Good stuff from Eric over at Between the Trees:
Being a son in the biblical sense always means obedience because we are representing our father, but it is also always obedience “because” rather than obedience “in order to”. Because we are beloved children, we should live like sons and daughters. But the first part of the equation is established by the God who adopts us. The papers were written up before eternity began and signed at the cross and empty tomb. You can’t make God more of your Father, ever, in any way. But you can live more like one of His children.
Amanda and I finally got around to watching an abbreviated (52 min.) version of the Opening Ceremonies from the Bird's Nest in Beijing. What we saw was pretty amazing, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like that before. It was easy to get sucked into the beauty and orchestration of the whole presentation. One thing the announcers kept bringing up was how progressive China has become, and how we are moving into a new era of Chinese freedom and openness.
The folks of Vision Beyond Borders might not agree with that assessment, not after they had 300 Bibles confiscated from their luggage after arriving in China. No reason was given for the confiscation, but the author of the article notes that China's communist government "is worried that if the spread of religion goes unchecked, believers might ultimately challenge the Communist Party's authority."
Frankly, stealing a few hundred Bibles pales in comparison to some of the other acts of persecution perpetrated by the Chinese government. No matter how flashy their new stadiums are, or how smog-free they can get their skies for a couple of weeks, we should not be fooled into believing that this China is anything different than what it's been for the past century.
We should be impressed by what is going on in China; not by the glitter and charm of the Olympic games, but by the apparent revival taking place there. By some estimates, there are more Christians in China now than in the United States, to say nothing of the difference between nominal and faithful believers. Historically, we have seen again and again that persecution only accelerates the advance of God's Kingdom on Earth. While this reality should not lessen our concern for the persecuted saints in China, it should remind us that it is God who builds his church, and that his purposes cannot be thwarted. While it is impressive to assemble 2,000+ plus drummers drumming away in sync, it is even more impressive that God continues to call millions of Chinese together to faithfully worship him despite the threat of harm to them and their families.
There's quite a furor over on Gary's recently resurrected blog about whether or not a "serious Christian" can, in good conscience, vote for Barack Obama. I've asked this question myself, and even if I hadn't you could probably guess how I would answer it. That's not ground I wish to cover again today.
What is interesting to me is the way that this debate seems to get framed among "serious Christians" who are rightly concerned with having a consistent ethic of human life, as it is often called. God certainly cares about the unborn child, but doesn't he also care about the poor, the destitute, the oppressed? Well, folks, you can't read through Matthew 25 without concluding that yes, God most certainly cares about the oppressed, and he will judge his people for how they care for them. Let's all agree that a passage that includes a "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire…" statement should be central to how we understand God's universe. I, personally, am ashamed of how little regard I have for the well being of the poor in my own city, not to mention those around the world. We, as Christians in the U.S., need to do a better job of this. No argument there.
Here's where I start to disagree. Can anybody really argue that the issues of abortion and neglecting the poor are on the same plane? We should take Jesus seriously when he says that when he was hungry, we gave him nothing to eat because "as you did not do it to one of the least of these…". That much is clear. But, is it much of a leap to also assume that when a doctor jams a pair of surgical scissors into the head of a child, there are some "least of these" issues involved as well? I've heard the argument for choosing the lesser of two evils, but it's hard for me to think of a list on which government-sponsored infanticide is not quite as bad as X. Jesus cares about hungry folks, but he also cares quite a bit about babies.
Secondly, this argument assumes that a vote for a Democratic president is a vote for fighting poverty. I don't think I'm quite ready to concede this point. We've had decades of the government-sponsored "War on Poverty," and things don't seem to be turning around. To use familiar terms, we're in a quagmire with no exit strategy. We have thrown billions upon billions of dollars at social programs of all shapes and sizes, and for what? Have they worked? No. Not even close. So, is the answer that we need *more* of these types of programs? Probably not.
So, before I'm going to buy the "McCain cares about babies, but Obama cares about the poor" argument, I'm going to need some proof that Barack really is the best choice if we want a leader who cares "for the least of these" as we ought to. At this point, I'm not seeing it.
From Fox News:
Muslims in the Scottish district of Tayside are outraged by the appearance of a wide-eyed, 6-week-old puppy on postcards distributed by the local police force, according to the Daily Mail.
Postcards showing police dog-in-training Rebel, a German shepherd born in early December, are causing a furor among the region’s Muslims who believe dogs are 'ritually unclean,' the Daily Mail reports.
The cute cards were meant to notify locals of a new telephone number for non-emergency phone calls but instead have become a flashpoint for a clash of cultures. Shopkeepers are refusing to display the offending ad and a Dundee city councilor is calling for an investigation.
Meanwhile, non-Muslims everywhere were outraged by Muslims bombing marketplaces, beheading "Infidels", and flying passenger jets into buildings full of civilians.
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Christians spend an awful lot of time, energy, and money going around debating with The World about where we came from. We're always looking for that one bit of evidence, whether it be a uniquely complex microorganism, the proportionality of the Sun, Moon, and the Earth, or the fallibility of carbon dating, that will seal up the debate and convince the Darwinists that we've been right all along. Considering the great campaign to label Christian scientists (small "S") as Flat Earthers whose superstitions trump empirical truths, I suppose we've been lead to assume that the outcome of the debate will be settled on the basis of evidence. Not so, says I.
Paul reminds us that God's existence is obvious. It's not a matter of evidence. Everyone knows that God exists, and the fact that he created everything can be "clearly perceived… in the things that have been made." You don't need a lengthy explanation of the anatomy of the woodpecker's skull to know that God made everything. You just need to step outside.
To borrow from Lewis, to argue the existence of God based on evidence is like going outside at noon and displaying 8×10 images of shadows from around the world. "See the shadows in these photographs??? Aha! The sun must exist." If this were British television, a man in a Sherlock Holmes costume would enter the scene, take a puff on his pipe, and point skyward. We don't see God because we see everything else. We see everything else because we see God.
This is not to say that apologetics should be completely discarded. However, we should avoid the fallacy that the unbeliever will easily be converted once we've had a chance to show them our shiny suitcase full of evidence because evidence has never been the problem. A man who is able to casually dismiss the majesty of all creation, and its Creator, will remain unimpressed no matter how good your PowerPoint presentation is. The reality, again from Scripture, is that he hates God and refuses to acknowledge that He even exists, regardless of the "clearly perceived" evidence.
This reminds me of the old proverb about wrestling with a pig… you get all dirty, and he enjoys it. Rather than wasting your time trying to convince him that he's not the product of evolution, tell him that he's a sinner and that the reason he can't believe in creation is because every act of his life demonstrates his hatred of the Creator. Tell him that his faith shouldn't be placed in his knowledge of Darwinian biology, but in the Son of the Creator, who is restoring the creation to its original design. Tell him he can either join the Creator in this restorative process, or remain in rebellion against the things that, deep down, he knows to be true about the universe he finds himself in. Lastly, tell him that this Creator can spare him from the hopelessness that logically accompanies an existence that is without purpose, intention, or eternality.
In an unintentional trip through most of the 2008 Best Picture nominees, I've seen There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, and Juno, in that order, over the past few weeks. Yes, please applaud my cinematic hipness, however delayed it may be.
Out of the three, Juno is the one that I enjoyed the most. It is one of a recent string of films depicting pregnant women deciding what to do about their, um, problem. In each of these films, the mother eventually decides not to terminate her pregnancy. In Juno, the title character explains that, "Well, you know, I was thinking I'd just nip it in the bud, before it gets worse, because they were talking about it in health class, how pregnancy, it can often lead to… an infant." She makes her way to the abortion clinic, only to change her mind after a protesting fellow-classmate informs her that the baby has fingernails. While the film certainly is not overtly or dogmatically pro-life1, it seems worth noting that this teenage mother chose not to abort the baby.
Last night's Grey's Anatomy offered up another example of this on-screen pregnancy pirouette. After receiving confirmation that she's pregnant, the HIV-positive mother-to-be asks to schedule an abortion. By the end of the episode, Izzy (played by Katherine Heigl of Knocked Up) confronts the mother, informing her that her baby would have a 98% chance of being born without the disease. The mom, relieved by this news, begins to cry and decides not to abort her baby.
So, here's what I don't get. It's no secret that an overwhelming majority of our film-making friends on the Left Coast are stridently pro-choice (and pro-everything that's not traditional, moral, or religious). So, why can't any of them pull the trigger? Why would they present us with multiple examples of women contemplating abortion, only to be won over based on, of all things, medical facts? If it really is just a lump of tissue, and if women really do have "reproductive freedom," why not show us this perfectly normal, valid choice on screen?
One hunch is that it just wouldn't make for a good story. I can see that, to a point, but if these folks really believe what they keep telling us they believe, why not tell the courageous story of a young, pregnant mother defying all odds and making a triumphant choice that's "right for her"? My guess is that, despite all the rhetoric, no sane human being can truly bring himself to see things this way. We know better, and we won't buy (or tell) a story that ignores this intrinsically understood truth.
Doug Wilson, on the Westminister Confession's statement that our interest (i.e. stake) in Christ, along with the benefits thereby implied, is confirmed in the sacraments:
Some might say that if you have the faith, then that is sufficient–you can go off by yourself, you and your faith, and do all your confirming of interest away from God's people. The bread and wine are entirely optional if faith is sufficient, right? But if God said to meet Him here in the bread and wine, how is it faith to try to meet Him somewhere else? Detaching faith from the instruments God has appointed is neither right nor safe.
Of course we know from Scripture that evangelical faith is the catalyst. When Namaan was told to wash in the Jordan, it would not have been appropriate for him to conclude that another river, or no river at all, would do just as well–even if he recognized that the Jordan was nothing in itself. In the same way, we insist on the potency of faith alone, which means that the faith must do something other than what unbelief would do.
Come, the bread and wine are here. Confirm your interest in Christ by partaking now, together with your brothers and sisters.
Yes, the efficacy of the ritual is wholly tied to the presence and application of faith. Without faith, the ritual becomes something else entirely different than the covenant confirming, spiritually edifying interaction that the Believer experiences. Even still, that is not to say that the ritual should be done away with or its importance lessened. Remember, Moses was saved by faith, AND by an ark.
Read the rest of Wilson's piece here.
1. What exactly are they trying to communicate here?
2. Can you imagine a helpless, frustrated Jesus standing on the sidelines like this?
3. Why is "Christian drama" usually this bad, or worse?
4. Why does Jesus look like Justin Timberlake in a purple and white bathrobe?
HT: Fide-O
John over at Reformation Theology had some interesting thoughts on the "reformation" going on up at Willow Creek.
From an Out of Ur article:
Hawkins (Executive Pastor of Willow Creek) says, "We used to think you can’t upset a seeker. But while focusing on that we’ve really upset the Christ-centered people." He spoke about the high levels of dissatisfaction mature believer have with churches. Drawing from the 200 churches and the 57,000 people that have taken the survey, he said that most people are leaving the church because they’re not being challenged enough.
Because it’s the mature Christians who drive evangelism in the church Hawkins says, "Our strategy to reach seekers is now about focusing on the mature believers. This is a huge shift for Willow."
Before you start doing cartwheels about the death of the Seeker Sensitive movement, read John's thoughts:
Our first response to this might be "great!" but upon closer inspection it is evident that no real changes have been made whatsoever - which shows they have learned nothing. Why? Because this decision was derived from a poll and not the word of God. It is obvious that the consumer is still sovereign in Willow churches. And as long as they are sovereign whatever new doctrinal teaching that they plan to implement is already deeply flawed at the outset. Until the Word of God drives the content of church, including the reason and pattern of doing church, then you have dethroned God and set man in his place. This philosophy of worship assumes the Pelagian view of man that believes Christianity is just a product like any other product and that sold in the markets. Biblical preaching, in this model, is not what God uses to raise up the dead, but rather, Christianity is decided by a democratic vote. This is disastrous to the faith and, if evangelicalism has any hope of surviving, must be confronted lovingly but firmly so that we recapture the truth of the gospel. (emphasis mine)
Effectively, what Willow Creek is doing is what any savvy corporation would do. Identify your target market, and adjust your product to meet their needs. If what you're selling isn't marketable anymore, set up a focus group and find out what you should be selling. If they change their minds later, you change your business model so you can keep up. Brilliant.
If they really do end up engaging their people in more Bible study and place a higher emphasis on doctrine, I'll be curious to see what happens next. When people start consuming the meat of Scripture they soon grow tired of watered down pop-culture substitutes.
Barack Obama, speaking about sex education:
Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.
- Ben Smith, emphasis mine
In the same speech, Obama said that women must have the right to an abortion. From the same article:
"This is an example where good people can disagree," the Illinois senator said. "The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option."
Yep. We can all agree that reducing teen pregnancies is good. We can all agree that adoption should be a viable option. We can all agree that women should be able to kill babies "if they make a mistake." Wait. Maybe not that last one.
Which "values and morals" BHO is teaching his daughters? Apparently in his "belief system" it is OK to kill a child because its conception was a "mistake." Better to kill a child than for its mother to be "punished" by its existence.
Can someone please explain to me how a Christian could vote for this guy? I'm by no means a McCain supporter, but it blows me away that someone who loves God and studies his Word (Ps 127:3, for example) could vote for this guy with a clean conscience. If you are one such Christian, I really would like to hear your thoughts on this one. I just don't get it.
RSS 2.0
