer, try multiplying by the page number.
32. Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable.
33. Give all orders verbally. Never write anything down that might go into a "Pearl Harbor File."
34. Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, volume, humidity, and other variables the organism will do as it damn well pleases.
35. If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.
36. The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.
37. In designing any type of construction, no overall dimension can be totaled correctly after 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The correct total will become self-evident at 8:15 a.m. on Monday.
38. Fill what's empty. Empty what's full. And scratch where it itches.
39. All things are possible except skiing through a revolving door.
40. The only perfect science is hind-sight.
41. Work smarder and not harder and be careful of yor speling.
42. If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.
43. If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
44. When all else fails, read the instructions.
45. If there is a possibility of several things going wrong the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong.
46. Everything that goes up must come down.
47. Any instrument when dropped will roll into the least accessible corner.
48. Any simple theory will be worded in the most complicated way.
49. Build a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it.
50. The degree of technical competence is inversely proportional to the level of management.
51. Any attempt to print Murphy's laws will jam the printer.

another reason to buy an ipod

iPod's can save your life! This iPod saved the life of Sergeant Kevin Garrad of the 3rd Infantry Division. Ok, his vest probably helped too but this makes for a better story.

Technorati Tags: current events, technical

the man in the arena

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

-- Teddy Roosevelt, “The Man In The Arena”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, France, April 23, 1910

Technorati Tags: Christian living

keller on the gospel

Here is Tim Keller's Redeemer Vision Paper #1, The Gospel: Key to Change.

The Greek term “gospel” (ev-angelion) distinguished the Christian message from that of other religions. An 'ev-angel' was news of a great historical event, such as a victory in war or the ascension of a new king, that changed the listeners’ condition and required a response from the listener. So the gospel is news of what God has done to reach us. It is not advice about what we must do to reach God. What is this news?

God has entered the world in Jesus Christ to achieve a salvation that we could not achieve for ourselves which now 1) converts and transforms individuals, forming them into a new humanity, and eventually 2) will renew the whole world And it is good news in three important ways.
1. The gospel is the good news of gracious acceptance. Jesus lived the life we should live. He also paid the penalty we owe for the rebellious life we do live. He did this in our place (Isaiah 53:4-10; 2 Cor 5:21; Mark 10:45). We are not reconciled to God through our efforts and record, as in all other religions, but through his efforts and record. Christians who trust in Christ for their acceptance with God, rather than in their own moral character, commitment, or performance, are simul iustus et peccator- simultaneously sinful yet accepted. We are more flawed and sinful than we ever dared believe, yet we are more loved and accepted than we ever dared hope at the same time.

Without this unique understanding of grace-salvation, religions have to paint God as either a demanding, holy God who is placated by back-breaking moral effort, or as what C.S. Lewis calls ‘a senile, old benevolence’ who tolerates everyone no matter how they live. The problem is that if I think I have a relationship with God because I am living morally according to his standards, it does not move me to the depths to think of my salvation. I earned it. There is no joy, amazement, or tears. I am not galvanized and transformed from the inside. On the other hand, if I think I have a relationship with God because the Divine just embraces us all, no matter what how we live— that also does not move me to the depths. I simply have the attitude of Voltaire, who, on his deathbed famously said, “Of course God forgives—that’s his job.” Any effort to take away the idea of Christ’s substitutionary atonement and replace it with a moralism (i.e., being moral, working for others, imitating Jesus) robs the gospel of its power to change us from the inside out.

The gospel is, therefore, radically different from religion. Religion operates on the principle: "I obey, therefore I am accepted". The gospel operates on the principle: "I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey." So the gospel differs from both religion and irreligion. Not only can you seek to be your own ‘lord and savior’ by breaking the law of God (i.e., through irreligion), you can also do so by keeping the law in order to earn your salvation (i.e., through religion). A lack of deep belief in the gospel is the main cause of spiritual deadness, fear, and pride in Christians, because our hearts continue to act on the basis “I obey, therefore, I am accepted.” If we fail to forgive others--that is not simply a lack of obedience, but a failure to believe we are saved by grace, too. If we lie in order to cover up a mistake--that is not simply a lack of obedience, but a failure to find our acceptance in God rather than in human approval. So we do not ‘get saved’ by believing the gospel and then ‘grow’ by trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. Believing the gospel is not only the way to meet God, but also the way to grow into him.

2. The gospel is the good news of changed lives. Paul says to Christians, ‘your life is hid with Christ in God’ (Col 3:3), and in numerous places he says that we are now ‘in Him.’ This means, on the one hand, that the Father accepts us in Christ and treats us as if we had done all that Jesus has done (cf. Col 3:2a). But this is also means Christ’s life comes into us by the Spirit and shapes us into a new kind of person. The gospel is not just a truth about us that we affirm with our minds, it is also a reality we must experience in our hearts and souls. For example, In 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 Paul wants the people to give an offering to the poor. He says, “I don’t want to order you. I don’t want this offering to simply be the response to my demand.” He doesn’t put pressure directly on the will (saying ‘I’m an apostle and this is your duty to me!’) nor pressure directly on the emotions (telling them stories about how much the poor are suffering and how much more they have than the sufferers). Instead, Paul vividly and unforgettably says, “You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9). When he says ‘you know the grace’—he uses a powerful image, bringing Jesus’ salvation into the realm of money and wealth and poverty. He moves them by a ‘spiritual recollection’ of the gospel. Paul is saying, ‘Think on his costly grace. Think on that grace until you are changed into generous people by the gospel in your hearts.’ So the solution to stinginess is a re-orientation to the generosity of Christ in the gospel, where he poured out his wealth for you. Now you don’t have to worry about money—the cross proves God’s care for you and gives you security. Now you don’t have to envy any one else’s money. Jesus’ love and salvation confers on you a remarkable status—one that money cannot give you.

Paul does the same thing in Ephesians 5:25ff, where he urges husbands to be faithful to their wives. What is the point? What makes you a sexually faithful spouse, a generous-not avaricious- person, a good parent and/or child is not just redoubled effort to follow the example of Christ. Rather, it is deepening your understanding of the salvation of Christ and living out of the changes that understanding makes in your heart—the seat of your mind, will, and emotions. Faith in the gospel re-structures our motivations, our self-understanding and identity, and our view of the world. Behavioral compliance to rules without heart-change will be superficial and fleeting. The gospel changes your heart.

3. The gospel is the good news of the new world coming. The plot-line of the Bible is this:
1) God created the world,
2) The world and humanity fell into sin and decay,
3) But God sends his Son to redeem the world and create a new humanity, and
4) Eventually the whole world will be renewed. Death, decay, injustice, and suffering will be all removed.

The gospel then is not just about individual happiness and fulfillment. It is not just a wonderful plan for 'my life' but a wonderful plan for the world. It is about the coming of God's kingdom to renew everything. Gospel-centered churches do not only urge individuals to be converted, but also to seek peace and justice in our cities and in our world

Christ wins our salvation through losing, achieves power through weakness and service, and comes to wealth via giving all away. Those who receive his salvation are not the strong and accomplished but those who admit that they are weak and lost. This pattern creates an 'alternate kingdom' or 'city' (Matt.5:14-16). in which there is a complete reversal of the values of the world with regard to power, recognition, status, and wealth. When we understand that we are saved by sheer grace through Christ, we stop seeking salvation in these things. The reversal of the cross, therefore, liberates us from bondage to the power of material things and worldly status in our lives. The gospel, therefore, creates a people with a whole alternate way of being human. Racial and class superiority, accrual of money and power at the expense of others, yearning for popularity and recognition--all these things are marks of living in the world, and are the opposite of the mindset of the kingdom (Luke 6:20-26).

Conclusion
All of the above are important ‘perspectives’ on the gospel. The first stresses the doctrinal content of the gospel. The gospel is the news that Jesus Christ died and rose for our salvation in history. The second stresses the personal individual impact of the gospel. The gospel is a transforming grace that changes our hearts and inmost motives. The third stresses the social impact of the gospel. The gospel brings a new ‘order’ in which believers no longer are controlled by material goods or worldly status and have solidarity with others across customary social barriers. These three ‘perspectives’ are all Biblical and should be kept together. There is a tendency for Christians and churches to focus on just one of these perspectives and ignore the others. However they are inseperable and inter-dependent on one another.

If, for example, you stressed the social perspective to the exclusion of others, you might call loudly for social justice, but your ministry will not convert people and give them the changed lives they need to persevere in humbly serving the needs of the poor. If you stress the doctrinal perspective to the exclusion of the experiential and social, you might have a ministry that is doctrinally accurate but it will not produce changed lives, so why should anyone believe your doctrine? If you over-stress the personal perspective, you might ‘psychologize’ the gospel so that it is presented as strictly a way for an individual to overcome his or her guilt and unhappiness. But it will not get the person out of him or herself—which is what you need most to be happy. We were built by God for service. All three perspectives are necessary. This full approach to the gospel creates a church that does not fit neatly into the traditional ‘conservative/sectarian’ nor ‘liberal/mainline’ categories.

The gospel is the dynamic for all heart-change, life-change, and social-change. Change won’t happen through 'trying harder' but only through encountering with the radical grace of God.

Technorati Tags: evangelism, Kingdom of God, missional, outreach

keller on missional

Phil Johnson thinks "Missional living as portrayed in many Emerging communities is not a legitimate substitute for real evangelism, where the gospel is proclaimed plainly and powerfully." I'm not sure how Johnson gets to "many Emerging communities" ... I can easily accept "some Emerging communities" just as I can "some Evangelical/Charismatic/insert whatever flavor you want communities".

SB at Exhibiting the Value of Knowing God addresses this well and finds it helpful to have the word missional in our vocabulary (contrary to Johnson). Here he points us to this excellent piece by Tim Keller on The Missional Church. Keller explains that the elements of a missional Church are:

1. Discourse in the vernacular
2. Enter and re-tell the culture's stories with the gospel
3. Theologically train lay people for public life and vocation
4. Create Christian community which is counter-cultural and counter-intuitive
5. Practice Christian unity as much as possible on the local level

As always, Keller is persuasive and helpful.

Technorati Tags: evangelism, missional, outreach

theological change

Martin Downes nails it again with this analogy.

Have you ever been waiting at a train station, sat patiently at your seat, whilst next to you another train is likewise waiting to leave? And then, as the train starts to move, for a few seconds you are not sure if your train is the one moving or if it is the next train that is starting to pull off. The way to be sure is to look at the platform. The platform after all doesn't move.

So it is in an age of theological change when definitions and doctrines are in motion. Our ultimate authority here is Scripture. This is exactly where Paul directs Timothy as he seeks to be faithful in an age of impostors and deceivers (2 Tim. 3:10-17). This is the fixed point for doctrine.

Read the rest of his post here. He closes with this line from Al Mohler ... "The drama of the gospel has not changed, but the audience for evangelical theology has changed--and not for the better."

Technorati Tags: discipleship, Scripture

keller on preaching

Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City responds to Ten Questions for Expositors by Colin Adams. I expect to have several posts in the near future quoting Keller so if you are not a fan, don't drop by for awhile.

1. Where do you place the importance of preaching in the grand scheme of church life?
It is central, but not alone at the center. Pastoral ministry is as important as preaching ministry, and lay ‘every-member’ ministry is as crucial as ordained ministry. I wouldn’t make a heirarchy out of these things–they are interdependent. But pastoral ministry and lay ministry is no substitute for strong preaching.

2. In a paragraph, how did you discover your gifts in preaching?
I preached about 200 different expositions a year for the first nine years of my ministry (when I was age 24 through 33.) During that time I was considered interesting and good but I never got a lot of feedback that I was anything special. I’ve grown a lot through lots of practice.

3. How long (on average) does it take you to prepare a sermon?
I pastor a large church and have a large staff and so I give special prominence to preparing the sermon. I give it 15-20 hours a week. I would not advise younger ministers to spend so much time, however. The main way to become a good preacher is to preach a lot, and to spend tons of time in people work–that is how you grow from becoming not just a Bible commentator but a flesh and blood preacher. When I was a pastor without a large staff I put in 6-8 hours on a sermon.

4. Is it important to you that a sermon contain one major theme or idea? If so, how do you crystallise it?
I don’t know that I’d be so rigid as to say there has to be just one Big Idea every time. That is a good discipline for preachers in general, because it helps with clarity. Most texts have too much in them for the preacher to cover in one address. You must be selective. But sometimes a preaching-size text simply has two or three major ideas that are too good to pass up.

5. What is the most important aspect of a preacher’s style and what should he avoid?
He should combine warmth and authority/force. That is hard to do, since tempermentally we incline one way or the other. (And many, many of us show neither warmth nor force in preaching.)

6. What notes, if any, do you use?
I use a very detailed outline, with many key phrases in each sub-point written out word for word.

7. What are the greatest perils that preacher must avoid?
This seems to me too big a question to tackle here. Virtually everything a preacher ought to do has an corresponding peril-to-avoid. For examples, preaching should be Biblical, clear (for the mind), practical (for the will), vivid (for the heart,) warm, forceful, and Christo-centric. You should avoid the opposites of all these things.

8. How do you fight to balance preparation for preaching with other important responsibilities (eg. pastoral care, leadership responsibilities)
See my remarks on #3 above. It is a very great mistake to pit pastoral care and leadership against preaching preparation. It is only through doing people-work that you become the preacher you need to be–someone who knows sin, how the heart works, what people’s struggles are, and so on. Pastoral care and leadership is to some degree sermon prep. More accurately, it is preparing the preacher, not just the sermon. Prayer also prepares the preacher, not just the sermon.

9. What books on preaching, or exemplars of it, have you found most influential in your own preaching?
British preachers have had a much greater impact on me than American preachers. And the American preachers who have been most influential (e.g. Jonathan Edwards) were essentially British anyway.

10. What steps do you take to nurture or encourage developing or future preachers?
I haven’t done much on that front at all, and I’m not happy about that. Currently I meet to with two other younger preachers on my staff who also preach regularly. We talk specifically about their preaching and sermon prep.

Technorati Tags: preaching

not qualified for baptist missions

Ok - I have to admit, I am not qualified to be a Baptist missionary.

Trustee: Porn Viewing, Charismatic Prayer Treated Equally in Baptist Missionary Screening

The Christian Post reports that half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down. That's according to a Baptist pastor, who cited the primary reason as use of internet porn.

A recent regional summit of the International Mission Board noted that female missionaries outnumber male ones two to one, according to Enid, OK pastor Wade Burleson. The summit also mentioned the problem of internet porn among men, with as many as 50 percent of lay men and clergy having viewed pornography in the past year. Even so, porn is not the primary reason men are turned down for a missionary position, said Randy Rains, IMB's associate vice president of the office of Mission Personnel. Rains indicated some 50 reasons ranging from porn and sexual immorality to depression that can prevent an applicant from becoming an approved missionary. The same policy applies to the use of "private prayer language."

According to Burleson, the controversial issue and its ban in the IMB cause the use of private prayer language to be treated the same as viewing pornography in the screening process for missionaries.

Technorati Tags: charismata, current events

destroying the works of the devil

Dan Phillips at Team Pyro raises an interesting question in today's post, Question for discussion: Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, sooo.... The premise builds on 1 Jn 3.8, "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil." Phillips challenges, "why are there so many genuine Christians who persist in the same patterns of sin, apparently without pangs of conscience, without struggle, without the movings of repentance, cheerfully and blithely and hard-heartedly?"

Is it as the Westminster Confession, 5.5 indicates?

The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.

No - I don't think so.

Is it as many of those that commented to Phillips' post suggest, i.e., that God is actually dealing with those but his day is like a thousand years to us? Again, no, I don't think so.

I think the answer is found in the personal struggle I've recently had with Team Pyro and their open attack on the Holy Spirit and His work in the Kingdom of God.

Paul wrote in 1 Co 11.19, "there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." I'm not saying that Team Pyro exists so that I might be recognized as genuine by being better than them. Nothing of the sort! The answer is quite different than that.

Phillips states his question yet another way, "if you believe that at least some of these seeker-sensitive churches, these nuttily Charismatic churches, these Bible-lite churches, these Arminian churches, these man-centered churches, are led by people who are genuinely Christian, yet are genuinely displeasing to God (as we argue), then why does the Lord let that go on? Why does He not grant repentance to them (2 Timothy 2:25)? Surely He cares more about His church than we do."

To this I reply, so that those that are genuine can be recognized - not because they are right and the others are wrong. Rather they will be recognized by how they relate to each other. It's not about who has right doctrine (I did not say right doctrine does not matter) it is about who has right relationships. A cornerstone of right doctrine is right relationship. If we cannot manage community, then it is clear that we are not genuine regardless of doctrine.

We, the body of Christ, must demonstrate unity even in our differences. While we cannot ignore differences, the manner in which we handle them speaks volumes about how we see the body and who is at the head of it. When we argue outside the family - we fail. When we make ugly statements and false representations - we fail. Etc...

When we loving restore in the context of our local community such that those outside see unity, we demonstrate the power of the wisdom of God.

Do we need to address error? Absolutely - but there is a time, a place, and a way for doing so. Unfortunately many choose to not go that path and thereby demonstrate that while they have right doctrine, they are not genuine. It is an easy trap and it requires a changed life to avoid it. And I say that when a life is changed in a way that demonstrates godly love and honor in the face of differences, then it is clear that Christ has destroyed the work of the devil in that person.

Technorati Tags: Christian living, community, evil, forgiveness

murphy's military laws

Murphy's Military Laws

1. Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are.
2. No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.
3. Friendly fire ain't.
4. The most dangerous thing in the combat zone is an officer with a map.
5. The problem with taking the easy way out is that the enemy has already mined it.
6. The buddy system is essential to your survival; it gives the enemy somebody else to shoot at.
7. The further you are in advance of your own positions, the more likely your artillery will shoot short.
8. Incoming fire has the right of way.
9. If your advance is going well, you are walking into an ambush.
10. The quartermaster has only two sizes, too large and too small.
11. If you really need an officer in a hurry, take a nap.
12. The only time suppressive fire works is when it is used on abandoned positions.
13. The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.
14. There is nothing more satisfying that having someone take a shot at you, and miss.
15. Don't be conspicuous. In the combat zone, it draws fire. Out of the combat zone, it draws sergeants.
16. If your sergeant can see you, so can the enemy.

Technorati Tags: humor

a new jesus

I think Naked wrote this one just for me ... thanks, I repent.

Technorati Tags: community, forgiveness, grace, humor

removing obstacles

Josh Harris has made available his message about removing obstacles to the Gospel. It is simple but excellent.

Are you willing to lay down your rights (as Christ did) for the sake of others?

Technorati Tags: Christian living, evangelism, outreach

the enemy within

The excellent posts at Against Heresies help me as I wrestle with how to walk among false teachers within the church. Here is the most recent article in its entirety. It is a quote from David Wells in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification by Johnson and Waters.

"It has always been the case that the church has had to struggle with aberrant views in its midst. Indeed, the apostle Paul goes so far as to say that 'there must be factions [heresies] among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (1 Cor. 11:19).

What is so different, when compared with our more recent history, is that these aberrant views on matters so central and fundamental are not outside the evangelical church but inside it. Not only so, but today these views are masquerading as something they are not. They are offered in all innocence as Christian orthodoxy, whereas, in fact, they come out of a different universe.

What we have is church practice that obliterates the underlying understanding of truth, a methodology for success without too many references to any truth, and a sense that what was once so important in the life of the church can be left behind, unexplored, unappropriated, and without consequences.

The Church is under attack from within. It includes challenges to the doctrine of justification as intended in the above but it reaches beyond that to every aspect of Christian living and doctrine. But Jesus seems cool about it all. Matthew records Him saying,

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’

Then [Jesus] left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

So the wheat and the weeds are growing together in the world and Jesus warns against trying to pull the weeds. But what of the weeds growing up in the Church? I think Jesus was addressing our response in the world. In regard to the Church, Wayne Grudem says it well.

... the New Testament encourages us to work for the purity of the church in all of these areas. Christ’s goal for the church is “that he might sanctify her having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:26–27). Paul’s ministry was one of “warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man mature in Christ” (Col. 1:28). Moreover, Paul told Titus that elders must “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9), and he said that false teachers “must be silenced” (Titus 1:11). Jude urged Christians to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Proper use of the sacraments is commanded in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, and right use of church discipline to protect the purity of the church is required in 1 Corinthians 5:6–7, 12–13.

What does this look like? I'm not completely sure. It probably does not look like blog posts such as mine proclaiming the error of the Pyromaniacs. On the other hand, it probably at least looks like confronting those within your local Church that would teach error. So once again I have fallen into the same trap as many others. The public watchdog and the watchdog of the watchdogs is an ugly and un-Biblical thing. We need elders, men who are grounded in Scriptural truth, to shepherd God's people in the way of righteousness. This is done quietly in the context of community. This is NOT done as a public spectacle via a blog, radio program, book, etc..

When doing so, we demonstrate to the world that we are not changed. However, when we lovingly build each other up and grow together in Christ-likeness, then the world sees something different - something that demonstrates the power of God rather than human wisdom and strength of will. I contend that my statements in that post are accurate but I realize that they are not appropriate.

The folks at Pyromaniacs are not only wrong in what they teach but also in their manner of teaching/confronting. I joined their ranks in the latter sin and in doing so, I did not demonstrate the power of the Kingdom. I am sorry.

Technorati Tags: cessationism, charismata, Christian living, community, forgiveness, judging, Kingdom of God, sin, unity

prayer and free will

I'm not the smartest person around but Calvinism and prayer seem to go together while "free will" and prayer seem to be opposites. Here's a short article by Greg Kouki that I think asks the right questions.

... the notion that God doesn't tamper with our free will presents problems in the area of prayer. For example, what exactly are we asking for when we pray for someone's salvation? Aren't our very words, "God, change this person"? Aren't we asking God to intervene by influencing a person's will in order to elicit a response of faith? It seems difficult to argue that God doesn't tamper with free will and then pray this prayer.

The problem doesn't just present itself when praying for someone's salvation, though. It includes prayer for anything involving human agency.

God answers prayer in two ways. He can respond directly, like he did when Peter was in jail and an angel released him. Since there was no human involvement, no one's will was violated. The same is true when Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes or raised Lazarus from the dead.

It seems, however, that most of our requests entail God's mediate action, in which the answer involves the agency of another person. Characteristically, we're not rescued by angels. Usually, God doesn't multiply food or raise the dead in direct, immediate response to our prayers. Instead, the garden variety of prayer sets the will of God against the will of man.

Our prayers for a new job involve a human decision to hire. Our requests for the protection of the unborn speak to intentions of legislators and judges. Our petitions for good grades relate, in part, to the benevolence of a professor. In fact, with many prayer requests, the contrary will of a person is the precise issue of concern. Most prayers appeal to God to prevail upon other human wills. In effect we're praying, "God, use Your will and Your power to overcome the power and will of others."

If God never "tampered" with out free will, there would be precious little to pray about.

Technorati Tags: Calvinism, prayer

living in the post-modern

Even though team-pyro believes God is dead or has at least changed His nature, they can still come up with Biblical reasons for Christian living today. Phil Johnson has accurately identified two key issues faced by the Church today, i.e., an untaught church and an increasingly hostile world. To this he proposes a five-step approach.

1. Remember why we're not modernists - "How about let's forget trying to accommodate the fickle shifts of contemporary culture and worldly thinking altogether? Gimme that old-time religion."
2. Recover the role of teaching in the church
3. Re-emphasize the certainty of revealed truth
4. Reinstate holiness on our list of priorities
5. Regain our true missionary emphasis

This a short piece worth reading.

Now for a long tirade that has nothing to do with the main point above - some of you might be tempted to ask me why I say team-pyro believes God is either changed or dead. To that I say you need only read their perverse understanding of how He stopped interacting in history. They have taken the beauty of Scripture and turned it into a text book to be dissected in bits and pieces. In doing so, they missed the big picture of how a living God interacts in space, time, and history. This past week's series of posts demonstrate the degree of their falleness.

A word to those who demand signs, wonders, and private messages - one of many "innocent" quotes of the great Charles Spurgeon where the Pyro guys (1)insinuate that those who believe in signs and wonders "demand" them for faith and (2) wrongly represent Spurgeon as a fellow unfamiliar and against the miraculous in his life.

Intuition and Superstition: An Admonition - here the Pyro guys build on their idea that while God spoke volumes to all manners of people in history, everything not recorded in Scripture and all such instances since then are intuition and superstition. To that they add the mistaken notion that while the senses that might allow us to "hear" God remain unreliable (radically effected by sin), God has somehow redeemed (or is redeeming) our sense of reason such that a mature person can rely on this.

Interestingly, they later say exactly what many Charismatics would say regarding "impressions" they might have. The sad part of their argument is that they believe the same as many Charismatics but they are so filled with distain and self-pride that they cannot see it. They fear confusing the voice of God with the desire of their own heart so much that they openly attack anyone who is willing to suggest some revelation might actually be God.

The Amazing Dr. von Cipher's "Conversation" with "God" - a long, long piece (admittedly I didn't understand it all) but the gist is if it isn't verifiably 100% God then get rid of it. Since nothing outside of Scripture meets that criteria, conversation over. That's interesting since that is not the Scriptural pattern or instruction.

Ecstasy - a classic - let's attack the guy that used the word "thrilled" in association with experiencing some revelation from God. I read and reread this article (because it was short) and still got nothing other than the Pyro guy is nasty. Scripture states the gifts of the Spirit are to edify. To me, that seems "thrilling". I'm struggling with why Pyro feels a need to attack the use of the word "thrill" and then presume that some real point was proven. This only shows the extent they are willing to go to attack anyone on the "other side" regardless of how petty the point.

Emotions? Sure. We got 'em. . . - more of the same nonsense. If it doesn't look, feel, sound, etc. identical to Scripture, it ain't God. I'm wondering which Scripture supports that criteria? And than, true to form, they pick Benny Hinn as the model Charismatic to poke at. Apparently the 20 or so years of the same argument with the same people over the same points haven't made the slightest impact with this crowd. Their arguments are worn out. Their attack of straw-men has been exposed. Etc.. Yet somehow their following continues. They believe God is dead and they are proud.

Voices in our Heads - simply too long to comment on. I love the ending however. Here I agree with the author except that the author thinks this is a problem for the Charismatic. It is not a problem at all. It only demonstrates Pyro's failure to understand that just like there is a wide variety of people in their "God is dead" crowd, there is a wide range of beliefs in the Charismatic crowd. Years of discussion hasn't helped them understand that.

Anyway, to end on a positive note, here is the super cool part of this post.

... Piper rightly cloaks that non-normative event [God speaking "audibly"] in the necessary and normative event of hearing and experiencing God through the words of the Bible ...

What's at stake here is if we are first using God's precious gift of Scripture to seek Him and find Him, not whether some voice in one's head is the voice of God ...

And finally, I love and agree with this one.

... when you pick up the telephone and you hear a voice on the other end, can you know who it is if you have never really heard that person speak before? So how can you know if that voice in your head is God's voice if you have never listened to Him say what He's been saying since Paul and Peter were in short pants?

Here's the conclusion. These guys don't believe God is dead nor that His nature has changed. And while I think they may have some concerns and disagreement with the "Reformed Charismatic" crowd, their fear, aversion (insert whatever word is appropriate) attitude to the extreme Charismatic causes them to argue poorly, to argue ugly, to misuse Scripture, to not recognize potential other understandings of Scripture, and to speak as from the opposite (and I think equally wrong) end of the pendulum. It's very sad.

Technorati Tags: cessationism, Christian living, Signs & Wonders, spiritual gifts

more murphy

Murphy's Corollaries

• Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
• It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious

Law of the Perversity of Nature (Mrs. Murphy's Corollary)
You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.

Corollary (Jenning)
The chance of the bread falling with the buttered side down is directly proportional to the cost of the carpet.

Commentaries

Hill's Commentaries on Murphy's Laws

1. If we lose much by having things go wrong, take all possible care
2. If we have nothing to lose by change, relax.
3. If we have everything to gain by change, relax.
4. If it doesn't matter, it does not matter.

O'Toole's Commentary
Murphy was an optimist.

NBC's Addendum to Murphy's Law
You never run out of things that can go wrong.

Technorati Tags: humor

free home wireless network

The Toilet Internet Service Provider (TiSP) is now available - and it is FREE! The installation looks relatively simple with only step 3 looking a little risky.

Grasp both ends of the spindle firmly while a friend or loved one flushes, thus activating the patented GFlush™ system ...

I ordered my system today.

Technorati Tags: humor, technical

murphy's laws

Murphy's Laws

1. Nothing is as easy as it looks.
2. Everything takes longer than you think.
3. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
4. If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. Corollary: If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.
5. If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.
6. If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
7. Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
8. If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
9. Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
10. Mother nature is a bitch.
11. It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
12. Whenever you set out to do something, something else must be done first.
13. Every solution breeds new problems.

Murphy's Law of Research
Enough research will tend to support your theory.

Murphy's Law of Copiers
The legibility of a copy is inversely proportional to its importance.

Murphy's Law of the Open Road
When there is a very long road upon which there is a one-way bridge placed at random, and there are only two cars on that road, it follows that: (1) the two cars are going in opposite directions, and (2) they will always meet at the bridge.

Murphy's Law of Thermodynamics
Things get worse under pressure.

The Murphy Philosophy
Smile . . . tomorrow will be worse.

Quantization Revision of Murphy's Laws
Everything goes wrong all at once.

Murphy's Constant
Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value

Technorati Tags: humor