Culture Archives - Page 63 of 69 - Kuyperian Commentary

On October 24, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Wisdom Like

Food and Holiness: The Final Post, I Think

By Peter Jones

This is the final post in a series. Part I is here. Part II is here.

Eleventh, it is easy in our culture to see exercise as a means of holiness. Men and women who exercise should remember I Timothy 4:7-8, which follows closely on the heels of the I Timothy 4:1-5. Paul says that physical exercise is of little value or it could be translated is only valuable for a short time. Paul is not saying exercise is wicked or unprofitable. But he is saying that we should keep it in perspective. Exercise is of limited value in this life and of no value for the next life. In our sports and super model saturated world it is difficult to keep our exercise in perspective. Go without exercise for a week or a month and see what that does for you spiritually. Did you feel guilty? If so, your perspective is off. Women, do you feel ashamed if you put on a few pounds? Then you need to adjust your thinking. Do you feel as ashamed about your gossip as you do about missing a workout? Men do you feel as guilty about your flirting with women as you do about forgetting to run? Do you put as more thought into godliness than you do into exercise? (I Timothy 4:7) I am not saying stop exercising. Exercise is good. But keep it in perspective. Make sure you are known for your pursuit of holiness more than your pursuit of the perfect body.

Twelfth, our culture is obsessed with physical appearances. We spend billions each year on beauty and health, promoting items such as tanning, implants, hair dyes, gym memberships, organic food, etc. The newspapers, magazines, billboards, commercials, and movies all have an agenda. They are not neutral observers, but preachers for a materialistic, Godless world, where what matters is being beautiful. Remember this any time you are tempted to belly up to the bar and drink what the world is pouring. We breath in this idea from birth, so it is easy for us to miss it in our thinking. How often do we judge those around based on whether or not they are lean and attractive? How do we feel if an overweight woman walks into church as opposed to a trim man? Your mind has been affected by the constant focus on the physical in our culture. Be aware of the temptation to judge all things by physical appearance and fight against it.

Thirteenth, remember for us pouring out our lives, including our bodies, is what we are here to do. (See Romans 12:1-2 and Matthew 10:38) How many Christians try to save their bodies instead of pour them out? This point is not so much what you are doing, but why. Why do you eat healthy and exercise? Why do you want to be thin and attractive? Is it so you can pour yourself out for others? Are you spending your life, even when you are trying to be healthy? Or are you just being healthy for selfish reasons? When you are old will you have poured out your body on what was good, children, church, family, and the Kingdom? Or will you have worked hard to be healthy only to find that Like Scrooge in his counting room you sit there in front of the mirror with your fit, healthy body and nothing else. You have saved your body only to lose all that matters. When they lay you in the grave make sure your body is spent.

Fourteenth, our knowledge is partial and limited. I remember an old pastor friend of mine telling me that when he was growing up ice cream was a health food. Ah, the good old days! The results of research and studies often contradict one another. One week coffee is like heroin. The next week it might be the cure for Alzheimer’s. One week eggs are a great heart attack risk. The next week they are the key to your good health. Back and forth we go. This is not a call to ignore science or refuse to do research. But it is a call to be cautious. Our academies are driven by an agenda just like anyone else. Science departments are godless and driven by evolution. Research is driven by money and the government. (For example, I remember in college finding out that a company that sells car seats was trying to up the minimum age for being in a car seat.) Health food gurus are neo-pagans who believe that the Earth is our mother. We can learn from these groups, but only with a healthy dose of skepticism . Their research may be true. It may not be. And it will probably take decades to find out. If it is true it will probably come with strings attached or fine print at the bottom of the page. We should stay away from strong, dogmatic statements based on the latest research. We should also stay away from making others feel guilty based on the latest research.

Last, but certainly not least, your view of the Lord’s Supper says a lot about your view of food. Is the Supper a banquet, where we feed upon the body and blood of Christ? Or is it a place where we do penance, where we hang our heads in sorrow? A low, somber view of the Lord’s Supper can lead to a low view of the created world. This is a huge topic, but a brief word will have to do. The only place outside the Gospels where the Lord’s Supper is explicitly mentioned is I Corinthians 11. There the picture is not one of somberness, but of so much food and drink people were getting drunk. Paul does not tell them to tone it down. But rather he tells them to wait on each other. The Lord’s Supper is a feast. (c.f. I Cor. 5:8) Once we see that, then I Timothy 4:1-5 makes perfect sense and the whole world becomes our banqueting table.<>контент для а

On October 22, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Wisdom Like

Food and Holiness: Part II

Before I begin my second post on food I wanted to make a note about how we eat in my household. My wife grinds our own wheat. We still eat some white flour, but we also eat a lot of wheat. We go in with some friends and buy, raise, and butcher our own chickens. We joined a CSA this summer where we bought locally grown vegetables. We eat tons of grains, beans, and other whole foods. We grow a small amount of vegetables each year. The amount of processed food in our diet is low. Soda is a special treat, not a normal part of our diet. I think most people would consider us healthy eaters. However, none of this is an indicator of personal righteousness. That is the main point of these posts.

This is the continuation of an article that began here. I will have one more post tomorrow.

Sixth, what you refuse to eat does not make you more holy than someone else. You are not more holy because you refuse to eat white sugar or white flour or buy organic. Paul makes this point in Colossians 2:20-23. Men love to draw unbiblical lines of holiness to separate themselves from others. Paul says these false lines make us look holy and feel holy, but in end they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. Paul tells us where true holiness comes in Colossians 3, especially verses 5, 8, 12-13. If we worried more about those things mentioned in Colossians 3, sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, and less about what type of flour we are eating or how much fat is in our food we would probably be more holy.

Seventh, it is a doctrine of demons to encourage abstaining from certain foods because you think they are sinful. I Timothy 4:1-5 are clear on this particular point. Teachers were saying you were unholy if ate certain food and got married. Paul denounces these men and calls them the voice of demons. This passage is emphatic and strong. Nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that is fine. But if they don’t eat meat because they think it is evil they are teaching false doctrine. All things can be eaten, provided they are sanctified by the Word and prayer.

Eighth, a lot of Christians use “the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” argument from I Corinthians 6:19 to argue for healthy living. However, we must remember that Paul is talking about having sex with a prostitute. So if you think drinking soda, smoking cigarettes, or refusing to exercise is “defiling the temple” then you are saying that these are the equivalent of sleeping with a prostitute. Is that really what you want to say? If not, then temper your language. There may be some downstream application of this verse to our physical well-being, but we should be careful how we use it. This is of the most misused verses in the Bible.

Ninth, to refuse fellowship with another brother over food is a perversion of the Gospel. To divide over organic vs. inorganic, natural vs. processed, meat vs. veggies, hormone free vs. hormones, exercise vs. non-exercise, white vs. wheat, etc. is to deny Christ who has made us one body in the Spirit. We lean towards self-righteousness, which means we lean towards false lines of holiness where we are on the holy side. Food is one of the ways Satan tempts us to look down on other believers. I know food is not usually a barrier between churches, but it is often a barrier between Christians. This denial of fellowship is rarely explicit. We don’t put on our front doors “No short, bald, fat guys allowed.” But with our attitudes, who we like to hang out with, how we talk about fat people, and our treatment of men and women like this we make it clear that thin, healthy people are preferred. Again, I know it can go the other way with fat people looking down on thin. But in our culture that is not the primary temptation.

Tenth, this one will make some people mad, but here goes. Many of the current food fads in Christendom are promoted by women. I am not sure if it has always been the case, but it is now. Most of the best-selling “Christian” exercise books and “Christian” eating books come from women. In my experience as a pastor, this has been the case as well. Certain women gravitate towards strange, unbiblical views on food. Pastors and husbands need to teach the women in their flocks and homes a Biblical perspective on food, health, and exercise.

To Be Continued…

On October 17, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Wisdom Like

Food and Holiness: Part I

Here at Kuyperian we are trying to take every thought captive to Christ. This includes economics, politics and naturally food. Food? Yes, food. Food is a source of great anxiety for our culture. What should we eat, how much should we eat, when should we eat, and where should we eat are all questions we ask. Every week it seems there is new study telling us about the evils of this food or that food. How should we think as Christians when it comes to food? Below is my brief attempt at putting up some guardrails on a road where many are currently driving over the cliff. A couple of notes before I begin:

First, I know there are Christians who flaunt their freedom and eat like pigs because they are “free in Christ.” I know it is possible for the fat person to look down on the thin. However, in the community I live in, our culture, and the Christian world at large that is not the major issue. The bigger issue is holiness by how we eat, dieting, or exercise. That is what I address primarily in these posts. That does not mean I think being a glutton is fine. It just means that the temptation in our culture leans the other way.

Second, I am not saying what we eat is irrelevant. But I am saying it does not matter as much as our culture tells us it does.

Third, each person has to make choices about how they eat and what they eat. I understand this. However, too often our choices become a source of holiness for us and a way of dividing between Christians. I am not saying we should not think about what we eat. I am saying this has very little bearing on our own righteousness and holiness and should not be a source of division in the Body of Christ.

Fourth, there is a lot more that could be said. I do not address feasting, hospitality, drinking good beer (or bad beer) or even how important the simple act of eating together can be. Perhaps in the future I will address some of these.

With those qualifications out of the way, here are my points. I will post more tomorrow.

First, the Old Testament laws about food have been done away with. It is hard to understand what else Acts 10 can mean, especially 10:28. Any Christian who tells you, “Don’t eat pork or shellfish because the Bible forbids it” has failed to understand the New Covenant and is leading you back to the shadows of the Old Covenant. I have heard this from parishioners, from pastors, in conferences, etc. This idea dies a hard death.

Second, the Old Testament food laws were not about health. This idea gets a lot of mileage in our health obsessed culture despite it not being true. It makes men sound holy for being healthy. However, God never uses health language when giving the laws. He tells them to do this because they are to be holy, separate from the nations. (Leviticus 22:26) The OT dietary laws are not a manual on healthy eating. They were a reminder to the Old Testament saints that they are to be separate from the nations. In the New Covenant those OT dietary laws are broken down as God is making one new man out of two. (Ephesians 2:14-18)

Third, two of the major food sins in Scripture are gluttony and drunkenness. We understand drunkenness. But we think gluttony equals being fat or eating too much. However, having an extra piece of pie does not qualify as gluttony, just as having two beers does not qualify as drunkenness. Having some extra pounds on you does not make you a glutton. Gluttony, like drunkenness, is not hard to spot when we know what we are looking for. Primary verses on gluttony are Deuteronomy 21:20 and Proverbs 23:19-21. The picture here is not of someone who overeats and is overweight, but of someone who leads a riotous, drunken life and squanders their money and time. (c.f. Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34) Gluttony is linked with a particular way of living, especially of wasting resources, sloth, poverty, and often theft. (Mark Horne does a great job explaining gluttony in this article.) My point is simple. Gluttony is a sin, but gluttony is not what most Christians think it is.

Fourth, natural food is not necessarily better than processed food. I understand that a lot of processed food today has been stripped of its nutrient value. However, it is important to not overreact. Nature is fallen just like man. The wheat has felt the effects of sin just like we have. God put us here to take dominion. Just because greedy men tear down what God has created does not mean we should just take nature as it is. We were made by God to take up the things in the world and transform them for our good and for his glory. This means we should be trying to make the wheat better, the cows fatter, and the apples bigger.

Fifth, where your food comes from does not matter that much. As Americans we have been taught that it is our duty to make sure our food does not come from a tainted source such as a corporate chicken farm or an overseas processing plant. But in I Corinthians 8:8 Paul says it is not a sin to eat meat offered to idols. If it is not a sin to eat meat that has been put on an altar, chanted over, and offered up to the gods, then it is not a sin to eat non-organic chickens, produce harvested by underpaid workers, and beef filled with hormones from the packing plant in Iowa. This is an argument from the greater to the lesser. Sometimes this argument is focused around buying locally. We should buy from a local farmer instead of from a corporate farm in California. Other times people cry out that justice demands that we make sure our food comes from a place where the workers are treated rightly. Whatever the argument, Paul’s point in I Corinthians 8:8 effectively blunts it. You can decide not to buy food from a certain place, but don’t make it a sin to when someone else does.

To Be Continued…

<>проверить на вирус

On October 12, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Faithful In Facial Follicles

by Marc Hays

That’s me. I’ve had a mustache and goatee for about 13 years–nonstop facial follicles. There has never been an urge to shave them because I didn’t grow them by accident. They are not merely the result of not shaving. They are a result of a principled not-shaving.

Prior to my present state of faithful, facial follicility, I was fickle. I tried on a mustache to look older and to look more “cowboyish.” The Justins, the Wranglers, and the Stetson only displayed my desire to look more cowboyish, which was not the intended effect. The accompanying mustache only made me look like I wanted to look older. It didn’t actually accomplish that either. So, I got rid of the whole look.

A few years later, the decision to grow my mustache and goatee was different. I’m not sure where I heard it, maybe Douglas Wilson, but I remember hearing someone talk about the fact that facial hair was distinctively male. Beards are distinctively male, and this is probably not news to anyone. For a man to have a beard is entirely natural, and at one level, intrinsically laudable. By that I mean that no number of effeminate, beard-donning men can change the nature of a beard from that which is masculine into something else; it will forever be a badge of the sex of the one who wears it.

However, a woman with a beard would more than likely be seeking laser hair removal. It would in no way be a badge of her femininity and would instead be source of embarrassment. So far, no amount of egalitarianism has managed to convince Madison Avenue to market Rogaine specially designed for a woman’s chin; although the day it happens, I will not be surprised. An anti-beard advocate once told me that he thought that beards made a man look feminine, and I’m still trying to figure that one out. Needless to say, he did not convince me, and I have been in the state of facially-follicled felicity ever since.

As an aside, one might ask me, “Why just the goatee? Why not the full meal deal?” Well, the Apostle Paul says that in whatever state a man finds himself, he should be content. I have zero sideburns and the cheeks are in need of some major, facial, follicle fertilizer. I’ve grown it all out before and I looked like a teenaged, Mennonite boy attempting to grow a beard and not quite yet accomplishing it. I keep it at the goatee level so that I can say I have accomplished my task rather than forever be trying to get it done. (Those of you fellas that are in that “teenaged Mennonite boy” stage but are still just letting it grow, I applaud you.)

One more thought concerning the masculine aspect of beardedness. In the face of some terribly immature behavior by some heavily-bearded men, a wise woman–a paragon of femininity, once said, “The man makes the beard. The beard does not make the man.” G. K. Chesterton could not have said it better, which means it could not have been said better.

So, as we bearded ones look in the mirror, or scratch our chins, or wipe the soup out of it when our wives give us the subtle clue, may we forever remember that we have been called to be men, which means far more than allowing the pores on our faces to do what comes by them naturally. We are called to be like the Son of Man, who was the only one to ever live up to his beard, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

<>биржа текстов

On October 11, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Family and Children Like

Charles Hodge on True Education

Marc Hays posted earlier the opinion of three different contemporary writers on Christian education, specifically public school. Here is a quote from an older Christian, Charles Hodge. This comes from his commentary on Ephesians 6:4.

“This whole process of education is to be religious, and not only religious, but Christian. It is the nurture and admonition of the Lord which is the appointed and the only effectual means of attaining the end of education. Where this means is neglected or any other substituted in its place, the result must be disastrous failure. The moral and religious element of our nature is just as essential and as universal as the intellectual. Religion, therefore, is as necessary to the development of the mind as knowledge. And as Christianity is the only true religion, and God in Christ the only true God, the only possible means of profitable education is the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is, the whole process of instruction and discipline must be that which he prescribes and which he administers, so that his authority should be brought in constant and immediate contact with mind, heart and conscience of the child. It will not do for the parent to present himself as the ultimate end, the source of knowledge and possessor of authority to determine truth and duty. This would be to give his child a mere human development. Nor will it do for him to urge and communicate every thing on the abstract ground of reason; for that would be to merge his child in nature. It is only by making God, God in Christ, the teacher and ruler, on whose authority every thing it so be believed, and in obedience to whose will every thing is to be done, that the ends of education can possibly be attained. It is infinite folly in men to assume to be wiser than God, or to attempt to accomplish an end by other means than those which he has appointed.”

Hodge makes some excellent points in this paragraph, which I would like to draw to your attention.

First, education must include the will and the moral character if it is to be called education at all. I would add that education will always be religious and moral in nature. The only question is will the religion be explicit or hidden. Public schools train our children to worship and form their moral character all the while claiming that they are morally neutral.

Second, God, since he is the only God, is the only right source of education. To try to gain a proper moral formation, that is true education, apart from God is like doing heart surgery with a butter knife.

Third, notice how Hodge says that the child’s heart, mind, and conscience must be brought into constant and immediate contact with God’s authority. This is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 6:7. Here is why an education that excludes the Lord is a lie and is no education at all. God really does rule the world through His Son Jesus Christ and we really are to trust in Him and obey him and his Word really is the foundation for everything. To eliminate God’s authority from education is to eliminate the primary lesson that is to be learned.

Fourth, God is to set the curriculum. That curriculum is to make our children like their Savior Jesus. That does not eliminate math or science or literature. But it does eliminate math or science or literature without Jesus. This also means that returning some vague, amorphous “god” to public education is insufficient. It must be “God in Christ.”

Fifth, any attempt to educate our children any other way is infinite folly and guaranteed disaster. We cannot eliminate the Creator and the Savior from our education and not also ultimately eliminate wisdom, joy, beauty, truth, and righteousness.

Sixth, many Christians have adopted the mindset that education is primarily about earning a living wage. We get a good education so we can get a good job and earn money. This is insufficient as the end of education. Education’s end is the glory of God through making disciples of his Son Jesus Christ who apply his Word to all of life.

<>java download games

On October 10, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Public Schools–Mohler, McDurmon, and Christianity Today

by Marc Hays

One month ago, Answers in Genesis published an article by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. entitled “Is Public School An Option?” In it he addresses the brief history of public schools as well as the more recent “progressivist” agenda of John Dewey and his fellow humanists. Dr. Mohler then addresses the “political and ideological” secularization of the public schools. He states, “The ideological revolution

has been even more damaging than the political change. Those who set educational policy are now overwhelmingly committed to a radically naturalistic and evolutionistic worldview that sees the schools as engines of social revolution. The classrooms are being transformed rapidly into laboratories for ideological experimentation and indoctrination. The great engines for Americanization are now forces for the radicalization of everything from human sexuality to postmodern understandings of truth and the meaning of texts. Compulsory sex education, the creation of “comprehensive health clinics,” revisionist understandings of American history, Darwinian understandings of science and humanity, and a host of other ideological developments now shape the norm in the public school experience. If these developments have not come to your local school, they almost surely will soon.”

He wraps up by re-asking his opening question, “Is public school an option?” He answers,

For Christians who take the Christian worldview seriously and who understand the issues at stake, the answer is increasingly no. The number of Christian parents coming to this conclusion increases each year. We can understand the nostalgia that many Christians hold about the public schools. I spent every minute of my school life from the first grade to high school graduation in a public school. And yet, I saw the ideological transformation of the schools before my own eyes. Long ago, the public schools entered a Brave New World from which no retreat now seems possible.”

You can read it in its entirety here.

Most often, when one offers his opinion publicly, some folks will think he went too far, other folks will be sure he didn’t go far enough, and still others will say he’s just plain wrong. Such is life, and I’m sure Dr. Mohler is not taken aback by this. He’s been at this a while.

One very recent, very popular article that would most assuredly disagree with Dr. Mohler’s answer was published on Christianity Today’s website on October 7. It is entitled “Why we send our kids to the poorest public school” and was written by Jennifer Slate. The subtitle is, “It’s not just my own kids’ well-being that matters anymore.” In the article Mrs. Slate rejoices in how God has used the trials and hardships of being involved with extremely poor children in their public school to open doors of Christian ministry in their lives. She sounds like a very dedicated mother and neighbor and sees all these ministry opportunities being made possible via their involvement in the public school system. Toward the end of the article she states,

But it is worth it. Not only for the other children to have experiences of dignity and hope and joy, not only for my children who are learning that everyone is not just like them, and that the world doesn’t revolve around them either. It is worth it also for me. I am trusting God, and trusting that the “best life” is this one that he has given us. Trusting that he is the One ultimately working for common good, trusting that he is inviting me to work with him, and with all the other families, teachers, coaches, and neighbors here.

She never expressly disagrees with anyone’s position nor does she malign those who would educate their children at home or a private institution, but she’s believes she and her family would be less active in the kingdom if that was the case for them.

It would be fairly easy to take my children back to an all-white, all-Christian, all-moneyed, educated world. And in times of doubt, I think about doing it.

Lots of folks are enjoying this article. It’s up to about 14,000 Facebook “likes” as I write this. You can join that number by clicking here.

Another author believes Dr. Mohler did not go far enough. His name is Dr. Joel McDurmon and has published a critique over at The American Vision. His article is entitled, “Al Mohler calls for public school exodus, sort of.” Dr. McDurmon begins by stating that Dr. Mohler begins “laudably.” Dr. McDurmon’s concluding assessment contains far less approbation,

So when he [Dr. Mohler] concludes, “Is public school an option? For Christians who take the Christian worldview seriously and who understand the issues at stake, the answer is increasingly no,” I have to remain a bit miffed. While I am thankful if this leads more Christians to abandon public schools, they will be doing it with misguided thinking, and they will be liable to return to the mire. Indeed, some will be tempted to stay there based upon even the slightest excuse, merely because Mohler hinted that public schools may be an option for some. The correct answer he should have given his readers is not “increasingly no,” but “No, never, and should have never.

You can read it all here.

So there you go. Three opinions on a very hot topic right now in Christendom. Read all three. Study hard. Then, make wise, biblical decisions concerning the paideia and nouthesia of your covenant children.

Ephesians 6:4 – Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

<>

On October 8, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture Like

Creation and Technology

By Peter Jones

Creation was good when God made it. Creation is still good to some degree after the fall because God became a part of it in the Incarnation.

God made man to rule over creation.

God made man to cultivate creation and make it flourish.

God made man to guard creation from enemies.

God made man to do all of this in obedience to Him and for His glory.

Christ came to be what Adam and Israel failed to be: a faithful king and priest. He is taking dominion and he is guarding the true Temple all to the glory of his Father. (Psalm 2 &110)

Redemption is tied to the original purpose for creation. Christ did not save us just to keep us from Hell. He saved us so we can be faithful sons of God here on earth. He saved us so we can help fulfill what Adam failed at.

Non-Christians still have the original task of taking dominion and under common grace fulfill it, though they are not redeemed. Making creation flourish is part of what humans were made to do. However, those who are redeemed in Christ are more fully restored to this original task. We can never do it perfectly in this life, but none the less we become little Adams and Eves. Our redemption is what allows us to fulfill the dominion mandate in a way that honors God. Our corner of the world becomes a workshop and a garden where we fulfill our callings in obedience to God’s Word and give thanks to him for all he has given.

God put us here to change and make things. In a sinful world, progress is not inevitably good, but it can be good. God expects us to build things and grow things. Christians should not be afraid of computers, cars, cell phones or power plants. Many Christians react to the negative uses of technology by painting all progress as evil. This mindset is foolish and should be rejected.

Sin does not live inside of technology or things. Computers do not make us sin. Cars do not make us sin. (All of us gun advocates should recognize this argument.) Sin is our misuse and corruption of created things. Someone who gets rid of their TV is not getting rid of sin. They are putting one particular area of temptation out of reach. This is not bad. It will prevent sinning, but does not take care of his heart issue. If a man lacks self-control with his computer, he does not gain self-control by getting rid of the computer. But he does close a gate where his lack of self-control tended to take him off the road. The important thing to remember is the computer was not the problem. The man is. A righteous man will recognize those situations where he is tempted and avoid them. But a righteous man will also know that sin and temptation are in his own heart not in the machine.

Though sin does not live inside of machines, technology does have direction. It shapes our lives in particular ways. The biggest problem Christians have is we don’t think about how technology shapes our lives. We just keep buying things and using things without a care for how they are changing the way we think and live. Technology rules over us instead of us ruling over it. We fail to be faithful kings and priests with our technology. For example, how has our world changed by the automobile? We used to live our entire lives in one city or town. We could not drive 45 minutes to a church that we liked better. Much of what we bought, especially food, was bought locally because there was not any way to ship it. Now I can get food from all over the world. The automobile has completely reshaped our lives. How has this reshaping hurt the Christian life? How has it help? Another example, how have our lives changed now that the Internet follows us around on our phones? What impact does this have on our communication, our peace of mind, our ability to focus, our corporate worship, our family time, etc.? It is not inherently bad, but it has changed things. We need to be more deliberate in our thinking about technology. Many secular sociologists think more carefully about technological advances than Christians do.

With all technology something is gained and something is lost. We should figure out what those things are. Should what was lost be kept? Is the gain worth it? Should we actually desire what the new technology is giving us? For example, for hundreds of years farming or something like it, was essential to the life of most people. Now, due primarily to technology, farming represents a very small percentage of our population. Something was lost when we made the transition from plowing to typing. What was lost? Should we try to retain what was good about farming while still using the newer technology? What has been gained by our moving to a more city oriented society that does not grow its own food? I have found these questions to be helpful. Often the lure of new technology can give us amnesia about the past. We forget the value of certain older ways of doing things. I am not saying we should go back to those older ways. That is impossible and the desire for those older ways is often rooted in sin. But what we should do is ask how did those older ways benefit us and what can we do to keep the benefits while still using new technology.<>контент

On October 2, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture Like

A Primer on Possessions

Our possessions, including money, are some of the most important indicators of our spiritual life. Jesus spoke of money and possessions often, as did Paul. A failure to honor Christ with our stuff can lead to temporal and spiritual ruin. Many Christians are experiencing financial difficulties right now. Recently I learned of some pastors who are taking pay cuts because several of their members have lost jobs or have moved to get better paying jobs. Many are seeing an increase in healthcare costs. When hard times come it is good to back to the basics. Here is some of the Bible’s central teachings on our possessions. It is taken primarily from Matthew 6:19-34 and I Timothy 6:6-10, 17-19, though other passages are incorporated.

God is our Father. He loves us and will care for us. Therefore we should not worry. If he chooses to remove some of our possessions, it is for our good. This should also lead us to pray for our needs.
We will die. Therefore we need to make sure our possessions are being used to store up treasure in heaven.
We should earn our money through honest, hard work that does not take advantage of the poor and weak.
Possessions are gifts from God, even those possessions we have worked hard for. Possessions and work are part of God’s grace to us.
We are stewards of our possessions. A steward was someone left in charge of a house while the master was away. Jesus uses this model in Matthew 25:14-30. Paul also uses a similar idea in passages like Colossians 3:23-25. We will answer to our master with how we use our time, money, and possessions.
Wealth is neither vice or virtue.
Poverty is neither vice or virtue.
Both wealth and poverty come with temptations. When one is rich they tend to forget God and become proud. When one is poor they tend to doubt Him and grumble against him. (See Proverbs 30:7-9) God is to be honored with our possessions, whether we are rich or poor. We are to trust in him and be generous with what he has given to us.
A country, people, family, or other social unit that seeks to honor God with their possessions will generally grow in wealth (Ephesians 4:28).
Tithing is an essential part of our Christian life. A failure to tithe shows a failure to love God, love the Church, and love the lost.
God wants us to enjoy our possessions. We should not feel guilty about what we own or about enjoying it. We should not be selfish gluttons or live in luxury. But we can eat our food, drink our beer, sleep in our beds, read our books, play in our yards, and drive our cars with thankfulness and joy.
Those who are rich in this world are expected to be rich in good works. To whom much is given, much is required. The wealthiest Christians should be the ones doing the most good deeds. But these good deeds should be hidden, not paraded before men. (See Matthew 6:1-4)
Christians should be known for their contentment. We should not be proud when we have a lot. Nor should we be disturbed when God removes some of our possessions from us. We should be content in all circumstances. (Philippians 4:11-13) In a world that always wants more, contentment is a great witness.
The desire to be wealthy is sin. We should work hard, plan wisely and let God build our bank account as he sees fit. Proverbs 27:20 says, “The eyes are never satisfied.” You will not be satisfied when you get what you want, so be content with what you have.
A love of money can destroy someone’s faith and plunge them to ruin. (See I Timothy 6:9-10) We often joke about greed, but in the Scriptures it is a terrible sin. Greed can choke the spiritual life out of a man and send him to Hell.

<>

On September 22, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

The Case for Prison Reform: How and Why

The United States’ rate of incarceration is the highest in the world, higher by 50% than that of the second highest: Russia. The nation and the states are heavily in debt, and prisons are a part of the cost. Prison reform has got to be a part of the conversation, not only because it is expensive, but also because the question of justice has to be answered.

The prison system has become a means by which vengeance is executed, not justice. In many cases, the victims are convinced they cannot have closure until they have “justice,” by which they mean vengeance. In other cases, the government executes “justice” in order to exact vengeance itself, without regard for what the victims may actually want or need. In fact, the actual victim has been replaced by the government, who sees itself as the victim in need of vengeance. Some crimes, for example, are defined in a way that the victim cannot refuse to press charges because the government will do so anyway. While in other cases, the victim has the right to refuse to press charges.

(more…)

On September 10, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture Like

Gagging on the Truth

A couple of weeks ago Pastor Thabiti Anaybile wrote a blog post where he graphically described homosexual and lesbian acts. His point was that people often have a gag reflex to homosexual or lesbian acts. He said we should use that to our advantage in dealing with sodomy, and in doing so force people to come face to face with what is actually happening. Perhaps not surprisingly (and perhaps intentionally), many became offended by Pastor Thabiti’s post. It was interesting how many critics reacted with a gag reflex to the article and yet condemned Thabiti for doing the same with homosexual acts. Though late to the party I may be, here are my thoughts on said-post and some of the critics who responded.

Why This Article was Helpful

The primary reason this article was helpful is that it exposes what is true. Pastor Thabiti drug sodomy out into the light of day. Our effeminate public speakers, including pastors, are masters at hiding the truth and thus they are masters at castrating the gospel. When we stop talking about sin in polite terms it is easier to see it for what it is.

Many critics argued that the post was pastorally insensitive. And of course, most of the people who argued this are not pastors. If they were they would understand that sin likes to hide. It likes to hide in dark rooms. But it also likes to hide behind polite language: I am not beating my wife, we just had a disagreement. That was not murder, it was abortion. That was not slander, I was trying to get my brother some help. I am not a porn addict, I just struggle with lust. Pastor Thabiti was not primarily talking about how to counsel a homosexual in private. His main point was public discourse and our refusal to acknowledge what a specific sin act is. But his reasoning would not be out of line in a counseling scenario especially if someone’s heart is hard to what they are doing. I wonder if all those who cry for “pastoral sensitivity” understand the destructive nature of sexual sin? Would they demand “pastoral sensitivity” if a man was molesting his daughter? Would they be upset if Pastor Thabiti forced a man beating his wife to acknowledge that he hit her with his fist? Would it have been “pastorally insensitive” for William Wilberforce to show his colleagues the scarred back of a slave? The cries for “pastoral sensitivity” are curiously selective.

Conscience

I found it odd that some readers could not translate Thabiti’s “gag reflex” to mean conscience. He clarifies this in a subsequent post. When I read it, I felt it was clear he was referring to conscience, not to the equivalent of gagging on peas. Some readers tried to trivialize his point by comparing a revulsion at homosexual acts to a revulsion of mushrooms. This was a pathetic attempt to discredit his argument instead of dealing with it.

Also why are so many critics upset when someone uses a negative reflex to get to the conscience, but would never do the same with a positive reflex of conscience. For example, would those critics who were all upset at Pastor Thabiti’s language also be upset if he used the glory of the heavens to try to awaken men’s consciences to God’s majesty? Of course not. They would rejoice when God uses his glory in creation to show his majesty. Book after book comes out explaining to Christians how the beauty of God’s world can awaken men’s consciences. So why can we not use the depravity of man in same way? If a sunset or a old couple sitting on bench can spark something in man’s conscience, why can a act of depravity not do the same thing?

The Critics

Professor Trueman argues that taste is no ultimate indicator of truth, which is true. But it was clear from the post that Pastor Thabiti was not arguing that the gag reflex was an ultimate indicator of truth. The question was can we use it to arouse men’s sleeping consciences at all? Maybe Professor Trueman doesn’t think we should appeal man’s conscience. But this seems strange. Is disgust over a woman being raped merely a judgment of taste even for a pagan? Is disgust over a child being beaten to death by their father merely a judgment of taste? Taste/gag reflex/yuck factor cannot be the ultimate decider of truth. But it is not inconsequential or irrelevant. Trueman also says that we have no gag reflex for pride. Well that is true, but for the same reason we have no gag reflex for homosexuality. We have no conscience. The problem is not that pride isn’t revolting. It is that we haven’t got a conscience left to be revolted.

Over at Firstthings Ron Belgau challenges Pastor Thabiti on many issues. I just want to make one point from his article. He ends his article with this sentence. “To deal with social issues as sensitive as the debate over same-sex marriage, we need an approach grounded in objective theological and philosophical arguments, and applied with pastoral sensitivity.” What does Belgau think we have been doing for the last two decades? There have been many well-reasoned theological, exegetical, and philosophical articles and books written over the last 20 years. Robert Gagnon, though not perfect, has and continues to contribute to the literature in this area. Christians are constantly writing new books about how to approach sodomy with true Christian love. Rosaria Butterfield’s book on her conversion from lesbianism to Christianity addresses in a winsome, uncompromising way many of the shortcomings of the Christian witness to homosexuality. Christians still have a lot of work to do here. But to argue that Christians need to do more objective, reasoned discourse seems blind to the history of last twenty years and a capitulation to the sodomite narrative within the church that they have not been treated properly or understood. And of course, Pastor Thabiti is not arguing against objective, theological discourse. He is simply saying that one weapon at our disposal has not been used: a clear description of what homosexuality actually is.

One critic argued that Pastor Thabiti’s post stigmatize homosexuals. He wants a more “nuanced discussion.” Meanwhile his discussion was not very nuanced at all. How does Pastor Thabiti’s post stigmatize homosexuals by accurately describing their sins? How does Pastor Thabiti’s post dehumanize homosexuals? If we think accurately describing sin dehumanizes people then we are have gotten a hold of the wrong end of the stick. Isn’t it sin that dehumanizes a person? How can sin be dealt with if the sinner does not acknowledge what is actually done? Was Jesus dehumanizing the woman at the well by telling her she was a serial adulterer? Was Paul dehumanizing the Corinthians by saying that they tolerate sexual immorality that even the pagans don’t? Was Peter dehumanizing false teachers by calling them dogs returning to their vomit and pigs? And that is just the New Testament. Let’s not even go to Ezekiel. Pastor Thabiti’s language is not out of line with Scripture. If rape was an accepted practice in our culture and politicians were pushing for rape to be legalized wouldn’t we explicitly describe what rape is so people would understand what is happening? Would we be dehumanizing the rapist by describing exactly what is going on to a culture whose conscience is hard as stone? Isn’t this exactly what pictures of the holocaust or beaten slaves were meant to do?

Many of Pastor Thabiti’s critics were thoughtful and tried to engage him in a Christian manner. But a lot of critics just don’t think sodomy is a big deal. They pretend like they are upset with the specific content of Thabiti’s post. But they are really just upset that he opposes sodomy. They resort to childish comments and slander, like Pastor Thabiti does not preach the gospel, because they want sodomy to be treated with “sensitivity” and “nuance.” Translation: They don’t like the truth.

Two Things I Would Like to See Him Address

These are not criticisms, but rather clarifications and expansions that I would like to see. He has issued a clarification of certain points, which I appreciated, even though most of what he says in the second post was clear in the first post.

First, I would like to see him address more thoroughly the effects of pornography on our view of sexual sin in general and how we talk about sexual sin. He does this some in the comments and he may have done this in a blog post somewhere else. This was brought up in the comments and is important. Does the rampant use of pornography demand a more explicit discussion of these issues? How does heterosexual porn affect our view of sodomy?

Second, I would like to see him be more specific about how to use this particular tool. A lot of complaints from Christian brothers were that the post was not pastorally sensitive. I disagree. A man cannot say everything that needs to be said in every post. The context of the post was a private meeting with other leaders about homosexuality. It was not meeting in his study with someone struggling with homosexual tendencies. I believe he is saying that public discourse demands a proper understanding of what the sin actually is. He is not saying that every time we meet a sodomite we need to say this. But I do think some clarification as to when to use this tool would be helpful.

<>имидж организации