In Which I Am Reminded of An Important Truth

(Incidentally, doesn't that sound like the beginning of a chapter in Winnie the Pooh?  If it said "Pooh is" or "Piglet is" instead of "I am" especially.  Or if it ended with "Important Truth About Hunny.") 

I was reminded recently of something very important, which I either didn't realize or had forgotten.  A dear friend sent me a brief text with just a couple of sentences addressing something I'd been angsting about -- honest words that stung a little, to tell you the truth.  It wasn't a sermon or a long conversation, just something I really needed to be reminded of about my affections.  Which I'll come back to.

I'm a pretty cerebral kinda gal.  Being cerebral is one of those characteristics that's a lot like the Girl with the Curl from the nursery rhyme: when it's good, it's very, very good, but when it's bad, it's horrid.  The good part is that I love to think deeply and ponder and muse and learn and wonder and teach my students to do the same. The horrid part is when I get so far inside my head that I can't escape, and what ends up happening is that I live an almost parallel life, some self-narrated alternate reality in my head until I'm so wrapped up in it that everything about real life seems less real and far, far more disappointing.

So back to the affections.  Jonathan Edwards wrote of the affections that they "are no other than the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclination and will of the soul."  Wait, what?  Are you trying to tell me that my affections are exercises of my will?  To be used sensibly and thoughtfully, not merely letting them light wherever they want, but to be directed and applied in a godly way?  Far out.

In that self-narrated alternate reality that's constantly competing for my attentions, I have allowed my affections to be directed toward things and circumstances and people thoughtlessly.  Rather than choosing to set my mind on -- to direct my affections toward -- "things above" as the Scriptures say, I have too often chosen to allow my affections to be cast about by my mood, my temperament, my situation, and countless other factors. 

I needed (and am very grateful for) the reminder that my deepest affections belong only to God.

"He does not deal with us as our sins deserve..."

“We are all prodigal sons, and not disinherited; we have received our portion, and misspent it, not been denied it.  We are God’s tenants here, and yet here, he, our landlord, pays us rents; not yearly, nor quarterly, but hourly and quarterly; every minute he renews his mercy.”
 
John Donne, quoted in Thomas C. Oden, Classical Pastoral Care (Grand Rapids, 1987), III:285.

HT: Ray Ortlund

Theology

I overheard some ladies at the Chinese restaurant where I picked up lunch yesterday, grumbling about how the men in their Bible study were just so obsessed with the little details of the Bible that they missed the big picture. "It's just all that... theology. Ugh."

I felt very pleased with my self-control that I managed to keep my wails of dismay to myself, and very pleased indeed that I also held back the lecture on the fact that everyone has a theology, it's just either a good one or a bad one, that theology just means "the study or knowledge of GOD," for crying out loud, and everyone on the PLANET possesses beliefs about God (even atheists!) and if you think theology is about arguing over whether Martha and Lazarus were half-siblings or if the punctiliar emphatic aorist in the Greek indicates a completed action, YOU NEED HELP! AUGH!!! But I didn't say it. Nope! Self control, right there.

So I'm just saving THAT rant for my students. HA.

In the words of a wise friend: "You [ought to] study theology the right way, where truth moves your heart to joy and praise. If more of us would do it this way, maybe it wouldn't have such a bad rap in some circles. Theology should not intimidate the uninitiated, but cause them to want more of it, like a thirsty man who finds water in the desert. "

From "The Knowledge of the Holy"

"The mind looks backward in time till the dim past vanishes, then turns and looks into the future till thought and imagination collapses from exhaustion: and God is at both points, unaffected by either."

-- A.W. Tozer

Election

"That is election: the Father in love pursues foolish, obstinate, disobedient children who have chosen death, and he decrees that more important than their will is His love. And anyone who is a Christian should thank God that not only did he call out to them, but he pursued them! And that in Jesus Christ he extended a hand, and he grabbed them, and he yanked them to himself. [...] If you are a Christian, you should praise God; you have a loving father who has grabbed you by the neck and spared you from Satan, sin, death, wrath, judgment, and conscious, eternal torment in Hell. He owes you nothing! But he has given you all things."

-- Mark Driscoll

No Comment

The typical parent, when whacking a misbehaving child, doesn't pause to wonder: "What does science have to say about the efficacy of corporal punishment?" If they are thinking anything at all, it's: "Here comes justice!" And while the typical parent may not know or care, the science on corporal punishment of kids is pretty clear. Despite the rise of the timeout and other nonphysical forms of punishment, most American parents hit, pinch, shake, or otherwise lay violent hands on their youngsters: 63 percent of parents physically discipline their 1- to 2-year-olds, and 85 percent of adolescents have been physically punished by their parents. Parents cite children's aggression and failure to comply with a request as the most common reasons for hitting them.

--Alan E. Kazdin, "Spare the Rod," Slate.com

OK, maybe ONE comment.

AARRRRRGH!!

Take a minute to read this great excerpt, written by Sojourn's worship pastor Mike Cosper, and then head over to Sojournmusic.com and read the rest, from a three-part installment on the climate of modern worship in churches.

This is the landscape others see from the outside looking in - musicians who almost barely know how to play their instruments, music without roots or traditions, songs without dynamics, services with rock star worship leaders wearing faux-hawks and designer jeans. They look great, they sound okay, but don’t ask them to change keys. Contrast this with the classical traditions of the church, where musicians spend 15-20 years, starting in early childhood, studying music, studying musical performance, working with choirs, orchestras, and various ensembles throughout their educations, and then often continuing through a seminary “church music” education.

Of course, much of this is a caricature. I know many worship leaders and pastors in churches like this who have a deep knowledge of and love for music. I know many worship leaders whose humility guards them from the excesses of rock culture. I know many leaders who have a love of theology, hymnody, and scripture, and whose services reflect that love. But I also believe that this is the unfortunate exception and not the rule.

And the warning cries abound. It’s both redundant and fashionable to sit around and lament how devoid and barren our worship music is today. But what’s the way forward? Pastors have this dual responsibility in North America to be faithful and to be attractional (two forces that are often at odds with one another). And what attracts people to churches today more than the poppy music of contemporary worship?

As with so many places in our culture, we’ve severed the connections with traditions that can help inform, correct, and guard us from mistakes from great to small. While certainly, in the light of God’s sovereignty, we have to say that there is something good afoot in the radical shifts in worship culture in the US, there is also a road ahead so fraught with dangers that without some kind of roots, some kind of theological grounding, some kind of historical connectedness, we will SURELY lose our way.

What I want to ask is who will guide us? What will the reformation of church music education give birth to in twenty years? Will it look different, or will we simply look back in twenty years and laugh at our young foolishness? Worship leaders aren’t the only ones asking these kinds of questions.

My Love-Hate-Love Relationship

Yeah, it's complicated. Sometimes, I feel the strongest love and devotion, and other times nothing but pure hatred -- oh, the arguments! The stereotypes and cliches! The ignorance, the stupidity! But just when I think I'm over it, just when I think I couldn't possibly love again, I go running back.

Today, I think I'd be willing to propose. To Boundless, that is.

A few days ago on the Boundless Line I got into a rather heated debate with one of the writers about environmental issues -- see, he's one of those vitriolic global warming skeptics. And he somehow thinks that by insulting his opponents, he'll solidify his own position -- really, it just makes him look like a jerk.

But then, this morning, all was made right again in the sick, twisted little universe of my relationship with Boundless. Because I read this:

Dear Boundless Answers:

I had an interesting conversation with two older women of my church. I asked them if they thought that I was ready for marriage yet and they both said "no." They challenged me, asking me if I thought that I was being the "best that I could be" in every area of my life.

[...]

Should a woman totally overcome her insecurities before she gets married (to avoid bringing in that "excess baggage")?

And now, the response, from Candice Watters -- hang in there and read the whole thing. It's so great that it deserves being reproduced in its entirety here:

I don't know you beyond your e-mail, so I'm reluctant to challenge feedback from women in your church who presumably do. But I also know that if what they'd said was based on Scripture, I'd be more likely to agree with them.

What they said sounds cliché. Their assertion that you should be the "best that you can be" in every area of life before you get married scans like a positive thinking infomercial. It's based on the belief that we are not only perfectible, but also that we can perfect ourselves. It's certainly not rooted in what the Bible says about sin (that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God") and our need for a Savior.

Do you need to learn to love yourself before you can ever give your love to another person? Not according to Scripture. Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself." This is something you can do immediately. No learning curve required. We're selfish by nature; that's why Jesus made self-love the measure for how we treat others. He knew we would get the shorthand of what He was saying.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, "What is the chief end of man?" and answers, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." The purpose of our lives is not to self-actualize, but to bring glory to God. How we feel about our looks, or weight, or job, or social life, or any other measure of success on any given day is, in the scope of eternity, irrelevant. Does God want us to be full of joy? Yes. Is that joy dependent on your self-image? Thankfully, no. His joy and peace are among the fruit of the Holy Spirit. They come by giving thanks in all circumstances, praying without ceasing, and cultivating the Holy Spirit's activity in your life. None of this hangs on what kind of "self-image day" we're having. Though I know in my life that the more I practice these spiritual disciplines, the more irrelevant my externals become.

What about their appeal to Adam and Eve as "worked on by God and therefore complete before they met?" It implies that somehow the first couple came "baggage-free" (a pop-psychology favorite). But you need to read only a few verses down to see what failure these "complete" humans were capable of after God was done making them. Beyond the reality that God put Adam to sleep until the surgery was over, and kept Eve that way until she was fully formed in flesh, I don't see any evidence that the two were perfectly ready for marriage, or any other serious undertaking, the way your friends implied. Adam and Eve were, as we are, fully human, with the freedom to obey or not.

I suspect when the two women you spoke with married, they still had growing and maturing to do. I did. And I do believe they meant well.

But what would be more helpful than telling you to stop thinking about marriage till you're perfect is to give specific areas of growth to be working on while you're praying for marriage and being intentional about helping it happen. Offering passages of Scripture for study (Titus 2, and Proverbs 31 for starters), examples of where you fall short on what the Bible requires, and relational support for helping you grow is the kind of mentoring you need. But it shouldn't stop there.

Titus 2:3-5 says:

"Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

This passage suggests that the younger women in need of spiritual nurture and practical training are already married. The passing on of wisdom from the one generation to the next is to take place in the context of marriages already formed. If, as is the case in our culture, the younger women are having trouble finding and marrying godly husbands, then helping them do that should be the first order of business on the older women's to-do lists.

When are you ready for marriage? When you're no longer a child; when you're ready to take on the adult responsibilities that marriage brings. That doesn't mean you can use that as justification for avoiding responsibility ("I'm just not ready"). Unless they're specially gifted for celibate service, Christian men and women should be gearing up for marriage in their early 20s. It's not only their best time for meeting mates, but also their most fertile time for forming families. If you don't feel ready or willing to take on adult responsibility, the solution isn't more passage of time, but likely, accountability from the older believers in your church.

Which brings us back to your dilemma. To get the most help from the women in your Bible study, I think you might need to re-tool your question. Instead of asking, "Do you think I'm ready for marriage?" you might say, "I believe, based on what I read in Scripture, that believers are called either to celibate service or marriage (Matthew 19:11-12). I know from my desires and drives that I'm not specially gifted for celibate service, so what I'm wondering is, based on your understanding of Scripture, what are the things I need to be working on to prepare for the responsibilities that come with marriage and motherhood?"

Then, based on what they answer, you might follow up with, "Would you be willing to pray with me about those areas and pray for me that God would make me more like Him and bring me a godly husband?"

It's not enough to seek out older believers. The goal is mentors who rightly divide the Word. It will be to your benefit and His glory.

OH, gosh, you guys. The advice this girl's older friends gave her used to drive me BONKERS. I knew far, far too many jacked-up people -- Christians who were FAR from baggage-free -- who'd made it down the aisle to believe that God only wills marriage for people who've learned to love themselves or become complete in themselves or whatever (puke).

If you have single friends, I beg you, don't give them this advice. Don't tell them they have to take time out of their search for a spouse in order to become more Godly. And don't let it slide if they say, "Well, I'm just going to take this time to work on myself, because I need to be content in myself before I try to look for a wife/husband." Challenge them. Remind them that God's in the business of using imperfect people in his grand story of saving a people for himself -- he even blesses imperfect people! He gives them the incomparable gift of salvation, together with every other spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus.

Furthermore, he uses our daily lives, our circumstances, and our relationships to sanctify us. Every part of our lives falls under God's sovereignty, and as Christians, every moment of our life is spiritual -- not just the times when we're reading our Bibles or sitting in church or talking about Jesus or whatever, but the times when we're stuck in traffic or reading blogs or talking about sweet vs. unsweet tea. In other words, we don't have to take a silent retreat or avoid complicated relationships to discover God's will for us as individuals or in community -- our Father guides us in our REAL LIVES to make godly, appropriate choices, and he transforms us into the image of His Son through our REAL LIVES.

Justification By Faith

Poking around the Matthias Media website today I came across an outstanding article on justification by faith -- an interview with the Principal of London Theological Seminary, who has written a book on the subject. The entire article is well worth reading, but here are a few choice quotes:

What spiritual effect will the doctrine of justification by faith have in the believer's life?

I think the main effect will be one of tremendous joy. It's a wonderful thing to wake up each day and realize that, although I'm an unworthy sinner, nevertheless, I am accepted in Christ. Further, I don't have to work for my acceptance. Life is not about keeping God happy by performance. It gives me enormous joy to know that the most important person in the universe accepts me as I am because of the merits of Jesus Christ credited to me.

Again, it's an amazing relief to know that God has dealt with all my sins and faults. He's taken my guilt away. I am accepted in Christ. I know that if I was to die tonight, I would go to be with my Lord in heaven.

Furthermore, now that I know that I'm saved through trusting Christ, I don't have to be terrified of the threat of Purgatory. I don't have any worries about whether people will pray for me after I die, or whether they'll light candles for me. Nor do I have to worry about whether my friends and relatives will pay to have masses offered for me after my death. Justification through faith deals with these and many other fears.

Also:

What will happen if the church loses the doctrine of justification by faith?

The first thing that will happen is that the Church will no longer have a gospel to declare. There will be no good news.

Second, believers will lose their sense of assurance. We will wonder if we have ever done enough to please God. “Are we good enough?” we will ask. On the other hand, if we believe this doctrine, it will have a significant impact on our lives. First, we will have peace with God. This means that we will be able to approach God as a friend. Second, it also means that we will have a totally different attitude to sin. When I think of all that God has done for me in Christ, I should hate sin with all my heart. When I reflect on what it cost the Son of God—damnation upon the cross, punishment in body, mind and spirit—I should loathe sin with every part of my being. When I know that I have been justified by grace through faith, I should delight in obeying the One who loved me and gave himself for me.

That's a Fact, Jack.

"I have a theory, one which theologians tend to scoff at, but take it for what you will. My theory is that if you can’t find an intellectually compelling reason to do what Christ has commanded, or you have interesting reasons for why you can do quite otherwise than what he has instructed, that still does not negate your responsibility to do what you’re told. The Lord’s word trumps your theology, all the time, every time. [...]

"Every Sunday, I hear his words spoken, 'This is my body broken for you, this is my blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.' Those words are true because they are Christ’s, not because the proper authorities legislated that those words are allowed to be valid in my church. They are as true as the Gospel because they are the Gospel, and God does not need a pope to authorize the Gospel in order for it to be true. If God can make children of Abraham out of stones with his Word, then how much more by that same Word can he make a Church out of us [...]"

-- Josh S.

Wow. Wow. Wow.

For awhile there, I stayed away from Boundless.org, but it has gained my favor increasingly in the last few weeks with article after article that doesn't just address "singleness" like it once did, but the church, sin, depression, discipleship, and other issues that are incredibly important to all Christians. Today's article is especially interesting. Check out this excerpt:

One of my best friends in high school, who was of course a girl, had to tell me we couldn't hang out anymore. When I asked why, she bitterly let me know that her parents told her I was a pig who was only interested in her for her body. I thought that was cute, being stereotyped in the completely wrong direction. But isn't that what so many Christians think is all they need to know about young males?

I would say that about 95 percent of the guy-specific ministry I experienced from the teen years on up had to do with managing lust. A vital topic, to be sure, but I often wondered if anyone saw anything else in me, or if anyone could answer my deeper questions about life, relationships, real manhood — which is more than just white-knuckling our way to our wedding night.

My secret struggle with my sexual identity underscored how little was taught to me and my peers about building a godly masculine identity in the first place. I'm sure someone touched on it in a sermon somewhere along the way, but preaching never has a lasting impact on such core, complex parts of a person's being.

And if anyone was going to help me respond healthily to my feelings, they needed to at least acknowledge their reality and validate my experience, not just tell me that sin is sin and feelings don't matter. That's where the self-named "progressives" are one step ahead of Christians; they take time to listen, and they take young people seriously.

Pretty good, right? Head on over to Boundless.org and check it out.

Abraham Lincoln: February 12, 1809 - April 15, 1865

From Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1865

It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

(ht: Craig)

How many things are necessary for thee to know,
that thou, enjoying this comfort,
mayest live and die happily?

Three;
the first, how great my sins and miseries are;
the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries;
the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.

--Heidelberg Catechism

OK, More Linkage

Pastor Lance, a black Reformed minister in West Philadelphia (born and raised!), has written an appropriately scathing critique of what he calls The Baal Network (TBN). Seriously, welding helmets and HazMat suits need to be in place before you read the full article. Just a taste:

And why did the Lord of glory endure such grievous pain and death? So that you could sow your seed offering, claim your blessing and have yet one more thing to put in your Public Storage locker.

Folks, enough is enough. These people aren’t in error, misguided or confused. They’re deliberately prostituting scripture, the cross and Jesus Christ to engorge their own debauched greed.

Pour it on, brother, pour it on.

Gold and Dross

My previous post on Vision Forum Ministries' Biblical Patriarchy document highlighted its sloppy logic and fundie tendencies, but I wanted to be clear that VFM makes certain assertions in that statement with which I wholeheartedly agree. Baptists (and Christians in general) have an unnerving tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater (see any comments thread on Wade Burleson's blog, for example), and I don't want to fall prey to the temptation to write off this group just because I think they are on dangerous ground with some of their claims.

I mentioned in my previous post my admiration for the carefully-crafted section on the authority of fathers in their homes, and wanted to give ye few but faithful the chance to take a look. I may draw some ire for "coming out" as a proponent of patriarchy, but I'm with Russ Moore on this one: there is no option other than patriarchy. The choice we face is whether to promote and embrace "good" patriarchy, informed by Scripture and redeemed at the cross, or "bad" patriarchy -- the abdication or abuse of power by men.

So here are what I consider the best bits of the whole statement:

A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God.

A man’s authority in the home should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader, following the example of Jesus Christ. Leadership is a stewardship from God.

The authority of fathers is limited by the law of God and the lawful authority of church and state. Christian fathers cannot escape the jurisdiction of church and state and must be subject to both.

Woot! I don't know about you, ladies, but that's the kind of husband I'm praying for. Provider. Protector. Servant-leader. Sounds good to me.

"Biblical" Patriarchy

I was actually quite looking forward to reading this statement after I saw an ad for a "Family-Integrated Churches" conference coming up in Wake Forest. I was pretty on board with the first few sections about the pattern of creation, the roles of men and women, and the nature of paternal authority in the home (which was especially outstanding), but then... things took a turn for the fundier. Check it out:

While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created.

Dude. What? I understand there is a difference between "functional" equality (i.e. equality of role or function) and "essential" equality (i.e. equality of personhood or essence), but are we seriously going to say that it's not OK for a woman -- not even a single woman -- to be a partner in a law firm or the head of a hospital department? And am I as a single woman to be granted only an "exceptional" calling? Insulting and condescending, not to mention burdensome.

Or how about this:

God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” still applies to married couples, and He “seeks godly offspring.” He is sovereign over the opening and closing of the womb. Children are a gift of God and it is a blessing to have many of them, if He so ordains. Christian parents are bound to look to Scripture as their authoritative guide concerning issues of procreation. They should welcome with thanksgiving the children God gives them. The failure of believers to reject the anti-life mindset of the age has resulted in the murder of possibly millions of unborn babies through the use of abortifacient birth control.

This one makes me want to cuss, people. I'm tracking right with them -- yes, fruitful, good. OK, godly offspring (tiny quibble here, but moving along). Yes, sovereign over procreation. Absolutely, children are gifts. Yes, Scripture is the authority. And then -- SCREEEEECH! Rapid application of mental brakes. Let's break down the logical fallacies here. Appeal to emotion: "murder... of unborn babies." Straw man: "anti-life mindset of the age." Appeal to probability and argument from ignorance: "possibly millions." False premise, oversimplification: "Failure of believers to reject... has resulted." Special pleading, undistributed middle: "abortifacient birth control."

Christians, as people who at least claim to be informed by a Biblical worldview need to think long and hard about how birth control fits in with our family lives. Have we simply absorbed the societal view of birth control willy-nilly, allowing secular culture to tell us what to think about children? Do we view children as inconveniences to be postponed as long as possible so we can accomplish our goals, or do we view them as Scripture tells us to: as blessings from the Lord to be received with open arms? These are issues we must wrestle with! The fact that we are even discussing this -- and the fact that many of my recently married friends have elected not to use birth control -- shows that we are addressing the issues. But to imply that (1) believers have embraced an "anti-life mindset," that (2) this mindset has "resulted" in "murder" -- which, seriously, look up the word murder; it necessarily implies intentionality, and that (3) a vague, undefined "abortifacient birth control" is to blame for the deaths of millions is patently absurd and illogical.

Furthermore, this sort of statement practically defines legalism: making a conviction binding where Scripture does not speak. I am NOT saying that Scripture doesn't speak to issues of fertility. I am NOT saying that we cannot draw personal conclusions or derive personal convictions from Biblical principles. But I AM saying that we must not prescribe beliefs or actions that bind others' consciences apart from a specific command or principle in Scripture.

And finally, before I run out of steam:

Education is not a neutral enterprise. Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education, one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world. Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst.

Aaaaaaarrrrrgh!

OK, first, I am usually very pro-homeschooling. Parents know their kids' needs better than anyone else (ideally), and those who are equipped to teach well and feel compelled to educate their children at home should do so. My sister-in-law is doing a fantastic job of homeschooling my nephew, who is very bright but also sometimes slightly unfocused, and so would probably not thrive in a traditional classroom as much as he is in a one-on-one setting. If the Lord grants me a husband and children, I will consider homeschooling and would probably not send them to public school.

All that being said, however... more logical fallacies are popping up here. The implication seems to be that you either give your children comprehensive Christian worldview training or you send them to public school. That's a false dichotomy. It's not impossible to train your children in life and godliness while also sending them to public school. This is an issue to be decided by parents after much prayer and consideration. Simple geography also plays a role: the public school in my hometown was just fine for my brother and me, full of Christian teachers and administrators, and careful not to restrict the rights of Christian students.

Moreover, see the above argument about binding people's consciences! You can't say (or imply) that it's un-Christian to send your kids to public school. You can argue that it's unwise in certain, or even many or all, cases (and I have). You can lay out the facts about the quality and content of public education. You can form an argument from Scripture about the duty of parents to educate their children and not abdicate or "outsource" that responsibility to school or church. But you simply cannot point to Scripture and say, "this says Christians shouldn't send their children to public school."

Overall I'm pretty disappointed with the inflammatory, "no true Scotsman"-type rhetoric and (il)logic that colors this whole document.

Any other thoughts?

Dr. David Sills is the Funniest Professor in the History of Professors

Seriously, if Dr. Sills weren't such an amazing missiology prof and Communicator of the Vision for Missions, I would strongly suggest that he take his show on the road. There's a facebook group dedicated to "Dr. Sills-isms," which I just discovered and which reminded me of how funny he is -- a fast talker with a deep-South accent who sometimes forgets how to speak English and starts lecturing in Spanish before he catches himself and says, "Como se dice..."

A sampling of the quotes:

"You're a missionary--go mish."

"Smoke 'em if you got 'em."

". . .the coolest thing since night baseball"

"Does God speak to us through email? Rarely."

"I'm so low on the food chain that I have to watch out for Nemo."

"As they say in Mississippi, that's a lot of sugar for a nickel."

"Journeything..."

"You just need to rock on."

"A little more to the right and you're a fundy fundy fundamentalist."

"There's more than one way to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

"That's the long way around the barn to say..."

"The reason that smells like smoke is because of where it comes from..."

"Billy the Graham"

"16 million Baptists and you can't find half with a search warrant."

"Where they spit the grass never grows again"

"They will steal your socks without even taking your shoes off…that’s just the way they are."

"It’s like communism, it only works on paper."

"Mouth-breathing redneck from Cutoff, Louisiana."

"That's the Reader's Digest Condensed version."

"I have an overdeveloped sense of mercy. I was even pulling for O.J."

Wise Words

My friend Justin, who never fails to bless me when I talk to him (and who also has a super hot, funny, awesome wife and a crazy cute daughter -- holla, Zoe Buttercup!), had these wise words for someone wondering about holiness:

What always lights me up ... is 2 Cor 5:21, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

I agonize over this: God who has no sin is ultimately righteous and has no fault in him whatsoever (1 John 1:5). Christ Jesus has that same holiness and purity (Col 1:19).

I am a sinner, filled with faults, imperfections and impurities, thus ultimately and eternally disqualifying me for fellowship with perfection. More than that, my willing, continual rejection of his reality entitles me to an eternity of eternal punishment.

But GOD (Eph 2:4), allowed Jesus to be sin for me, so that in him I might become the actual righteousness of God? How does one measure the righteousness of God? He chose to perfect imperfection. He chose Justin Mullins. He saw me as a dead man and said to his son, "I want that one; will you die in his place?" And his son said, "Yes, indeed." Now I share eternal fellowship with perfection forever and nothing will be able to affect that, nothing. This is a done deal, but not yet fully realized until I'm with him (it's already-but-not-yet).

Yeah, I dig the holiness of God. It's ultimate expression is that he gave his holiness to his son who gave it to me because in Christ I become the righteousness of God. I always have to go back to this, this is where I begin: God is Holy, I am not. Christ is Sufficient. I believe that, turn from my sin and turn to him. This is where I end. This is the gospel. I love it.

I pursue holiness because Holiness pursues me.

A Fascinating Perspective on the Bible

I found this through a link to the "Confessing Evangelical" blog, in a comment on Craig's blog (AGAIN. GEEZ.) and found it really thought-provoking and insightful. I think we too often seek answers to our questions and concerns about faith within our own traditions (in my case, reformed baptist -- not exactly a shallow pool, but limited by definition) rather than gleaning wisdom from believers in other traditions. Bo Giertz (1905-1998), whose quotes you'll read below, was a Swedish Confessional Lutheran Bishop. Let's just say his writings are not on the syllabus of most classes at Southern Seminary. I mean, a Lutheran? Those weirdos with their whole law-gospel business and their infant baptism and their sometimes uncomfortably vague definitions of Christian doctrine?

Caveat: I don't necessarily endorse every jot and tittle of the doctrine espoused in the quoted passages (nor, I would imagine, the book as a whole), but I thought it interesting.

“The Bible is exactly as God wanted it to be”

John H

Saturday 2nd June, AD 2007

My holiday reading last week included Bo Giertz’s book The Hammer of God [note: this book is a novel] (which I’ve read, and posted on, before), and I was struck by the following passage in which Pastor Bengtsson (an orthodox Lutheran) tells his more liberal colleague Pastor Torvik that what matters is not whether one has a “historical” view of the Bible (”historical” being code for “liberal”), but instead:

Everything depends on whether we have a religious view of the Bible.

When Torvik asks what this means, Bengtsson explains as follows:

That is faith in the Bible as the voice of God, so that if you read it to hear what God would say to you, you actually hear God speak. For my part, I have the simple belief that the Bible is exactly as God wanted it to be. That does not mean, perhaps, that every detail is set forth systematically for science, as in an academic treatise. But it does mean that every little detail has been given such a form that a human being who seeks salvation will be helped to find the truth.

The highlighted words express my own conviction on this issue as well. I’ve never felt comfortable with the term “inerrant”, largely because it carries connotations of the Bible conforming to a standard that we have set for it ourselves. But, equally, I find it intolerable to suggest that the Bible contains errors (even if some might see that as a necessary consequence of rejecting inerrancy).

Better to follow Pastor Bengtsson and affirm simply that “the Bible is exactly as God wanted it to be”; that it meets the standard that God has set for his written Word, regardless of how it measures up to whatever standard we might wish to apply.

There is then still plenty of work to do in understanding what that affirmation means and in resolving (or learning to live with) apparent contradictions or difficulties within the Bible. However, we are freed to carry out this work positively and from a position of confidence, rather than constantly having to do battle against the purported “errors” that, left unchecked, might undermine our faith in the “inerrancy” of Scripture.

Pastor Bengtsson also reminds us that the Bible was not written to satisfy our curiosity. Rather, “every little detail has been given such a form that a human being who seeks salvation will be helped to find the truth“. Many of our anxieties concerning apparent “errors” or “contradictions” in Scripture - for example, the differences between accounts of the same events in the four gospels - evaporate when we understand the purpose for which God provided the Scriptures.

As Pr Landgraf’s comment as quoted in my previous post reminds us, the gospels are not there to satisfy our curiosity as to what exactly Jesus said or did on any given occasion - in other words, they are not “fly on the wall” documentaries - but to provide four different perspectives on the more fundamental questions: why is Jesus considered a Saviour, and what is the “good news” concerning him? Much the same applies to the rest of the Bible.

What Lasts?

I just read this on another blog. Think about it:

For a Christian, all misery is temporary. For a non-Christian, all pleasure is temporary.