• 1 Comment

•

I'm not a fan of the show, but I do (did) watch shows on A&E. The internet is flooded with articles...pro- and con-

So...I'm weighing in, not so much of what Phil did and said, but on how he's now being treated.

The ungodly scream that he's wrong about gays (actually, vile and hateful.) So evangelicals pile on and say, "And he was wrong about African-Americans too!" - IOW - shooting our wounded.

Jared Wilson wrote "Duck Dynasty”: Let’s Deal in Real Reality

point by point...

1. It will be difficult to prove a case of censorship, marginalization, or oppression when you can’t walk into a mall, grocery store, Wal-Mart, or sporting goods store without running beard-deep into the Robertson clan’s gigantic faces and assorted “Duck Dynasty”-branded trinkets and googaws.

Question: if the Robertson family gives up the show, do they give up rights to the merchandise franchise? Unless or until you can answer that question, you should not be making the above statement.

Bottom line: It assumes that the discrimination will end with the removal of Phil from the show and that has yet to be seen.

2. We ought to remember that the first amendment does not guarantee anyone’s right to have a show on cable television.

True. But if discrimination can take place by an employer based on race, sex, religion, and the government has an interest in protecting those classes of people, why not here?

Bottom Line: Robertson articulated his religious beliefs in the public square and was disciplined for it.

3. What Phil Robertson said about homosexuality to Gentleman’s Quarterly magazine is something nearly all so-called “gentlemen” used to believe, including the part where he said black people were happy before the Civil Rights movement and he never saw racism in Louisiana growing up.

Yes, he said that.

Actually, no. He did NOT say that.

He said the Blacks HE KNEW...

I grew up on a farm in the rural "Thumb" of Michigan. Blacks were not the minority I grew up with.

Looking back at my life growing up, I would have said that the minorities that I rubbed shoulders with were happy, and that I saw no racism.

Now I know better, because somebody who wasn't there, didn't live my life, and may not have a clue about how I (OR Robertson) grew up...will tell me that I'm wrong, or need to deal with reality or some such thing.

Bottom line: if you weren't there, you might be wrong.

(part of #5 - Wilson skipped #4, a misprint, I'm sure.) The firing of a millionaire reality show participant isn’t just a first world problem — it’s a one-percenter problem

This made me really, really angry.

1) Is discrimination okay, as long as the one discriminated against is wealthy?

James 2:2-4 ESV For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Is the opposite also true?

If you deem a wealthy man unworthy of protection against discrimination because "that's a one-percenter problem" - "have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

2) one-percenter...really? Does not Wilson understand that to a lot of the world, if you know where your next meal is coming from...you're wealthy! Do you have a car? Television? You can turn on your computer and get instant access to the world?

Bottom line: You, Jared Wilson, are part of the 1%

Now...my views...

I believe that the political gay lobby has the goal to marginalize people of faith who disagree with them. Make them afraid to speak out. Silence them. Take away their jobs, their livelihoods, their careers, their businesses.

I've blogged here about bakers, caterers, photographers, doctors, who chose to not participate in gay celebrations through providing services. Who chose to not participate in gay celebrations and have been successfully sued.

If Phil Robertson, one of the largest cash cows on television, can lose his job for voicing his Christian beliefs about gay behavior, how much more so the single-proprietor photographer or baker?

The agenda - to normalize gay behavior and to make those who disagree silent and marginalized, and to fore those who disagree to act against their religious beliefs.

This is another step and we should recognize that this is not about Phil Robertson, how rich he is, who he grew up with, or how much money he makes A&E. It's about GLAAD and where they are steering our country.

•

"What Married Women Really Want"

The author puts this mostly hidden divorce statistic up front:

About two-thirds of all divorces in the United States are, at least officially, initiated by women. One of the key factors [they cite] is the emotional quality of their relationships. In other words, if they feel that their marriages are high-quality relationships, they're not likely to seek divorce. If they feel otherwise, however, women are much more likely to head for divorce. One of the implicit concerns of this study was to figure out in what kind of context women are most likely to be happy and then are, of course, indirectly, less likely to divorce.

I get from the article, though, that women file, it's still the men's fault.

The following paragraph is something I've written about here (the accusation that Christians shouldn't discuss "whatever" because Christians are just as likely to get divorced as unbelievers) and you usually need to dig deep if you want to break down the numbers and get at the truth. (Emphasis is mine)

Based on my earlier research, evangelical women tend to be happier in their marriages than other women, particularly when both the wife and the husband attend church on a regular basis. This idea that Christians are just as likely to divorce as secular folks is not correct if we factor church attendance into our thinking. Churchgoing evangelical Protestants, churchgoing Catholics, and churchgoing mainline Protestants are all significantly less likely to divorce.

And gender roles play in:

Women who have more traditional gender attitudes are significantly happier in their marriages. They're more likely to embrace the idea that men should take the primary lead in breadwinning and women should take the primary lead in nurturing the children and managing the domestic sphere, managing family life.

Spouses who share weekly [church] attendance had happier wives. Spouses who share a strong, normative commitment to marriage—that is, who are opposed to easy divorce, who believe the kids should be reared in married households—have wives who are markedly happier. This factor is as strong as who works outside the home or who earns the lion's share of the income. It's also extremely important that the wife considers the division of housework to be fair to her. A sense of equity is extremely important, but equity is not equality. Women want things to be fair in their homes, but they don't equate fairness with equality.

And this bears saying again:

A sense of equity is extremely important, but equity is not equality. Women want things to be fair in their homes, but they don't equate fairness with equality.

I consistently, as Complementarians do, make a distinction between equality of personhood vs. equality of authority.

Within a hierarchy of authority, there is still equality in humanity.

I know two people. One is an elder, who works at a public school, the other an administrator in a public school, who attends the elder's church. In one context, he is the authority, in another, she is. There are two hierarchies, but total equality of humanity.

The dictionary says that "equity" is fairness and justice in treatment.

So, if a woman feels as if she is being treated fairly and justly, while being under the authority of her husband, she is more likely to be happy, and less likely to file for divorce.

•

First...v. 1-8- an impressive run on sentence.

From the ESV study notes:

One remarkable feature of this section is that many of the themes mentioned here also conclude the letter in the final doxology (16:25–27):

(1) Paul's apostolic authority;
(2) the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures in the gospel;
(3) the gospel that centers on Jesus Christ;
(4) the obedience of faith;
(5) the mission to the Gentiles; and
(6) the glory of Jesus Christ and God the Father.

Also, (R. Kent Hughes).
Paul’s view of himself (v. 1)
Paul’s view of preaching (vv. 2–4)
Paul’s view of his commission (v. 5)
Paul’s view of the Roman believers (and us) (vv. 6, 7)

On to the passage:

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

"Servant" is doulos - slave. Slave f Christ, appointed to be an ambassador, marked off by God to preach the gospel.

Slavery to Christ is a key theme that Paul chose for Himself...echoing Christ, Mark 19:45

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Paul elaborates, and confirms his mission to the Gentiles in Galations 1:15-16

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles,

2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures,

God's prophets promised this good news long ago.

3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

Fully God, fully man.

4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

It was the Spirit who bore witness to the deity of Christ, through His resurrection.

5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

This mission of Paul's is an act of grace.

6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

Election is just all over the place...

7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

We are called by God,
We are loved by God,
We are saints of God,
We are the recipients of God's grace and peace...

•

To do its worst, evil needs to look its best. Evil had to send a lot on makeup...Vices have to masquerade as virtues - lust as love, thinly veiled sadism as military discipline, envy as righteous indignation, domestic tyranny as parental concern...From counterfeit money to phony airliner parts to the trustworthy look on the face of a con artist, evil appears in disguise. Hence the need for the Holy Spirit's gift of discernment. Hence the sheer difficulty, at times, of distinguishing what is good from what is evil

Cornelius Plantinga Jr.~~"Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin"

• 2 Comments

•

I put a tag on this of "Pentecostal" since "Oneness" nearly always belongs to Pentecostal these day.

"You're a mom, but you're also a daughter...these are different roles you play at different times, depending on the circumstance.

It breaks down:

1) the Father is Jesus' Father. If Jesus and His Father are the same person, I am my own mother. I am not my mother.

2) Jesus is the Son if God. I also am not my own daughter.

Where "mom" is the same person, relating to different people...

The Trinity is different persons relating to the same creation.

•

A good Wiki page, giving both sides

The first two issues show the main Cessationist concerns about charismata and reveal the underlying rationale for Cessationism. The sections below describe what kind of disagreements emerge between Cessationism and Continuationism in their respective understandings of the gifts, and further issues then arising from these disagreements. Different understandings of charismata give rise to various tensions in the dispute.

White Horse Inn weighed in a couple of years ago:

Particularly in the wake of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, this question has divided Christians into two camps: cessationists (believing that the gifts of healing, prophecy, and tongues have ceased) and non-cessationists. Non-cessationists find no exegetical reason to distinguish some of these gifts and offices from others in terms of their perpetuity. However, cessationists hold that the New Testament itself makes a distinction between the foundation-laying era of the apostles and the era of building the church on their completed foundation (1 Cor 3:10-11). Although the New Testament establishes the offices of pastors/teachers, elders, and deacons, it does not establish perpetual prophetic or apostolic offices with their attendant sign-gifts. With this in mind, we must examine each gift in question.

Reformedpresbytery.org has a position paper quoting Calvin:

... concerning Prophets, I have before showed out of Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. Jud.) that, in his days, their were still some in the church who had an extraordinary gift of prophecy, and such there have been also in other places, and at other times; of which there might be diverse instances given.

• 1 Comment

•

I have a relationship with Christ.
And my boss.
And my landlord.
And my president.
And Satan.

All are "relationships" so they're all equal. (We'll most likely agree that's incorrect.)

My point is that the word "relationship" is meaningless unless you know what the relationship is defined by.

My relationship with my boss is defined by my contract.
My landlord...my rental agreement
My president...the Constitution.

My relationship with Christ is defined by the Christian religion.

Religion (Merriam-Webster, in part)

the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I serve and worship God. This is a good thing.

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Attitudes and beliefs:

Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)
Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins (1 Cor 15:3-4)
Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)

And practices

Communion
Baptism
Corporate worship

This, in part, defines my "relationship" with Christ.

He's not my landlord, He is my GOD.

I cannot reject "religion" without rejecting all He has done.

Lactantius, in his "Divine Institutes" (IV, xxviii.) wrote, "We are tied to God and bound to Him [religati] by the bond of piety..."

Augustine, in his treatise "On the True Religion", says: "Religion binds us [religat] to the one Almighty God"

And we turn to Scripture:

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world

This is what you deny, when you deny "religion."

If you still want to reject "religion," then reject our shared beliefs, our shared practices, reject worship and service of God, reject being bound to Him.

(By the way, this "religion" also defines my relationship with Satan. I was his...now I am not. He s my enemy and he is defeated by Christ.)

•

I guess what gets me is that if one of the ways to develop an understanding of the question is to look at the way the sides treat the other, there's something interesting going on with this one.

It's a relationship. I hate religion. It's man made and it kills and it's bad.

or

It's both. You can't have Christianity without a relationship with Christ...but you also can't have that relationship if you don't have the terms of that relationship - defined by the religion.

Religion: worship of a deity - a set of common beliefs about that deity. Augustine wrote about "religion" having the meaning of "being bound fast"

As a people of God, we are all bound fast by our common beliefs in God: The deity of Christ and the death, burial and resurrection of Christ being central.

"Religion" is "us-centered." We are one church, one bride, one family of God.

"Relationship" is "me-centered" - my Jesus, my relationship. (note: that's not a bad thing, that personal relationship is as necessary as the "us" piece.)

I saw a baby dedication this past weekend. The thought struck me then: if there is no "bound togetherness of shared beliefs" - why have the congregation commit to helping the parents (the "us piece" bring that child up in those beliefs?

It's got to be both? You have a relationship with your spouse; it's the marriage covenant that defines what that relationship looks like.

You have a relationship with Christ; its the terms of the Christian religion that defines what that relationship looks like.

•

On August 7 I'm having surgery on my rotator cuff (left shoulder)

I'm way more nervous after talking to the nurse, than I was after talking to the doctor. And WAY more nervous after poking around on line.

And even more nervous after talking to my sister, whose husband had a very similar surgery done (shoulder labrum)

But it's at the point that it needs to be done. The first time it hurt was 20 years ago, and it flares up and then goes away...swelling and a little separation. Well, now it's a tear and it's not getting better.

My shoulder is getting stiffer and more sore, but I think it's because now I'm worried about it and using it less, so today I'm starting the same stretches that I'll be doing right after surgery.