AUGH.
OK. Look. Most of the time I just roll my eyes at the psychology-isms that creep into Christian vocabulary, but I heard someone yesterday talking about "grieving the end of your twenties" and I just about lost it. Utter, utter crap.
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Friday, October 14, 2011
Friday, November 26, 2010
Stop It. Just Stop It.
OK, I have officially had enough.
Back in September, Tullian Tchividjian's church made the move to one service, from their previous format of one "traditional" and one "contemporary" service. He wrote an initial post about their kickoff week and a little of the background behind their decision. At the end of the post, what he didn't write but might as well have was "Cue Psalms-only, Western-musical-tradition-obsessed, Regulative Principal types: pontificate away, fellas."
Here are just a few of the many comments that made me want to throw stuff at my computer:
Can we please just take a second (after we've all picked our jaws up off the floor) to evaluate the assumptions behind these claims?
1. Modern styled music is something to be dreaded, avoided, and pushed back.
2. The choice of music and style is primarily about my felt needs (oh, the irony).
3. Our only choices are the lovely, rich, comforting old hymns and an overwrought seeker-sensitive rock concert style (complete with "moaning and twitching"?!?).
4. If a long-standing traditional style is denigrated or underappreciated, that's a theological issue akin to people's rejection of the Gospel.
5. The culture is changing, so we have to reject change by holding our ground with traditional styles of music.
6. Anything other than a Western classical style represents "dumbing down" of worship.
7. The goal of modern styles of music is that we won't be challenged by worship.
Seriously, people. Stop it. Stop making arguments against your brothers and sisters in Christ based entirely on logical fallacies.* Stop claiming some special knowledge about how public worship gatherings are supposed to look. Stop insisting that Western classical musical from 400 to 150 years ago is the pinnacle of all human achievement. It's not just silly, it's xenophobic and exclusionary. (Notice that I didn't say that using Western classical music, or even preferring it, is xenophobic and exclusionary -- insisting on its superiority [even its spiritual superiority] over all other types of music is.)
We sing theologically rich songs at Sojourn, songs that are full of Scriptural truth. We often sing hymns -- in fact, I would guess that a majority of our songs have a hymn structure (i.e., a particular meter in each verse). Four of the five songs we did this past week were hymns. Two were traditional hymns, two were written more recently. One of the modern hymns was based on a Puritan prayer from the outstanding Valley of Vision. We sing a fair number of Psalms (I can think of a dozen or so) and are always up for singing more. Why, then, do people continue to insist that, because we use guitars and drums, we're contributing to theological shallowness in the church?
Church music ministers need to be students of their culture and their congregation as well as of the Scriptures. And, furthermore, it's absolutely possible to obey the commands of the Scriptures without having to use only piano and organ or orchestral arrangements or Western classical style (thank God -- if not, boy, would overseas missionaries be in trouble). It's even possible to adhere to the Regulative Principle and still -- gasp! -- use guitars. Maybe piano, organ, and classical style are what's best for your particular congregation. But why then does everyone else have to agree that it's better?
If we want to talk about what styles of music best carry theological content in a coherent way, I'm happy to have that conversation (and no, I don't think all musical styles are equally suited for public worship, just on a practical level, but I also think that particular knife cuts both ways). If we want to talk about reverence and decency, I'm up for that too. Attitudes toward our collective history? Yeah, definitely, let's talk about that.
But if folks are going to approach this conversation with an attitude of snobbery towards everyone who doesn't have their "special knowledge" about the superiority of the Western classical tradition, a traditional hymnnodic structure, and the Fill-In-The-Blank Psalter... Well, I'll just turn off my computer and have a little chat with the doorknob instead, thanks. ;-)
*In that list, you'll see a false dilemma (either good thing A or hideously unimaginable thing B must be true), a package deal fallacy (modern music goes together with shallow content and theological inferiority, therefore if you use modern music you're embracing shallow content and theological inferiority), an appeal to fear (this thing is so dreadful that I hope Jesus comes back before it happens, an appeal to emotion (hymns are comforting; if you want to get rid of hymns you are getting rid of my comfort waaaaaaah), cherrypicking (here is the worst example of how churches can do this, never mind all the good examples), confirmation bias (I believe it will be like X, therefore I will experience as X), tons of bare assertion fallacy (NO IT'S THIS WAY DON'T ARGUE IT IS SO!), and plenty of equivocation (what exactly do these folks mean by "traditional" or "classical" or "hymns" or "contemporary" or "modern"?).
Back in September, Tullian Tchividjian's church made the move to one service, from their previous format of one "traditional" and one "contemporary" service. He wrote an initial post about their kickoff week and a little of the background behind their decision. At the end of the post, what he didn't write but might as well have was "Cue Psalms-only, Western-musical-tradition-obsessed, Regulative Principal types: pontificate away, fellas."
Here are just a few of the many comments that made me want to throw stuff at my computer:
I foresee a time, probably when the current minister of music retires, when the two services will be blended. My hope is that Jesus will return before that happens.
Even the best expressions of blended worship represent a level of compromise
I’m having difficulty understanding why churches insist on dumbing down something intended primarily for God so that we aren’t challenged by it.
Granted, classical music is not as appreciated in today’s society as it has been in the past, but then again, neither is the Gospel.
Hymns like “A Mighty Fortress” and “O God Our Help in Ages Past” ministered to me and soothed the hurt I felt inside. Trading all that for the moaning and twitching of contemporary worship, the loud praise band and flashing lights, is a thought too horrific to contemplate.
Can we please just take a second (after we've all picked our jaws up off the floor) to evaluate the assumptions behind these claims?
1. Modern styled music is something to be dreaded, avoided, and pushed back.
2. The choice of music and style is primarily about my felt needs (oh, the irony).
3. Our only choices are the lovely, rich, comforting old hymns and an overwrought seeker-sensitive rock concert style (complete with "moaning and twitching"?!?).
4. If a long-standing traditional style is denigrated or underappreciated, that's a theological issue akin to people's rejection of the Gospel.
5. The culture is changing, so we have to reject change by holding our ground with traditional styles of music.
6. Anything other than a Western classical style represents "dumbing down" of worship.
7. The goal of modern styles of music is that we won't be challenged by worship.
Seriously, people. Stop it. Stop making arguments against your brothers and sisters in Christ based entirely on logical fallacies.* Stop claiming some special knowledge about how public worship gatherings are supposed to look. Stop insisting that Western classical musical from 400 to 150 years ago is the pinnacle of all human achievement. It's not just silly, it's xenophobic and exclusionary. (Notice that I didn't say that using Western classical music, or even preferring it, is xenophobic and exclusionary -- insisting on its superiority [even its spiritual superiority] over all other types of music is.)
We sing theologically rich songs at Sojourn, songs that are full of Scriptural truth. We often sing hymns -- in fact, I would guess that a majority of our songs have a hymn structure (i.e., a particular meter in each verse). Four of the five songs we did this past week were hymns. Two were traditional hymns, two were written more recently. One of the modern hymns was based on a Puritan prayer from the outstanding Valley of Vision. We sing a fair number of Psalms (I can think of a dozen or so) and are always up for singing more. Why, then, do people continue to insist that, because we use guitars and drums, we're contributing to theological shallowness in the church?
Church music ministers need to be students of their culture and their congregation as well as of the Scriptures. And, furthermore, it's absolutely possible to obey the commands of the Scriptures without having to use only piano and organ or orchestral arrangements or Western classical style (thank God -- if not, boy, would overseas missionaries be in trouble). It's even possible to adhere to the Regulative Principle and still -- gasp! -- use guitars. Maybe piano, organ, and classical style are what's best for your particular congregation. But why then does everyone else have to agree that it's better?
If we want to talk about what styles of music best carry theological content in a coherent way, I'm happy to have that conversation (and no, I don't think all musical styles are equally suited for public worship, just on a practical level, but I also think that particular knife cuts both ways). If we want to talk about reverence and decency, I'm up for that too. Attitudes toward our collective history? Yeah, definitely, let's talk about that.
But if folks are going to approach this conversation with an attitude of snobbery towards everyone who doesn't have their "special knowledge" about the superiority of the Western classical tradition, a traditional hymnnodic structure, and the Fill-In-The-Blank Psalter... Well, I'll just turn off my computer and have a little chat with the doorknob instead, thanks. ;-)
*In that list, you'll see a false dilemma (either good thing A or hideously unimaginable thing B must be true), a package deal fallacy (modern music goes together with shallow content and theological inferiority, therefore if you use modern music you're embracing shallow content and theological inferiority), an appeal to fear (this thing is so dreadful that I hope Jesus comes back before it happens, an appeal to emotion (hymns are comforting; if you want to get rid of hymns you are getting rid of my comfort waaaaaaah), cherrypicking (here is the worst example of how churches can do this, never mind all the good examples), confirmation bias (I believe it will be like X, therefore I will experience as X), tons of bare assertion fallacy (NO IT'S THIS WAY DON'T ARGUE IT IS SO!), and plenty of equivocation (what exactly do these folks mean by "traditional" or "classical" or "hymns" or "contemporary" or "modern"?).
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
No, I'm Not a Traditionalist.
It ticks me off that people refuse to see the difference between Traditionalism and Biblical worldview. I kind of get it when we're talking about non-Christian folks. But they're not where the trouble lies.
The trouble is, we haven't been bothered to separate the two. We've been content to conflate the teachings of Scripture with Traditionalism, which is why people still think, among other things, that Christians hate women. Um, hello? Remember that guy Jesus chillin' with all the ladies, from the rich patroness to the prostitute? Remember how in the Gospels the eejits who don't get it are a bunch of dudes, and the clever interlocutor, some of the few left at the cross, the one who gets to the tomb first, are women?
We're ill-equipped to encounter that nonsense. We can't discern the absurd and wicked elements of Traditionalism because we think it's what we believe. We've been hornswoggled by our own equivocation.
Traditionalism sucks. Traditionalism sucks because it's an ideology that controls, that masters. But tradition, like most ideas, is an all right servant. Scorn for the past isn't my thing. It isn't God's thing. But idealizing the past, idolizing the past, that will get you nothing but 40 years of wandering in the desert while you pine for the good ol' days in Egypt, or 1955, or the Reagan years, or whatever.
We do it with politics too, we let some movement or institution or organization tell us what we believe, or at least what we can believe publicly. Oh, you're just like us because of whatever. Jump on board the tea party express, or the hope and change bandwagon. Christianity is a tool that political parties can wield. Right?
Knock it off. The Gospel is not a talking point to be hammered on, a political agenda, a social reconstruction plan. It's nothing to be co-opted and subsumed by a larger, another ideology. There is no larger, no other ideology for the Christian.
The trouble is, we haven't been bothered to separate the two. We've been content to conflate the teachings of Scripture with Traditionalism, which is why people still think, among other things, that Christians hate women. Um, hello? Remember that guy Jesus chillin' with all the ladies, from the rich patroness to the prostitute? Remember how in the Gospels the eejits who don't get it are a bunch of dudes, and the clever interlocutor, some of the few left at the cross, the one who gets to the tomb first, are women?
We're ill-equipped to encounter that nonsense. We can't discern the absurd and wicked elements of Traditionalism because we think it's what we believe. We've been hornswoggled by our own equivocation.
Traditionalism sucks. Traditionalism sucks because it's an ideology that controls, that masters. But tradition, like most ideas, is an all right servant. Scorn for the past isn't my thing. It isn't God's thing. But idealizing the past, idolizing the past, that will get you nothing but 40 years of wandering in the desert while you pine for the good ol' days in Egypt, or 1955, or the Reagan years, or whatever.
We do it with politics too, we let some movement or institution or organization tell us what we believe, or at least what we can believe publicly. Oh, you're just like us because of whatever. Jump on board the tea party express, or the hope and change bandwagon. Christianity is a tool that political parties can wield. Right?
Knock it off. The Gospel is not a talking point to be hammered on, a political agenda, a social reconstruction plan. It's nothing to be co-opted and subsumed by a larger, another ideology. There is no larger, no other ideology for the Christian.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
At Least It Made Me Appreciate My Students...
After going-on three years of teaching at a classical Christian school, I'm so accustomed to polite, well-trained kids that I don't know what to do anymore when faced with rude or untrained ones.
A girl of around ten ran up to our table this afternoon (at the J-town Gaslight festival where my school has a booth), pointed at the bowl full of beads, and demanded, "What are THOSE?" When I told her she and her friend could make bead bracelets, she ran off without another word. No "excuse me," no "thank you," no "Oh, let me go ask my mom if it's ok," nothing.
Here's the thing: I don't think the girl was trying to be rude. It just seemed like she'd never been taught how to talk to adults.
Why do people not think they have the responsibility to teach their kids basic manners? How is your kid going to learn manners if you don't teach them? The reason you teach kids to say "please" and "thank you" and "pardon me" and "oops, sorry" and all that is not so you can show off what a good parent you are, nor is it about forcing your rambunctious little darling to become a boring Stepford child who smiles and says, "Yes, ma'am" on command. You teach manners to children so they can get along in the real world, both as they grow up and when they're adults.
/rant
A girl of around ten ran up to our table this afternoon (at the J-town Gaslight festival where my school has a booth), pointed at the bowl full of beads, and demanded, "What are THOSE?" When I told her she and her friend could make bead bracelets, she ran off without another word. No "excuse me," no "thank you," no "Oh, let me go ask my mom if it's ok," nothing.
Here's the thing: I don't think the girl was trying to be rude. It just seemed like she'd never been taught how to talk to adults.
Why do people not think they have the responsibility to teach their kids basic manners? How is your kid going to learn manners if you don't teach them? The reason you teach kids to say "please" and "thank you" and "pardon me" and "oops, sorry" and all that is not so you can show off what a good parent you are, nor is it about forcing your rambunctious little darling to become a boring Stepford child who smiles and says, "Yes, ma'am" on command. You teach manners to children so they can get along in the real world, both as they grow up and when they're adults.
/rant
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Blergh.
I got my census form in the mail today. In the first column, they ask that you enter a phone number, so that they can call you if they "do not understand one of your responses."
I'm strongly tempted, under "Race," to write "HUMAN" -- only because there's not enough room to write, "I categorically reject the concept of race as a genetically-derived, immutable, meaningful designation of human beings. All humans belong to a single race. Cultural and ethnic differences may be useful to learn about as we seek to understand one another. It is, however, utterly useless -- and, in fact, often wicked -- to attempt to construe meaningful data about the character of humans from the color of their skin, the texture of their hair, the shape of their eyes, or any other merely physical characteristic."
Do you think I'd get a phone call about that?
I'm strongly tempted, under "Race," to write "HUMAN" -- only because there's not enough room to write, "I categorically reject the concept of race as a genetically-derived, immutable, meaningful designation of human beings. All humans belong to a single race. Cultural and ethnic differences may be useful to learn about as we seek to understand one another. It is, however, utterly useless -- and, in fact, often wicked -- to attempt to construe meaningful data about the character of humans from the color of their skin, the texture of their hair, the shape of their eyes, or any other merely physical characteristic."
Do you think I'd get a phone call about that?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Words Matter, part 2
(Previous warning about "shouty and capsy" remains in effect.)
Dear Blog Reader,
Seriously, quit thinking that every blogger is out to get you. If you find yourself getting offended by pretty much everything you read on blogs, you need to do two things: 1) GET OFF THE INTERNET. and 2) FIND A HOBBY. Nobody is sitting around coming up with new and creative ways to hurt your poor widdle feelings. There comes a point where you need to ask yourself, "What is the common denominator in all of the posts that make me angry/offend me deeply/cause me to question people's salvation?" I have the answer to that question. IT'S YOU.
Maybe you're totally convinced that the KJV-only position is right, or that women should wear long dresses and headcoverings, or that daughters should ALWAYS stay home until they get married, even if that means no college and no job, ever. WHAT ARE YOU DOING READING MY BLOG? Or blogs of OTHER people who you KNOW do not agree with you on those subjects? You HAVE TO REALIZE that you're going to be in the minority, right? And that comments sections on blogs are probably NOT the best place to convince people to burn their NIVs and their PANTS?
Look, I don't frequent (for instance) the blogs of people who think that it's fine/good/desirable for women to be pastors/elders in the local church. That's not because of some kind of confirmation bias, but just because I know that I'll get annoyed with their bad exegesis or disregard for Scripture and be tempted to let it all out in the comments sections. I don't read Pyromaniacs anymore because those dudes are seriously NOT OK with people who believe in the continuation of all the gifts of the Spirit. I mean NOT OK AT ALL. So rather than going over there and painting a bullseye on my charismatic self, I just leave them to it, knowing that the Lord will one day correct THEIR theology just like he's definitely going to correct mine.
I mean, really, it gets to the point that I want to ask you, DO YOU HATE YOURSELF? If not, WHY do you subject yourself to this all the time, and then get hurt and prickly and obnoxious about it? MARTYR COMPLEXES ARE NOT CUTE. CAN YOU DIG IT?
Love,
Laura
Dear Blog Reader,
Seriously, quit thinking that every blogger is out to get you. If you find yourself getting offended by pretty much everything you read on blogs, you need to do two things: 1) GET OFF THE INTERNET. and 2) FIND A HOBBY. Nobody is sitting around coming up with new and creative ways to hurt your poor widdle feelings. There comes a point where you need to ask yourself, "What is the common denominator in all of the posts that make me angry/offend me deeply/cause me to question people's salvation?" I have the answer to that question. IT'S YOU.
Maybe you're totally convinced that the KJV-only position is right, or that women should wear long dresses and headcoverings, or that daughters should ALWAYS stay home until they get married, even if that means no college and no job, ever. WHAT ARE YOU DOING READING MY BLOG? Or blogs of OTHER people who you KNOW do not agree with you on those subjects? You HAVE TO REALIZE that you're going to be in the minority, right? And that comments sections on blogs are probably NOT the best place to convince people to burn their NIVs and their PANTS?
Look, I don't frequent (for instance) the blogs of people who think that it's fine/good/desirable for women to be pastors/elders in the local church. That's not because of some kind of confirmation bias, but just because I know that I'll get annoyed with their bad exegesis or disregard for Scripture and be tempted to let it all out in the comments sections. I don't read Pyromaniacs anymore because those dudes are seriously NOT OK with people who believe in the continuation of all the gifts of the Spirit. I mean NOT OK AT ALL. So rather than going over there and painting a bullseye on my charismatic self, I just leave them to it, knowing that the Lord will one day correct THEIR theology just like he's definitely going to correct mine.
I mean, really, it gets to the point that I want to ask you, DO YOU HATE YOURSELF? If not, WHY do you subject yourself to this all the time, and then get hurt and prickly and obnoxious about it? MARTYR COMPLEXES ARE NOT CUTE. CAN YOU DIG IT?
Love,
Laura
Monday, March 15, 2010
Words Matter
(Caveat: I am going to be a little shouty and capsy on this subject. Bear with me.)
Dear fellow Christian bloggers,
If someone comments on your blog and says, "I felt really hurt by what you said about ___," THINK ABOUT IT before you reply with, "You just don't understand my deep theology/humor/word choice" or "You're being so sensitive, just man up, already" or "WHAT? HERESY!"
YOU do not get to decide what hurts OTHER people's feelings. YOU do not determine THEIR perception. Maybe they're totally unjustified in their criticism. FINE. But don't just assume, for the love of God, that they just need to pull up their big girl panties and get down with whatever higher spiritual knowledge you're privy too, mmkay? Newsflash: YOU ARE WRONG SOMETIMES. In fact, on a spiritual level, apart from Christ, you are 100% wrong! Not mostly wrong or partly wrong but COMPLETELY WRONG. If a brother or sister in Christ is hurt by some thoughtless remark you made, even if you think they SHOULDN'T be, JUST FREAKING APOLOGIZE -- for the misunderstanding, if nothing else. You know they have this fancy button on most blogging platforms, it's called the "EDIT" button. You can use it to -- get this -- GO BACK and change the content of your posts. I know. Crazy.
Whatever your opinions, they are not so important that you can excuse bad manners toward brothers and sisters, in the name of being RIGHT. NO, THEY AREN'T.
Love,
Laura
Dear fellow Christian bloggers,
If someone comments on your blog and says, "I felt really hurt by what you said about ___," THINK ABOUT IT before you reply with, "You just don't understand my deep theology/humor/word choice" or "You're being so sensitive, just man up, already" or "WHAT? HERESY!"
YOU do not get to decide what hurts OTHER people's feelings. YOU do not determine THEIR perception. Maybe they're totally unjustified in their criticism. FINE. But don't just assume, for the love of God, that they just need to pull up their big girl panties and get down with whatever higher spiritual knowledge you're privy too, mmkay? Newsflash: YOU ARE WRONG SOMETIMES. In fact, on a spiritual level, apart from Christ, you are 100% wrong! Not mostly wrong or partly wrong but COMPLETELY WRONG. If a brother or sister in Christ is hurt by some thoughtless remark you made, even if you think they SHOULDN'T be, JUST FREAKING APOLOGIZE -- for the misunderstanding, if nothing else. You know they have this fancy button on most blogging platforms, it's called the "EDIT" button. You can use it to -- get this -- GO BACK and change the content of your posts. I know. Crazy.
Whatever your opinions, they are not so important that you can excuse bad manners toward brothers and sisters, in the name of being RIGHT. NO, THEY AREN'T.
Love,
Laura
Monday, March 1, 2010
A Tiiiiny Rant
Scenario: Somewhere in blog-land, someone says, with genuine curiosity, "Y'know, I just don't get ___. Can someone explain it to me?" The first half-dozen replies are either, "Me either!" or "Here's my opinion, but to each his own."
AND THEN.
Some ravening pseudo-intellectual turns from monitoring all the OTHER regions of blog-land to sniff, "You know what I just hate? Elitism. I just cannot abide people who think that no one else's opinions, experiences, or thoughts matter. It's just this (food-snob/Calvinist/seminary-educated/white/yuppie/middle-class/Western/xenophobic) hegemony that I cannot stand, where people think that their views come down from heaven written by the finger of God. Ugh. Judgmentalism!" And then they go back to trolling at all the other foodie/natural-birth/theology/whatever blogs on which they misuse vocabulary from their Word-of-the-Day calendars.
I saw this today on a fun foodie message board I frequent, in which someone said they didn't get the concept of drinking a certain kind of beverage with dinner. Everything is going along fine until some snark starts dropping passive-aggressive crap like "that doesn't make you the Ultimate Critic" and "running screaming to the judgment booth".
What kind of idiots are we if we can't respond to a legitimate question without resorting to rhetoric like this? And what kind of idiots are we if we take the bait?
AND THEN.
Some ravening pseudo-intellectual turns from monitoring all the OTHER regions of blog-land to sniff, "You know what I just hate? Elitism. I just cannot abide people who think that no one else's opinions, experiences, or thoughts matter. It's just this (food-snob/Calvinist/seminary-educated/white/yuppie/middle-class/Western/xenophobic) hegemony that I cannot stand, where people think that their views come down from heaven written by the finger of God. Ugh. Judgmentalism!" And then they go back to trolling at all the other foodie/natural-birth/theology/whatever blogs on which they misuse vocabulary from their Word-of-the-Day calendars.
I saw this today on a fun foodie message board I frequent, in which someone said they didn't get the concept of drinking a certain kind of beverage with dinner. Everything is going along fine until some snark starts dropping passive-aggressive crap like "that doesn't make you the Ultimate Critic" and "running screaming to the judgment booth".
What kind of idiots are we if we can't respond to a legitimate question without resorting to rhetoric like this? And what kind of idiots are we if we take the bait?
Friday, August 28, 2009
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. "
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. "
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
OK, It's late, but...
Quick rant:
What is up with guys doing covert ops on girls they're interested in? You know what our parents called it when a guy was getting to know a girl he was interested in? They called it DATING. Because they were DATING. Gosh.
Is it really so hard to walk up to a girl and say, "Hey, would you like to have a coffee this Saturday afternoon?" Surely it cannot possibly be as complicated as spending six months scoping her out, trying to get the skinny on her from all her friends via your friends, hemming and hawing around, sending her name out to the prayer committee at your parents' church, confessing to your accountability partner that you think she's hot, casually and vaguely mentioning group outings in her presence... all the while planning to ambush her with a carefully scripted speech. It's like sleight-of-hand dating: Now, look here, nothing in my hand, look closely, and... PRESTO! I pulled a coin from your ear! I mean, WE'RE DATING!
Just. Say. No.
What is up with guys doing covert ops on girls they're interested in? You know what our parents called it when a guy was getting to know a girl he was interested in? They called it DATING. Because they were DATING. Gosh.
Is it really so hard to walk up to a girl and say, "Hey, would you like to have a coffee this Saturday afternoon?" Surely it cannot possibly be as complicated as spending six months scoping her out, trying to get the skinny on her from all her friends via your friends, hemming and hawing around, sending her name out to the prayer committee at your parents' church, confessing to your accountability partner that you think she's hot, casually and vaguely mentioning group outings in her presence... all the while planning to ambush her with a carefully scripted speech. It's like sleight-of-hand dating: Now, look here, nothing in my hand, look closely, and... PRESTO! I pulled a coin from your ear! I mean, WE'RE DATING!
Just. Say. No.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Stuff
Random list time!
Stuff Christians should stop freaking out about:
1. Halloween. Dude. What a bunch of wasted energy is poured into the anti-Halloween lobbying that happens every year!! Is Samhain a pagan holiday? Yup. Is Halloween a pagan holiday? Uh, no. It's primarily the Eve of All Saints, and secondarily a cutesy Hallmark-perpetuated candy orgy/ excuse for little kids to dress up and show off their dressed-up-ness. Let your kids trick-or-treat, don't let them trick-or-treat. Whatever. But please don't try to convince me that the Bible says it's wrong for Christians to let their kids put on Superman capes and go door to door asking for candy. Please.
2. Disputable issues like consumption of alcohol, R-rated movies, tattoos and piercings, birth control, etc. Read Romans 14, and remember that we're not to look down on people who don't feel freedom in these areas, nor judge those who do.
3. Politics. Christians can vote, be involved in their community political processes, argue passionately for their political positions, and even (in some circumstances) run for office. Should they hang all their hopes of their country being transformed for the better on a political party, politician, or ideology? Definitely NOT. The Kingdom of God isn't Republican or Democrat or Green or Labour or any other such thing, and it won't be advanced by the (conscious) efforts of secular political machinery. God will advance his Kingdom.
4. Anecdotes that "prove" our points. We're so eager to latch onto this or that bit of scientific or archaeological or historical or sociological evidence that confirms our positions (like in this Boundless article), but we roll our eyes when pagans and atheists do the same (like with the ossuary found a few years ago containing the bones of a dude named Jesus son of Joseph). We ought to take an attitude of quiet confidence when it comes to these sorts of discoveries. Of course history, archaeology, and the like will confirm and support the Scriptures -- God did, after all, create everything and all truth belongs to him -- but that's not why we trust the Scriptures. We trust them because God has, by his incomprehensible grace, enlivened our hearts and enabled us to see in the Scriptures the testimony of Christ, his perfect Son and our atoning sacrifice. So we should be glad, knowing that the Scriptures are true, when some new affirmation of their historicity comes to light, without placing our hope or confidence in those discoveries.
Stuff Christians should get more fired up about:
1. Nominal Christianity and twisted "Gospels." Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, TBN, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Ann Holmes Redding (the Muslim Episcopal priest), and Jeremiah Wright should not be given a free pass by Christians and pastors around the world. Just because someone claims to be a brother in Christ and uses churchy-sounding words does not make him a Christian. And don't even get me started on hip-hop artists who give a shout-out to Jesus when they win a VMA for their hit single about making sure one ho don't find out about another ho.
2. Manhood, womanhood, and families. The Scriptures we (supposedly) hold dear are full of instruction about and examples of what godly men, women, and families look like. Something is not right when people who call themselves Christians divorce with impunity, reject and despise God's blessing of children, and in all other ways look just like the world in the way they live as men and women, and the way their families work. Early apologists and historians appealed to the morality and purity of Christian families as evidence for the truth of the Christian faith. Pretty tough to do that now, huh?
OK, that's enough ranting and randomness for the day.
Maybe one more thing. I'm watching NCAA basketball RIGHT NOW. AWESOME.
Stuff Christians should stop freaking out about:
1. Halloween. Dude. What a bunch of wasted energy is poured into the anti-Halloween lobbying that happens every year!! Is Samhain a pagan holiday? Yup. Is Halloween a pagan holiday? Uh, no. It's primarily the Eve of All Saints, and secondarily a cutesy Hallmark-perpetuated candy orgy/ excuse for little kids to dress up and show off their dressed-up-ness. Let your kids trick-or-treat, don't let them trick-or-treat. Whatever. But please don't try to convince me that the Bible says it's wrong for Christians to let their kids put on Superman capes and go door to door asking for candy. Please.
2. Disputable issues like consumption of alcohol, R-rated movies, tattoos and piercings, birth control, etc. Read Romans 14, and remember that we're not to look down on people who don't feel freedom in these areas, nor judge those who do.
3. Politics. Christians can vote, be involved in their community political processes, argue passionately for their political positions, and even (in some circumstances) run for office. Should they hang all their hopes of their country being transformed for the better on a political party, politician, or ideology? Definitely NOT. The Kingdom of God isn't Republican or Democrat or Green or Labour or any other such thing, and it won't be advanced by the (conscious) efforts of secular political machinery. God will advance his Kingdom.
4. Anecdotes that "prove" our points. We're so eager to latch onto this or that bit of scientific or archaeological or historical or sociological evidence that confirms our positions (like in this Boundless article), but we roll our eyes when pagans and atheists do the same (like with the ossuary found a few years ago containing the bones of a dude named Jesus son of Joseph). We ought to take an attitude of quiet confidence when it comes to these sorts of discoveries. Of course history, archaeology, and the like will confirm and support the Scriptures -- God did, after all, create everything and all truth belongs to him -- but that's not why we trust the Scriptures. We trust them because God has, by his incomprehensible grace, enlivened our hearts and enabled us to see in the Scriptures the testimony of Christ, his perfect Son and our atoning sacrifice. So we should be glad, knowing that the Scriptures are true, when some new affirmation of their historicity comes to light, without placing our hope or confidence in those discoveries.
Stuff Christians should get more fired up about:
1. Nominal Christianity and twisted "Gospels." Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, TBN, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Ann Holmes Redding (the Muslim Episcopal priest), and Jeremiah Wright should not be given a free pass by Christians and pastors around the world. Just because someone claims to be a brother in Christ and uses churchy-sounding words does not make him a Christian. And don't even get me started on hip-hop artists who give a shout-out to Jesus when they win a VMA for their hit single about making sure one ho don't find out about another ho.
2. Manhood, womanhood, and families. The Scriptures we (supposedly) hold dear are full of instruction about and examples of what godly men, women, and families look like. Something is not right when people who call themselves Christians divorce with impunity, reject and despise God's blessing of children, and in all other ways look just like the world in the way they live as men and women, and the way their families work. Early apologists and historians appealed to the morality and purity of Christian families as evidence for the truth of the Christian faith. Pretty tough to do that now, huh?
OK, that's enough ranting and randomness for the day.
Maybe one more thing. I'm watching NCAA basketball RIGHT NOW. AWESOME.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Greatest Hits: How NOT to Give Advice to Single People
(Originally Posted October 27, 2008)
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my previous articles. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 22nd.
So the other day, I met a really nice couple. The husband was friendly and asked me a lot of questions about my life. We chatted about travel, and I told them about my trip to Europe with my family.
"Husband and kids?" he asked.
"No, parents and brother. I'm single," I replied.
And then... such a speech. Here's what he advised me to do.
1. Make a specific list of everything you're looking for in a husband. This advice was accompanied by a lot of questions. Have you thought about what kind of things you're looking for? Really? Specifically? In detail? What about things you don't want? Really? Specifically? In detail?
2. Realize that that man exists. Pray specifically for him. He is the only man for you.
3. Recruit other people to pray for that specific man (who, remember, is the only man for you). Don't forget about the parable of the unjust judge. Pester God until he brings your husband along.
4. Remain under your father's authority.
5. If that doesn't work, join eHarmony.
I definitely wished I could have made the whole conversation just STOP, for the love of heaven and all its angels, STOP!! It basically sums up all the bad advice I've gotten about singleness -- not just the advice itself, but the context in which it was offered.
So here (as revenge) is MY advice to married people who feel tempted to say any of the above things:
1. Don't give advice to single people you just met. Relationship advice should be given in the context of -- surprise!! -- relationships. Most people would never give marital advice to a couple they just met, but the rules somehow go out the window when talking to single folks.
2. Think about your attitude before you offer advice. As Christians, we have to recognize that the problem of humans is sin, and the solution is the Gospel. Singleness is NOT a problem to be solved. Do I want to get married? DUH. But please don't see my life as something you can "fix" with some pithy tips.
3. Keep in mind that every person's situation is different. Again, folks get this ordinarily. But with singles, it seems like people are so much more tempted to say, "Well, such-and-such worked for _____, so it'll definitely work for you." It's not that your advice is necessarily wrong, but... for example, I have ZERO problem with online dating services. And the courtship model makes sense for younger singles who live near or with their parents. And I wish more of my married friends would be bold enough to set me up with some dudes. But not all of those things is right for every person. For crying out loud, one of my dearest friends emailed a guy from halfway around the world because he read her blog and jokingly called her a feminist and she didn't like it and then they started talking and fell in love and now they're married and she's pregnant with their first child. Good GRIEF. PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. Ok. Rant over.
4. Please, please, please, don't perpetuate the idea that there's one ideal man out there for every single woman, and she'll never be happy until she finds him. The Prince Charming Myth has disillusioned and embittered countless young women, clinging to their "lists" while overlooking godly men all around them. Yes, in the grand scheme of God's sovereign plan, he knows and chose who I'll marry. But in my time-bound perspective, there are any number of godly, ministry-minded men with whom I could have a good, happy, sanctifying, Gospel-centered marriage.
OK, single peeps, any other advice for our married friends? ;)
Since I won't be writing much while I'm on Spring break this week, I'll be posting some of my previous articles. I'll be back at it on Monday, March 22nd.
So the other day, I met a really nice couple. The husband was friendly and asked me a lot of questions about my life. We chatted about travel, and I told them about my trip to Europe with my family.
"Husband and kids?" he asked.
"No, parents and brother. I'm single," I replied.
And then... such a speech. Here's what he advised me to do.
1. Make a specific list of everything you're looking for in a husband. This advice was accompanied by a lot of questions. Have you thought about what kind of things you're looking for? Really? Specifically? In detail? What about things you don't want? Really? Specifically? In detail?
2. Realize that that man exists. Pray specifically for him. He is the only man for you.
3. Recruit other people to pray for that specific man (who, remember, is the only man for you). Don't forget about the parable of the unjust judge. Pester God until he brings your husband along.
4. Remain under your father's authority.
5. If that doesn't work, join eHarmony.
I definitely wished I could have made the whole conversation just STOP, for the love of heaven and all its angels, STOP!! It basically sums up all the bad advice I've gotten about singleness -- not just the advice itself, but the context in which it was offered.
So here (as revenge) is MY advice to married people who feel tempted to say any of the above things:
1. Don't give advice to single people you just met. Relationship advice should be given in the context of -- surprise!! -- relationships. Most people would never give marital advice to a couple they just met, but the rules somehow go out the window when talking to single folks.
2. Think about your attitude before you offer advice. As Christians, we have to recognize that the problem of humans is sin, and the solution is the Gospel. Singleness is NOT a problem to be solved. Do I want to get married? DUH. But please don't see my life as something you can "fix" with some pithy tips.
3. Keep in mind that every person's situation is different. Again, folks get this ordinarily. But with singles, it seems like people are so much more tempted to say, "Well, such-and-such worked for _____, so it'll definitely work for you." It's not that your advice is necessarily wrong, but... for example, I have ZERO problem with online dating services. And the courtship model makes sense for younger singles who live near or with their parents. And I wish more of my married friends would be bold enough to set me up with some dudes. But not all of those things is right for every person. For crying out loud, one of my dearest friends emailed a guy from halfway around the world because he read her blog and jokingly called her a feminist and she didn't like it and then they started talking and fell in love and now they're married and she's pregnant with their first child. Good GRIEF. PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. Ok. Rant over.
4. Please, please, please, don't perpetuate the idea that there's one ideal man out there for every single woman, and she'll never be happy until she finds him. The Prince Charming Myth has disillusioned and embittered countless young women, clinging to their "lists" while overlooking godly men all around them. Yes, in the grand scheme of God's sovereign plan, he knows and chose who I'll marry. But in my time-bound perspective, there are any number of godly, ministry-minded men with whom I could have a good, happy, sanctifying, Gospel-centered marriage.
OK, single peeps, any other advice for our married friends? ;)
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Rules/Rants About Blogs
The "rules" bit:
1. If you don't have time to read or address reader comments, consider that you might not have time to blog.
2. If you have a strict disclaimer or instructions for commenters (what behavior or content won't be tolerated), but don't have time to enforce these policies, then really don't bother blogging.
Theologica and Boundless Line are two prime examples of what happens when you don't consistently respond to out-of-line or heretical comments, and in the case of Boundless, what happens when you don't enforce your comments guidelines. The moderators end up suborning heresy, the comments sections spiral out of control, and the constructive discussion gets choked out by confusing, contradictory comments by believers, unbelievers, and pseudo-believers.
So, do you 1. address and refute out-of-line or heretical comments, 2. delete them, or 3. let them slide?
#3 is irresponsible and foolish, and either 1 or 2 works. I lean towards deleting (although a blog that's turned into a public forum would want to be crystal clear about the standards for deletion). Heretics who find themselves being blocked will keep moving until they find somewhere else to comment.
And really, have you ever heard a new believer say, "You know, I was an atheist until I started commenting on this blog..."?
1. If you don't have time to read or address reader comments, consider that you might not have time to blog.
2. If you have a strict disclaimer or instructions for commenters (what behavior or content won't be tolerated), but don't have time to enforce these policies, then really don't bother blogging.
Theologica and Boundless Line are two prime examples of what happens when you don't consistently respond to out-of-line or heretical comments, and in the case of Boundless, what happens when you don't enforce your comments guidelines. The moderators end up suborning heresy, the comments sections spiral out of control, and the constructive discussion gets choked out by confusing, contradictory comments by believers, unbelievers, and pseudo-believers.
So, do you 1. address and refute out-of-line or heretical comments, 2. delete them, or 3. let them slide?
#3 is irresponsible and foolish, and either 1 or 2 works. I lean towards deleting (although a blog that's turned into a public forum would want to be crystal clear about the standards for deletion). Heretics who find themselves being blocked will keep moving until they find somewhere else to comment.
And really, have you ever heard a new believer say, "You know, I was an atheist until I started commenting on this blog..."?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Well...?
I posted a version of this series of questions on the Boundless Line today (intentionally not linked; it's a very heated discussion and I wouldn't recommend wasting your time reading it unless you're a glutton for punishment). Anyone want to take a shot?
1. What does God say about children?
2. Is God in control of human fertility?
3. If God calls children a blessing to be welcomed and he is in control of fertility, than do I have the right as a believer (whose life is supposed to be conformed to God's ways) to say (if married), "I don't want kids," or "I want to put off children (or marriage and children) because ___"?
You don't really have to answer them... And I'm sure my answers are painfully obvious. Pondering these questions was what changed my attitude about this whole thing. I realized that I had absorbed the culture's attitudes toward marriage and children -- don't get married until you're settled in your career, put off having children as long as possible because they're a hassle, stuff like that. But throughout the centuries, Christians have always been counter-cultural in how they valued children -- the early Church fought against the pagan practices of child sacrifice and abandonment, for example, and Christians led the charge for the illegalization of child labor.
So why is it that now, even among Christians, having a child early in a marriage must have been an accident? And why having a large family (i.e., anything beyond three or four kids) means you must not have figured out how to work those birth control pills? And why Christian parents tell their sons and daughters that they must not get married before they've graduated college and settled down into a good career (never mind the tens of thousands in debt it took to get there)?
What do you think is at the heart of the problem?
1. What does God say about children?
2. Is God in control of human fertility?
3. If God calls children a blessing to be welcomed and he is in control of fertility, than do I have the right as a believer (whose life is supposed to be conformed to God's ways) to say (if married), "I don't want kids," or "I want to put off children (or marriage and children) because ___"?
You don't really have to answer them... And I'm sure my answers are painfully obvious. Pondering these questions was what changed my attitude about this whole thing. I realized that I had absorbed the culture's attitudes toward marriage and children -- don't get married until you're settled in your career, put off having children as long as possible because they're a hassle, stuff like that. But throughout the centuries, Christians have always been counter-cultural in how they valued children -- the early Church fought against the pagan practices of child sacrifice and abandonment, for example, and Christians led the charge for the illegalization of child labor.
So why is it that now, even among Christians, having a child early in a marriage must have been an accident? And why having a large family (i.e., anything beyond three or four kids) means you must not have figured out how to work those birth control pills? And why Christian parents tell their sons and daughters that they must not get married before they've graduated college and settled down into a good career (never mind the tens of thousands in debt it took to get there)?
What do you think is at the heart of the problem?
Friday, August 15, 2008
Things I love and things I love not so much.
Things I love not so much right now:
People thinking their wedding is the perfect excuse to be the selfish brats they've always dreamt of being but were afraid to try. I'm going to write a book about this someday, I swear, and one of the chapters is going to be called, "Your Wedding Day: Celebration, not Extortion."
Allergies. How can my nose be stuffy AND runny at the same time? Hmm?
Having to move at the end of the month. Do you think that if I just pretend it's not really happening, my stuff will all just miraculously box itself up and find its way to the condo I'm hoping to buy? Hey! That'd make the house-hunting process a lot quicker! I'd just have to call around to the folks who own the places I'm looking at and ask if a whole truckload of stuff just materialized in their living room!
Things I love right now (so as to end the post on a more cheerful note):
The Dick Van Dyke Show. I actually love this all the time -- it's a truly one-of-a-kind show. A sitcom that portrays the American family as it might have been, if only: a smart, clever, successful husband with a loving, supportive wife, an unfailingly hilarious premise (comedy writer whose life is often funner than his job), and some of the best supporting characters ever to softshoe, sing, and hurl oneliners in the background make it my absolute favorite. The first two seasons are available at hulu.com for free streaming. Best Episodes: the "Walnuts" one, Richard "Rosebud" Petrie, the haunted cabin episode, and anything with a flashback to Rob and Laura's Army/USO days.
Having a job (see also: Classical education).
Michael Phelps. I know, I know... not very original. But have YOU ever found yourself spellbound by a swimming competition before? That's what I thought.
Tomatoes. For reeeeeeal. This week I've had an organic Brandywine and an organic Cherokee Purple from my friends Justin and Stacey's garden (both of which were delectable, but let's be honest. It's Justin's garden.), as well as a beautiful and exceptionally delicious tomato of some faintly heirloomish variety that I sliced, salted, and ate alongside a few tiny nubs of fresh mozzarella. For supper.
People thinking their wedding is the perfect excuse to be the selfish brats they've always dreamt of being but were afraid to try. I'm going to write a book about this someday, I swear, and one of the chapters is going to be called, "Your Wedding Day: Celebration, not Extortion."
Allergies. How can my nose be stuffy AND runny at the same time? Hmm?
Having to move at the end of the month. Do you think that if I just pretend it's not really happening, my stuff will all just miraculously box itself up and find its way to the condo I'm hoping to buy? Hey! That'd make the house-hunting process a lot quicker! I'd just have to call around to the folks who own the places I'm looking at and ask if a whole truckload of stuff just materialized in their living room!
Things I love right now (so as to end the post on a more cheerful note):
The Dick Van Dyke Show. I actually love this all the time -- it's a truly one-of-a-kind show. A sitcom that portrays the American family as it might have been, if only: a smart, clever, successful husband with a loving, supportive wife, an unfailingly hilarious premise (comedy writer whose life is often funner than his job), and some of the best supporting characters ever to softshoe, sing, and hurl oneliners in the background make it my absolute favorite. The first two seasons are available at hulu.com for free streaming. Best Episodes: the "Walnuts" one, Richard "Rosebud" Petrie, the haunted cabin episode, and anything with a flashback to Rob and Laura's Army/USO days.
Having a job (see also: Classical education).
Michael Phelps. I know, I know... not very original. But have YOU ever found yourself spellbound by a swimming competition before? That's what I thought.
Tomatoes. For reeeeeeal. This week I've had an organic Brandywine and an organic Cherokee Purple from my friends Justin and Stacey's garden (both of which were delectable, but let's be honest. It's Justin's garden.), as well as a beautiful and exceptionally delicious tomato of some faintly heirloomish variety that I sliced, salted, and ate alongside a few tiny nubs of fresh mozzarella. For supper.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Discernment
In the church, there seems to be an idea that "discernment" means "praying and waiting for God's specific, personal direction on every decision in my life" -- see John Eldredge's book, Walking with God for a classic example. But is that the view of Scripture? I think not. Such an understanding of discernment leads to several errors:
1. A separation between Christians who "know God's will," i.e. the super-Christians that God speaks to, and the "ordinary" Christians who seem not to hear from God about stuff like the color of their wallpaper.
2. Using "discernment" to excuse unwise behavior and even sin. I don't know how many times I've heard people say, "Well, I've prayed about it for months and the Lord has told me it was OK," even if "it" was buying a $300,000 house when you're $60,000 in debt, or living with but not sleeping with your fiance, or being slack in disciplining your kids. Those are not areas about which we ought even to pray. The best advice I can give people who encounter this "God told me" business from people is to remember that it's not a trump card. We have a responsibility to one another in the body of Christ, and letting someone off the hook just because they played the "God told me" card is hardly showing love to our brothers.
3. Total paralysis in decision-making, stemming from not using your brain and instead waiting for some sign or feeling to show you that God has given you direction. I strongly believe that for the Christian, the ordinary way of making decisions goes like this: Learn, study, and love God's word. Use the mind that God is sanctifying to make wise decisions. Rinse and repeat. But too many people seem to think that's just not "spiritual" enough. A Christian's life IS spiritual -- it's life IN the Spirit! And it can look very ordinary, but an ordinary life lived faithfully still results in "Well done, good and faithful servant." That's not to say that I don't think God sometimes uses other methods to reveal his will to us -- I certainly do believe that he does! But the ordinary way seems to be knowing God's word and living wisely in accordance with that.
1. A separation between Christians who "know God's will," i.e. the super-Christians that God speaks to, and the "ordinary" Christians who seem not to hear from God about stuff like the color of their wallpaper.
2. Using "discernment" to excuse unwise behavior and even sin. I don't know how many times I've heard people say, "Well, I've prayed about it for months and the Lord has told me it was OK," even if "it" was buying a $300,000 house when you're $60,000 in debt, or living with but not sleeping with your fiance, or being slack in disciplining your kids. Those are not areas about which we ought even to pray. The best advice I can give people who encounter this "God told me" business from people is to remember that it's not a trump card. We have a responsibility to one another in the body of Christ, and letting someone off the hook just because they played the "God told me" card is hardly showing love to our brothers.
3. Total paralysis in decision-making, stemming from not using your brain and instead waiting for some sign or feeling to show you that God has given you direction. I strongly believe that for the Christian, the ordinary way of making decisions goes like this: Learn, study, and love God's word. Use the mind that God is sanctifying to make wise decisions. Rinse and repeat. But too many people seem to think that's just not "spiritual" enough. A Christian's life IS spiritual -- it's life IN the Spirit! And it can look very ordinary, but an ordinary life lived faithfully still results in "Well done, good and faithful servant." That's not to say that I don't think God sometimes uses other methods to reveal his will to us -- I certainly do believe that he does! But the ordinary way seems to be knowing God's word and living wisely in accordance with that.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Two Things
1. BAH! I hate possums!! I was going to post a picture to give you an idea of how disgusting they are, but I didn't have the heart. They are SO foul. Last night while Katie and I were enjoying a lovely evening on the porch, a nasty possum tried to climb up the steps. Hang on, aren't they supposed to be afraid of people? Evidently not, because after Katie (my hero!) shooed it away while I tried to suppress the urge to shriek uncontrollably, the dang thing skittered through the bushes and tried to jump up on the other end of the porch, mere feet from us, with the porch light glaring away! SICK ME OUT! SICK ME OUT!! Dude, a possum is basically a R.O.U.S. It's a two-foot-long rodent with a ratty tail. RAT! SICK! That's right, everyone, a RAT (possum), a giant RAT (possum) tried to JUMP up onto my porch while I was sitting RIGHT THERE. AUGH! Am I making the trauma of this moment clear to you, folks? A RAT!! (possum)
2. I'm driving home a week from tomorrow. Oh, you'd like to see the route? I thought you'd never ask.
2. I'm driving home a week from tomorrow. Oh, you'd like to see the route? I thought you'd never ask.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
I think it's high time...
...for another waste of time post.
First, Love Actually. Some people hate it -- Christine, for instance, detests Hugh Grant so much that you can hear the gag start before she finishes saying his name -- but I adore it. Quotes:
Second, how great is technology? I just got off the phone with Christine... well, off Skype with Christine. We talked for around an hour and a half for free with perfect clarity, which is way better than sending a letter that might get there six or eight weeks later, or typing an email that will be read whenever, or even chatting on an instant messenger. There's something about hearing a friend's voice. But isn't it strange and wonderful to think of having a real-time conversation with someone who lives on the other side of the world?
Third, I love Anthony Bourdain. Love. Love, love, love. I may, in fact, be IN love with him. I adore his shows, though sadly I never get to watch them, being cable-less as I am. He is a genius with both a pan and a pen. I love him for the same reason I love Dr. House -- he's perfectly, often brutally, honest in every situation, and yet has these moments where he's so human and tender and open. The mental censor works both ways, you see, so people who never filter what comes out of their mouths can't filter what those around them have access to. And I couldn't possibly agree more with his assessment of the Drunken Madam of the Brothel of Food-Adjacent Terrors, Sandra "COCKTAIL TIME!!!" Lee:
Honestly, people, in what universe is (pre-made angel food cake + canned frosting + only the white gum drops from 10 packages of gumdrops + approximately 7000 toothpicks) FOOD? Or (1 package white chocolate chips + 1/2 gallon whole milk + 1 pint heavy cream + 1 cup sugar + 1 bottle white chocolate liqueur + 2 cups peppermint schnapps) a DRINK? Her concoctions are stomach-turningly vile.
Judging from the processed sugar content of her... uh, let's call them "recipes" just for the heck of it, she is either A) a meth addict; B) trying to buy her way to the top of C&H's board of directors (which, combined with her penchant for extremely tv-inappropriate tops, makes me think she's got her sights set on a CEO's fortune, which would make her the Anna Nicole of the Food Network); C) suffering from the most severe case of hypoglycemia ever known to man; or D) an "Air-tarian," meaning she has never consumed a single mouthful of the slop she throws together. Or possibly all of the above.
What the Food Network programmers seem not to understand is that their shows are meant to be aspirational -- people are supposed to watch lovely Nigella or no-nonsense Alton or homey, friendly Ina and sigh fondly, dreaming of the day when they'll be able to whip up lemony linguine or crisp fried chicken or juicy roast for their families. Rachael Ray, with her quick, decidedly un-gourmet family suppers, ought to be the lowest on this aspirational totem pole. But instead they dredge up Sandra Lee, who pimps out brand-name processed garbage and calls it "semi-homemade." Microwaving Velveeta and taco seasoning inside a tortilla for 20 seconds hardly counts as dorm food, much less as semi-home-anything.
I could seriously go on and on about Stupid Sandra and her Domain of Processed Darkness, but I won't...
Anyway, that's about enough for one night. I've got another one in the hopper about food choices, stewardship of creation, and being an unrepentant omnivore, but it's long enough that it's going to have to wait. Movie quotes, technology, and Anthony Bourdain... I think that earns this post the label of "Random."
First, Love Actually. Some people hate it -- Christine, for instance, detests Hugh Grant so much that you can hear the gag start before she finishes saying his name -- but I adore it. Quotes:
Billy: Ask me anything you like; I'll tell you the truth.
DJ: Uh, best shag you ever had?
Billy: Britney Spears.
DJ: Wow...
Billy: (Snorts) Only kidding. She was rubbish.
Natalie: He said nobody was going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
David: You know, being prime minister, I could just have him murdered.
Natalie: Thank you, sir, I'll think about it.
David: Do. The SAS are absolutely charming. Ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away.
David: Anyway, I'm not sure that politics and dating go together.
The President: Really? I've never found that.
Karen: Now, which doll shall we give Daisy's little friend Emily? The one that looks like a transvestite, or the one that looks like a dominatrix?
Colin: Stateside, I am Prince William, without the weird family.
Daisy: We've been given our parts in the Nativity play.
Karen: And?
Daisy: I'm the lobster.
Karen: The lobster?
Daisy: Yeah!
Karen: In the nativity play?
Daisy: First lobster!
Karen: There was more than one lobster present at the birth of Jesus?
Daisy: Duh...
Second, how great is technology? I just got off the phone with Christine... well, off Skype with Christine. We talked for around an hour and a half for free with perfect clarity, which is way better than sending a letter that might get there six or eight weeks later, or typing an email that will be read whenever, or even chatting on an instant messenger. There's something about hearing a friend's voice. But isn't it strange and wonderful to think of having a real-time conversation with someone who lives on the other side of the world?
Third, I love Anthony Bourdain. Love. Love, love, love. I may, in fact, be IN love with him. I adore his shows, though sadly I never get to watch them, being cable-less as I am. He is a genius with both a pan and a pen. I love him for the same reason I love Dr. House -- he's perfectly, often brutally, honest in every situation, and yet has these moments where he's so human and tender and open. The mental censor works both ways, you see, so people who never filter what comes out of their mouths can't filter what those around them have access to. And I couldn't possibly agree more with his assessment of the Drunken Madam of the Brothel of Food-Adjacent Terrors, Sandra "COCKTAIL TIME!!!" Lee:
Pure evil. This frightening Hell Spawn of Kathie Lee and Betty Crocker seems on a mission to kill her fans, one meal at a time. She Must Be Stopped. Her death-dealing can-opening ways will cut a swath of destruction through the world if not contained. I would likely be arrested if I suggested on television that any children watching should promptly go to a wooded area with a gun and harm themselves. What’s the difference between that and Sandra suggesting we fill our mouths with Ritz Crackers, jam a can of Cheez Wiz in after and press hard? None that I can see. This is simply irresponsible programming. Its only possible use might be as a psychological warfare strategy against the resurgent Taliban--or dangerous insurgent groups. A large-racked blonde repeatedly urging Afghans and angry Iraqis to stuff themseles with fatty, processed American foods might be just the weapon we need to win the war on terror.
Honestly, people, in what universe is (pre-made angel food cake + canned frosting + only the white gum drops from 10 packages of gumdrops + approximately 7000 toothpicks) FOOD? Or (1 package white chocolate chips + 1/2 gallon whole milk + 1 pint heavy cream + 1 cup sugar + 1 bottle white chocolate liqueur + 2 cups peppermint schnapps) a DRINK? Her concoctions are stomach-turningly vile.
Judging from the processed sugar content of her... uh, let's call them "recipes" just for the heck of it, she is either A) a meth addict; B) trying to buy her way to the top of C&H's board of directors (which, combined with her penchant for extremely tv-inappropriate tops, makes me think she's got her sights set on a CEO's fortune, which would make her the Anna Nicole of the Food Network); C) suffering from the most severe case of hypoglycemia ever known to man; or D) an "Air-tarian," meaning she has never consumed a single mouthful of the slop she throws together. Or possibly all of the above.
What the Food Network programmers seem not to understand is that their shows are meant to be aspirational -- people are supposed to watch lovely Nigella or no-nonsense Alton or homey, friendly Ina and sigh fondly, dreaming of the day when they'll be able to whip up lemony linguine or crisp fried chicken or juicy roast for their families. Rachael Ray, with her quick, decidedly un-gourmet family suppers, ought to be the lowest on this aspirational totem pole. But instead they dredge up Sandra Lee, who pimps out brand-name processed garbage and calls it "semi-homemade." Microwaving Velveeta and taco seasoning inside a tortilla for 20 seconds hardly counts as dorm food, much less as semi-home-anything.
I could seriously go on and on about Stupid Sandra and her Domain of Processed Darkness, but I won't...
Anyway, that's about enough for one night. I've got another one in the hopper about food choices, stewardship of creation, and being an unrepentant omnivore, but it's long enough that it's going to have to wait. Movie quotes, technology, and Anthony Bourdain... I think that earns this post the label of "Random."
Monday, January 21, 2008
Discipline
There's been a bit of a dust-up over on Boundless Line lately, regarding a pretty great summary of Mark Dever's view of church discipline. The usual comments ensued -- you can't kick people out of church for sinning! We wouldn't have a church! Doesn't the Bible say, Judge not, lest you be judged? Who are you to say what is a bad enough sin to kick people out? Since when is "membership" a biblical concept anyway? Etc. etc.
It seems to me, in my experience with these kinds of discussions, that people's misunderstandings about church discipline fall into a few categories:
Let's start with the first one. People who get their knickers in a twist about church discipline often seem to view "church" as an activity for people who call themselves Christians -- something they do on Sundays and Wednesday nights, a group they're a part of by choice, but nonetheless and organization that doesn't necessarily have the right to make any claims on their lives -- maybe slightly more that their book club or union or Facebook group, but not much more. They come to Sunday services to get blessed or "be fed" spiritually.
But what is the Church, really? Two things: 1) the Church is true followers of Christ everywhere, at all times throughout history, and 2) the Church is the local gathering of Christians in particular times and places. Paul's letters, for example, are written to both groups -- the church at Rome in the 1st Century A.D. and by extension to all believers everywhere at all times. Let me emphasize what I think is an extremely important point: if you are a Christian -- a genuine follower of Christ, not just a "Christian" by default -- you are, by necessity, a member of the first group. All believers at all times in all places are members of the first group. But the first and second categories were never meant to be thought of separately. Read Paul's letters and see if you think that the pioneer of the early church had any category in his mind for a person who was a Christian but not a part of any local church. (I'll give you a tip to save you a little time: he didn't.) It's not optional for a follower of Christ to be consistently out of fellowship with a local body. In fact (brace yourself, people, this is pretty serious), I would go so far as to say that if you steadfastly refuse to join yourself with a local congregation of believers, you are in serious danger of revealing that you are not a follower of Christ at all. And now I'm just going to back away... slowly... slowly...
That leads to the second misunderstanding. There is a whole group of folks in the church, as I mentioned in my previous post, who glance through their Bibles, don't see the word "membership," and conclude that any formal affiliation with a church is unnecessary at best and unbiblical at worst. First, I have bad news for those people -- the word "trinity" isn't in the Bible, either. Ruh-roh, Raggy.
Second, there is substantial evidence throughout the New Testament that the pastors of the early churches kept very precise, formal records of the believers they had charge of. I would basically defy anyone to do a careful study of the Jerusalem church in the book of Acts, the job description of an Elder in the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), and Hebrews 13 and come away with the idea that it's cool for a believer to sorta hang out on the fringes of a church and never commit to it.
Side note: one of our teaching pastors, Daniel, tells a pretty great little story at the beginning of our membership classes about a guy who falls in love with this amazing, beautiful girl, spends all his time with her, can't shut up about her... and then three years later, they're still dating, but not married or even engaged. Of course she's frustrated, all his friends are saying, "What are you waiting for, dude?" but he keeps telling her, "We don't need to get married to prove I love you, right, baby?" Well, obviously the story is about us and the church. Of course we don't "need" to join a church to prove we love it, but we also can't reap the benefits of commitment unless we're actually committed!
Well, what are the benefits of commitment to a church, i.e. formal membership? First off, when a church admits you to membership, they're saying, "We testify to your salvation. We believe and acknowledge that you are a Christian." (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why walk-the-aisle, sign-the-card "Baptist" membership is so pernicious -- if your pastors don't examine you and make sure you're actually saved, how on Earth can they be accountable before God for your soul?) What a precious testimony this has been in seasons of doubt! I have often countered the lies of the enemy and of my sinful heart about my salvation by saying, "No! 417 other people, including my pastors, daily witness to my salvation! They see fruit in my life! They believe I am a Christian!" Second, formal membership provides a structure of accountability in a way that mere attendance cannot. You are consciously, intentionally placing yourself under the authority of your pastors, and humbly opening yourself up to be held accountable to a life worthy of the gospel. You're also taking on the responsibility of bearing the burdens of your brothers and sisters in the church and being willing to call them out when they sin as well.
Speaking of sin... Sin. I'm always surprised to read the "Dear Boundless" letters that deal with couples having sex or living together outside marriage -- the writers almost always characterize their behavior as "mistakes" or "slip-ups" or "crossing the line" or some other such convenient phrases; rarely does anyone write in and say, My boyfriend and I have been violating the standards of a holy God every Friday night for three months. We've also been dragging the name of Jesus through the mud by our behavior, and we'd like some advice on how to stop being an offense to the Gospel...
But that's just what sin is -- defiance against the rightful Ruler of the universe. Listen, I don't know if you know this, but God, as the Creator of all things, has the right to rule the universe as he wishes. You don't go to Iran, dance around on a picture of Muhammad in a town square in a bikini, and then think you're going to get away with it by calling it a "slip-up" when somebody throws your butt in jail. Sin is a serious, serious matter -- why would we look at our brothers and sisters in the church falling into persistent sin and look the other way? We should feel shame at the thought of standing idly by while those who bear the name of Christ deny him with their actions when we could do something about it!
And that's just what church discipline is, people. Church discipline, at heart, is the Body of Christ refusing to allow the beloved children of God continue in sin unchecked. It is a reminder to those who have ignored the Spirit's whispers that danger lies ahead.
99% of the time, church discipline does not involve "excommunication." Usually, the preaching of the Word, worship, the sacraments, and community life are the means the Lord uses to discipline his people. Occasionally, a brother or sister will have to call you out for a particular sin. Less often, someone will have to be confronted in love by the pastors if they continue to live in unrepentant sin. Usually, that person will repent in the course of one of those events. If not -- if that person continues to refuse reconciliation and ignore the pleas of his brothers and sisters, acting like he is not a believer -- then the church is to treat him in the way he is acting! The problem is, people see Paul's command to the Corinthian church to treat the adulterous man in their midst "as an unbeliever" and think that means they kicked him out. But doesn't your church welcome unbelievers? Don't you pray that unbelievers will show up? Don't you invite unbelievers to your services?
Church discipline is a beautiful ministry of the local body; I for one am blessed to be a part of a congregation that has the structures for church discipline in place -- it reminds me of both the grace and the judgment of God. I pray that I never have to be placed under formal discipline by my church, but I know that my fellowship with them is part of what ensures that I never will!
It seems to me, in my experience with these kinds of discussions, that people's misunderstandings about church discipline fall into a few categories:
1. They don't understand the nature of the Church.
2. They don't understand the nature of church membership.
3. They don't understand the seriousness of sin.
4. They don't understand the nature of church discipline.
Let's start with the first one. People who get their knickers in a twist about church discipline often seem to view "church" as an activity for people who call themselves Christians -- something they do on Sundays and Wednesday nights, a group they're a part of by choice, but nonetheless and organization that doesn't necessarily have the right to make any claims on their lives -- maybe slightly more that their book club or union or Facebook group, but not much more. They come to Sunday services to get blessed or "be fed" spiritually.
But what is the Church, really? Two things: 1) the Church is true followers of Christ everywhere, at all times throughout history, and 2) the Church is the local gathering of Christians in particular times and places. Paul's letters, for example, are written to both groups -- the church at Rome in the 1st Century A.D. and by extension to all believers everywhere at all times. Let me emphasize what I think is an extremely important point: if you are a Christian -- a genuine follower of Christ, not just a "Christian" by default -- you are, by necessity, a member of the first group. All believers at all times in all places are members of the first group. But the first and second categories were never meant to be thought of separately. Read Paul's letters and see if you think that the pioneer of the early church had any category in his mind for a person who was a Christian but not a part of any local church. (I'll give you a tip to save you a little time: he didn't.) It's not optional for a follower of Christ to be consistently out of fellowship with a local body. In fact (brace yourself, people, this is pretty serious), I would go so far as to say that if you steadfastly refuse to join yourself with a local congregation of believers, you are in serious danger of revealing that you are not a follower of Christ at all. And now I'm just going to back away... slowly... slowly...
That leads to the second misunderstanding. There is a whole group of folks in the church, as I mentioned in my previous post, who glance through their Bibles, don't see the word "membership," and conclude that any formal affiliation with a church is unnecessary at best and unbiblical at worst. First, I have bad news for those people -- the word "trinity" isn't in the Bible, either. Ruh-roh, Raggy.
Second, there is substantial evidence throughout the New Testament that the pastors of the early churches kept very precise, formal records of the believers they had charge of. I would basically defy anyone to do a careful study of the Jerusalem church in the book of Acts, the job description of an Elder in the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), and Hebrews 13 and come away with the idea that it's cool for a believer to sorta hang out on the fringes of a church and never commit to it.
Side note: one of our teaching pastors, Daniel, tells a pretty great little story at the beginning of our membership classes about a guy who falls in love with this amazing, beautiful girl, spends all his time with her, can't shut up about her... and then three years later, they're still dating, but not married or even engaged. Of course she's frustrated, all his friends are saying, "What are you waiting for, dude?" but he keeps telling her, "We don't need to get married to prove I love you, right, baby?" Well, obviously the story is about us and the church. Of course we don't "need" to join a church to prove we love it, but we also can't reap the benefits of commitment unless we're actually committed!
Well, what are the benefits of commitment to a church, i.e. formal membership? First off, when a church admits you to membership, they're saying, "We testify to your salvation. We believe and acknowledge that you are a Christian." (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why walk-the-aisle, sign-the-card "Baptist" membership is so pernicious -- if your pastors don't examine you and make sure you're actually saved, how on Earth can they be accountable before God for your soul?) What a precious testimony this has been in seasons of doubt! I have often countered the lies of the enemy and of my sinful heart about my salvation by saying, "No! 417 other people, including my pastors, daily witness to my salvation! They see fruit in my life! They believe I am a Christian!" Second, formal membership provides a structure of accountability in a way that mere attendance cannot. You are consciously, intentionally placing yourself under the authority of your pastors, and humbly opening yourself up to be held accountable to a life worthy of the gospel. You're also taking on the responsibility of bearing the burdens of your brothers and sisters in the church and being willing to call them out when they sin as well.
Speaking of sin... Sin. I'm always surprised to read the "Dear Boundless" letters that deal with couples having sex or living together outside marriage -- the writers almost always characterize their behavior as "mistakes" or "slip-ups" or "crossing the line" or some other such convenient phrases; rarely does anyone write in and say, My boyfriend and I have been violating the standards of a holy God every Friday night for three months. We've also been dragging the name of Jesus through the mud by our behavior, and we'd like some advice on how to stop being an offense to the Gospel...
But that's just what sin is -- defiance against the rightful Ruler of the universe. Listen, I don't know if you know this, but God, as the Creator of all things, has the right to rule the universe as he wishes. You don't go to Iran, dance around on a picture of Muhammad in a town square in a bikini, and then think you're going to get away with it by calling it a "slip-up" when somebody throws your butt in jail. Sin is a serious, serious matter -- why would we look at our brothers and sisters in the church falling into persistent sin and look the other way? We should feel shame at the thought of standing idly by while those who bear the name of Christ deny him with their actions when we could do something about it!
And that's just what church discipline is, people. Church discipline, at heart, is the Body of Christ refusing to allow the beloved children of God continue in sin unchecked. It is a reminder to those who have ignored the Spirit's whispers that danger lies ahead.
99% of the time, church discipline does not involve "excommunication." Usually, the preaching of the Word, worship, the sacraments, and community life are the means the Lord uses to discipline his people. Occasionally, a brother or sister will have to call you out for a particular sin. Less often, someone will have to be confronted in love by the pastors if they continue to live in unrepentant sin. Usually, that person will repent in the course of one of those events. If not -- if that person continues to refuse reconciliation and ignore the pleas of his brothers and sisters, acting like he is not a believer -- then the church is to treat him in the way he is acting! The problem is, people see Paul's command to the Corinthian church to treat the adulterous man in their midst "as an unbeliever" and think that means they kicked him out. But doesn't your church welcome unbelievers? Don't you pray that unbelievers will show up? Don't you invite unbelievers to your services?
Church discipline is a beautiful ministry of the local body; I for one am blessed to be a part of a congregation that has the structures for church discipline in place -- it reminds me of both the grace and the judgment of God. I pray that I never have to be placed under formal discipline by my church, but I know that my fellowship with them is part of what ensures that I never will!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Daggonit!!
If you don't already know, Sojourn is dually affiliated with Acts 29, Mark Driscoll's outstanding church planting network, and the Kentucky (Southern) Baptist Convention. We've been extremely blessed in our cooperation with the KBC, who have supported us without reservation with finances and countless other intangible resources. Both Mike and Daniel, our longest-standing elders, have nothing but glowing praise to say about the support the KBC has given us. They've attached no strings to the Cooperative Program money we've received, despite the fact that we've done some pretty, um... let's say "unconventional" things over the years.
Our brethren in Missouri, as of today, can say quite the opposite.
Apparently, this week, the Missouri Baptist Convention's executive board passed the following motion:
Good grief, y'all. Seriously. What have we come to as believers when we shun the partnership in the Gospel that we have with careful, theologically-minded, passionate church planting organizations like Acts 29?
Honestly, I'm pretty fired up about this. For the love of God, are there not even pragmatists enough in the ranks of the Executive Board to see the folly of cutting off partnership with one of the most successful church planting groups in the nation? According to NAMB statistics, fewer than 70% of NAMB church plants are still around four years later. Compare that with A29's record: only one church of its hundreds of plants does not exist today, and only because it merged with another regional A29 plant.
There's been some suggestion that MBC churches who disagree with this resolution ought to pull their CP dollars and fund dually-aligned A29/MBC plants directly. I consider this the wisest course of action, since it kills two birds with one stone. Obviously, the primary concern is funding the preaching of the Gospel, which is certainly taking place in A29 churches! But the ripple effect of direct, inter-church support is that it sends a loud message to the MBC: we don't like what you're doing, and you didn't give us a chance to let our voices be heard, so we're voting with our wallets.
One blogger today prayed that the Lord wouldn't remove his hand from the MBC because of their refusal to partner with other believers in the work of the Gospel. I pray the same.
(HT: Timmy Brister, Tom Ascol)
Our brethren in Missouri, as of today, can say quite the opposite.
Apparently, this week, the Missouri Baptist Convention's executive board passed the following motion:
MOTION:Effective Jan 1, The Acts 29 Network is an organization which the MBC Exec Bd. Staff will not be working with, supporting, or endorsing in any manner at anytime.
Amendment:
While recognizing the autonomous nature of all areas of MBC life beyond that of the Executive Board Staff, the MBC Executive Board directs the Church Planting Department and other ministry departments to NOT provide CP dollars toward those affiliated with the Acts 29 Network.Motion as amended passed by a vote of 28-10
Good grief, y'all. Seriously. What have we come to as believers when we shun the partnership in the Gospel that we have with careful, theologically-minded, passionate church planting organizations like Acts 29?
Honestly, I'm pretty fired up about this. For the love of God, are there not even pragmatists enough in the ranks of the Executive Board to see the folly of cutting off partnership with one of the most successful church planting groups in the nation? According to NAMB statistics, fewer than 70% of NAMB church plants are still around four years later. Compare that with A29's record: only one church of its hundreds of plants does not exist today, and only because it merged with another regional A29 plant.
There's been some suggestion that MBC churches who disagree with this resolution ought to pull their CP dollars and fund dually-aligned A29/MBC plants directly. I consider this the wisest course of action, since it kills two birds with one stone. Obviously, the primary concern is funding the preaching of the Gospel, which is certainly taking place in A29 churches! But the ripple effect of direct, inter-church support is that it sends a loud message to the MBC: we don't like what you're doing, and you didn't give us a chance to let our voices be heard, so we're voting with our wallets.
One blogger today prayed that the Lord wouldn't remove his hand from the MBC because of their refusal to partner with other believers in the work of the Gospel. I pray the same.
(HT: Timmy Brister, Tom Ascol)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
