Monthly Archives: January 2009

• 1 Comment

•

- Why is a critical (as in critical thinking) reading of this book essential?

  • People are not reading this book as a work of fiction.  As I encounter more people who have read the book, I hear more gushing over how they understand god (lower case on purpose) better than they ever have!
  • Most heresies begin with the nature of who God is.  If "The Shack" teaches a different god than the God of Scripture, and if the god/goddess of the book is the god/goddess that people are believing in and trusting - they are trusting a false god.
  • As humans, we build for ourselves the god that we think we need - which is not necessarily the God that our Holy Father has chosen to reveal Himself as in His Inspired Word.
  • As we build the god that we think we need - the god that we want, we humanize that which cannot be brought down to our human level.

So here are the questions to keep in mind as I read "The Shack":

  • How does the god/goddess of the book differ from the God that reveals Himself in Scripture?
  • What are the positives that can be learned from the book and can they be easily separated from the false teachings?
  • How will I discuss what can be learned with people who are enthusiastic about "The Shack", with grace while teaching what is wrong with the book - how can I help others understand the difference?
  • How will this book enrich my walk with God - whether as a positive teaching of forgiveness, or as a negative awareness of the danger of false teaching?

•

My (sometimes) weekly collection of interesting links, along with a few sprinkled thoughts...

~~~

Lesbian students sue a Christian school for expelling them for breaking the rules.

We know that persecution is on the way...the more we cling to orthodoxy, to historical values and truths...the closer it gets.

~~~

WTF?

Think that the use of WTF? is offensive?  So is the murder of unborn children.

~~~

"Stimulas Proposal Facts"

Remember...change is good...

hope...change...hope...change...pork...pork...pork...

(From the Heritage Foundation:  If Government Spending solved recessions, we would never have recessions.)

~~~

nuff said.

~~~

President Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary?  Owes the IRS.

hope...change...hope...change...

~~~

No...it's not what it looks like...

~~~

How long did it take?

It's not as if it surprises me.

~~~

A quote by an early women's movement leader:

“We have made a fetish of the Bible long enough. The time has come to read it as we do all other books, accepting the good and rejecting the evil it teaches.” --Elisabeth Cady Stanton

~~~

more later (on lunes)

• 2 Comments

•

On a lot of things, there is a more liberal and a more conservative viewpoint.

On most of these things, I tend to the more conservative side.

Here is what I have learned:

  • If a person on the more liberal side criticizes a person or group on the more conservative side...good!  We need to be aware of the faults of the "other" side.
  • If a person on the more liberal side criticizes a person or group on the liberal side...well, by and large it just doesn't happen.  "We need to stick together against the conservatives or we will lose the ground that we have gained"
  • If a person on the more conservative side criticizes a person or group on the more conservative side, that's just the way that it should be.  "After all, you should know the faults of your own side and now, you're "getting it."

The fourth leaning?

If a conservative criticizes a person or group on the more liberal side - even if it is just recognizing extremes...

OH MY FREAKING GOODNESS!!!  It is as if the world is beginning to implode!

The message?

Criticize conservatives.  Conservatives, look to your own faults.

Leave the liberals alone, or there will be consequences.

You will be accused of hatred, you will be accused of divisiveness, you will be called ignorant, you will be told to "get a life".  You will be called a dinosaur, a bigot or worse.

The moral...liberals are sensitive beings who do not wish to be examined and who do not wish to examine themselves.

liberals are also in the business of examining conservatives and insist that conservatives examine themselves.

Careful...your double standard is showing.

•

One of my co-workers said that he voted for Barack Obama because he (the co-worker) believed that Obama would govern more centrist than what he campaigned.

"So...you're saying that you voted for the man because you believed that his campaign promises were lies?"

Within minutes of our new president taking the oath of office, the White House web page had been changed.  A few of the "changes" on his agenda could directly target Christians and Christian organizations.

  • It could become illegal for a Christian hospital to deny abortions for any reason.
  • It could become illegal for a Christian adoption agency to adopt only to heterosexual married couples.

"Changes" directly contradict the Constitution's mandate of "state's rights".

FOCA would effectively make ALL abortion issues federal issues and would effectively (and purposefully) overturn laws made at a state level.

FOCA would not only take away state's rights to make laws that do not concern things in the Constitution, they also take away the citizen's rights to vote on proposals concerning abortion at the state level.

President Obama's agenda is a two-prong offensive against

  • state's rights
  • Christians following their consciences in matters of the gay agenda and the abortion agenda.

I will pray for our president's safety and health.  I will pray that God guide his heart and change his attitude toward the most innocent and vulnerable of our citizens - the unborn.  I will pray that God sway his mind in a way that guides his toward the Living God.

I will not support him, which includes by necessity supporting his agenda.

I will "all work together" in much the same way that liberals "worked together" with President Bush.  They fought him every step of the way and were outspoken about where they disagreed.

So will I be.

•

Two pursuits, yet very similar.

Jerry Bridges wrote two books, "The Pursuit of Holiness" and "The Practice of Godliness".

Holiness and Godliness are two callings of a Christian; similar, but Bridges makes a distinction.  In the book on holiness, he talks about putting off the old man, Godliness is about putting on the new man.

Neither one of these works unless you include a generous sprinking of the Gospel.  Unless we have a full understanding that we are called to be perfect, but the only perfection we can rely on is the perfection of Christ, we will run into deep anger and dispair at the failure of our efforts.  If we don't understand that we cannot to it on our own, we run into deep pride.

And still, we are called to holiness, Godliness; we are called to be perfect, for the Lord our God is perfect.

What does it mean to be "holy"?  We turn away from that which is sin.  We love what is good and we hate what is evil.

What makes God angry also makes us angry.

In the call to holiness and Godliness, we strive (with the Spirit's sanctification) to become more like Christ.

What made Christ angry?  Those religious people who took what was evil and called it "good".

Immediately, Gene Robinson comes to mind.  Those religous people who look at abortion and call it a good, human right.

Those who look at women and call them inferior, denying them an education and a voice.  Men who abuse their wives and call it "leadership".

You see, there are extremes on either side.  To examine the extreme on one side without examining the log on your own side...

• 26 Comments

•

"A Modest Proposal" at Christianity Today.

A couple of thoughts from the article...

egalitarians and complementarians can work together to oppose abortion on demand, an issue on which egalitarians stand together with complementarians against mainstream feminism

I don't know what rock he's been under...It took me about a minute to find the "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice".

  • United Methodist Church (UMC website officially lists RCRC as an abortion resource.)
  • The Episcopal Church ("General Convention resolutions have expressed unequivocal opposition to any legislation abridging a woman’s right to make an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy)
  • Presbyterian Church (USA) (also lists RCRC as a ministry resource)
  • United Church of Christ (A founding member of RCRC)

What do these churches also have in common?  They are also egalitarian.

There are no complementarian denominations that show up on the members list of the RCRC.

So the author of the article should have said "complementarians and some some/many egalitarians..."

And

...egalitarians and complementarians can agree that homosexual activity is not a God-ordained lifestyle that should be approved within the Christian community...

Again, the word "some" (some/many) should appear before "egalitarian"...

which brings me to the next link:

~~~

~~~

"O god of our many understandings..."

Opening inaugural prayer by (gay)(egalitarian)(bishop of the Episcopal Church) Gene Robinson.

Somehow I doubt that Robinson would like to unite with complementarians in defense of life and traditional marriage

~~~

~~~

Underwater:  possible "stonehenge" in Michigan?

~~~

~~~

From Huffington Post: Was "Jack the Ripper a Woman?"

~~~

~~~

The desecration of the American Flag

(HT:  Michele Malkin)

~~~

~~~

• 2 Comments

•

It resonates in my brain; no, in my soul.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures…1 Corinthians 15:3

This is what I come back to over and over again.

And everything we think and do should relate to the "Sola" - Solus Christus

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. 1 Timothy 2:5-7

Our focus on Christ should not be on "Christ is the ultimate example"...NO!  Jesus Christ our Lord gave Himself a ransom for all.

He died so that we might live.

Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Hebrews 9:12-14

Nor did He come to earth to start us on the path to social justice.

Jesus Christ our Lord came to earth to die on the cross; to offer Himself as the once and for all sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin.

First, we bid a man to begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to cite his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced on all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition. Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger. (John Calvin)

If we call people to works, not godliness, we fail them.  If we don't give them the gospel, we fail them.

If we do the good works created for us without the gospel, we are attempting to earn our salvation.  We fail ourselves.

• 28 Comments

•

On Complegalitarian, Don Johnson tells us how a complementarian can be a poor witness based on how they react when a woman teaches.  A complementarian is not to question, not to raise a fuss, they should either not attend if they know ahead of time or slip out quietly if caught by surprise.

How to turn this table?

If a woman is in a complementarian church and suddenly believes that she is to be in leadership over men, should teach authoritatively in the assembly - against the leadership of that church.

Should she stay and try to convince that church that she is right and they should put her in leadership, should she speak within that church against the leadership of that church and what they believe or should she leave quietly and go to a church who would put her in leadership?

I have asked that question before and an egalitarian answered that of course, she should stand her ground and fight the leadership.