MENU

Culture
Category

On December 6, 2014 By In Culture, Family and Children

Concluding Observations on the Ferguson Case

I am deeply humbled by all the responses from my Ferguson post. I did not expect all the responses. In fact, I noted from the start that it was a less than eloquent analysis. I said so because it was more autobiographical and less technical or statistical. It was further confirmation in my mind that people still listen and expect certain responses from local priests and pastors on these heavily debated issues.

Yesterday I received a call from someone inquiring whether I would go to Washington D.C. to stand alongside a certain figure and group to discuss issues not only pertaining to Ferguson, but also immigration reform. The world is listening and I am glad the church through her ministers still have a voice. That voice should be more nuanced than politicians’. Politicians generally speak out of fear or for political points and lack biblical stamina when they communicate. This is why one of my central points was to exhort myself and others to be cautious about taking a one-sided narrative on these matters. It is always wise to open our ears.

With this in mind, let me attempt to add some broad conclusions over the Ferguson chaos:

First, as I have reminded my own children again and again, beauty comes from chaos. So, we need to ask ourselves questions about how redemption can be seen in this situation, and what can we do to provide a redemptive outlook to this tragedy.

Second, the looting and robbery that occurred following the announcement of the police officer’s not-guilty status were not justified. There is no excuse to breaking God’s commandments. Private property is a treasured possession in the sacred scriptures., not merely because of modern economic reasons, but because God’s Word sees land and home as fundamental environments for gospel nurture. Businesses that served the local community and were the livelihood of many black business owners also suffered great damage. Some protested peacefully, but were overshadowed by the outrageous reactions of many.  Some have attempted to make the case for looting by observing that the cops do not want looting, because the cops (white) do not want the looters (black) to possess anything. The reality, however, is that possession by force is wrong in almost every case, and this is a clear example of one. You do not destroy to make a point. You do not rob to make a point. These exercises only lead to further chaos.

Third, race issues are still very fresh in the mind of many African-Americans. It does no service to act as if it does not. We say it does not. They say it does. If I am in the former camp I will be willing to open my ears in order to hear from those who believe they have been victimized. In what ways do you feel victimized? In what ways do you believe the law enforcement is out to get you? Why do you feel insecure as a black person when you are a productive citizen in society? What stories have been passed down to you that have shaped your understanding of your own race and its relation to other races? What perception would you like me to have of you and others like you? Where have we misinterpreted your story? Where have we misappropriated your narrative for our own purposes? Have there been people in your own community that have used your message for their personal gain by creating further unecessary tension?

Fourth, there is a problem with how white police officers have dealt with the black community. There is further a problem with how they have dealt with blacks in any community. Marcus Pittman offers this example. Take the time to read this, since I am convinced this can be multiplied by the thousand. We cannot deny this. We need to affirm it and then begin to ask ourselves certain questions as to why we don’t express greater frustration with these inconsistencies in our system.

Fifth, abuses in the system exists. These abuses stem from sinful practices and unethical behavior from individuals, rather than the institution itself. In other words, we need to focus on individual abuse before condemning an entire enterprise equally. Many police officers are honest men seeking to do right and love mercy and maintain order in white, hispanic, and black communities. We need to praise these individuals more often for their service, whether we agree or disagree with the institution at large.

Sixth, white and black churches ought to find ways to work together for the good of their communities. Political differences aside, we need to strive for the betterment of our humanity. And the only way we will come to any real agreement on these issues is by proclaiming a Messianic King who binds us together in His love. The Gospel is more than Jesus saves you from your sin. The Gospel is also now live together in the union I have given and prayed for in John 17.

Seventh, the quick nature in which many in the media or twitterdom assume a certain narrative of those killed by police officers because they a) saw a random picture of a black man with a gun or smoking pot or b) read somewhere that said subject came from a dysfunctional family is a disturbing reality in our culture. We need to assume the best of each human being created in the image of God. Many could claim a similar dysfunctional background or even a mention in a police record somewhere. God redeems us from our sins and takes us from our familial dysfunction and rescues us from chaos. He does it again and again.

Finally, while some may find genuine discomfort with certain racial expressions and cultures, whether in white or black communities, we need to orient our discomfort in ways that does not express itself into tangible discomfort towards a race or community of people. God has made us all into one renewed humanity; one race. Respecting both our oneness and diversity is a way forward.  Though we affirm distinctions in cultures and practices, ultimately, we must affirm the oneness of our lives together in the One true Man, Jesus Christ.  He is the one who reconciles and in Him alone do we place our trust.<>внутренняя оптимизации а

Read more

On December 5, 2014 By In Books, Culture, Theology

The Paleo-Orthodox Diet

Please consult your physician and pastor before going on the Paleo-Orthodox Diet

In his book In Defense of Food Michael Pollan does just what the title suggests, he defends food. Pollan argues that the presupposition behind modern food science, or “nutritionism” as he calls it, is that humans don’t need food, they need nutrients. To be sure, modern science is not yet unified on exactly what nutrients mankind might best thrive on, but they are convinced that the perfect diet is to be found not in a kitchen, but in a lab. Says Pollan:

”…if you’re a nutrition scientist you do the only thing you can do, given the tools at your disposal: break the thing down into its component parts and study those one by one, even if that means ignoring the subtle interactions and contexts and the fact that the whole may well be more than, or maybe just different from, the sum of its parts.”

In other words, if you ask a scientist “what is an apple?” don’t be surprised when he answers by describing the pieces he just examined under a microscope. He’s answering the question with the skillset and worldview with which he was trained.  Contra such reductionist science, Pollan argues that an apple is an entity in and of itself. Its benefits can’t be replicated simply by taking the exact dosage of Vitamins K, B-6, and E found in the fruit. No, in order to thrive, we need the apple, not simply its “nutrients.”

If Pollan is right when he says that we need food (i.e. fruits, vegetables, meat, seeds, etc.) rather than simply nutrients (i.e. vitamins, minerals, chemicals, etc.), then the answer to the question “what should we eat?” won’t be found in labs, but in kitchens. In the end, Pollan’s book is as much cultural history as it is dietary advice. Nutritionism, it becomes clear, is simply the outworking of an arrogant modernity which equates knowledge with the scientific method. It is produced by a culture which views itself, as Wendell Berry might say, more machine than human.

In his book The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies[i] Michael Legaspi tells the same story of modernity but with Scripture, rather than food, as the subject. If the books are read together, it becomes clear that the worldview which led us from the kitchen to the lab also led us from the church to the academy. Focusing on the ways in which Scripture was used and re-imagined in eighteenth-century Germany, Legespi skillfully shows that the Enlightenment attempted to fit the Bible into the category of “text” rather than “Scripture.” Legespi says it well, “Academic critics did not dispense with the authority of a Bible resonant with religion; they redeployed it. Yet they did so in a distinctive form that has run both parallel and perpendicular to church appropriations of the Bible.” In other words, the same Bible was being studied in the academy as in the church, but the academy had vastly different goals, values, and presuppositions motivating its study.

Thus, Legespi recounts the history of modern biblical interpretation as a move from “Scripture” (which is read in the church) to “text” (which is read in the academy). If one asks a biblical scholar “what does this text mean?” one shouldn’t be surprised when he answers by simply parsing the set of words in front of him. He’s answering the question with the skillset and worldview with which he was trained. Just as modern nutritionism views food as simply a collection of vitamins and calories, never considering the context of the whole food, never mind the whole meal, so too does the modern biblical scholar neglect the canonical context in which a given passage finds itself, as well as the context in which the text was meant to be read.

For those with eyes to see, Legaspi’s use of the word “text” is reminiscent of Pollan’s use of the word “nutrients.” A text, like a nutrient, lies on the table in front of the critic, waiting to be broken into its parts and put under a microscope for scientific study. Scripture, on the other hand, is like food. It comes on its own terms, demanding to be eaten “as is.” Scripture is more than, and different than, the sum of its parts.

For example, to “know” the story of the Good Samaritan in a textual sense simply involves issues of grammar, syntax, and cultural idiosyncrasies. To “know” the story in a Scriptural sense involves all those things, but also a willingness to view the needy around you as your neighbor. Said differently, to know a text exclusively involves one’s cognitive faculties. Knowing scripture, however, might begin with the mind, but if it doesn’t end in full-bodied obedience, it isn’t truly known. This, I take it, is the point of James 1:23-25.

If the story being told by Pollan is that of nutritionism, then the story being told by Legespi is what I’ll call “textism.” Because nutritionism and textism are both products of modernism, it will behoove those of us concerned with practicing an ancient, ecclesial, Paleo-faith to study the practices of those rejecting the dietary outworking’s of modernism. Their journey to the kitchen, in many ways, will show us the road back to the church. For example, let’s consider three of the questions Pollan recommends asking before buying food: Is this a “food?” Would my ancestors recognize it as a food? Is it local?

First, is this a “food?” As we’ve seen, when Pollan uses the word “food” he’s trying to undermine modern nutritionism. He wouldn’t want us to consider a pill which claims to have the same nutritional make-up as a squash equivalent with a squash. If you want the benefits of a squash, there is no pill, or for that matter cereal, which can equate the actual eating of a squash. Thus, when we go to the grocery store, we have to reckon with the actual creature in front of us, rather than viewing the object as a collection of mere nutrients.

When we open our Bibles, we have to ask “is this Scripture?” By answering in the affirmative, we will undermine the modernist attempt to neuter the Bible into a “text.” A text is private; Scripture is public. Textism has produced a private reading of Scripture which, at best, will demand the reader take every “spiritual” thought captive to Christ. A Scriptural reading will call the reader to take every thought captive: from politics to business to family-life. There isn’t a sphere in which the King, speaking through the Scriptures, does not demand obedience from the reader.

Likewise, a text is read rationalistically; Scripture is read theologically. A theological interpretation of Scripture[ii] is the natural consequence of recognizing the Scriptures as such. If the same Spirit who inspired Micah inspired John, then making intertextual, typological connection is not artificial, but natural, and indeed necessary! A text has one author; Scripture has two. While the divine author is never in conflict with the human author, we should expect the divine authorial intent to be “thicker” than the human author’s intent. Said differently, the same Author who started the story (in Genesis) had the climax (in the Gospels) and the ending (in Revelation) in mind all the way through. Thus, it is only natural that we recognize the substance (the thing typified) in the shadow (the type).

Second, would my ancestors recognize it as a food? Pollan points out that while your ancestors might mistake Go-Gurt® as yogurt, they certainly wouldn’t recognize its gelatin or modified corn starch as food. At some point, modern eating has departed from what traditional cultures would recognize as food. In the same way, Scripture demands to be read in a way congruent with the past. To be sure, Scripture always trumps any past interpretation of itself, but we would be fools to neglect the wisdom of our fathers. Thus, we can read, say, the account of Jesus’ baptism with the Trinitarian creeds in the back of our minds. We do this not with a slavish obedience to “tradition,” but with the humility and confidence which comes with being part of a church that transcends time and space.   

Third, is it local? The modernist worldview has made the purchasing of food as abstract, impersonal, and unaccountable as possible. The orange we eat this morning was just as likely to have been picked in Mexico as Florida. The ways in which the farmer treats his employees, we’re told, is not our business. However, when one buys locally, not only is the grower made accountable to the eater, but the eater is brought into a relationship with the farmer, the merchant, and indeed the land. In other words, to buy locally is to subject yourself to a community.

Scripture, likewise, must be read locally, in community. Texts are read individually, often at a desk, with a pen and dictionary in hand. Of course, it is perfectly appropriate to study the Scriptures on one’s own; but that is not the natural way in which to read the Scriptures. The Scriptures were written to be heard, and rehearsed, in the context of a church. Thus, if one tries to exclusively read, say, the Psalms on one’s own, the lament Psalms are either muted, or applied to fairly trivial matters. If read in community, these Psalms are read (or sung) with the experiences of others in mind. True, every individual person may not be suffering in a given congregation, but someone in the church is. And, when read communally the suffering person’s burdens are borne by the whole community.

Additionally, when Scripture is read in community, the interpretation of each reader is accountable not only to the ancient church, but to the local church.  The perspectives of various genders, ages, cultures, and ethnicities work as a safe-guard for any one person’s interpretation. Reading Scripture is a communal act in which each individual reader is brought into an accountable relationship with every other reader.

Michael Pollan feels compelled to defend food because he lives amidst a people whose obsession with nutrition has left them malnourished. They keep eating nutrients in what he calls “food like substances,” but never pick up what our ancestors would recognize as food. Likewise, the result of textism is a people who don’t know how to read the text of Scripture. Modernity has deceived us into reading the Bible privately, individually, and rationalistically. What is needed in our day is a pilgrimage away from the academy and to the church. What is needed is a call to read the Bible publically, communally, and theologically. Indeed, what is needed is Scripture. After all, man cannot live by texts and nutrients alone.

[i] For a wonderful interaction with Legaspi see Robert Yarbrough’s Themelios article Bye-bye Bible?

[ii] A full treatment on T.I.S. can be found in J. Todd Billings’ The Word of God for the People of God.

<>украинская биржа копирайтеровpr пример

Read more

On November 21, 2014 By In Culture, Politics

Anglican Archbishop Asks Clergy Not to Sign First Things “Marriage Pledge”

The Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church of North America has released a statement urging members and clergy not to sign, “The Marriage Pledge” introduced by the writers at First Things. Archbishop Beach is asking for time for his bishops, clergy, and lay leaders “to consider the consequences of making such a commitment.”

The pledge introduced by Rev. Radner and Rev. Seitz at First Things is very compelling, the language  appeals to those of us who are frustrated with the judicial activism that has altered the meaning of marriage in too many states. The statement appeals to my inner libertarian with notions like, “We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates.” While at the same time reaffirming our love for the Church by an act of allegiance to the Christian definition of marriage, “We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ­articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.”

Doug Wilson has said of the pledge, “…Christians who tie the knot need to have more secure knots than the secularists do. If this pledge catches on, I can easily envision Christians being less bound, less obligated, less constrained, and less secure than Andrew Sullivan is in his mirage. In short, church weddings detached from the civil sphere are worthless unless the church is being given the contracted legal authority to adjudicate the divorce — property, custody, the works. Anything less than that is a sham and a farce.”

Read the statement from Archbishop Beach below:

“I am writing to you because there has been alot of discussion in recent days about taking “The Marriage Pledge.” If you have not been following the online conversation, you can read the Pledge here at First Things , as well as a critical commentary here on Doug Wilson’s blog.

Some of our bishops and clergy have been in favor of signing this pledge, some are not in favor of signing the pledge, while others need more time to consider the consequences of making such a commitment.

It would be best for us to take counsel together before taking further action. Therefore I ask that you do not sign this pledge until as bishops, clergy, and lay leaders we have had more opportunities to pray about and discuss the legal, theological, and sociological ramifications of signing such a statement.

I ask us all to join together in prayer for the preservation of a biblical understanding of marriage in our society, in specific prayers for the courts in North America, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court as these issues come before them. Even in the midst of different perspectives about the wisdom of signing the pledge, we can rejoice that all of this discussion is motivated by a strongly shared commitment to the sanctity of marriage as established by Our Lord in the Scriptures. It is often when the times seem darkest that God’s glory can be most clearly displayed.

Your brother at the Foot of the Cross,

Screen Shot 2014-11-21 at 10.59.50 AM

 

 

 

Archbishop and Primate
Anglican Church in North America”

<>neobrutгугл директ

Read more

On November 15, 2014 By In Culture, Family and Children

Knocking on the Paedo Baptist Door

Here is an older article by Tim Challies on when credo baptists should baptize their children. He is gracious with those who believe that young children can believe and be baptized, but he suggests that Baptists should wait until children are older, particularly the later teen years. This position is similar to Capitol Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever is senior pastor.  I realize that the position Challies holds is not what all Baptists hold. But it is a common one and the dominant paradigm in my experience.  There are several points I want to make about this article.

First, Challies’ definition of “credible profession of faith” is not found in the book of Acts. He argues that someone must have knowledge and maturity in order to have a credible profession of faith. But almost every baptism in Acts immediately follows a response to the preaching of the Word. There is no delay to determine whether or not someone has knowledge or is mature enough to receive baptism. In Acts 2:41 3,000 people are baptized the day that Peter preaches to them. In Acts 8:12 we see that Philip baptized people who heard him preach the same day. At the end of the same chapter Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. There are numerous other examples in Acts (10:48, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8) of baptisms quickly following a profession of faith. There does not appear to be any biblical reason to delay baptism following a profession of faith. In some cases, like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, there could have been discussion about the faith. Even here it would have been only rudimentary. But almost every case in Acts there is nothing other than preaching and response. With the 3,000 on Pentecost there would not have been time to evaluate the participants knowledge and maturity. May be Challies is pulling his definition of credible profession of faith from another book of the Bible. If he is, he does not say so. This brings us to one of the central problems with the Baptist “credible profession of faith” approach. If we use the Biblical text then we baptize immediately upon “profession of faith.” That is the example in Acts. But with children and many adults Baptists often wait. Why? And if a Baptist would immediately baptize an adult who professes faith, why would they not immediately baptize a child who professes faith? What makes an adult profession of faith more valid than a child’s? In Acts knowledge and maturity is not a requirement for baptism. This means a four year old child who says, “I believe in Jesus” should be taken as seriously as a 24 year old.

Second, he does not mention a single passage that talks about children. The New Testament mentions children numerous times. It is odd to develop a thesis about baptizing children without at least referencing passages on children.

Third, he seems to think the only problem is baptizing children too early. But what if a child really does trust in Christ, which Challies says can occur, and we refuse to baptize him? Doesn’t that create doubt in his mind about his own conversion? What if credo-baptists teach their children that “your profession is not good enough?” Do Baptists create doubt by making them wait and then they fulfill the prophecy by acting unregenerate? Baptists tell their children, “We don’t know if you belong or not.” Then are surprised when the children act like they don’t belong. At the end of the article he states that by postponing baptism Baptists allow the child to pass through periods of uncertainty. But what if a period of uncertainty is created by postponing baptism?

Fourth, it sounds like he is arguing that we should not treat someone as truly saved until they leave their parents behind.  Where is the Scriptural proof for this particular point? Parents are told to instruct their children in the faith and the ways of Christ. If a parent does this well then Christ will be present in the child’s life from the moment they are born. An obedient child is one who listens to their parents and obeys their commands. This would include the command to trust in Christ. Where is the Biblical data that says, “Once someone shows years of being faithful then we can baptize them?”  Where in the Bible are parents told, “Wait to treat your children like Christians until they show years of faithfulness?” Again, this paradigm creates a culture of doubt for both parents and child.  Parents are never quite sure of their child’s standing and not surprisingly the child doubts any conversion as well.

Fifth, it is not inevitable, but there is a danger that his perspective leads to baptism by works. If you stay faithful after you leave your parents then we will know you are really saved. If you show enough theological knowledge then we will know you really believe. If you show enough maturity then we will know truly trust in Christ. Once we know you really believe, then we will baptize you. Under this view baptism is no longer an entrance into the Christian life, the beginning of someone’s discipleship (Matthew 28:18-20). It is an entrance to graduate school. It becomes a sign of spiritual maturity instead of a sign of God’s grace. It makes assurance of salvation through works a prerequisite to baptism instead being a fruit that springs from baptism. Need less to say, that seems backwards. I know that Baptists will refute this, but logically it is hard to see how baptism is not something you earn using Challies’ paradigm.

A couple of closing points.

A Baptist who refuses to baptize quickly upon a profession faith is not holding to the explicit pattern of baptism given to us in Acts. This might be fine, if they are drawing principles from passages outside of the baptisms in Acts. But an accusation often hurled at paedos, especially in popular books, is that we do not take seriously enough the explicit pattern set in Acts. However,  it is hypocritical of credo-baptists to accuse paedo-baptists of ignoring the explicit baptismal pattern in Acts when Baptists are doing the same thing with their profession of faith theology.

Popular credo-baptist theology often does not deal sufficiently with the New Testament passages on children.

Making someone’s acceptance into the people of God dependent upon their spiritual maturity would seem to contradict numerous passages in the Bible, including Jeremiah 31:34 where the  New Covenant includes the least to greatest. It can also create a works oriented paradigm and lead to doubt.  Creating doubt is one way we cause little ones to stumble (Matthew 18:6), which makes doubt just as dangerous as premature baptism.

Finally, a Baptist paradigm rooted in Acts would baptize quickly upon profession of faith and would take the profession of a three year old as seriously as that of 23 year old. There is no reason to do otherwise, unless you  make maturity a prerequisite for baptism, which is unbiblical. Of course at that point they are knocking on the paedo baptist door. It is only a matter of time before someone opens and says, “Welcome, you and your children.”<>стоимость баннерной рекламы в интернете

Read more

On November 14, 2014 By In Culture

The Death of Communication

It was a simple test and I failed it. It was so simple that I was celebrating before I even started it. In futebol, this is always a bad idea. Anything can happen in the four extra minutes after stoppage time.  A certain victory can be taken away with a beautiful header after a corner kick or an unexpected long-distance shot. But enough with sport metaphors. I was coming back from the beach with my boys. My cell phone stays with me at all times. As a pastor, I have noble excuses to keep it close. Hospital emergencies, counseling issues, but I digress. I am addicted to that marvelous ringtone. Scientists recently made some comparison to heroine addiction. But I know it’s not that bad. I can stop at any time. Right?

Back to the test. I had a 25 minute ride back home. I even put the cell phone a bit distant from the driver’s seat. Being a good Calvinist I am quite aware of my depravity. Goal: to make it home without touching my cell phone. Test: to wait to answer those life or death calls when I got back to the comfort of my home. Further, to allow those rings to simply disappear into sound heaven. I confess the first five minutes were tough. I tried. I even made it past the first red light. I had two whole minutes alone. The kids were quiet in the back. The sound of silence hurts. Those rings kept coming like Screwtape was trying to get into my brain. I kept assuming that each ring came from the same person asking, nay, begging for help. Then it happened.

I reached back to reach it at another red light, typed my password and quickly checked my e-mail. It only took five seconds. The e-mails were important. I could tell by their titles, but not important enough that they couldn’t wait 20 more minutes, or 20 hours. But the moral of the story is I fell. And great was the fall. a

I am finishing a certification in counseling, which has made me quite reflective these past few months. Reflective enough that I took that lesson in eating the fruit…I mean, checking my cell phone, and made a couple of applications.

The first one that comes to mind is that we live an age where communication has died a thousand deaths. In profoundly Shakespearan ways, it is dying and dying. There is that ring again. I have seen the videos portraying zombie-like teenagers engaged in the art of romacing their cell phones while their future wives are right there physically next to them (though she may possibly be romancing her new Note 4). Can we even talk anymore for five minutes without peeking at our ESPN NEWS app, or for the more sophisticated among us, the New Yok Times app. I am guilty. Mea Culpa. A counselor friend once told me that while he counseled a teenager for $75 an hour this young lady spent a near 45 of the 60 minutes carrying on a “conversation” with her boyfriend via text. She kept assuring the counselor that she was hearing everything he was saying. Doubtful.

It’s a strange age. The world is more engaging than ever, but we can’t engage ourselves consistently for a substantive period of time. Dostoyevsky once said: “Much unhappiness has come into the world because of bewilderment and things left unsaid.” Our world is unhappy beacuse so many have been distracted for so long that they no longer have anything to say. Conversation depends on soul and body. To be present in the body in our culture means to be absent in our soul.

The second application is that if conversation dies in more ways than one we cease to be human. We speak and others speak back. This is how Yahweh God made us. If by giving priority to an inanimate object–sorry SIRI–we trivialize flesh to flesh interaction we are of all people most to be pitied. God forbid.

So, I will test my self again. I will probably fail a few more times. But I will keep trying. I am going to leave that cell phone in the car when I have an appointment. I have silenced my ringtones for virtually all notifications. And if someone complains that I did not answer their phone calls or texts soon enough I will just have to tell them that I am fighting for the survival of communication among homo sapiens. I know they will understand.<>dlya-vzlomaпроверить регистрацию а

Read more

On November 13, 2014 By In Culture, Politics

Unfortunate Boss: Springsteen’s Real Problem

Bruce Springsteen is one of my favorite songwriters. He and the E Street Band have been a musical inspiration to me for a number of years now. This doesn’t mean I like all of his material – in fact, there’s quite a bit I don’t like – but approximately 70 songs of his are top notch in my estimation. As spectacular as Springsteen’s live performances are, perhaps his greatest skill is his lyrical storytelling. He is able to communicate depths of human emotion in profound ways and he frequently centers on themes of faith, hope, and redemption. Fans will acknowledge a spiritual element in Springsteen’s music, even describing his concerts in terms of a religious experience. Springsteen’s lyrics may also be meaningful in the lives of many Christians, regardless of his own religious affiliation or lack thereof.

Over the years Springsteen has become known for political activism. With the hit song, “Born in the USA,” Springsteen entered into the arena of public policy, proving that he isn’t afraid to criticize our elected leaders. This week, he sparked controversy for covering Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son” at a patriotic event in Washington, D.C. The song has anti-war undertones and takes jabs at the political elite. But this is by no means a bad thing! Politicians are not above reproach and we do well to expose immorality. In fact, libertarians and constitutionalists may argue that there is nothing more patriotic than decrying the abuses of power we witness day in and day out. (more…)

Read more

On November 11, 2014 By In Culture

Kirk Cameron is saving Christmas with Douglas Wilson

Kirk Cameron Presents “Saving Christmas”

While Kirk Cameron’s “Left Behind” legacy hit the box office just over a month ago, now featuring Nicholas Cage, Cameron has been busy promoting a different kind of Christian movie. Saving Christmas is Cameron’s big screen attempt to restore our faith in the Christmas season. Cameron’s film hopes to provide,”a biblical basis for our time-honored traditions and celebrations, and the inspiration to stand strongly against a culture that wants to trivialize and eliminate the faith elements of this holy season.” Loaded with the tagline, “Put Christ back in Christmas,” I look forward to seeing what this movie has to offer.

Watch the Theatrical Trailer for Saving Christmas on Youtube. 

The Advent of Doug Wilson

Saving Christmas, which is set to debut on Nov. 14, was recently promoted on a video segment of Doug Wilson’s “ask Doug?” where Kirk revealed that it was Wilson’s writing that motivated the project. “One of the books that had a big influence on what’s in the movie was Doug’s God Rest Ye: Why Christmas is the Foundation for Everything,” said Cameron.

Watch God Rest Ye Merry | Kirk Cameron and Doug Wilson on Vimeo

Buy “God Rest Ye Merry” Today

Pastor Doug Wilson’s book is essential reading for anyone hoping to understand the profound symbolism found in the Christmas Holiday or who simply want to read about how Santa Claus once punched a man in the face at a church council. As Advent approaches, Wilson’s short book also features a read-aloud meditation and prayer for each day of our Advent season. (Advent season begins on Sunday, November 30, 2014.)

Click here to buy God Rest Ye Merry: Why Christmas is the Foundation for Everything

<>bonehostсамостоятельная раскрутка а yandex

Read more

On November 10, 2014 By In Books, Culture, Theology

The Life and Legacy of J.R.R. Tolkien, Part 2

Tolkien grew and became a formidable rugby player, and also a linguist of first class. He was so gifted in languages that he began to form his own language. His intellectual interests increased, even more, when he started the Tea Club and Barovian Society.a And they would meet frequently for tea and discuss their particular interests. For Tolkien, it was Northern European Languages and Legends.b

He recited for them the Norse Volsunga Saga,  in which a dwarf is featured with a treasure horde and a magic ring. The Norse myths Tolkien found so fascinating even featured dwarves as underground metalworkers.

Tolkien’s gifts were conspicuous, and this eventually led him to change the literary world. It was his background as an orphan, home-schooled by a faithful and sacrificial mother, the influence by his local priest who cared for them and watched over his soul, and his affinity for strange languages that propelled Tolkien to be more than just another writer, but a writer who cherished his faith and heritage, and who did not abandon all hope when life seemed to crush him, but persevered in his gifts.

The Legacy of J.R.R. Tolkienc

“Our world would be poorer without two other worlds: Narnia and Middle-earth,” said Christopher Wright.d Tolkien produced a mythology that was internalized. He produced a world that others could imagine. The casual reader or even the casual Christian reader will look at The Lord of the Rings and admire its poetic brilliance and the protagonists’ perseverance, but you need a good set of Christian eyes. The way you gain these eyes is by training them to see the world not just as a mechanical production of God, but as a witness and a testimony to the glory of God; to see the world through the story of God, and then to judge every other world (“sub-creation,” to quote Tolkien) by the story of God’s world. In other words, the story of God is the model for every other world. This is why we can watch or read anything decent in this world and immediately see facts that reflect the wisdom of God.

The Lord of the Rings is unique, because Tolkien himself wrote the following in a letter to a friend:

 The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work;…e

You may think this is strange because there is no Church, no acts of prayer, or worship in the Trilogy. This is where I think Tolkien offers probably one of the best observations on how to interpret his books, and also how to look at different works as a Christian. He continues his quote:

…it is fundamentally religious and Catholic, unconsciously at first…this is why I have not put in anything like “religion” in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”f

If we come to The Lord of the Rings trying to find “religion by counting how many times they pray or go to church, we will be soberly disappointed…we need to look hard at the shape of the story itself, not at discreet acts of religion.”g This is a rich application to our witness in our culture. The Word of God is more than a set of propositions we recite, it is a story we believe. While quoting Bible verses is fruitful, establishing the story of redemption can be even more fruitful. I tend to believe that the medium of literature is a great way of preaching the gospel story. The subtlety of Tolkien’s words is that when an unbeliever reads or watches Tolkien’s art he is first captivated by the brilliance of it, then he is confronted with a series of questions about good and evil, the depravity of man, the wise counsel of Gandalf, the courage of Sam and Frodo, and the determination of Aragorn. All these have the effect of confronting unbelief with a world they are not familiar.

The genre of fantasy carries the ability to communicate divine ideas. Tolkien wrote:

 Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode. Because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker.h

Tolkien is echoing the orthodox understanding of mankind created in the image of God (Imago Dei). The reason we create stories is because we are imitators of the true Story-Maker. The best worlds are the ones that reflect and communicate our world. Good fantasy reflects our ability to create things after the likeness of God’s creation. Middle-Earth is a reflection of this world.i This is why it is so realistic. The narrative of Middle-Earth itself is the religious element of the story. It contains hints of the Christian message while refusing just to repeat it. C.S. Lewis in the Chronicles of Narnia was explicit in writing a Christian allegory for children. Tolkien wrote a mythology. Just because a mythology did not happen doesn’t mean it cannot relate to the truth.j And this is what Tolkien did. At the end of the Rings trilogy, there is a happy ending to this world. The world at the end is made new. Evil is destroyed. There is lasting peace in the kingdom. There are many sacrifices made, indicating that to achieve the world we believe the Gospel seeks will demand sacrifices from God’s people. It means we may have to abandon the Shire and speak against Mordor. It means we may lose the things we most cherish like Aragorn going into exile for the sake of what he loves most. But in the end, Tolkien is establishing a story built on a heroic community of people, from all sorts of different backgrounds, imperfect, but loyal to the mission of defeating evil.

What then does the life of Tolkien teach us?

First, Tolkien was not a product of solitary imagination. He studied, learned, read vociferously. Tolkien’s mother believed in a good education. Not just a random education, but a particularly holistic education. Mabel wanted her priest involved in the training of her children. That little Catholic parish was acting biblically in providing for the widow and the orphan. Education matters. Why do we take such a strong stand on Christian education? Because a Christian mind needs to be shaped by the knowledge of the world God created, not the world created by chance.

Second, let me encourage you to read The Lord of the Rings trilogy if you have not. It is never too late to begin reading good literature.

Third, appreciate not just the explicit Christian writings, but also the classics. Build a library of good literature. This is a great legacy to leave your children and family members.

Fourth, understand that all literature is religious in nature. The author is always trying to communicate some worldview, whether good or bad. There is no literary neutrality.

Fifth, parents: read, read, read! Do you want to capture your children’s heart and mind? Read to them. Ralph Smith is a CREC pastor in Tokyo, Japan. I asked him last year in Minneapolis what he did to cultivate a love of learning in his children. He said: “We read the Bible, Shakespeare, and everything else out loud at home. I wanted them to hear the Word before they could fall in love with it.” This is a good application for children in worship. Why do we insist that our little ones remain with us during Covenant Renewal? It is because we believe that the Word – even before they are reading – is effective to their hearing. It builds in them a vocabulary that expresses joy and knowledge and truth.

Finally, and by far, one of my favorite features of The Lord of the Rings is their incessant love of food. There is constant feasting! In Tolkien’s world, food is communal. It is to be shared. It brings people together and accentuates joy. The importance of what happens around these meals makes the sacrifice of war worthwhile and lets the reader know there is something worth fighting about. This is the beauty of Tolkien’s writings. He turns every situation into an act of preparation for war. This is the language we use of the Lord’s Supper. It is food given to prepare us for war.

I hope Tolkien provides you some inspiration to look deeper at literature and realize again and again that this world is given to us, and that the worlds we create need to reflect and pay homage to the Creator of the World, namely Christ Himself.games mobi onlineпродвижение и раскрутка а в одессе

  1. A sort of prequel to The Inklings.  (back)
  2. Mark Horne, J.R.R. Tolkien, a Biography.  (back)
  3. Using many notes and inspiration from Mark Horne’s final chapter on the Legacy of Tolkien.  (back)
  4. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2003/aug29.html  (back)
  5. Quote found in Brian Nolder’s paper God and Hobbit.  (back)
  6. Brian Nolder, God and Hobbit.  (back)
  7.  Ibid.  (back)
  8. Quoted in Nolder’s paper from Tolkien’s Fairy-Stories  (back)
  9. Tolkien does write that Middle Earth is this earth  (back)
  10. Horne, Legacy of Tolkien.  (back)

Read more

On October 31, 2014 By In Culture

A Ballad of the German Reformation

For your 2014 Reformation Day listening and viewing pleasure: The Ballad of Martin Luther.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eglz9Yhqflo<>siteпродвижение web ов

Read more

On October 16, 2014 By In Culture

Eye Candy, Girl Fights, and the Death of Motherhood

Pastor Doug Wilson describes movies as catechism class for our age. They tell us what to believe, help define reality for us, tell us who our gods are and what are the major sins of our age. That is why it is good for Christians to evaluate what are the major themes of movies.  Americans spent 10.9 billion dollars at the movie theater last year. That does not include Redbox, Netflix, Amazon, etc. What are we being taught in these catechism classes? I came across one lesson as I read about the movie Fast and Furious 6, which came out in the summer of 2013 

(Disclaimer: I have never seen any of  The Fast and Furious movies.) I was reading an article about what Hollywood can learn from one of the  most surprising film franchises in history.  The article lists six things that Hollywood can learn from this movie franchise, which has earned over 1.6 billion dollars worldwide. The fourth reason on the list is that it appeals to women. Here is what the article says:

Casting women as more than scantily clad helpmates and arm candy has further broadened “The Fast & The Furious” franchise’s appeal.

Women represent 51 percent of the U.S. population and 52 percent of the moviegoing public, but according to a 2012 study by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, only 11 percent of the protagonists in top grossing films are female.

Yes, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker are the top-billed stars in the series, but what’s refreshing about “Fast & Furious 6” is that Rodriguez and co-star Gina Carano have roles that are integral to the action. In fact, Jeffrey Kirschenbaum, Universal Pictures co-president of production, told TheWrap that the most recent “Fast” film is the highest testing among women.

He added that the on-screen throw down between Rodriguez and Carano is a key selling point of the film and “trumps” the fight between Diesel and Dwayne Johnson that was a heavily promoted part of “Fast Five.

Notice the first and last paragraph. Apparently the moviegoing public wants more than women in bikinis. Eye candy, by itself, is no longer acceptable. (If you watch the trailer you will see it is still there.) Now we need women who beat each other up. Here is another article declaring that the girl fight in the movie is the most intense girl fight ever. And the director and the women involved are of course proud. It is “refreshing” that women are now central to the action. They don’t have to sit on the sidelines anymore wearing next to nothing. Now they can get into the action and pulverize one another.

Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3 was also praised for its portrayal of woman.  “Wired” says, 

Consider that the genius in Iron Man 3 who creates a powerful—indeed, perhaps too powerful—form of technology capable of changing the world isn’t Tony Stark; it’s Maya. And the hero who ultimately saves the day by taking out the bad guy in smash-em-up physical confrontation isn’t Tony Stark; it’s Pepper Potts. Sure, Tony Stark and the Mandarin are ostensibly the hero and the villain, but if you look at the things that people actually do rather than where the camera happens to focus, the female characters are the ones who truly begin to shine.

So in Iron Man 3 we have a female scientist who creates some powerful technology and we have eye candy, Pepper Potts, who beats up the bad guy. 

The catechism question these movies are asking is: What should a woman be? The answer is: be a sex toy or be a man. Wear a bikini, wear a gun, wear a business suit, but most certainly do not wear an apron. You were made to be used by a man or to act like a man. Where are the mothers, I mean real mothers with children, in modern movies? Where are the faithful wives who love their husbands?  They are conspicuous by their absence. When is the last time you watched a major movie where motherhood is a virtue or a central element in the story?  When was the last time you watched a movie with a husband and wife who love each other and love their children? Look at the top  25 movies from 2013. I have seen fifteen out of the 25. How many of those movies have a strong mother character? 2014 does not look much better.  There are smaller movies that do have faithful mother characters and occasionally big budget films will do that as well. But let’s not be naive. A majority of movies that come out today do not have a mother of consequence in them.  The women are either professionals, someone to be bedded, or fighters. Hollywood has effectively killed motherhood as a vocation for women.

Our wives and daughters need to be aware that their fundamental calling has been rejected by the media. Fathers, pastors, and husbands need to encourage the women in their care to be faithful to God in that calling and not buy the lie that motherhood is a waste. 

This was originally posted at Singing and  Slaying. 

<>примеры копирайтинга

Read more