"Belief Statements Create Harmful Borders"

http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.334
Tony Jones, a member of the group Emergent (others, Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt)"Belief Statements Create Harmful Borders."

...It becomes an obsession -- guarding the borders. That is simply not the ministry of Jesus. It wasn't the ministry of Paul or Peter. It started to become the ministry of the early Church, and it abated somewhat in the Middle Ages and blew back to life in the time of modernity. For the short duration of time that I have on this planet to do my best to partner with God and build His kingdom, I don't want to spend it guarding borders. I'd like to spend it inviting people into the kingdom. Statements of faith don't do they. They're a modernistic endeavor that I'm not the least bit interested in.

Oh Glory

"I see myself now at the end of my journey, my toilsome days are ended," said Bunyan's Mr. Stand-fast, as he stood halfway into Jordan's water, "the thought of what I am going to, and of the conduct that waits for me on the other side, doth lie as a glowing coal at my heart....I have formerly lived by hearsay, and faith, but now I go where I shall live by sight, and shall be with him, in whose company I delight myself."

Knowing God, J.I. Packer, pg. 218

International Christian Retail Show

From Between Two Worlds
This will make you think.

What do Miserable Christians Sing?

Carl Trueman mentioned something very interesting in this interview. He asks the question, "what do miserable Christians sing?" The question often elicits uproarious laughter from those who hear it. Trueman's answer is that they can sing the Psalms. His suspicion is that the American church does not sing the Psalms because they are about the sad, unhappy, tormented, and broken. He asserts that these emotions do not have credibility in the church today. To admit to these emotions is to admit failure. But he says the Psalms give a voice "that allows us to express even the deepest agonies of the human soul in the context of worship." By excluding them, "we exclude those the voices of those who are lonely, disposessed and desolate. He says, "only in the Psalms do you have a full range of human emotions, that allows you however desperate you feel to go in, and offer praise to God."

Find this article in The Wages of Spin. Or listen to the interview with Mark Dever here.

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse

Ben Wright at Paleoevangelical has tipped us off to this. If you're wondering it is Tressel speaking in a Cedarville chapel on the "fundamentals." As another person said, this just confirms that the GARBC made the right decision... Although as another mentioned, it is fishy that the conference was in Michigan. Talk about mixed feelings on this one...






Go Blue.

He Shall Be Like A Wave of the Sea

From: LaPine, Matthew A
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:34 PM
To: Dare, Brian S
Subject:

http://blog.togetherforthegospel.org/2006/07/should_evangeli.html

From: Dare, Brian S
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:50 PM
To: LaPine, Matthew A
Subject: RE:

I see some valid points in this article. The whole idea that we simply don’t know the true condition of anyone’s soul seems to be the theme here. I wonder however, how they work this out practically. Do they question a new believer, or struggling believer’s salvation vocally? Even Paul told some to make their, “calling and election sure.” So sometimes this may be necessary, but at other times this can be detrimental to the tender heart. In contra distinction to a hard heart, a sincere soul would be better to be pointed to the cross then to practice unhealthy introspection. If their mentors also question their salvation, this leads to doubt rather than faith - doubt’s antitheses. For example I wonder what George Whitfield meant when he said this: "it will never do a sincere soul any harm."

From: LaPine, Matthew A
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:27 PM
To: Dare, Brian S
Subject: RE:

“If their mentors also question their salvation, this leads to doubt rather than faith - doubt’s antitheses.”

Good point.

Seems to me though, when we speak of doubt, what one is doubting is important. People always have faith in Christ’s ability to save, but doubt whether they’ve “done” what is necessary for that gift to apply to them. That’s maybe what we need to be much more clear about. The problem with the Calvinistic position, is that technically (from an external perspective) God initiates it, and man responds having been regenerated… How can I know if I’ve been regenerated?

“What are you trusting in for Salvation?” What do you think of that question?

From: Dare, Brian S
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:51 PM
To: LaPine, Matthew A
Subject: RE:

I think that is a very good question. The issue here is faith. Like you said, most of those who are doubting are not doubting the sufficiency of the cross but rather if they have “done” the right thing in regards to the cross. Whether they have true faith, true repentance, true confession etc… Here lies the problem of doubt all together, you are tangled up in introspection concerning weather or not you have “done” the right thing to be saved. Doubt looks inward, Faith looks outward. The illustration from John 3 concerning the bronze serpent was a real help to me when I was experiencing doubt. The promise in Rom 1:16-17 really sealed the deal for me. Meditating on these verses brought a refreshing assurance of faith.

If regeneration is a work of God which comes by no merit of our own than all we must do is respond in faith - stripped of all else. A line from a song that really helped me once I came to assurance was “Nothing in my hands I bring, only to the cross I cling.”

Above All Earthly Powers by David Wells

This is an excerpt from David Wells new book. Very interesting...
Piper's conference is based on this book.

If it is the case that contextualized theologies have all too often become a doomed enterprise, the reason, the most self-consciously biblical believe, is that the project itself is unnecessary. And there is something to be said for this argument, too. For it is certainly the case that the Word of God, read or preached, has the power to enter the innermost crevices of a person's being, to shine light in unwanted places to explode the myths and deceits by which fallen life sustains itself, and to bring that person face to face with the eternal God. It is this biblical Word which God uses to bring repentance, to excite faith, to give new life, to sustain that life once given, to correct, nurture, and guide the Church (Jer. 23:29; II Tim. 3:16; Heb. 4:12; Jas. 1:18). The biblical Word is self-authenticating under the power of the Holy Spirit. This Word of God is the means by which God accomplishes his saving work in his people, and this is a work that no evangelist and no preacher can do. This is why the dearth of serious, sustained biblical preaching in the Church today is a serious matter. When the Church loses the Word of God it loses the very means by which God does his work. In its absence, therefore, a script is being written, however unwittingly, for the Church's undoing, not in one cataclysmic moment, but in a slow, inexorable slide made up of piece by tiny piece of daily dereliction.

These objections to undertaking this kind of study are not, however, fatal. Indeed, not to proceed would be an unhappy outcome because theology, if it is true to its own nature, must be missiological in ins intent...
from Above All Earthly Powers, by David Wells pg. 8-9

In an older but telling novel, The Ugly American, the reader early on is introduced to Louis Sears. Sears has been a popular U.S. Senator for eighteen years but loses his bid for reelection. His preference, after his loss, is to receive a judgeship but since there are no openings, he finally settles on becoming the United States' ambassador to the fictional Asian country of Sarkhan. However, he neither learns the language nor the customs of this country. Indeed, he forbids his staff from becoming too involved in Sarkhanese society. the problem which arises, of course, is that he does not know what is happening, since he cannot read the papers, and in Sarkhanese society, etiquette does not allow for translators to pass on bad news to the person for whom they are translating. Furthermore, he cannot communicate American interests to most people since he does not speak their language and they do not understand his.

The haplessness of this situation becomes evident early on when a shipment of rice, carried aboard American ships, and driven inland by American trucks, is presented to the people with smiles by American officials. Unbeknownst to them, however Communists have stenciled onto each stack the words, "This rice is a gift from Russia." Yet the words are written in Sarkhanese, which none of the Americans there can understand. This ignorance is such a boon to the Soviets, who are attempting to penetrate the country, that their Ambassador sends back a dispatch shortly after this event worrying that the English press, which has become quite critical of the American Ambassador, might succeed in having him recalled. The Soviet Ambassador proposes that a biting critique of Sears appear in the Soviet journal, Pravada, as a way of building up his importance in American eyes and thereby preserving his place in Sarkhan!1

Perhaps, then, we might say that on the one end we have those theologies which have learned Sarkhanese, learned the local culture and habits, but have lost touch with the country whose policies and interests they are supposed to represent as ambassadors. Instead, having cut themselves loose, they have come to see their role as simply representing their own agendas and policies and passing these off as if they were those of the country whose ambassadors they supposedly are. On the other end, we have those theologies which are self-consciously ambassadorial but which fail to learn the Sarkhanese language and customs. Thus they are hobbled in their ability to communicate both the content of, and the reasons for, their country's policy decisions.
1. Wells cites William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, The Ugly American (New York: W. W. Norton, 1958).

This excerpt from Above All Earthly Powers, by David Wells pg. 10-11

C.S. Lewis on Writing

From Between Two Worlds

On June 26, 1956 C. S. Lewis responded to a child's letter that asked for advice on how to become a better writer. Here were the principles that Lewis suggested:

1. Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else.

2. Always prefer the clean direct word to the long, vague one. Don’t implement promises, but keep them.

3. Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean “More people died” don’t say “Mortality rose.”

4. In writing, don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the things you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us the thing is “terrible,” describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was “delightful”; make us say “delightful” when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers “Please, will you do my job for me.”

5. Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say “infinitely” when you mean “very”; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.

Letter from June 26, 1956, quoted in Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root, eds., The Quotable Lewis (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale, 1989), 623.

Stop Test Driving Your Girlfriend

Great link.
Stop Test Driving Your Girlfriend

Secularism

"First dentistry was painless.
Then bicycles were chainless,
Carriages were horseless,
And many laws enforceless.

Next cookery was fireless,
Telegraphy was wireless,
Cigars were nicotineless,
And coffee caffeineless.

Soon oranges were seedless,
The putting green was weedless,
The college boy was hatless,
The proper diet fatless.

New motor roads are dustless,
The latest steel is rustless,
Our tennis courts are sodless,
Our new religion--godless."
(Arthur Guiterman, "Gaily the Troubadour")

Creed
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth

excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.
Steve Turner

To the Unknown God

To the Unknown God: Why Theology is so Crucial to Worship
Theology is like walking into an enormous arena which is enveloped in suffocating darkness. While our eyes are adjusting we can only barely make out what seems to be a large object at the center of the room. As we feel for some way to gain our bearings in the blackness, we stumble across a massive panel of switches. We flick just one on, and watch in awe as the spotlight illuminates just one small section of this large object. From what we can see we obviously are impressed at the magnitude and the quality of this fixture. Eager to discover the rest of the object, we begin to flick on the switches. Each bears to light a new impressive facet which had not been uncovered from the shadows. In this way we learn of the glory of the Holy One. Oh that we could see with perfect illumination, not as in a glass, nature of the glory of God. But alas, everyone who is born of God has some facets of the glory of God uncovered for the awe and recognition, but none all. We all are spectators of God’s nature; but each of us has only a partial knowledge of it. Even with only four or five spotlights turned on, we all acknowledge the unsurpassable greatness of his glory. Yet, partial knowledge, as awesome as it is, is the root of our problem. We in our immaturity are either prone to be ignorant of the multifaceted nature of God or to under appreciate the weight of the glory of God’s theology in our lives. Both sins characterize our day. It has been said, that every problem is a theological one. The imperative for every Christian then, is to “see him as he is.” This means to both grow in knowledge and awareness of the very personality and character of God and to recognize his claims. The danger as always is that we might overemphasize one aspect or dimension of God’s character at the expense of another.

Every Wednesday inevitably, our youth group at Slater Baptist Church sings a chorus song that extols the impeccable holiness of God. While I appreciate and encourage the fervor of the song I can’t help thinking how hollow the words ring coming from our mouths. I can’t help but wonder at the dreary and restricted view that we have of that particular aspect of God. And we wonder why sin seems so jocular and trite in our eyes. We know nothing of King Agag, or children with their mothers dashed in pieces. Have we forgotten to teach of David’s curses or of Elisha’s holy wrath? Or has the godless religion of tolerance and liberalism so invaded our hearts to leave us spineless with the deception that God merely winks at sin. How I hate the thought. To rob God of his wrath, robs the very glory from his grace. I cannot know the glory of the cross except through to furor of his wrath. It is my prayer that the church of today would continue to be strong in his word so that it may know the God it worships. We all worship him as we know him. Oh that the church would know and fear… and then it could love his mercy.

1Cor. 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

Matt LaPine

The Slippery Slope

I know this isn't the purpose of this site. But this is an interesting political read.

Good Company, Good Art, and a Good Laugh

Good Company, Good Art, and a Good Laugh: By William Edgar

Freedom From the Quiet Time Guilt

Freedom From Quiet Time Guilt

Forgiveness

Forgiveness
I imagine I’m watching, that ghastly event
The sky torn with blackness, the veil has been rent
A parched throaty cry barely comes from my mouth
Can this be that justice that needs to be dealt?
Vulgar, obscene, An affront to my sense
That my savior would suffer, all for my expense
No judge ruling fairly would allow such a crime
No guilt he does carry, save only my wrong
My eyes shut in horror, scarce can believe
This act of injustice, that fulfills my need
No token of fealty, nor act of remorse
Can pay back this debt, nor would it come close
A fool would not think it, to make such a bid
Rather grace shows it’s splendor, in "Father forgive!"

Lewis on Pleasure

Pleasures are shafts of glory as it strikes our sensibility. . . . But aren’t there bad, unlawful pleasures? Certainly there are. But in calling them “bad pleasures” I take it we are using a kind of shorthand. We mean “pleasures snatched by unlawful acts.” It is the stealing of the apples that is bad, not the sweetness. The sweetness is still a beam from the glory. . . . I have tried since . . . to make every pleasure into a channel of adoration. I don’t mean simply by giving thanks for it. One must of course give thanks, but I meant something different . . . Gratitude exclaims, very properly, “How good of God to give me this.” Adoration says, “What must be the quality of that Being whose far-off and momentary coruscations are like this!” One’s mind runs back up the sunbeam to the sun. . . . If this is Hedonism, it is also a somewhat arduous discipline. But it is worth some labour.
C.S. Lewis

Provided the thing is in itself right, the more one likes it and the less one has to “try to be good,” the better. A perfect man would never act from sense of duty; he’d always want the right thing more than the wrong one. Duty is only a substitute for love (of God and of other people), like a crutch, which is a substitute for a leg. Most of us need the crutch at times; but of course it’s idiotic to use the crutch when our own legs (our own loves, tastes, habits, etc.) can do the journey on their own!
C.S. Lewis

Sage Advice

In 1945 C. S. Lewis was invited to address an assembly of Welsh Anglican priests and youth leaders on the topic of Christian apologetics.1 After humbly confessing that, as a layman, he had "little right to address either,"2 he went on offer his thoughts on the primary task of apologetics in the British Isles at that time. Defining apologetics as the defense of orthodox Christianity "the faith preached by the Apostles, attested by the Martyrs, embodied in the Creeds, expounded by the Fathers"3 Lewis added that, though the Faith is eternal, it is imperative for the apologist to expound it in light of the cultural and spiritual environment of his audience. "Your teaching," he writes, "must be timeless at its heart and wear a modern dress."4

In Lewis' analysis, the fit and cut of Britain's "modern dress" at mid-twentieth century was essentially post-Christian. The radical secularizing tendencies of modernism had by then stripped the British public mind of its Christian memory and presented to church leaders a new social situation. According to Lewis, "a century ago our task was to edify those who had been brought up in the Faith: our present task is chiefly to convert and instruct infidels."5 The primary reality for the apologist is that the church is engaged in a missionary activity, and he must therefore adopt a missionary mind-set. "If you were sent to the Bantus you would be taught their language and traditions,"6 Lewis writes; similarly, he who intends to present a defense of Christianity in his own time and place must first consider the prejudices, experiences, and mental habits of his fellows. As Lewis concludes, "you must translate every bit of your theology into the vernacular."7

Sage advice, from however humble a layman, and especially helpful for us today...

From Jack Meets Gen X: Apologetics of Longing and the Postmodern Mood, By: Gregory Dunn, July 1, 1998

Letters to Mr. Vanauken

These letters are a fascinating insight into C.S. Lewis apologetics.

Too True

sadly, too true...

Mere Amateurs

As I read No Place For Truth by David Wells I see that the state of fundamentalism is vastly different than that of evangelicalism. It's en vogue for a young man to be critical of fundamentalism in the spirit of "self criticism." Self criticism of this nature seems to quickly reveal what really is in the heart of its critic. This critic after a year or two will realize that he never was really a fundamentalist and and quickly disassociate himself. This self critic sees fundamentalism as a sinking ship because it has lost touch. Allow me to be the voice of dissent.

David Wells talks about the nature of the evangelical pastor. He constantly describes their ministry as therapeutic in contrast to a theological ministry. In this way he argues the evangelical church has followed step for step Liberalism. Liberalism sought to find the spirit of Christianity as a means of self gratification while it rejected its tenets. Evangelicalism has neglected theology thus finding itself in strangely familiar territory. When a pastor becomes a professional instead of a agent of truth he treads on very shaky footing. Our society has found theological wisdom to be the meanest type. Instead it has sought after the psychologist or psychiatrist for answers to life's problems. In correlation, evangelicalism has lost its confidence in the truth of the Word of God and turned elsewhere for answers. Pastors have become second rate counselors, mere amateurs really. What once was a position of esteem has become a target of scorn. The reason? The pastor has given up his trade in modern evangelicalism. He no longer is equipped to apportion truth to illuminate the bafflement of this life.

But I find this to be less true in fundamentalism. For all its faults, theology is king. Oh fundamentalism may be mislead, out of touch, or even a little naive. But it lives by the Book. The word of God is both the question and the answer. While a critic might find exceptions, the premium, in my experience, has been on expounders of truth within fundamentalism. There is not a group who holds Scripture in such high esteem. For this I am grateful. I thank the men who have come before me who held the gospel to be precious. It is this commitment to theology that brings with it the power of the most high God.