MENU

Culture
Category

On October 8, 2013 By In Culture

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.

cubicles

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.<>контентпродвижение а по трафику цена

Read more

On October 2, 2013 By In Culture

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.

  1. 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.
  2. We will die.   Therefore we need to make sure our possessions are being used to store up treasure in heaven.
  3. We should earn our money through honest, hard work that does not take advantage of the poor and weak.
  4.  Possessions are gifts from God, even those possessions we have worked hard for.  Possessions and work are part of God’s grace to us.
  5.  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.
  6.  Wealth is neither vice or virtue.
  7. Poverty is neither vice or virtue.
  8. 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.
  9. A country, people, family, or other social unit that seeks to honor God with their possessions will generally grow in wealth (Ephesians 4:28).
  10. 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.
  11.  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.
  12.  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)
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15.  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.

<>цена поисковая оптимизация сай та

Read more

On September 22, 2013 By In Culture

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…)

Read more

On September 10, 2013 By In Culture

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.Anyabwile_bw

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?

Gender Symbols

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

Read more

On September 3, 2013 By In Culture

Can Love Be Defined?

Following a debate between Pastor Douglas Wilson and Andrew Sullivan on “gay marriage”, Peter Leithart noted that advocates of gay marriage have all the right words on their side: love, happiness, equality, etc. If two people really love each other, why should we oppose them getting married? Why should it bother us if they are happy together?

This got me thinking about what love is. We promiscuously throw around the word “love” as if it is self-evident to all. Is love the equivalent of saying the sky is blue or Alabama is the best college football team in the country? Is it really that obvious?  We talk about love in TV shows, talk radio, literature, music, film, and social media. Yet what is it exactly and how can do we know what it is? Is love a feeling that compels me to pursue a deeper knowledge of someone else? Is love the same feeling that compels one to seek out pornography?  Is love the pursuit of making peace with all my enemies no matter the cost? Does love compel me to destroy all my enemies no matter the cost? Does love involve a commitment and if so what kind? Do I love my girlfriend in the same way I love the Pittsburgh Steelers? Is love all about my satisfaction or is it about my serving others?  Can real love fade? Is love something that happens to me or something I do? Is love a biochemical reaction in my body conditioned by years of evolution so that I can ensure my seed will carry on?  Surely love can’t be all of these things at once?

Can a word this ubiquitous also be this amorphous? Apparently so. While love is rich and multifaceted, it is not undefinable.  Below are some foundation stones necessary to begin building a definition of love.

Love is not self-evident in a fallen world. Love must be defined and explained. As Christians we should not let ourselves, the World, or other Christians get away with using a word they refuse to define.  That does not mean someone can only love if they know the definition of love. But it does mean that in debate and discussion the word needs to be fenced in.

We cannot accurately define and explain love without the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) because God is love.  To speak of love without speaking of God is like a blind man talking about the glories of a Rembrandt painting.

Trinity 1

Who God is also not self-evident. There are some remnants of God’s image in each man, woman, and in societies as a whole, but these remnants are twisted. Therefore we cannot come to a solid definition of God or love by looking into ourselves or at human relationships, though we may gather some remnants. To know what love is, we must know who God is. And to know who God is we must know the Bible. The Bible defines what it means to love God and love our neighbor. Without the whole Bible, love is an empty jar filled to be filled by our own human ideas.

The love of God is clearest in the sacrifice of the Son on the cross for the sins of His enemies. Any definition of love, which excludes this, is inadequate though it may contain some truth. The supreme act of love is then fleshed out by the types and shadows of the Old Testament and the fulfillment in the New  Testament.

Every Christian believes they are acting out of love for God and neighbor.  The Christian who refuses to call homosexuality a sin believes he is acting out of love. The Christian who tells every woman they meet to wear skirts to their ankles also believes he is acting out of love. The fire breathing legalist and the lesbian minister and everyone in between believes they are acting out of love. The point is, no Christian believes they are acting out of hate. And the same can be said of most non-Christians as well, though there are some exceptions. Therefore when we encourage people to love one another and love God that love must be defined. There must be a common standard.

People will not always feel loved, even when we show them love.   Sometimes people will walk around saying how loving we are. Other times they will call us hate mongers or bigots or traitors.  Sometimes our neighbors will say we love them when we are just sleeping with them. Sometimes they will think we hate them even when we are acting in love toward them. The Bible must be the standard that sets our criteria for love, not our communities or our critics.  This does not mean we ignore our critics. Critics often have good points. But those critics must be judged by Scripture, not Scripture by the critics.

Just because we can quote a Bible verse, which justifies our position, does not mean we are actually loving God or our neighbor.  The motivation, the intentions behind our actions are as vital as the actions themselves. Love is a biblical act linked with a biblical motivation for that act.   This does not mean we avoid loving acts until our motivation is right. It just means that both the “what” and the “why” must be considered when pursuing love.

Missions 1

To love God and our neighbor means we must hate evil. We must speak with clarity and boldness against sin and unrighteousness. To refuse to hate evil is to refuse to love God and our neighbor. If we love God then we are bound to rebuke men, women, and institutions who love sin. We can’t love God or our neighbor if we don’t hate sin and evil. Biblical hatred is a prerequisite for Christian witness and mission. Love the sinner, hate the sin. And in doing so, imitate our Father who loves us.

(For a great exploration of the different types of love from a Christian perspective read C.S. Lewis’ The Four Loves.) 

<>профессиональная разработка овадвордс яндекс

Read more

On August 29, 2013 By In Culture, Family and Children

Miley Cyrus Was Only Half of The Problem

Social media has been in a frenzy this week over Miley Cyrus’ live show on Sunday’s MTV Video Music Awards. Her performance was outlandish, embarrassing, and contained undertones of pedophilia. Cyrus, 20, wore a leotard with a teddy bear design while her dancers were in teddy bear costumes. This presented us with a very silly, childlike theme consistent with the song’s music video. Robin Thicke, 36, enters the stage wearing a black and white striped suit, reminiscent of a prison uniform. Cyrus then proceeds to perform sexual gestures toward him. Though Cyrus is “legal,” the visual was one of a young girl simulating sexual acts with an adult criminal.

Now, we shouldn’t be shocked by this behavior.  MTV has been known to push the envelope many times before.  Nevertheless, the desperation and immaturity that Cyrus displayed was so extreme that it sent pop-culture into mourning. Bloggers and journalists – particularly Christian conservative ones – have rightly called Cyrus out for her antics. For whatever reason, however, the critics haven’t been as tough on Thicke.

Yet, the Miley Cyrus performance was only half of the problem. There were other displays of inappropriate behavior, including Lady Gaga showing off her bare backside. But I’m mostly surprised that Christian bloggers haven’t said anything about the overtly pro-gay evangelism of rapper Macklemore. His song, “Same Love” won the award for Best Video with a Social Message. His acceptance speech included: (more…)

Read more

On August 27, 2013 By In Culture

Duck Dynasty’s Cultural Christianity

I hesitate to add my two cents about “Duck Dynasty,” at the risk of revealing just how lowbrow I am, and at the risk of commenting on a show that probably has “jumped the shark,” as they say. (I cannot imagine that this season’s premiere will not be the high point of the show’s popularity.) But as recent articles by our friend Sarah Pulliam Bailey at Religion News Service have indicated, the show’s appeal raises questions about the popularity – and value – of its wholesome portrayal of Louisiana good ol’ boys, their follies, and their cultural Christianity.

First, the good things about the show: it is fun, family-friendly, and frequently hilarious. Uncle Si’s philosophical riffs about his time in ‘Nam, his views on food (and anything else) are gut-busting, as are daddy Phil’s ruminations about his ‘preppy’ sons and his suspiciously fancy grandkids. I knew people like the Robertsons growing up in South Carolina and other southern locales. I know some in Waco. They’re real, or at least as real as you can be when your family and business are being filmed.

The Robertsons are also settled on the good things in life: marriage, children, honest work, the pleasures of place and the outdoors. Spouses constantly roll their eyes at one another, but their love and commitment (on-screen, and hopefully off) is never in question. Sure, you could ask a number of questions about the South (race, poverty, etc.) outside the confines of “Robertson Land” – a delightful term used for the home place – but within, all is right with the world.

That sense of settledness is confirmed when daddy Phil prays at the end of each episode, often over meat caught or shot during the show. He thanks the Good Lord for another day on planet earth, reviews a couple details from that show, acknowledging God’s blessings with thanks, and concludes with an “A-men.” The prayer is not directed to anyone more specific than the generic God, and not usually [UPDATE: see Bobby Ross’s helpful piece on this] offered in Jesus’s name. In many other off-screen appearances, including a May 2013 NASCAR race, the Robertsons pray to and even preach about Jesus. The on-screen Jesus-less prayers are apparently a compromise with the show’s producers to reach a broader audience, and father Phil has reportedly insisted that without some kind of prayers, he wouldn’t do the show.

Here’s the dilemma – what the show presents is a good life, but it is not in any specific way the Christian life. It is cultural Christianity of the kind that still characterizes much of the South. As Hank Williams, Jr. once described country boys, “We say grace, we say ma’am, if you ain’t into that we don’t give a damn.” It’s southern culture, and it’s heavily informed by Christian tradition and themes. Many Christians fit into that culture, but the culture does not equate with Christianity per se: being a good ol’ boy who thanks a vague deity at dinner doesn’t get you to heaven. From what I know of the “real life” Robertsons, they also know that generic southern theism is not, in substance, Christianity. And they use “Duck Dynasty” as a means to reveal their (Church of Christ inflected) full gospel off-camera, to very large audiences.

That’s a bargain I won’t question. But I do wonder how many of my fellow southerners figure that they’re Christians because they grew up in the South, their momma took them to church, they try to do right, and God knows there are many people worse than them. The specifics of historic Christian faith don’t enter into their thinking, and neither do they appear on-camera in Duck Dynasty.

Find out more about faith and Duck Dynasty in Joe Carter’s “9 Things You Should Know about Duck Dynasty“ and “9 (More) Things You Should Know About Duck Dynasty“

First Published at Patheos<>абонентское обслуживание апосмотреть позиции а в яндексе

Read more

On August 22, 2013 By In Culture, Theology

Should we “Drop the Filioque?”

Drop the Filioque?

Drop the Filioque?

Drop the Filioque?

A group of Eastern Orthodox Christians are getting excited for the launch of a new project called, “Drop The Filioque.” One can presume it will intend to encourage the Western world to ditch the ancient creed’s inclusion of the “Filioque.” The new site is http://www.dropthefilioque.org.

The single Latin word means “and the son,” and is cited by many as one of the events leading up to the East-West Schism. Leading the charge, or at least purchasing the domain, is Gabriel Martini, an Eastern Orthodox blogger and marketing product manager for Logos Bible software. I first got wind of the project through Jamey Bennet, who put the project on twitter looking for allies in the Western tradition.

 

Why the Fuss?

The Western Church has held to the Filioque since its inclusion to the latin text of the Nicene Creed in the 6th Century. Maintaining that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father and from the Son as the standard view of the Trinitarian relationship. What theological implications does removing the Filioque have for our Trinitarian theology? In summarizing Abraham Kuyper’s thoughts, Edwin Palmer points to many.

“Abraham Kuyper has incisively pointed out, a denial of the filioque leads to an unhealthy mysticism. It tends to isolate the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives from the work of Jesus. Redemption by Christ is put in the background, while the sanctifying work of the Spirit is brought to the fore. The emphasis is more and more on the work of the Spirit in our lives, which tends to lead to an independence from Christ, the church, and the Bible. Sanctification can loom larger than justification, the subjective communion with the Spirit larger than the objective church life, and illumination by the Spirit larger than the Word. Kuyper believes that this has actually been the case to some extent in the Eastern church, as a result of the denial that the Spirit proceeds form the Son as well as from the Father.” (Thanks for this Greg Uttinger)

St. Augustine’s reasoning is more than adequate,”Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” – Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416].

It is important to remember that there is only one way to approach God – through the Son. Come to the Son, have him breathe the breath of the Spirit, so that you may be held in the arms of the Father. The difference between West and East remains an idea of “incarnational” living. The East prides itself in the traditions of monasticism and mysticism as attempts to escape the flesh, while the West models itself after the God made Man. The God-man who came into our reality to set the perfect example of righteous obedience. The Filioque centers our theology around the Spirit’s true purpose in filling the earth with the Kingdom of the Son. For dominion, not escapism.

The Orthodox “Drop the Filioque” website is set to launch in just over a week, perhaps we need to remind them why this creedal affirmation is so important.<>рекламa в директ

Read more

On August 19, 2013 By In Culture

Suggestions about Christians and the political-economy

  1. homesteadGod could conceivably have arranged the world so that human beings were each distributed equally on the earth so that each had just enough resources to meet his or her needs.
  2. That would be an odd sort of world, however, because each area of land would have to be capable of producing the same amount, and each person would have the exact skills to produce from the land what he needed.
  3. No one would ever travel, or invent new technology in such a world, since each would be too busy meeting his own needs and there would be no point in trade.
  4. But the real world God made involves several different features: marriage and children, for instance.
  5. So in the real world a man and woman join into a household and, in the majority of cases, produce some number of children.
  6. So the family has different needs over time.
  7. Furthermore, no one can be entirely certain of what his future needs might be.
  8. And, as children grow up and leave home to, in many cases, start new families, no angel from heaven shows each one his new patch of territory that is promised to meet (and only meet) his needs.
  9. Furthermore, people’s abilities vary, not only by nature and nurture, but also by accident of circumstance. If two twins are neighboring farmers with virtually identical land, one can still fall ill or break his leg and lose most of his productivity for that year.
  10. So not only do people need to produce for indeterminate needs in the future, but they have to produce to help others.
  11. If it is more blessed to give that receive, then it is more blessed to produce than consume. It cannot be otherwise.
  12. If one must strive to help others as best one can, it follows that one must also strive to become a source of help to those in need rather than willfully become needy.
  13. Anyone who neglects the upkeep of his own household, is demanding that less wealth be available to others and to help others who need it.
  14. Though foolishness tends to poverty, one cannot judge the poor to be foolish, or turn one’s prosperity or lack thereof into a verdict on character.
  15. The object of helping those in need, whenever and to what extent possible, is to help them become mature producers.
  16. The one you help is not your slave. ““When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not go into his house to collect his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you” (Deuteronomy 24:10-11, ESV).
  17. People sometimes act or have acted like children and are, thus, in need of help. But treating them like children can be counter-productive, encouraging the very problem you need to address. Be wise about your attitude and your strategy in helping.
  18. If one should not enslave the poor, or judge them for being poor, neither should one enslave the rich by judging them in how they use their wealth. Let God be our judge in these matters.

<>обслуживание ов москвараскрутка бренда в интернете

Read more

On August 16, 2013 By In Culture

Be The Christendom You Want To See In The World

romans 6 13As someone who has spent quite a number of years as a Christian portapottie servicer, Carl Trueman’s disdain for Kuyper and the “transformers” (though he oddly also holds Kuyper up as a standard for judging others) caught my interest.

DG’s critique at Old Life of the bombastic claims about transformationism is akin to one I have made frequently in the classroom about talk of the [singular] ‘Christian worldview’: such things are, by and large, code for the expression of the concerns of the middle class chatterati in a blandly Christian idiom.  As far as I know, for example, no conferences on the transformation of Christian toilet cleaning or turkey rendering have yet been successfully organised… Forgive me for sounding curmudgeonly here but I heard last week from a PCA friend who cannot find space to rent for his church on a Sunday because of the PCA’s stand on gay marriage.  And this is south of the Mason-Dixon, not Boston or Seattle or New York. Yes, it is great that stockbrokers are finding Christ; and I am sure there are some for whom the fact there are Christian artists and Broadway producers is also an encouragement (are there any Christian loo cleaners out there in the Big Apple? );  and Tim Keller’s occasional spot on Morning Joe is an interesting, if somewhat harmless, phenomenon.  But the culture is not being transformed at any point where it really counts, where it makes a real difference for pastors and people on the increasingly mean streets of the secular world as they seek to be quietly and peacefully faithful to the Lord.  If anything, it is accelerating in the wrong direction.

Of course, no matter how superficial PR might seem, I’m going to have to assume that having Tim Keller do a Google talk defending Christ and the Gospel is a net gain for Christendom.

(Actually, it is more than that: I thought the talk was really good and helpful and counts as preaching the Gospel. And while I have never heard Keller on Morning Joe to sit in judgment on him, I have to suspect that getting enough clout to have the best such opportunity mandates that he promote himself to get his message into any other venue. PR can’t be too picky or else all venues are closed off.)

Trueman is right that for people in Keller’s, DG Hart’s, and his own social class, cleaning toilets is simply a an item on the horizon that is never considered (Keller) or used to score points (Truman). I don’t judge since I would like it to not be a part of my life again either. But as a laborer who serviced portapotties for a living for a number of years. I can tell you that bringing the Lordship of Christ to bear on a portable commode is a real issue that some people (i.e. my boss who still owns a service) had to take and did take seriously as a follower of Jesus. And even if Trueman had a flush toilet in mind, I think my testimony will still address the principle.

The big challenges in my experience is remembering that you are there to serve not the worst construction worker (who you might be tempted to judge as the average one), but the best. I don’t mean that you should judge a stranger’s personal worth, but when you see how some of your units are treated, you can easily get cynical and think to yourself, “Well, if that’s the environment they want, let them have it.” Then you have to remind yourself that such thinking is sinful, and that the man who would never deliberately dirty his environment is still forced to use the same unit. And as a laborer he doesn’t have time to watch over his neighbor’s behavior on the job.

So you remind yourself that you’re are on site to make everything better and that it doesn’t matter who is to blame for the state in which you find it every day.

Of course, I’m not mainly talking about the crap. That wasn’t usually too bad. (Thanks to technology and my boss’ capital investments, there are great tools to use to keep excrement away from one’s person. The only real problems were in winter, especially in the night shift, when frozen turds could block hoses and fixing that problem could put your face too close to a disaster). What I’m talking about is mostly the graffiti. By the time I quit that job to respond to a call to an evangelism ministry I qualified for a Ph.D. in homosexual art criticism.

At some places on the site, the grey plastic walls of the unit functioned as the site intranet. It was their Facebook. And people didn’t get along. The union workers who worked hard saw others as drags who were destroying their reputation. Other conflicts were present as well, plus a great deal of revolting sexual ideas, unrelated to any human context, either written or illustrated.

And so every day the challenge was to try to provide a better environment for the men. My boss tried to sell this ethic of cleanliness to his clients as a feature, even though it had to cut into his profit margin. Cleaning marker off the wall takes time and supplies. But whether or not the client valued it, it was and is his fundamental character to want to do a good job and keep the work environment as upscale as possible. It was and is an expression of his understanding of the calling of Christ on his life.

So no, there are no conferences about this, but not every aspect of life is as open to chatter. That doesn’t mean that “Christian worldview” doesn’t matter in that area (even if that expression could be improved). All I know is that this is an area where a devotion to Christ and his word can and does make a difference.

Doug Wilson has an excellent reply to Truman in which he concludes:

Notice that up in the balcony, we have both victors and martyrs, but we do not have transformationalists and non-transformationalists. They are all transformationalists. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, and the Christian king is the plant that grows from it. Look at history. You cannot have Polycarp without getting Alfred. And if you ever get an Alfred, there must have been a Polycarp. This is how God tells the story. Death and resurrection.

I think the “seed” v. “plant” analogy also works another way. I think we see it in Romans 5 and 6 quite clearly.

To start, remember that the Great Commission begins and ends Paul’s letter to the Romans:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations (Romans 1:1-5 ESV)

In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, (Romans 15:17-18 ESV)

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen (Romans 16:25-27 ESV).

The Great Commission (Matthew 28.19-22) does not mention faith, but it does call for comprehensive obedience and training others in comprehensive obedience to King Jesus—which is impossible unless you actually trust in this new King. Bringing about the obedience of faith among the nations sounds pretty close.

Romans 6 even shares the order of the Great Commission. Jesus says first to baptize and then to teach. Romans 6 begins by an appeal to baptism and then transitions into the form of teaching the Romans had received in the preaching of the Gospel.

But the real interesting aspect of Romans 6 (for my purposes here, anyway) is how it is obviously an explanation and application of the future promised in Romans 5.12ff. The two passages conclude at the same destination:

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:20-21, ESV)

But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:21-23, ESV)

To see Paul’s method here, you need to forget about the idea that Romans 5 is “about justification” and Romans 6 is “about sanctification.” There is no justification for such a subject switch. Both Romans 5 and 6 are about the progress and promised transformation brought about by the Gospel. Romans 5 is about how the justification and salvation in Christ is going to far overpower the previous curse of sin and death. Romans 6 is about how we can and must now confidently participate in that process by bringing the members of our body into submission to Jesus Christ.

This is what Paul means when he begins 5.12 with “Therefore.” Romans 5.1-11 show an upward path for justified believer and for world history. Since this is so, it must mean the downward spiral Paul described in Romans 1.18ff has not only been stopped but reverse. The “Therefore” in 5.12 is explanatory.  Paul is saying, “Yes, you heard me right, the pain and death and sin brought through Adam will be far exceeded by the salvation and life and glory given to us through Christ.

Indeed, Romans 5.12ff lays out a postmillennial future. Daniel saw a vision of the saint being given the kingdom and now Paul says it is happening in Christ:

But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever. (Daniel 7:18, ESV)

And the kingdom and the dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey him. (Daniel 7:27, ESV)

For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:17, ESV).

Notice that one would expect Paul to contrast the former reign of death with a reign of life. But he doesn’t say life will reign, but rather that “those” will “reign in life”

So how do we get there? Paul’s answer in Romans 6 is “death and resurrection” like Doug Wilson wrote, but it is a death and resurrection in drawing on Christ’s death and resurrection to put the members of our body under the dominion of the risen Lord.

Notice that Paul explicitly refers back to the downward spiral from sin to more sin in Romans 1.18ff:

For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. (Romans 6:19, ESV)

Consider how well this fits with other parts of the Bible.

The Great Commission includes in discipleship: “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Any time you teach your children or any other Christians what God commands, you are participating in the Great Commission. Any time you read the Bible yourself you are teaching yourself more about what Jesus has commanded. Your job is not just to disciple others; your job is to disciple to your hands and feet.

The Bible aims at a glorious city. But to help build that city your own body needs to become a better ordered civilization.

Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty,
and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city (Proverbs 16.32).

A man without self-control
is like a city broken into and left without walls (Proverbs 25.28).

You already know your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (First Corinthians 6.19). You can think of your habits of work and speech as your construction project. God has made you a king with a grander commission than Solomon’s mandate for mere gold, cedar, and stones. Build wisely and create your tower or be complacent and build a ruin:

Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life;
he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin (Proverbs 13.3).

Whoever keeps [i.e. guards; perhaps even “bridles”] his mouth and his tongue
keeps himself out of trouble (Proverbs 21.23).

So when the Proverbs exhort you to diligence in work, they haven’t failed if you don’t build wealth or extend your dominion in an obvious public way. If you master yourself, God will glory in your work and will say “Well done.”

Furthermore, arguably the Great Commission is a republication of the Dominion Mandate—or a transformation of it. In Genesis 1, Adam is told to take dominion over the animals. But, in James 3, dominion over the body is described as the ability to “bridle.” Dominion over speech is described as the tongue being “tamed” and compared to taming animals. Adam’s charge to rule the animals applies to his own body. Here is a similar concept from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians:

Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Again, the quest to take control of the world translates into a quest to take control of one’s own body as a part of that larger quest. In fact, the more literal reading would be “I pummel my body and make it my slave.” That is a pretty violent way to take dominion.

So when you learn to smile at your customers when you imagine half of them are writing filth on your work product. When you remind yourself to not get discouraged. When you get your hands and feet in the habit of doing their work quickly despite setbacks or fear or displeasure, this is the seed form of the Great Commission.

Wisdom says, “By Me kings reign.” And you have a kingdom in your own person that God’s Son demands for you to bring into service to Him. Perhaps God will give you new opportunities. “He who is faithful over a little will be set over much” (Matthew 25.21).

Romans 6 gives you your beachhead for the Kingdom.

So, with apologies for quoting Gandhi, I leave you with this summary: Be the Christendom you want to see in the world.<>games for boysреклама а в яндексе

Read more