smerickson.com the personal website of steven m. erickson

Welcome to the *all new* smerickson.com. It has been over 2 years since I last updated the blog. Not a whole lot has happened since then. I've still been online tumbleblogging and twittering, but I've long wanted to bring back the main hub, smerickson.com. That day has finally come. Let me show you around my new home.

homepage

The homepage is the main hub of what's going on in my life. The homepage consists of four main sections. First, the blog is the main place where I will post longer essays on my life, theology, and technology. The blog probably won't be updated as frequently, but I'm slowly trying to work my way back into a regular routine. Second, the tmblg is the place for short little snippets of interestingness that I find around the internet. These include things like quotes, links, videos and pictures. Third, on the far right is my most recent tweet. Fourth, you can see what books I am currently reading or I have recently purchased and the music that I have been listening to recently.

about

The about section of the site is there you can find out all about me. There is a short biography about me as well as some of the other work around the internet that I have built.

books

I have spent a while cataloging all of the books in my library. For now you can just view them. In the future, I hope to write a few reviews of books that have been particularly influential on me.

music

In addition to the book library, I have also published my entire audio library.

stuff

Finally, there is a link to my stuff. This is a catalog of the significant items that I use on a regular basis. Perhaps you'll find them interesting. Everything I use is highly recommended.

you

The best part about this site isn't me, but you. I'd love it if you were to interact with the different bits on the site. Feel free to leave and comment or send me an email. I'd love to hear from you. Even better would be if you were to start your own site and share some information about yourself.

So, that's about it. Welcome to the new site.

The other day I took the day off of work to go and hear Tim Keller speak at Gordon Conwell. For those of you who don’t know, Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC. He is a great pastor who has a great vision for the church in the inner city. I wanted to share one of the things that he said today in his talk that I found to be most helpful.

Keller’s series at GCTS was called “Preaching to the Heart”. To better explain what that means, preaching to the heart can be contrasted with two other ways of preaching, namely preaching to the will and preaching to the emotions, both of which do not get at what Gospel preaching is all about. To illustrate the difference he examined Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthian church to give money. The way that Paul preached to the heart was by recontextualizing the Gospel in terms of the issue he was addressing. “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.” (2 Cor 8:9). Here Paul states the Gospel message in terms of wealth and poverty. If he was to preach to their will he could have appealed to his authority as an apostle and commanded them to just work up the energy to do what he said. Or if he was preaching to their emotions he could have told them about the details of the condition of the poor Israelites to get them to give. But he does neither of those things. Instead he knows that a true understanding of the Gospel is motivation enough. What is more the Gospel is not simply the motivation to give, but is itself bound up with the ability to do what God commands.

One of the ways that preachers can “preach to the heart” is by distinguishing between three ways of living. Keller noted that traditionally preaching has focused on emphasizing two ways of living – man’s way or God’s way. We can choose to live our lives according to our own rules and desires or we can submit and live for God and in his way. This dichotomy is heard regularly in many contemporary Gospel presentations. And while on the surface the identification of these two ways is true, unfortunately we live in a day when these two ways of living do not accurately correspond to the reality of what Christianity and the Gospel are all about. Instead Keller says that we must distinguish between three ways of living. In his terms these are irreligion, religion and the Gospel. In other words, living according to our own ways, living according to the external religious regulations or living according to the Gospel. Distinguishing between these three ways is important for a couple of reasons. First, it is important because non Christians don’t realize there is a difference. They already know that there is the way they are living their life and the way that they see Christians live. But they think that Christianity is all about moralism; it is all about getting everything “right”. They don’t always realize that Christianity actually has a lot to say against legalism and moralism and they need to hear Christians deconstructing it. Moreover, Christians need to hear legalism and moralism (religion) being distinguished from the Gospel because sadly, many Christians (including myself) have a tendency to fall into that trap. The main Biblical example Keller provides of this distinction is the story of the prodigal son. He says that the story of the prodigal on pretty closely reflects what he is trying to get at by distinguishing between 3 ways of living. Irreligion corresponds to the younger brother and his quest to control the father’s wealth through disobedience and rebellion. Religion corresponds to the older brother who tries to control the father’s wealth through obedience and condescension towards the younger brother. The fact is that both of them are wrong and both ways of living need to be contrasted with the Gospel. The problem is that we often spend too much time contrasting just the story of the younger brother with the Gospel and not doing the same thing with the older brother and the Gospel. Both are wrong and both need to constantly be avoided. Finally, the Gospel is not simply some happy medium between irreligion and religion; it is on a completely different plane. In mathematical terms it would be like moving from a simple two dimensional plane of x and y coordinates to a third or fourth dimension. To those stuck in a two dimensional world, the third dimension comes a something completely foreign and new. It is unlike anything they have ever experienced before.

It is this careful thinking being done by people like Tim Keller that really gets me excited. Be sure to check out the work he and his church are doing; there is much to be learned from them. You can download audio versions of a couple lectures where Keller talks about these things from the Covenant Seminary website (LINK)

My good friend Josh is doing a great series called Covenantal Corporate Worship. He does a great job of explaining the “why” and the “how” of corporate worship from the perspective of Biblical Theology. Be sure to follow the whole series, I’m sure there will be plenty of gems there. Here are some of my favorites so far:

Worship is the primary matter of the universe, and life is a battle for worship.

Talking about worship is dangerous. Indeed, the first murder in human history took place between two brothers in a disagreement over worship!

Acceptable worship, then, is Israel's faithful response to, or continued expression of, their covenantal relationship with Yahweh that he initiated.

Recently, I’ve been following an interesting conversation started by a post by Alan Hartung at A Different Perspective Last week he wrote a post entitled The Idolatry of Truth . In it he contends that it is possible to, and many evangelicals have, “turned intellectual truth into an idol”. He means by this that sometimes those who seem to want to know the most and study the hardest in order to rightly order the truth, do not exhibit the same amount of effort in living as a follower of Jesus. It seems like a lot of confusion has come up around this post. I think some of the confusion stems from the somewhat misleading title. The post was entitled “The Idolatry of Truth”, but through his clarifications it seems like Alan isn’t really against the concept of truth but against people holding to their version of it too tightly and seeming to care about it more than seeking to live missionally.

While I would acknowledge that there are ways in which certain wordings of truth can become more important than actually understanding them or seeking to live them out, I think that Alan’s post makes these seem more at odds than they really are. Is a focus on living missionally really in opposition to studying theology and seeking to order God’s truth? Are not these things more intimately related than Alan’s post would lead you to believe? The other day, JollyBlogger wrote a post entitled How is the emerging church post-liberal? In it he describes the battles between “conservatives” and “liberals” around the beginning of the twentieth century. One quote from that post seems to fit the controversy surrounding Alan’s post pretty well. He writes:

The core rallying cry of liberalism was that Christianity was a life not a doctrine. [J. Gresham] Machen opposed this, saying that Christianity is a life founded on a doctrine. Doctrine was the foundation of Christianity – we are saved by what we believe, and there are historical realities which must be affirmed when we say what we believe.

I think Machen is exactly right. Why must we pit living the Christian life against doctrine? Are not these things more friends than enemies? More fuel to enflame the other than water to snuff it out?

I have found Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s book The Drama of Doctrine a wonderful work which seeks to move past what he calls this “ugly ditch” I see represented in Alan’s post. Permit me to quote a somewhat lengthy section from the book which I think is relevant to the discussion:

Theology is connected to the life of the church. Doctrines arise not from speculative theories but from core practices – baptism, the Eucharist, prayer, worship – that constitute the ongoing life and identity of the church. The theory/practice distinction, together with the contrast between doctrine and life to which it gives rise, is toxic to Christian faith and to the project of faith seeking understanding. The present work seeks to move theology away from theoretical knowledge in order to reorient it toward wisdom. It is this picture of theology as wisdom that, more than anything else, enables us to traverse the ugly ditch between theory and practice. . . . Theology involves both theory (knowledge) and practice (life) for the sake of its pastoral function: assisting people to enjoy and glorify God. Perhaps the best way to overcome the theory/practice dichotomy is to let the subject matter of Christian theology determine theology’s task. Jesus Christ is the word and wisdom of God, the revealer and the redeemer: the way, the truth, and the life. Several points follow for theology from this astounding identification. First, theology must be concerned with what each of these terms represents; it must deal with truth, with ways of living, and with the meaning of life. Second, it must keep all three in mind at once. Focusing on truth to the exclusion of way and life leads to a preoccupation with theory; conversely, a preoccupation with way and life can lead to pragmatism. Christian doctrine, similarly, should serve the purpose of fostering truthful ways of living.

I could go on, but I think the above section is well suited to address both those in the emerging church who come across as trying to pit doctrine against life, as well as those who, often too quickly and sometimes rudely, dismiss some of the more positive points the movement makes while rightly rejecting that which is false. The Christian life is a hard one to live and we all need to be challenged in different areas at different times, let us try to do that Biblically and in love.

Head on over to the smerickson.com chatroom. There you can see if I’m around or chat with others visiting the site. It should be a fun place. Enjoy.

The chatroom

In our sunday school class this semester we are focusing on Genesis 1 - 3. This past week we focused on two issues, the meaning of the word "day" and the meaning of Sabbath. This class has been on my mind the past few days, so I wanted to offer a couple of random comments on both of these topics. I'll post part 1 tonight and part 2 soon.

It seems that whenever the book of Genesis is studied the question of what the word "day" means comes up. To be honest I think that this is completely misguided and very unhelpful. First, as I read the text, there doesn't appear to be any internal indicators given in the text by Moses that let us know what he means by the word "day". Realizing this, people then go off to other places of the Bible to try and "prove" that day means 24 hrs or day means a long period of time. This to me seems pretty fruitless because you're going to easily be able to make a case for both of those definitions. Finally, I just don't think that the point of the text is to emphasize that God created the world in 7 days; regardless of how you understand the word day. The point of the text is that God created, not that he did it in a certain time period.

While we were discussing this, one of the clearest examples of what happens when one asks the wrong questions of a text was given. One well intentioned student tried to prove the point that "day" in Genesis 1-2 means a 24 day by going to Jesus' first miracle. Jesus' first miracle is when he turns water into wine and not just any wine but the best wine, which also happens to be the oldest. This student's point was that in this story we see that Jesus performed a miracle of time. He accomplished in a very short period of time what usually takes a very long period of time. Just as Jesus performed a miracle of time with the wine, so too did God work a miracle of time by creating the world in seven 24 hour days. While this is very creative, it is just completely misguided; it misunderstands the points of both stories. Just as the point of the creation narrative is not the length of days, the point of the miracle at the wedding of Cana is not that Jesus can do things in a short period of time which usually take a long period of time. I don't mean any disrespect to this student, it was just too clear an example of what happens when you ask the wrong questions of a text.

Mark Driscoll announces that they have released a number of videos of his sermons online. This is a great thing. I encourage you to watch all of them, Driscoll is a great preacher.

LINK: http://theresurgence.com/free_sermon_video_footage

Here are some pictures of my room in Boston. Enjoy.

This weekend I started reading According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy. It is a great introduction to Biblical theology. In it Goldsworthy explains the benefit of seeing the big picture of the Bible.

When you are close to the ground it is often very hard to see exactly where you are in relation to other places. A few trees, a dip in the ground, a couple of buildings or some other natural or man-made feature can prevent us from getting our bearings. That is why poeple build observation platforms on high buildings or on mountains, and why aerial photography became so important in war or in peace-time making of maps. The bird’s eye view enables us to see things and places in relation to other things and places. A map is a representation of a bird’s eye view of a particular part of the earth’s surface. It reduces an area that is too big for us to see at a glance to a model that is small enough for us to see all at once.

Seeing the whole is so important to understanding the individual parts. It is all to easy to misinterpret a passage because one neglects the large whole in which it is found.

Recently I came across a great link for gaining a better understanidng of the whole Bible. It is a series of sermons preached by Mark Dever at Capitol Hill Baptist Church . During his time as pastor of that church he has preached an overview sermon of every book of the Bible. I think that he does a fabulous job of clearly and comprehensively explaining large sections of the Bible in a short period of time. To help support his new book on the message of the New Testament; his church has posted the audio versions of all of the New Testament. I would highly recommend listening to at least his sermon on the message of the Bible if not the whole series. It is a wonderful resource.

LINK: New Testament Overview Sermons

Technology Tuesday returns! Recently I decided to make a switch from using a desktop mail client like Outlook to only using GMAIL. After having made this switch I realized that most of the apps I use all of the time are on the web. This is great because it doesn’t matter what computer I am using, I always use the same applications with the same settings, with the same data. Whether I’m at work, on my mac, on my pc, on my roommates laptop, on a public computer or 1000 miles away at home, I can always use the same working enviroment for my main applications and I don’t have to have a laptop. I’ve found that this is a really a great thing. There is now a separation between the applications that I use and the machine I use to access them. Here are some of the web applications that I use most often which I highly recommend:

GMail

Gmail is by far the best webmail client out there. I love all of the fancy interface features that they have; especially labels, shortcut keystrokes and limited page reloads. Recently I also came across some great Greasemonkey scripts at userscripts.com They add even more functionality to make gmail my only mail client.

LINK: gmail.com

Basecamp

Basecamp is a great project management tool. It lets you collaborate with a bunch of poeple around a certain project using messages, to do lists and milestones. Currently I use it to manage a website that I created for StudentBody and the sunday school class that I teach.

LINK: basecamphq.com

Backpack

Backpack is similar to Basecamp but on a smaller scale. It is designed for making simple one page webpages. The pages can have notes, lists, images, etc. You can also set up reminders that will send you an email and a text message on certain dates when you are supposed to do things (like pay the bills).

The other great thing about both backpack and basecamp is another app that they both have called Writeboards. Writeboards are basically just simple text editors on the web that you can use to write, store and share text. Now that I have writeboard I don’t even remember the last time I used MS Word.

LINK: backpackit.com

del.icio.us

del.icio.us is my online bookmark management tool. I have all 700+ of my bookmarks online and with me whereever I go.

LINK: del.icio.us

FeedLounge

FeedLounge is an online RSS feed reader. I love its user interface and it is just as fast as a desktop client. But the best part is that if I check a feed during lunch at work, it will be marked as read when I look at later at night at my apartment. Before when I used a desktop application for reading feeds I would have to mark something as read twice; once when I read it at work and then again when I read it at my apartment. Having a great online application is much better.

LINK: feedlounge.com

All in all, I really like having all of my main applications online. I feel much more portable now and best of all, I don’t have to carry a laptop around with me.

Which web applications do you find most helpful?

Tommorrow marks the start of a new year and so I’m celebrating by releasing the new site. I’m still working on finishing up some things, but the bulk of it is done.

For those geeks who care, the new site powered by Typo and Ruby on Rails It will serve as my little playground for learning new things about Ruby and Rails.

Be sure to check back often because I plan to have a much more consistent posting schedule for 2006.

Happy New Year!

Here are some of my resolutions for 2006. Nothing profound, just some simple, attainable goals for the next year.

1. Finish the new smerickson.com

2. Post something on the blog at least 3 times a week.

3. Learn Ruby and Ruby on Rails

4. Release one simple but useful webapp using Rails

5. Read The Institutes by John Calvin

No, I’m not dead; and no this blog is not dead. Get ready, something new is coming . . .

The Internet is such a great resource for finding really helpful materials for encouraging your faith. Here are two that I’ve come across recently.

The Kingdom of Christ Lectures

This summer I read a book called the Kingdom of Christ by Russell Moore. Moore is the dean of theology at Southern Baptist. He is a relatively young guy but someone who is already a strong contributor of Biblical writings. In his book, Moore articulates an excellent understanding of the Kingdom which reframes the conversation beyond the divide that existed between older versions covenant and dispenstional theologies. There are some really encouraging developments going on in covenant and dispensational circles which are actually bringing together these two groups. The main insight motivating this is a better understanding of the eschatological nature of the Kingdom; that is has been inaugurated with the incarnation of Christ but awaits its consummation on the day when Christ comes again. The implications for this understanding are manifold, as Moore tries to show in his book.

Recently, Moore gave the 2005 Criswell Lectures where he spoke on this topic and highlighted many of the things which he covers in the book. I’ve listened to two of the three lectures and, on the whole, have found them to be encouraging. As with anything, there are points where Moore and I disagree, but I think the overall theme of what he is trying to say regarding the Kingdom is a breath of Biblical fresh air. I’ll probably post some thoughts on the lecture in the coming days/week but until then you can go and listen to the lectures yourself:

http://www.henryinstitute.org/forums_view.php?cid=10

Reformation21

Another great resource that I have known about for a while now is the Reformation21 site. This site is run by some great people in the reformed community. They are providing some great biblical wisdom on a host of different areas. I think it is great that men of such stature make themselves so accessible on the web. Be sure to check out their blog and current edition of the online publication.

http://www.reformation21.com

In his book, The Drama of Doctrine, Kevin Vanhoozer provides us with an outstanding definition of a theologian by making an analogy to a dramaturge. He writes:

“Dramaturgy” is the working of a drama, just as “metallurgy” is the working of metal. What does it mean to “work” drama, or to make drama work? The dramaturge has, until recently been relatively unknown in the American theater. In Europe, however, the dramaturge is the person responsible for helping the director to make sense of the script both for the players and for the audience. This dual responsibility corresponds to a remarkable degree to theology’s twofold task: an exegetical scientia and a practical sapentia.

In the first place, the dramaturge is responsible for researching the script and for preparing the text for performance. This involves selecting a particular edition or translation of the play, researching the play to keep it historically accurate, thinking about the playwright’s intent, studying the play’s production history and collaborating with the director on a compelling and coherent interpretation. The dramaturge is concerned both with the play’s details and with its large themes. For example, a good dramaturge would object to a scene of a medical drama set in 1810 in which a doctor bends over his patient and places a stethoscope on his chest, because the stethoscope was not invented until 1819. At the same time, the dramaturge is thinking about how best to articulate the play’s main themes. This first aspect of dramaturgy focuses on the study of a given play ?¢?Ǩ?Äú it’s author, content, style and background ?¢?Ǩ?Äú and emphasizes the importance of staying faithful to the text. This is the exegetical, scientia aspect of the dramaturge’s task, and issues in a “protocol”.

The dramaturge’s protocol or preproduction study of the play is of special interest. It consists of notes to the director and actors ?¢?Ǩ?Äú often fifty to one hundred pages ?¢?Ǩ?Äú and typically includes information concerning 1) the historical, cultural, and social background of the play; 2) the biography of the playwright; and 3) the history of earlier productions of the play and an assessment of the major translations. The dramaturge will also often produce 4) a comprehensive analysis of the play and 5) a comprehensive bibliography of helpful resources on the play and its previous productions. The purpose of the dramaturge’s work on the text is to help those involved in the production, particularly the director, come to a better understanding of the play so that the performance will stay true to the playwright’s intent.

If the first aspect of dramaturgy is script-oriented, the second looks toward the performance. The dramaturge advises the director how best to communicate the text and articulate the play’s ideas in terms that would be compelling and intelligible to contemporary audiences. This aspect of dramaturgy corresponds to theology as sapentia. It is noteworthy that the single most importance requirement for the dramaturge is understanding, the ability to follow the play where it leads: “To inform the director, the cast and the audience about the play’s past history and its current importance, dramaturges assemble ‘protocols’ (or casebooks consisting of written and found materials toward a theatrical production), prepare program notes, leas post-performance discussions, write study guides for schools and groups, lecture in the community as well as the academy, and publish scholarly essays and books.” One is hard pressed to think of a better job description for the theologian than that.

I find this analogical definition of a theologian to be extremely helpful. It is a wonderful picture of the part that the theologian is to play in the life of the church.

At the risk of ruining the beauty of this passage, permit me to highlight a couple relevant points in Vahoozer’s description of a dramaturge. First, in the above description, the director is analogous to the pastor, albeit this is a secondary director to that of the primary director, the Holy Spirit. The actors are analogous to the congregation, although again this is a secondary role to that of the primary actors, Father, Son and Spirit. The audience is analogous to the watching world outside the church. The performance is a description of the speech and actions of the congregation as it seeks to faithfully live out the script. The script is analogous to the bible, providing both speech and stage directions for the actors.

Second, these are descriptions of roles rather than individual people. As such the best directors also have dramaturgical abilities just as we ought to have pastor/theologians leading congregations.

Third, and finally, Vanhoozer goes on to write,

A good dramaturge helps articulate the sense of the whole, helps display dramatic unity: play seeking understanding, one could say. “The main job of the dramaturge is to keep asking why. Why are we doing this play? . . . Why does our theatre exist? . . . Why are we, inside the theatre, excited about the plays we are doing and why are we not spreading our excitement to the community?” The dramaturge answers such why questions by articulating the meaning of the play and the public significance of its production. The dramaturge’s task continues during rehersal, ensuring that the director and the actors remain in line with the overall vision of the production, its meaning and truth.

I strive to be and pray that there might be more theologians in the world who fit this excellent description.

I freely admit that while at work coding programs most computer programmers are probably not thinking about the effects of sin on their work. But that is just the situation I find myself in. My new job is working on an information management system for private schools. A new issue has recently come up with a couple of the schools that use our product. The issue involves families and parents. Our program has support for establishing relationships in the system which in turn drive a lot of the mailing lists, reports and other functionality. This is all well and good until the definitions of what a parent or a family is get to be stretched. There are some situations at these schools where there might be a number of different people to whom a student is related, some of whom have legal custody while others do not; some of whom live with the student while others do not. This makes the task of figuring out who the parents are of a student pretty difficult. It also makes it difficult to determine how to define a “family” at these schools. Do you include the non-resident, step father with no legal custody in a mailing to parents? It was as situations like this kept coming up that I got to thinking about how sin effects even the deepest corners of our existence, even down to the computer code I write. I mean it is easy to think about how to write code to support a family that consists of a husband and a wife and X number of children. It gets to be much more difficult as the complexity of those relationships increases. It saddens me to see so many broken family relationships as these schools. It frustrates me that my work has become difficult and futile as a result of sin. We should never be comfortable with the fact that we live in a world full of sin. This is not the way things should be.

You haven’t posted a single blog in over a month.

You have over 1000 unread feeds in your RSS feed reader.

You move into a new apartment while going through a big deployment at work.

You then choose to invite your dad to come help you move into your new apartment at the same time, but still have to go into work on a Sunday in order to get caught up.

You haven’t told the school you’re enrolled at that you aren’t coming in two weeks for orientation because you’ve decided to defer.

You don’t remember where you put your PDA and digital camera and then call and blame the rental car company that you thought you left them in, only to realize 4 days later that they were in your car all along.

These are just some of the things that have happend in my life over the past month. It has been a significant time of transition and I have learned much. We now return to our regular blogging schedule.

Last time, I discussed the importance of RSS. There is one special use of RSS that deserves attention. It is called Podcasting. Podcasting uses RSS to send audio content. So instead of subscribing to a feed and receiving text, you receive an MP3 file. The nice thing about podcasting is that it goes one step furuther than just delivering the audio file. Most all podcast programs will also add the downloading audio file to your iTunes library so that the next time you sync your iPod (or other mp3 player) you will receive the new audio file.

Here is an example of how I find this to be really helpful. Each day I spend about 1.5 hours in the car driving to and from work and school. What I do to use that time wisely is to subscribe to the Albert Mohler Program and to Desiring God Radio and a few technology shows. By subscribing to these podcasts, I always have the latest shows on my iPod, ready to be enjoyed as I drive around. The best part is that it requires no work on my part to get the updated program! All I have to do is sync my iPod as I normally would and I receive the current file. I don’t have to go to the website, manually download the file and then add it to my iPod.

Recently Apple added this feature to iTunes which makes subscribing to podcasts very easy (link to apple.com). All you have to do is add the feed to your library and iTunes will do the work of downloading the updated files and syncing them to your iPod. Another new product out there is a web app called Odeo.com. If you listen to audio content on the web and have an mp3 player, podcasting is very helpful.

Now, I realize that I already had my first Technology Tuesday post, but I came across this link and had to include it, so I guess we will kick off this whole technology thing by having two posts!

Today, the folks over at the English Standad Version (ESV) blog posted an idea about using Google Maps to plot informaton about the Bible. That is a great idea! They also provided a link to an example. All I have to say is that I wish I had had this when I was studying for my Intro to Biblical Studies exam on Ancient Near East geography. Go check it out!

LINK: The Bible and Google Maps @ ESV.org

Today begins the first in a series of posts I am calling “Technology Tuesday”. Each Tuesday I hope to post about some neat piece of technology that I think is important and that others should know about. I will give some background about the technology and then provide some resources for how the technology can be used. I believe that technology should helpful and so these posts will focus on those technologies that I find to be very helpful. Enjoy.

RSS

Have you ever wished that instead of visiting a website to see if it has been updated, the site could tell you that it has new content and what that new content is? This is one of the benefits of a growing technology called RSS. RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication. (There is also another format called Atom that accomplishes the same thing.) The best analogy that I can think of to describe RSS is the concept of a magazine or newspaper subscription. There are two ways to get a magazine or newspaper. You can go to a newsstand and buy one or you can subscribe to the magazine or newspaper and have it delivered to you. This is one of the main purposes of RSS. It allows users to “subscribe” to websites that they visit often (or not so often) so that information will be delivered to them rather than forcing them to retrieve the information themselves. For instance, many blogs and news sites use RSS to deliver frequently updated content to their visitors; so someone could subscribe to CNN.com and receive updates on the latest news headlines instead of constantly checking the site to see if it has been updated.

I find this to be something that is very useful. By subscribing to websites, I am able to stay up to date on information that is important to me. It also enables me to keep track of a large number of sites very easily. At present I subscribe to over 100 sites. If I had to visit each of these 100 sites each day to see if they had been updated, I would spend all day. But because of RSS feeds I am able to spend only 15 minutes reading just those sites that have been updated.

RSS has become very popular, very quickly. As a result, there are some really creative adaptations of the technology. For example, someone thought, “Hey, what if, instead of syndicating text content, I published an RSS feed of pictures.’’ So now you can subscribe to a feed and receive the latest pictures from your favorite amateur photographer (ex. http://www.flickr.com). There are many other uses for RSS, here are some ideas:

• Weather :: Receive updates on the current weather conditions and forecasts
• Calendar :: Share your calendar with a group of people using RSS (ex. http://www.rsscalendar.com)
• Share to-do lists :: There are some online to-do list programs that allow you to share an RSS feed of your to-do list. (ex. http://www.tadalist.com)
• Bookmarks :: Many online bookmarking services allow you to create RSS feeds for a specific person’s bookmarks, or any bookmarks with a specific tag(s). (ex. http://www.del.icio.us or http://www.spurl.net)
• Track packages :: Most shipping companies offer RSS feeds of the status of your package.
• Broadcast Radio programs :: This is called Podcasting. My next post will go into more depth on this growing technology.
• File sharing :: Store files online and alert others, via RSS, when new files have been added or updated. (ex. http://www.box.net)

By this point, you should be asking yourself, how can I subscribe to RSS feeds? In order to subscribe to feeds you’ll need the appropriate software. There are three main varieties of RSS Readers.

1. Browser plugin

Many newer browsers have support for RSS feeds built in. For example, Mozilla Firefox or Safari allow you to track feeds in the browser.

2. Stand alone program

Another way that you can subscribe to feeds is through a stand alone program. A good option here is FeedDemon.

3. Online reader

The third kind of RSS readers available are online readers. I use a new website called FeedLounge. This is nice because it allows me to check my feeds from anywhere and to keep track of which feeds have been updated.

Hopefully you can see how useful RSS can be. People are constantly coming up with new ways to use the technology and I think it is an exciting thing to watch going forward.

Earlier this year, I wrote a review of Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth. As my review indicates, I found it to be an excellent book. Apparently the ECPA agrees because they gave the book their Gold Medallion Award for the best book in the category of "Christianity and Society". Mrs. Pearcey sent me the press release, so I thought I would include it here. If you haven't read this book yet, you should.

** Press Release **

NANCY PEARCEY'S TOTAL TRUTH WINS TOP AWARD

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 -- As America continues its heated debates on the role of religion in public life, Nancy Pearcey's highly acclaimed book TOTAL TRUTH: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity (Crossway) has won the 2005 ECPA Gold Medallion Award for best book in the category of "Christianity and Society."

Pearcey, a former agnostic, has been heralded as "one of the few female intellectuals in evangelicalism" (The Evangelical Outpost). She is also a musician and a homeschooling mother. The prestigious award was announced at a celebration held in Denver, Colorado, on Monday, July 11, 2005. The ECPA reports that more than "1,000 publishers, retailers, authors, and industry colleagues" attended the evening's festivities.

"There is much to be thankful for in receiving this award" Pearcey said. "It is a positive sign that a "rock-the-boat" book like TOTAL TRUTH could find a base of support among the grassroots of evangelical publishing."

"The book rocks secular boats because it argues that God is a public figure," Pearcey explained. "It shows why secularists cannot simply relegate religion to the private realm of faith and feelings, which is the most common way of stripping Christianity of its power to challenge and redeem the whole of culture."

"But the book may also rock some evangelical boats," Pearcey said, "because it challenges a tendency to allow essentially secular principles to shape the way we do business in Christian circles, which hurts many people who are seeking authentic relationships and answers to life's questions."

Pearcey, who became a Christian at L'Abri Fellowship in the early 1970s, said, "I am thankful to Francis and Edith Schaeffer, who opened the door to doing this kind of worldview analysis."

Celebrating the news about TOTAL TRUTH are voices from the U.S. and Europe:

"Delighted to hear about the Gold Medallion. Nancy's book TOTAL TRUTH is one of our top books here in Christian Heritage-Cambridge."
--RANALD MACAULAY
Director, Christian Heritage-Cambridge
son-in-law of Francis and Edith Schaeffer
Cambridge, England

TOTAL TRUTH is the "most important single book to have come out of the U.S.A. in recent years because it tackles the root-level misunderstandings which stop people from seeing that the message of Jesus brought, and still brings, individual liberties, social transformation, political freedom, and scientific, technological and economic progress."
-- Prof. PRABHU GUPTARA
Chairman, Trinity Forum-Europe
Executive Director at Wolfsberg (subsidiary of UBS)
Zurich, Switzerland

Congratulations to [editor-husband Rick] and Nancy!
-- DAVID LIMBAUGH
author, syndicated columnist
Cape Girardeau, Mo.

"Nancy Pearcey has performed an important service to evangelicals in TOTAL TRUTH, and her Gold Medallion Award testifies that her kind is not yet extinct."
-- CAL THOMAS
author, syndicated columnist
Washington, D.C., area

Nancy Pearcey is the Francis A. Schaeffer Scholar at the World Journalism Institute, where she teaches a worldview course based on the study guide edition of TOTAL TRUTH. After earning an M.A. from Covenant Theological Seminary, she pursued further graduate work in philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. Since 1977, she has been a pioneering thinker and writer on the interface between worldview and contemporary issues, such as modern science, and she is currently a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute.

CONTACT: Nancy Pearcey can be contacted through the World Journalism Institute at npearcey@worldji.com.

INTERVIEWS: For interviews, call Crossway Books at 630-682-4300.

OFFICIAL WEBSITE: www.totaltruthbook.com.

This past weekend I was back in Wheaton to be in a friend’s wedding. It was a wonderful time. The whole weekend just seemed so “right”. My friend and his, now, wife are great for each other and the cemeremony and other events were such a fitting way to joyfully celebrate God’s good gift of marriage. This is not the first wedding I have been to this summer, in fact it is the third. Sometimes it feels like it is the summer of weddings (and engagements). With all of that going on, it was fitting that I listened to a recent edition of the Albert Mohler Program which addresed the question: How Do You Know When It?¢?Ǩ?Ñ¢s Time To Get Married? It was a great show, so I thought I’d post a link here on the blog.

LINK: http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2005-07-07

A few weeks ago, the translation committee for the English Standard Version met to discuss revising portions of the translation. (I actually had the rare privilege of running into the group as they were coming back from lunch one day.) While they met, they spent time answering questions that had been raised by Adrian Warnock and others. Even though the answers are short, I think they serve as at least a point of reference for how the committee made some tough decisions during translation.

Here are links to the questions and answers:

1. Paul House Discusses Doctrine Affecting Translation (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 1)
2. Bill Mounce Discusses the Internet (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 2)
3. Vern Poythress Discusses the Internet (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 3)
4. Vern Poythress Discusses Bracketed Verses (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 4)
5. Vern Poythress Discusses Differences between the ESV and Other Translations (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 5)
6. Paul House Discusses Reviewing the ESV (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 6)
7. Bill Mounce Discusses Greek Texts (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 7)
8. Vern Poythress Discusses the Textus Receptus (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 8 )
9. C. John Collins Dicusses Use of ?¢?Ǩ?ìThe LORD?¢?Ǩ¬ù (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 9)
10. Wayne Grudem Discusses the Need for the ESV (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 10)
11. Wayne Grudem Discusses Commentaries (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 11)
12. C. John Collins Discusses Commentaries (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 12)
13. Wayne Grudem Discusses Learning Hebrew and Greek (Ask the Translators #1 Answer 13)

Recently there has been a lot of buzz about Scientology. This has come about, in large part, because of how vocal Tom Cruise has been about his beliefs in the public. That being the case I thought it would probably be worthwhile to do just a little reading about the topic so as to be informed in case I ever happen to run into someone who happened to be a Scientologist. That situation might not be as far fetched as you might think; according to MSNBC, Lycos reported that “Scientology” jumped to #37 on their list of popular search terms. Here are some links that I’ve looked at, in case you would like to learn some more about the beliefs of Scientology.

LINKS: Wikipedia article on Scientology Scientology: From Science Fiction to Space Age Religion by Dr. John Weldon (an excellent Christian response to Scientology) A seriese of articles in the L.A. Times about Scientology

More and more I find myself living a very Wordpress - http://www.wordpress.org del.icio.us - http://del.icio.us spurl - http://www.spurl.net feedlounge http://www.feedlounge.com flickr - http://www.flickr.com gmail - http://gmail.google.com google maps - http://maps.google.com

I have finally fully entered the digital age by purchasing a digital camera. In the past I have not been one to take a lot of pictures, but that is hopefully going to change. Now that I have a digital camera I thought that I should probably sign up for a Flickr account to store my photos online. You can view always view my photos by going to http://flickr.com/photos/smerickson/ or by clicking on the Gallery link at the top of the page. Enjoy being able to see a little of my world.

Let’s play a game called “Know your false antitheses”! I’ll make a statement about two things and you tell me whether or not the statement accurately reflects the relationship between the two things. Ready? Let’s play!

• “Private piety and devotion is more important than political and social action”
• “The moral teaching of scripture is more important than whether or not it is literal history”
• “Academic knowledge is not as important as being ‘on fire for God’”
• “Preaching the word is more important than worship”
• “Relationships and community are more important than teaching doctrine”
• “Revelation is more important than experience”
• “The person of Christ, rather than the Bible, is the central focus of God’s self-revelation”

These questions were taken from an online quiz which has been floating around some blogs lately. The quiz asks, “What’s your theological worldview?” This is a very good question and one with which we should seek to come to terms. Yet, I found most of the questions on this quiz terribly difficult to understand. Reading them reminded me of something that I read recently. In his book Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church, D.A. Carson writes about false antitheses; I agree very much with his plea.

So which shall we choose? Experience or truth? The left wing of an airplane, or the right? Love or integrity? Study or service? Evangelism or discipleship? The front wheels of a car, or the rear? Subjective knowledge or objective knowledge? Faith or obedience?

Damn all false antitheses to hell, for they generate false gods, they perpetuate idols, they twist and distort our souls, they launch the church into violent pendulum swings whose oscillations succeed only in diving brothers and sisters in Christ.

I’ve been reading Is there a meaning in this text? by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. It is a book about hermeneutics in light of postmodernism. Vanhoozer is a well respected theologian and so far the book has been a great read. Rest assured that Vanhoozer does not argue for some kind of new, postmodern Christianity, rather he simply hopes to fairly interact with current developments in philosophy and literary criticism.

A paragraph that I recently read addresses the question: “Do Christian ministers, teachers, and other students of the Bible really need to make the effort to understand deconstruction and other types of postmodern interpretation?” Vanhoozer responds,

I believe they do. Christians need to make the effort to engage the new masters of suspicion for three reasons. 1) We have an obligation to be intellectually honest, even charitable. Too many critics have written off deconstruction without taking it seriously, that is to say, without taking the time to understand it. Nothing is to be gained by burning straw men. 2) Postmodernity is an interdisciplinary phenomenon that has occasioned a crisis in culture and Christianity alike. It is difficult to minister the Word if one has little understanding of one’s cultural context. 3) Deconstruction and other types of postmodern interpretation have become more and more prevalent in the academy and, increasingly, in the church.

The other day I was listening to the lectures given by DA Carson on the New Perspectives. In the second lecture he gives some wise counsel about how one ought to go about analyzing some one else’s position. The example that he used to show this he took from his work on the emerging church movement. I think that his comment is right on when it comes to both the New Perspectives and the emerging church. He said:

You can shape a discussion by framing it a certain way. If you stereotype another person’s position and show how it’s bad then you can say what you’re doing is good. But if the other position doesn’t really hold that and actually says a whole lot of things that you’re trying to say but puts them in a more believable framework then suddenly you’re the one who looks a little bit silly. And so the historical theological questions really are very important indeed. Let me take an analogy, right away from this one so it’s not freighted with so much weight. I have a book coming out this month on the emerging church movement. And there are lots of good things to be said about elements of the emerging church movement ?¢?Ǩ?Äú some pretty negative things as well. But one of the things that strikes me about the positive elements in the emerging church movement is that the most positive things that can be said about the emerging church movement (and there are quite a lot of them) you could also say about other segments of broader confessional Christianity without all the negatives that go with it. In other words, I could show you the strengths of the best parts of the emerging movement in a church like Tim Keller’s in Manhattan – without all the nasty stuff that you sometimes get in other parts of that movement. And so, if you can show, for example, that some of the great strengths of this new perspective theology are in fact already there in Luther and Calvin, then the stereotype of what’s bad with them and good with you gets twisted. And then you start asking, ‘Well what is it exactly that you’re introducing and are you saying something that is moving you away from Scripture or closer to Scripture?’ The whole frame of the debate gets changed. It is in that sense that knowledge of the deep historical theological categories becomes pretty important. Do not believe what most of these writers say Luther and Calvin believed. They far more often than not get it wrong rather than right. You’ve just got to read the primary sources before you make judgments of that sort.

The other day I came across three lectures given by DA Carson at Reformed Theological Seminary on the New Perspectives on Paul. I found them to be pretty helpful. They are much different than the lectures given by Wilder which I posted a couple weeks ago and therefore serve as a good compliment. Here are the lectures:

• Lecture one (mp3)
• Lecture two (mp3)
• Lecture three (mp3)

(HT: A.B. Caneday)

LINKS: Trinity Church Resources about the service Photos from the service A video of the entire service (Windows Media Streaming)

I recently finished reading David Peterson’s Engaging with God – A Biblical Theology of Worship. This book is strong on both theology and exegesis – a combination which is sadly lacking in most contemporary books on this subject. Peterson’s task is a formidable one. He sets out to trace the ways in which terms like worship and service are used throughout Scripture. His study is significant in that it seeks to ground our understanding and language of worship Biblically. I found his conclusions to be really helpful. On the whole, Peterson’s work shows that there is a significant shift in the location of language concerning worship after the incarnation. In the Old Testament, the language of worship and service are often found in connection with those activities which occur in and around the temple often in the context of sacrifices and rituals. With the life death and resurrection of Christ, this all changes. Jesus taught his disciples that his life, death and resurrection fulfill that to which the Jewish cultic practices pointed. Jesus is the true temple, the final and perfect sacrifice, and the only priest or mediator between man and God. As a result, terms like worship or service are used in new ways by the early church. They are transmuted to refer broadly to the entirety of one’s life and attitude. It is shocking to realize that the New Testament authors do not use the term worship in the way we do today. Very rarely, if at all, is the term worship used to refer to what the church does when it gathers together on the Lord’s Day, let alone to an extended time of singing. More often worship is used to refer to a life lived in response to God’s work in Christ on our behalf. The implications for this understanding are many. In the end, Peterson’s book is a helpful corrective to common conceptions about worship today. We often hear that we should worship God with our whole lives, but that takes on a greater significance after reading the exegesis of relevant passages offered in Engaging with God. Would that many in our churches better understood the language of worship in the Bible and were then better able to plan gatherings which glorify God and edify his people and who seek to worship God in all areas of their life.

The past couple days I’ve listened to the lectures on NT Wright by Bill Wilder at the Center for Christian Study. They were very interesting and helpful in terms of setting the context for controversy surrounding the covenant and justification today. If you would like to know more about this issue, these lectures would be helpful. For those who have listened to it, here are some of my brief notes. I’d love to hear what others thought of the lectures.

I thought that Wilder did a fair job of briefly describing covenant theology and NTW (NT Wright) broad purposes in most of what he writes. There were points near the end of the second lecture that I started to lose a sense of the exact differences between Covenant theology and what NTW is saying. In the way that Wilder presented it, it seemed as though the two were talking past each other or saying differing things.

In the third lecture, Wilder addressed the issue of imputation. I found this presentation to be somewhat weak. While some of the texts used to describe imputation were brought up, it didn’t seem as though reformed people were quoted on how they understand those texts. I was disappointed that the oft quoted statement by NTW about righteousness not being an object was addressed approvingly. I find that to be a broad mischaracterization of the reformed understanding and it doesn’t seem helpful to me for others to continue to quote it. Wilder tried to downplay imputation language in favor of incorporation with Christ. I heartily affirm the need to focus on the fact that Christians are “in Christ” or are “united with Christ” and therefore vicariously participate in his experience. But it seems misguided to me to play that off against imputation. John Calvin didn’t seem to think that the two were different positions. He is known for clearly articulating the Reformation position on justification against the Council of Trent and most often he uses the language of union with Christ to explain imputation. Furthermore, perhaps, I am too Reformed, but to cut imputation out of the soteriological equation seems to remove the necessary link for being in Christ. How is it that God can see sinners as being united with Christ if they have not first been counted as righteous in his sight? Also, by subsuming all of redemption under the cross and resurrection begs the question of the soteriological significance of Christ’s life. If the death and resurrection of Christ is sufficient for justification, does this minimize Christ’s life?

The summary of Westerholm’s contributions to the conversation I found to be very helpful. I should look into getting that book.

Near the end of the lecture Wilder was strong on emphasizing that he does think that there are excellent reasons to read and appreciate NTW. With sufficient qualification, I too might be able to affirm this, but it seemed like an odd thing to say given Wilder’s strong disagreement with Wright about the definitions of righteousness and justification. In affirming so much of what Wright has done, Wilder seems to minimize the significance of the controversy surrounding justification as central to our understanding of the gospel. What is more, based on this presentation, I’m a little confused about how the positive aspects of what NTW has said is new or different from what is already present and affirmed in Reformation theology.

During the time of question and answer at the end of the last lecture, I found it odd that the debate came up about justification and sanctification. Some of the students in the class were very concerned that the declarative emphasis of justification removes any motivation for further growth in holiness. Wilder did a wonderful job of showing the need to never separate justification and sanctification but the value in distinguishing them. I’m not sure why the students were so adamant about combining justification and sanctification. The Reformers would have found their suggestions very odd.

Well, those are some of my very brief, rough and scattered thoughts after listening to these 6 hours of lectures. You can listen to the lectures yourself at the links below.

LINKS: NT Wright Lectures JollyBlogger’s excellent thoughts on Wright

About this time each year I try to put together my reading list for the summer. It is always overly ambitious, but I would rather have too much to read than too little. So in an effort to continue that tradition, here’s what I’m thinking about reading this summer.

1. Engaging with God by David Peterson
2. Carl F.H. Henry by Bob Patterson
3. Lectures on Calvinism by Abraham Kuyper
4. Is There Meaning In This Text by Kevin Vanhoozer
5. The Institutes by John Calvin (I don’t plan to finish this, but I would like to start)
6. Worship: Adoration and Action edited by D.A. Carson
7. Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama by Michael Horton
8. Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology by Michael Horton

Well, there you have it. What are you planning to read?

Welcome to the brand new smerickson.com!! Please reset your bookmarks to point to http://www.smerickson.com I will be at that domain for a long time. I’m really proud of this site and have lots of plans for development in the future. In this post I hope to highlight some of the “features” of the site so that you can better understand how to use it.

About:

The about page tells all about me. If you want to know about the site or the author head over there.

Blog:

The blog is the main part of the site. As I see it the blog serves many purposes. Blogs are great tools for quickly communicating information to lots of people. They allow for discussion and interaction and provide the context for small communities to form. I like all of these things. This is my personal blog and so it is a good representation of who I am. It includes lots of different things – from theology, to computers/technology, to personal updates, it has a little of everything. This blog has an RSS feed which you can subscribe to. RSS feeds are great and I highly recommend them. If you have no clue what they are go here. Each entry also has a comments section, feel free to join the conversation there.

Sidebar:

Another significant feature of the site is the sidebar. The sidebar contains lots of little pieces of information. They are:

Recent:

This is a quick list of the most recent posts on the site.

Reading:

This is a short list of the books which I am currently reading. They are linked to Amazon.

Listening:

This is a short list of the music I am currently listening to. Each of the songs are linked to iTunes if you want to hear more.

Library:

This is a short list of objects which have most recently been added to the Library (more below).

Clippings

Clippings are links that I come across around the web. I’m constantly finding little things here and there that I would love to share with people. There are two sections: noteworthy and random. The noteworthy section contains those links which I think are important. The random section is for those links that are funny, silly or just plain weird. Both groups have RSS feeds which you can subscribe to.

Categories:

The categories section is a list of all the categories of posts as well as the number of posts in that category. You can use this to quickly navigate the site.

Meta:

This is all of the meta information about the site.

Archive:

The archive is the place to find everything from the past. It is broken up into 6 sections.

1. Date – find posts by when they were posted
2. Starred – find posts that I have marked as important
3. Weighted Archive – find posts by date where the size of the text indicates how many posts were made during that month.
4. Weighted Categories – this is similar to the above but with a list of categories.
5. Keywords – This is a list of the keywords which can be found in one or many posts.
6. The last way to find things from the past is by searching. There are two ways of searching. a. Live Search – Live searching allows you to perform a search in realtime without having to go to another page. If you start typing your query in the orange search field and wait for a second, a list of the posts which correspond to your search term will appear. You can then arrow down and press enter on the post you would like to select; or you can use your mouse. b. Search – You can also perform a “normal” search by simply entering your text and hitting enter or pressing the search button.

Library:

The other main feature of this site is the Library. The Library is the place where I plan on storing most of my digital resources. There is a wealth of information available on the internet today, but it can often be difficult to find valuable resources. This site is an effort to curb that problem. I am constantly coming across articles, books, and lectures around the web which are significant and I would like to hold on to for future reference. The Library is the place where I will store these and they are all freely available to you. I will keep it updated often you make sure you keep it bookmarked. Some of the features of the Library include livesearching, an RSS feed and a Firefox search plugin.

Well, that’s probably more than you ever wanted to know about a website. I will be making a number of updates to this site in the coming weeks, it is still a work in progress. In the end I hope that this site is a helpful resource for a number of different types of people. Please come back often and feel free to contribute to the site. Take Care.

About this time each year things start to get pretty busy. It is not that they are really any busier than usual just that there are lots of deadlines. I’m much more fond of the middle of semesters. But the wierd thing this year is that after its all done, I’ll be done (with college at least). Kind of bittersweet.

Because I won’t have much time to blog check out a new website I recently came across. It is called Diet of Bookworms. I love the title, but I love the idea behind the site even more. It is a central repository for book reviews of Christian books. It looks to be a great resource.

Also, just to put it out there. Things are going to be changing here at smerickson.com in the future. Big things are happening behind the scenes. I won’t say much more than that now, but be ready for a new smerickson.com soon.

LINK: Diet of Bookworms

LINK: Jonathan Edwards @ Yale.edu

Google has recently added a new feature. It allows you to view satellite images of different places all over the US. Below is a picture of my school, Gordon College. Enjoy.

LINK: maps.google.com

Many of you know that I love hymns. While I do appriciate them being played on an organ, I also enjoy it when musicians, in an act of creativity, set them to new tunes. It should come as no surprise then that I have really been enjoying the new Jars of Clay cd, “Redemption Songs”. It is fully of great hymns all done in that great ‘Jars of Clay’ style.

Another resource I should mention is the Reformed University Fellowship. This group, based out of Nashville, has also put together some great hymn arrangements. They also make available their entire hymnal. Both are great. Enjoy.

LINK: Jars of Clay website Redeption Songs on iTunes Indelible Grace RUF Hymnal

Lately, I have encountered among many Christians a desire to rename and re-identify themselves. This desire usually manifests itself as attempting to forge a new way between so-called, conservative Evangelicalism and Liberalism. The contexts for these terms is both theological and political. These proposals can be seen in the writings of Jim Wallis in politics or Stan Grenz or Brian McLaren in theology. Indeed, much of the so-called emergent movement can be conceived of in this fashion.

Not only are they critical of specific positions within both Evangelicalism and Liberalism, but also of the entire framework. They see both groups (conservative and liberal) as being stuck in the modern mindset of being able to have a corner on truth and therefore excluding others from that claim. They are quick to point out that modernity is dead and so we need to move beyond the problems which plagued it.

One online writer frames the conversation this way:

On the one hand is a dominant conservative evangelical theology, often involving a higher view of Scripture than Scripture itself warrants (inerrancy, sola scriptura) in combination with a “moral majority,” “Christian nation” American supremacist politics. In addition, conservative evangelicalism fosters a sense of enmity towards popular culture and always construes “secular” film, art, and music as a spiritual threat. On the other end of the (Protestant) spectrum is liberal theology, whose politics I find vastly preferable to that of the Christian right. But the whole enterprise of liberal theology, the privileging of universal human capacities of experience and reason over God’s special revelation of Godself, seems an intellectual dead end to me.

As stated above, the main critique driving their ecumenical concern is that the theological and denominational divisions which have occurred in recent history are the result of the now out-dated modern mindset. Now that we have moved past all of that into a new era, those things which separated Christians now fade out of view. They say that the entire conservative/liberal mentality is misguided and we should move on to addressing new, more pressing issues. Perhaps an analogy could be drawn from the arena of mathematics to help clarify the specifics of the proposal as well as some of the misunderstanding that could occur. In some sense Grenz and others are proposing that we are stuck in a two-dimensional plane (2-D). There are only certain types of questions which can be asked in the realm of 2-D and therefore only certain solutions can be offered. For example, it makes no sense to find the volume of a 2-D object. The proposal is that we need to move into a third dimension (3-D). This, they say, opens up a whole new set of possibilities and allows us to focus on different issues than those that plague a 2-D world. The difficulty as I see it is that their proposals are often times misunderstood. People simply cannot grasp what they are proposing because it seems so different from what they experience. It is like trying to explain what depth is to someone who only knows of the two dimensions of height and width. The fascinating thing is that just as three dimensional objects can be represented in two dimensions; the proposals of the emergent church can often be cast into the conservative/liberal, orthodox/progressive categories which they are attempting to transcend. And so some have questioned whether this new group is simply a new form of liberal Christianity.

The inevitable question that must be asked is whether or not the possibility of some new “third way” even exists. Going back to our analogy, it is to ask whether we live in a 2-D plane or a 3-D one. I’m not in a place at this point to discuss the plausibility of this new proposal, but I would like to offer two thoughts on the matter.

First, let me return to the mathematical analogy. If I am right in framing the new proposals in terms of new dimensions, one of the implications of this is that there are connections which exist between the dimensions. When one moves from the realm of 2-D to 3-D, it is not that the questions of 2-D become irrelevant, rather a whole net set of questions are now available. For instance, it is still appropriate to find the surface area of a three-dimensional object. Along these lines, one of the suggestions that I would make to the proponents of this new way would be that they cannot simply dismiss or disregard the questions of modernity. No doubt, they are free ask new questions, but without weighing in on the questions of the past they hurt their own position. This is because members of both liberal and conservative camps will not give them an ear if they do not enter into the conversations on such topics. Furthermore, they give the impression that their “new” third way can only be defined by negation and lacks any positive proposals. Instead of just saying that Evangelicals hold too high a view of Scripture, propose for us then a positive sketch of what you would like to see in its place. Or do not just dance around the question of whether or not Christianity is true (as Grenz does in Renewing the Center pgs 280-286). If one’s position is to be taken seriously, they must answer the questions which are asked of them instead of avoiding a response by dismissing the question.

The other comment I would like to make about these calls for new options is that they are oddly familiar of the calls of recent history. What I mean is that Carl Henry and others of the neo-evangelical movement of the 1950’s said almost the same things. They wanted a new option between the fundamentalism of the day and neo-orthodoxy. What I find is odd, is that somehow in the course of 50 years evangelicalism has become the “new fundamentalism” which this new group would like to move past. Yet, I haven’t been able to find any treatments of how present day evangelicalism has reverted back to fundamentalism. The closest I have come is Stan Grenz’ Renewing the Center, in which he recounts the history of evangelicalism and mentions the characteristics of some of the new inheritors of the group. But even in this, I have a hard time picking out just how the change has come to take place. Maybe some one can help me out and tell me what went wrong. Until then, I continue to stand in the neo-evangelical tradition set forth by Henry, Ockenga and others and yet remain engaged in the theological conversations of our day.

This past week I read Renewing the Center by Stan Grenz. Grenz is one of the theological think tanks of the emergent movement and this book has received a lot of attention. I felt that it was important for me to read it. From the start, I knew I that I going to have a difficult time reading this book. This is both because of the difficulty of some of the material as well as the disagreements which I knew existed between Grenz and myself. Reading the book did provide me with a better understanding of some of the critiques offered by the emergent movement. That said, it further confirmed some of my disagreements with the group.

In a curious act of providence Stan Grenz passed away early this morning. You can read about the specifics of the situation below. I had planned on writing a short review of the book but somehow that just doesn’t seem appropriate right now; although I do plan on posting my almost completed summary of the emergent church in the next couple of days. Right now, my thoughts and prayers go out to the Grenz family in this time of loss.

LINK: Details about Dr. Grenz

Recently, I’ve been added to the League of Reformed Bloggers. This is a group of individuals who are committed to the doctrines of the Reformation and who seek to interact with a wide variety of topics from this perspective. The group publishes an XML feed for the posting of all members in the League, which is very helpful. Here’s all the info:

- More information about the League - Aggregated posts and Member list - XML Feed

This past week I have been on spring break. I decided to stay at school in order to finish working on my Senior Project for my Computer Science degree. The project is a library-type website which will allow one of our professors here on campus to post and maintain a number of the books and articles that he has spent years “digitizing”. It has been a great project to work on and I look forward to developing it further in the future. I’ll post a link to the project when it is complete.

As some of you know, I have been considering going to seminary next year. Well, that has been decided now. I have been accepted to Gordon Conwell to study for a Masters of Arts in Theology. Right now I am also considering the possibility of adding an MA in Church History as well, but we’ll wait and se about that. It should prove to be a great time of study. Although it took some time to feel comfortable with the decision, I am now beginning to look forward to my time there.

Other than that life remains pretty consistent. I continue my involvement in the chapel program and I still attend the First Congregational Church of Hamilton. Then there is the list of assignments which need to be completed before the big graduation day in May. It all seems to be moving much too fast for my taste, but I guess that is just how it goes; and from what I hear from those older than I, it doesn’t slow down. Well, that’s a little update on life here in Boston.

For the next two weeks Michael Horton and the White Horse Inn will be discussing the Emergent Church. They have also provided some interviews with individuals from the Emergent Convention in February.

LINK: The White Horse Inn The Interviews (mp3) Interview w/ Shane Rosenthal (White Horse Inn Producer) (mp3)

Lately I have really been wrestling with this whole issue of how to deal with those who differ from me. When I ask this question, I’m thinking mainly about theological differences, but the question is really broad enough to include a number of different situations in life. For, as sinful, we will inevitably come into disagreement with others about some issue. It is therefore important to consider just how to respond when differences arise. One essay, that I first came across a year or two ago, which has been very helpful along these lines is by Roger Nicole entitled, “Polemic Theology – How to Deal With Those Who Differ From Us”. You can find a copy of the essay here: Founders.org. Below I have included a summary of some of his main points as well as some of my own reflections and difficulties on this subject.

It is my understanding that the goal of communication and interaction with those who differ from us is always greater unity. There are many encouragements in the Bible that call Christians to be united in their view of truth. (1 Cor 1.10 – same mind and judgment; Phil 1.27 – standing firm in one spirit with one mind; Phil 2.2 – being of the same mind; Phil 4.2 – agree in the Lord; Rom 12.16 – live in harmony; 1 Pet 3.8 – have unity of mind). Furthermore, I believe in the unity of truth, as opposed to some who would tend to pursue the plurality of truth. By plurality of truth, I mean the understanding that conflict, tension or even contradiction can exist within truth. It is with this understanding that I strongly disagree. Truth is unified and it ought to bring about unity amongst those who acknowledge it.

In his essay, Dr. Nicole identifies three questions which we should ask when in disagreement with someone else. He stresses not only these questions, but also the order in which they are asked.

What do I owe to the person who differs from me?

“I would say we owe it to our opponents to deal with them in such a way that they may sense that we have a real interest in them as persons, that we are not simply trying to win an argument or show how smart we are, but we are deeply interested in them – and are eager to learn from them as well as to help them.”

The first thing that we should acknowledge is that we have obligations to those who differ from us. Negatively, we do not owe them consent nor indifference. Positively, we do owe them love. In an act of love, it is important that we understand them and what they are saying (read their stuff or better, talk to them) and what they are meaning (re-read their stuff and ask questions for clarification).

Nicole tells a story about quibbling with the wife about “never” taking out the trash which means “not recently”. He says that it becomes a side track to get hung up about the fact that “never” and “not recently” are not the same thing. Now, we should use this as a lesson to ourselves to ensure that we mean what we write and that we write what we mean, but in our conversations with others where these things differ, there should be an element of charity and a focus on semantics (meaning) instead of syntax (wording).

Not only are we to understand their words and meaning but also their aims or goals. What are they really trying to accomplish? Often times this can become a point of correspondence between two differing parties. I know that in my own life I have experienced times where I may disagree sharply with someone over a given issue, but we do share similar aims or goals. This provides a starting point for conversation and can be helpful in bringing together disparate parties.

What can I learn from the person who differs from me?

For me, this question about what I can learn from those who differ from me is the hardest. As I understand it, this question addresses two separate things. First, we can learn from those with whom we differ about other issues not related to the one we are at present discussing. I confess that I find this very difficult to do. There are many times that when I find I disagree with someone about a certain issue, I have a hard time distinguishing that issue from some other one where I may really appreciate what they have to say. Perhaps this is related to my understanding of the interconnectedness of truth. We cannot completely separate out truth in the little separate compartments; there are always connections there. Another reason I think I have a difficult time doing this is because I am afraid that if this individual or group gains the respect of others in speaking about one issue, it will give them a platform from which to speak about their views on the issue over which we disagree. I recognize that this is not a healthy attitude to have. I should praise and uphold truth that is spoken regardless of who says it or their motives. Paul’s words in Philippians are most helpful at this point. Paul is in jail and he gets word that there are some who are preaching Christ while he is in jail. It is unclear about their motives for preaching, but Paul writes: “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.” (Phil 1:15-18) Let me clarify and say that Paul is not condoning the preaching of a false gospel or false content. This is because that is the very thing he criticizes the Judaizers for in his letter to the Galatians. What I think Paul is saying is that where the content is true we ought to rejoice. Undoubtedly, the goal is to preach the truth out of good motives, but wherever truth is proclaimed, regardless of motives, by Christians or not, we should rejoice. This is something I have to always keep in mind.

The second thing this question is addressing is that we can obviously learn something from those who differ from us about the issue that we are discussing. In matters not essential to the faith, we should acknowledge that we may be wrong and the other person right. Nicole writes, “A person who corrects our misapprehensions is truly our helper rather than our adversary and we should be grateful for this service rather than resentful of the correction.” Not only can we learn content from them but we also may learn that our presentation of the facts have left out a part of the whole truth. Sometimes, we would do well to thank those who differ from us by helping us grasp a fuller-orbed view of truth. Also, they may call to our attention certain objections, solutions to which we had not before considered. In all these things, we can learn from those with whom we disagree. Finally, with regard to logic, it is important that we distinguish the specifics of a certain view from some of the logical outcomes which we might perceive. It is fair to raise these and to use them as a way to persuade someone to hold a different view but we need to be careful to not confuse the view with its implications.

How can I cope with the person who differs from me?

The third question that Dr. Nicole asks is “How can I cope with the person who differs from me?” By this he means, how ought we go about actually engaging those who differ from us. There are always two sides to this engagement, protective and constructive. Protective strategies firm up the walls of our own arguments and presentations and respond to the critiques of others. Constructive strategies attempt to lay out a more positive case for the position which we hold.

In all disagreements, the Bible must always be the focus of the discussion. We should read it and re-read it in an effort to better understand what it is and is not saying. By doing so, we acknowledge our submission to Christ and his authority over us through his word. We would also do well to read how others in the past have understood the Scripture texts pertaining to the issue we are discussing. In doing so, we acknowledge our belief in God’s Spirit to work in the lives of others throughout time to lead them into greater truth.

One way that we show our genuine concern for those with whom we disagree is by praying. We ought to pray that God would allow us to be gracious towards them in the midst of our disagreement. We also ought to pray that God would soften our hearts and the hearts of those with whom we differ, that we both may come to a better understanding of and love for Christ and his truth. This focus on prayer helps us remember that God is sovereign and that he is therefore in control of whatever situation we may find ourselves in. We must acknowledge that we do not always know the full outcomes of our disagreements. We may not always persuade someone to hold our view on a given issue, in fact, we might actually become persuaded to hold theirs, but regardless of the immediate outcome we can affirm God’s sovereignty. For it is his effort upon which we are dependant, not our own and his truth will prevail in his time.

One passage of Scripture relating to disagreements which I have always found fascinating is 1 Corinthians 11:18-19. Paul is addressing the sad practices which have come up in the church at Corinth over the issue of the Lord’s Supper. In his address, he writes: “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” Here Paul seems to acknowledge the fact that there will be disagreements and in some sense it is good that disagreement is present because it allows truth to be displayed. Now, of course this is not an in support of argument and disagreement, but I think that it does serve to remind us that we are not always promised peace in this life and we will encounter disagreements and when we do it is important to remain faithful to God’s truth as revealed in the Bible and to trust in Him to guide his people into all truth.

I’ll stop here now. In sum, this whole issue of dealing with those who differ from us is to me very relevant. Pray for me as I continue to engage with all sorts of people on a whole host of issues.

UPDATED: Here are a couple of articles I came across after writing this reflection. Jollyblogger on disputations John Newton on Controversy

The past three days Al Mohler has posted three articles on postmodernism and the shape that it takes in different places in the culture. If you are still struggling to figure out just what this whole thing called “postmodernism” is all about, this would be a good place to start. Let me add one word of caution. There really is no such thing as a truly postmodern person. The system itself is internally incoherent and therefore cannot survive the long hall. This can be seen clearly by recognizing that in the places where it has its origins, like France, no one teaches postmodernism anymore. This month’s Christianity today has a pretty interesting piece on the rise of religion in France. But while postmodernism as a system is not on the rise, there are still evidences and influences of it all around. There are many forms of mild-postmodernism and we would do well to know how to interact with them. This is why I think that Mohler’s articles can be helpful; because they serve as an opportunity to see the system for what it really is and then allow us to know how to better respond to the more particular versions of it that we might encounter on a day to day basis.

LINKS: Day One | Day Two | Day Three

This semester I have been taking a gym class in order to fulfill the PE requirement for graduation. This morning I offered the devotional before our workout. I thought I’d post it here.

“As a door turns on its hinges, so does a sluggard on his bed.” ~ Proverbs 26:14

This morning I would like to do a bit of a history lesson. I want to reflect on this verse through the life of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was a Puritan pastor in North Hampton, Mass during the 18th Century. He is probably most known for his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” This is somewhat unfortunate, because although Edwards was very concerned about sin and firmly believed in a literal hell, a good portion of his writing was devoted to the study of the affections and happiness. He has been called by some, “the greatest mind that America has ever produced.” The reason why I bring up Edwards today is to reflect for a moment on his daily schedule.

In accordance with the verse for today, Edwards rose every morning around 4am; this is partly because he would spend close to 13 hours each day in study. Although Edwards was 6”1’, he was not of great strength and he was often plagued by sickness. Yet these did not hinder his daily activities. He maintained the rigor of his study schedule only with strict attention to diet and exercise. Everything was calculated to optimize his efficiency and power to study. One of his biographers writes that he “carefully observed the effects of the different sorts of food, and selected those which best suited his constitution, and rendered him most fit for mental labor.” He therefore abstained from eating those foods which made him sick or sleepy. This was in accord with his Resolutions, which he wrote at the age of 21. They are a collection of statements by which he lived his life. Two that are most pertinent to us are numbers 20 and 40. They read:

20. Resolved, to maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.

40. Resolved, to inquire every night, before I go to bed, whether I have acted in the best way I possibly could, with respect to eating and drinking. Jan. 7, 1723.

An entry from his diary reads:

“By a sparingness in diet, and eating as much as may be what is light and easy of digestion, I shall doubtless be able to think more clearly, and shall gain time: 1. By lengthening out my life; 2. Shall need less time for digestion, after meals; 3. Shall be able to study more closely, without injury to my health; 4. Shall need less time for sleep; 5. Shall more seldom be troubled with the head-ache.”

Not only was Edwards attentive to his diet, but he also was intentional about exercise. During the summer, he was fond of going horseback riding for hours at a time and of walking through the forest. In the winter, he would spend time chopping wood for half and hour a day in order to stay in good health. There is much that we can learn from Edward’s writing, and I recommend them to you, but we can also learn something from his lifestyle which facilitated such excellent writing. Today, consider your own health and its profitableness for your studies.

This blog entry is a little bit out of the ordinary for me. By that I mean that I usually have things pretty worked out in my own mind and in print before I post them here. This entry is not like that; it is more of an idea that I am toying with and would appreciate some feedback on. With that said, here is my ill-formed thesis.

I’m going to go out on a limb and make an analogy. As I see it, some of what the Emergent Church is to America as is what Liberation Theology was to South America. Now, I recognize that is a bold claim and some in the movement may not be real excited about it; although I suspect that some might be thrilled with the comparison. As I said above, this is not completely fleshed out and I have not tried very hard to be thorough in my explanations of either Liberation theology or the Emergent church. All I am trying to do is point out some broad similarities that I see between the two groups. One final qualification is that I’m not trying to make any evaluations here about whether or not these similarities are positive or negative; I’m merely describing. Now, let me try and explain what I mean when I say that Emergent is the “liberation theology” of North America.

1. The names

Let me start kind of superficially by just pointing out how similar the names of the two movements are. The term “liberation” is closely tied to a notion of freedom from some oppression or oppressor. The term “emergent” also has connections with this language of freedom from some prior entity. This isn’t really a huge deal, I just found it kind of interesting as I was reflecting on the similarities between these two movements.

2. The “grassroots” nature

Both Liberation theology and the Emergent Church are very much “grassroots” movements. They share a similar skepticism towards authority and hierarchy. Because of this, they have really come from the ground up, so to speak. It is a theology by the people for the people.

3. House churches and base communities

One of the ways that this bottom-up understanding of theology plays itself out is in the clustering of small groups outside of what they perceive to be the authoritarian structures from which they want to separate themselves. In Liberation theology this took the form of “base communities”. These were small gatherings of individuals who would come together for prayer, discussion and fellowship. Sometimes there would be a priest who was part of these communities but other times not. In Emergent circles, often their ecclesiology leads them towards more of a house church format. Partly this is due to the hurt that some of them have experienced in more institutional churches. At any rate, when you read about the base communities of liberation theology they sound an awful lot like the house churches or even, dare I say, blog communities of the Emergent Church.

4. Distrust of modernity

Another way to state what I have been saying thus far is that both groups are very skeptical of different aspects of modernity. (Now I know that I have just stepped out into a place that I don’t want to be by using the word modernity. Even though the term is now out of the bag, please don’t read into it more than what I’m saying.) Liberation theology is quite hostile towards certain aspects of what is called modernity, specifically, colonization or the dominance of the west. Their writing very much reflects a distrust towards anything which might come from the modernized world. So also, one cannot read much of Emergent writing without getting a sense for their distrust of modernity. Now, their critiques do not specifically have to do with colonization in the same way that Liberation theology did, but they do very much wish that Christianity was not associated with, say the Republican part in America or what some on the political left see as a new imperialism.

5. Critical towards an overly rational faith

In staying with this theme of a distrust of modernity, another aspect of modernity which is looked down upon by both Liberation theology and the Emergent church is what they perceive as an overly rational approach to faith. In Liberation theology this works itself out in an attempt to move theological reflection from the academy to the common people. In their own terms they would say that theology ought not be something that is limited to the “intellectual or cultural elite”. In the Emergent church we see the move away from an overly rational faith in things like a return to more mystic church practices. Another way this is seen is in the whole discussions regarding epistemology.

To make my point, read what Brian McLaren has written and see if it sounds anything at all like Gustavo Gutierrez.

In the modern world, theology was done by scholars, and was expressed in books and lectures. In the postmodern world, many of us believe that the theologians will have to leave the library more often and mix with the rest of us. And the best of them will join hands and hearts with the poets, musicians, filmmakers, actors, architects, interior and landscape designers, dancers, sculptors, painters, novelists, photographers, web designers, and every other artistic brother and sister possible not only to communicate a postmodern, Christian theology but also to discern it, discover it. Because one major shift of this transition is the shift from left-brain to whole-brain, from reductionistic, analytic rationalism to a broader theological holism a theology that works in mind and heart, understanding and imagination, proposition and image, clarity and mystery, explanation and narrative, exposition and artistic expression.

6. An emphasis on orthopraxis

One of the terms which shows up often in Liberation theology is orthopraxis or “right living”. This is sort of their alternative to the point above about rational faith. One writer describes liberation theology in the following way: “Theology is not the basis of pastoral work, but occurs in light of it. Indeed, theology is then a process, a discerning of the times and of what needs to be done.” You test a theology by how it is worked out in practice. So also, the Emergent church is a movement, mainly by pastors or lay leaders in the church who are concerned about how doctrine gets lived out in the culture.

7. Political associations

Those who know anything about Liberation theology do not need to be reminded that it has strong political and economic associations. When it comes to the Emergent church it is not always obvious that it too has political associations. At the same time I think some connections can be made. For example, as I said above, most members of the Emergent church are very uncomfortable with the way that Evangelicalism has, at least in the media’s eyes, become affiliated with the Republican party. A lot of them see this as bad and something which needs to be moved away from. Also, it is no secret that Brian McLaren is good friends with people like Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo, both of whom are very politically engaged Christians.

8. Community and structural sin

Finally, both groups no only have a positive view of community but also there is a call to see some “communities” or structures as sinful. Both groups want to move away from an overly individualized view of Christianity. This is both in terms of sin and salvation. We’ve already mentioned a little bit about what they see as the positive aspects of community. The flip side to emphasizing the communal aspects of salvation is the communal aspects of sin. For both Liberation theology and the Emergent church, it is not just individuals who are sinful but also non-personal structures. For example, in Liberation theology capitalism was seen as a sinful economic system. One gets the sense that some in the Emergent church might say the same thing as something like foundationalist epistemology (sorry for using loaded words without defining them) or the political associations described above.

Well, that is a fast and brief overview of some of the similarities that I see between Liberation theology and the Emergent church. This proposal is definitely lacking in terms of specific quotes and references; in doing so I am assuming on the part of the reader at least some familiarity with the two movements. I’d be curious to have some interaction with some of these points.

I came across a great document put out by the Mississippi Valley Presbytery. It is the the results of a committee which was comissioned to research and report on the New Perspectives on Paul. Although this topic has been around since the 70’s, it has been getting a lot of press lately because of people like NT Wright. What I have found is that for those new to Biblical Studies, it is difficult to get up to speed on the issue and its implications for other areas of theology. The document by the MVP is a wonderful introduction into the topic. If you’ve heard about the New Perspectives but haven’t quite figured out just what everyone is talking about, this document will be very helpful.

LINK: Mississippi Valley Presbytery report on the New Perspectives on Paul

Here is a link to the audio files from the Radical Reformission Conference. The conference was held back in November in Seattle. Mark Driscoll and John Piper were the main speakers. This was a pretty good conference. I really appriciated Piper’s candidness and courage to address current pressing issues in the church. I found his first session on Open Theism to be very well done. The sessions are pretty long, but if you have the time, I would encourage you to listen.

LINK: Radical Reformission Conference audio

I came across a great apologetic response to the culture’s false commitment to “moral neutrality”. This was a lecture given by Greg Koukal of Stand to Reason at the University of California. It is a wonderful example of how to help people of our culture see the inconsistency between what they profess to be their worldview, namely moral relativism, and how they actually live. Understanding this is a huge step forward in helping our culture see, first, the reality of moral absolutes, second, acknowledge that they know they have not abided by those moral absolutes and third, that they are therefore accountable to the One who established those moral realities. Koukal speaks with great clarity on these issues and I recommend this lecture for your encouragement.

LINK: Greg Koukal at UC (real media)

The concept of a “worldview” is one which is used often today, especially at Christian colleges. On one level this is exciting because the topic of worldviews is incredibly important. On another level it is disappointing because it has led to an information inflation regarding worldview studies. This leads to the subject becoming so familiar that it begins to lose its worth. One recent effort explaining the need for a Christian worldview, as well as, how to develop one is a book called Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey (Crossway, 2004). This book serves has a monumental step forward in the ongoing discussion of a Christian worldview and its comprehensive influence on all of life. As somewhat of course book for the Christian worldview Total Truth is thorough in its analysis, broad in its scope and quite clear in its treatment.

One of the main themes in the book is an analysis and rejection of, what Francis Schaeffer called, a “two-story” view of truth. In today’s world there are two “stories” or levels of truth – facts and values. Both are true, but in a different sense. Facts are “true” because they can be publicly verified. In our society the naturalistic worldview, characterized by a commitment (although sometimes unspoken) to Darwinian evolution, has come to dominate this lower, more concrete story. The other side of truth is that of values, which are limited to being more personal, private and subjective. Pearcey’s claim is that, sadly, Christians has accepted these false categories and have become content to speak only from and to the realm of values. As a result, Christianity is pushed out of public life and consigned to the private sector. This capitulation of Christianity to the thought forms of this world is a problem because it does not harmonize with the claims of the Bible. Christianity is not just about subjective, privatized religion, rather it speaks to the whole of reality; it is the truth concerning reality. It is Total Truth. It is truth because it is revealed to us by the Author of Truth. Yet how many Christians live as though Christianity were totally true, not just true for what we do during our devotions or in our small groups or on Sundays, but truth concerning all aspects of reality? Moreover, do we really believe that Christianity has something to say about the social problems of the world, life and relationships in the home, or how businesses should operate? Our answers to these questions have significant bearing on all that we do. Above all, if Christianity is total truth, then Christians need not despair that they are not really engaged in Kingdom work if they are not in full time ministry. Because God has called us to redeem all of culture with His truth, each person’s vocation/calling is significant and plays an important part of God’s work of redemption in the world.

Pearcey’s book is divided into four sections. The first section deals with identifying different forms of a “two-storied” view of truth and also provides the foundation for a Biblical worldview rooted in Creation, Fall and Redemption. The second section focuses specifically on the Creation. It critiques Darwinian naturalism, as well as, the influence of the naturalistic worldview on other disciplines outside of science. Subsequently, a defense of intelligent design is given to show how Christianity does speak to the whole of reality and even serves as a more coherent alternative to naturalism. The third section is devoted to a short history of American evangelicalism and explains why we have largely acquiesced to the two story division of truth. Finally, in the fourth section, Pearcey addresses some suggestions for how Christians can be salt and light in the world.

This is an important book which I strongly recommend be read by all Christians. If it means anything, I spent my entire weekend just reading this book. It was too intriguing to put down. Seriously consider getting it; each of us needs to be aware of the thought forms and worldviews of our day which inform every aspect of our lives, be they political, economic, domestic, scientific, literary or artistic. This book serves as a fervent call to evangelicals to wake up from our cultural captivity to the paradigms of the world, especially the fact/value split. May we be people who believe that “Christianity is not just religious truth but truth about total reality. It is total truth.”

LINK: Amazon.com Tim Challies’ review

This article has been out for a week now, but it’s getting some attention so I thought I’d make a comment about it. Last week Time magazine named the 25 Most Influential “Evangelicals”. I’m always fascinated by the way the media portrays “Evangelicals”. This is mainly for two reasons. First is that I never knew the group was so big. At least according to time it includes Roman Catholics and a modalist (one who denies the tri-personality of Trinity). The second reason is that, although I’ve usually heard of the people mentioned, I guess I never really knew just how influential they are. I wish that every media person could have attended the important conference at Gordon Conwell this past weekend called, What is an Evangelical? I didn’t go, but I’m sure it would have been very helpful. Larry King had a couple of the individuals on his show last week as well. I’m anxious to see what becomes of the name Evangelical in the years to come.

Here’s the list of people who made the cut: Howard & Roberta Ahmanson, David Barton, Doug Coe, Chuck Colson, Luis Cort?جø¬?s, James Dobson, Stuart Epperson, Michael Gerson, Billy & Franklin Graham, Ted Haggard, Bill Hybels, T.D. Jakes, Diane Knippers, Tim & Beverly LaHaye, Richard Land, Brian McLaren, Joyce Meyer, Richard John Neuhaus, Mark Noll, J.I. Packer, Rick Santorum, Jay Sekulow, Stephen Strang, Rick Warren, and Ralph Winter.

LINKS: Time article Blog post at Christianity Today Larry King Live! transcript

Preliminary considerations

There is much that I could address concerning the Emergent conversation. While I’m sure that I am biting off much more than I can chew, at present the list of topics that I feel pressed to tackle includes:

- A humble attempt towards a definition - A brief history of Evangelicalism - The Emergent desire to reject “exclusivist” or “exclusionary” language - The Emergent understanding of the relationship between message and method - The Emergent understanding and presentations of modernity/postmodernity - Emergent church worship practices

These are just a few of the issues that I would like to engage. More may be added to this list, but this is probably enough for now. I plan to address just one at a time and to do so relatively slowly. I presuppose that the reader have at least some familiarity with Emergent writing. To gain a better understanding of what the Emergent Church is see my bibliography, especially Justin Taylor’s very helpful chapter. Two final words of clarification, first these are not meant to be thorough or comprehensive articles, they are simply some of my present thoughts on the Emergent conversation; please don’t take them for more than what they are. Second, I apologize that this first installment lacks explicit Scriptural references. That will change in the future. I hope that these articles prove to be helpful to both those fully aware of the conversation as well as those who have no clue what the Emergent Church is. Feel free to add your comments to what I write. Well, that’s probably enough qualifications for now.

Living Missionally

It seems appropriate to me to begin these series of articles on a feature of the Emergent conversation that I find beneficial. One of the main emphases of the Emergent conversation is its call to live missionally. The word “missional” is often used in Emergent writing and dialogue. At its heart, the call to live missionally is a call to live like a missionary in one’s own sphere of influence. This includes a desire to think about Christian living and cultural engagement as a missionary would. Missiologists have long discussed the portability of Christianity to other contexts and cultures. Indeed one of the reasons why Christianity has flourished around the world is the fact that it can, to some degree, be separated from the culture in which it thrives. I say to some degree only because I believe that God specifically revealed himself to the Jewish people in their culture, parts of which must then inevitably become ours if we are to understand them rightly. For example, one will completely misunderstand Christ’s cross work if they do not first have a solid understanding of Jewish temple practices involving sin and sacrifice. That issue aside, on the whole, Emergent folks do a good job of encouraging Christians to distinguish between those parts of Christianity which are essential to it and those which are the cultural outworkings of it. As a result, their call to understand the culture, like a missiologist would, and to then live in ways appropriate to that understanding are completely commendable.

As I see it, living missionally has two major components. The first is to take a hard critical look at present day Evangelicalism and to separate the Biblical wheat from the cultural chaff. That is to say, they call us to look at Evangelicalism, specifically some of its ethical outworkings, and rethink them. For example, is it appropriate for a Christian to frequent a local bar with the intention of befriending some of the people there? The contention of the Emergent folks is that, at least according to their own experience, the forms of Evangelicalism in which they have grown up would have been hostile to such practices. They say that this kind of activity would have been discouraged because they were told that a Christian does not belong at a bar. This is because bars are perceived to be a place where drunkenness occurs and where one might be negatively influenced by the world. The Emergent folks rethink this attitude and say that it is not a sin to frequent a bar, instead it is a sin to engage in the activities which a bar might, but not necessarily, foster.

Reflecting on this example just for a moment, I would say that their contention seems to be more with fundamentalism than with evangelicalism. The way that they describe their experiences and the kinds of things to which they are describing, appear to me to be very similar, if not almost identical, to the kind of things that early Evangelicals in the 1940’s and 50’s said about fundamentalists. The whole reason for creating a distinction between fundamentalists and evangelicals was this issue of cultural engagement and the approach with which Christians interacted with the world. Early evangelicals reacted strongly to those fundamentalists who, in the face of secular perils like evolution, retreated to the trenches, as it were, and disengaged from public debate and dialogue. This is something that I hope to pursue further in an upcoming article.

This example of the Christian at the bar leads to the second main feature of what it means to live missionally; that is the emphasis on growing one’s circle of non-Christian friends. The bar, Emergent folks say, is exactly the place where Jesus would be in our culture today. He was one who befriended those in society who were labeled “sinners”. Besides it is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick. When that is understood, what better place to spread the good news of Jesus Christ than the bar? As such they encourage us to live like a missionary in our own town. I have to admit, that it is quite convicting to think about the number of non-Christian friends that I have. Honestly, the number is very small. Therefore, their call to have us befriend non-Christians is warranted and commendable.

That being said, one thing that I see missing from their discussions of what it means to live missionally is the need to be discerning. They are so passionate about challenging the assumed norms of evangelical ethics that they neglect the fact that there are some parts of culture which are “off limits” for Christian engagement. For example, I would say that it would be inappropriate for a Christian to attend a strip club, even with the desire to evangelize them. Although, I do agree that befriending individuals who are either employed at strip clubs or frequent them is an appropriate and necessary task of Christians. Unfortunately, it is these kinds of helpful and necessary discussions which, it seems to me, are completely missing from the Emergent conversation.

A word of caution that I would like to add to this conversation about living missionally is a reminder of vocation or calling. There are times when I fear that this call to live missionally will be misunderstood. Because living missionally is often compared and contrasted with being a missionary in a foreign country, I’m worried that to some individuals it will sound like a call to leave one’s daily vocation. One does not need to leave their present calling in order to live missionally. What is more, staying in one’s present vocation is an integral part of living missionally. It is not necessary to get discouraged and feel like “if only I could cut out parts of my daily calling then I would be able to better focus on this goal of living like a missionary.” Again, that is not what living missionally entails. We all receive different vocations or callings and it is our responsibility to be faithful to Christ’s work in the place that he has called us. Living missionally does not mean that you need to quit your job in order to have more time to focus on the work of local missions. Let me quickly add that living missionally might require one to make some modifications to their living style, but Christians can feel quite confident that they can live missionally in the very place that God has called them. Remain as a Christian businessman or woman. Remain as a Christian homemaker. Honor God in your work and seek to love others in that place. If a church is committed to living missionally it needs people in all parts of society. This reminder of Christian vocation is not to say that the wrong mentality is being promoted by Emergent leaders, rather it is something that I think most of them would agree with, I simply wanted to make it more explicit.

Let me make one final point about the call to live missionally, what exactly is new here? I mean, when I read most Emergent folks, they speak as if this whole call to live missionally and for ordinary Christians to be engaged in the work of local evangelism is something new. Maybe it is just my upbringing, but I have heard that message before; it is not new. Throughout middle school and high school I was constantly encouraged by my youth group leaders to get to know those non-Christians at my school and to invite them to our small groups. Never was I told to “hit and run” evangelize them in the hallway during a passing period, as some Emergent writers would characterize as happening all the time. I wish that some of these individuals would be more specific in their critiques than so broad and generic, for not all wings of Evangelicalism are the same. Moreover, as I said above, what is so often characterized as Evangelical sounds more to me like fundamentalist. Showing some recognition of this, I think, would provide a necessary amount of nuance to their critiques and it would provide a more positive (even encouraging) example of how to live missionally.

In conclusion, the call to live missionally is indeed a needed and commendable feature of the Emergent conversation. I pray that it does spark something within Christians to allow their identity as a follower of Christ to influence every aspect of their lives, including their relationships with non-Christians. God’s people are called to be an example of Christ’s love in their specific spheres of influence. It is an important and necessary work of building the kingdom. Take seriously the call to live missionally in the context of your vocation. Do so with a confidence in Him who has called you because ultimately it is his work that we are doing and it is by his strength that we do it. Honor God, love and serve others and do both with great joy.

Amongst those that I know and converse with, one of the topics of conversation has been what is called “the Emergent Church”. This is something which I have been reading about since last summer. I have noticed that it is difficult to become involved in “the conversation” of Emergent people, therefore, I have attempted to put together a short bibliography for those of you who would like to know more about the movement. I hope that you find it helpful. Please keep in mind that I do not endorse everything found in this list; it is simply a resource for those who need it. I would have liked to have provided some commentary on each of these, but that will have to wait. In the coming week or two, I hope to post some of my own present thoughts about the Emergent Church. But until then, you can spend some time sorting through the links below.

Some good places to start:

DA Carson’s description and evaluation

Some how they ended up here for free

Justin Taylor’s chapter from Reclaiming the Center (very helpful) A long conversation with students from Denver Seminary about the EC (good read)

Christianity Today article

See McLaren’s annotations to the article at his site

Christian Century article

Other resources:

Tim Challies’ blog (he is unapologetically critical of the movement)

An article by Tony Campolo (who most might put in the Emergent Camp) on the EC

Books and Culture ran a multi-part series of people responding to McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian (unfortunately, you’ll have to find these articles at your local library, or pay to view them online)

Andy Crouch Mark Dever Tony Jones McLaren’s rejoinder

“The Neo-Fundamentalism of the Evangelical Left” by: Russell D. Moore

The Church in Emerging Culture

Reclaiming the Center

Jason Clark on being a new king of Christian

Some popular websites:

Next Wave (great Emergent blog that links to relevant posts)

The Ooze

Vintage Faith (Dan Kimball’s site)

Emergent Village

Emergent YS (Other books published under the heading of Emergent YS)

Jason Clark (Emergent UK)

Sally Morgenthaler

Some of the people who represent the movement and their books:

Dan Kimball

The Emerging Church

Emergent Worship

Stanley J. Grenz

A Primer on Post-Modernism

Beyond Foundationalism

Renewing the Center

Revisioning Evangelical Theology

Evangelical Futures

Robert Webber:

The Younger Evangelicals

Ancient Future Faith

Ancient Future Evangelism

Brian McLaren:

McLaren’s Website

His Church

Videos and audio

A New Kind of Christian

A Generous Orthodoxy

Book Reviews of Generous Orthodoxy:

Craig Bloomberg of Denver Seminary

Tim Challies

The Church on the Other Side

The Story We Find Ourselves In

Roger Olson

Postconservative Evangelicals Greet the Postmodern Age

Dallas Willard (Willard isn’t necessarily directly connected with Emergent stuff, but people like McLaren really appreciate him, so I thought I’d include him in this list)

Renovation of the Heart

The Divine Conspiracy

Finally, as I’ll point out in my forthcoming article on the Emergent Church, this is not a uniform movement. Two of those who might be lumped in this whole Emergent group but are really much more orthodox in their theology and balanced in the approach are Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller. Without saying too much, I’m more excited about these two men than I am about the above individuals. Here are some resources to get to know them better.

Mark Driscoll

Mars Hill (His Church)

Radical Reformission

Radical Reformission conference (with audio)

Another audio message explaining reformission

Tim Keller

Redeemer Pres (His Church)

Listen to their vision and values sermons explaining what the church is all about

A more balanced article on reaching the culture

What does missional mean?

If you have more resources to add to this list; feel free to send them my way. I’d love to take a look at them.

I came across an awesome program today called MediaMan. It is a program that organizes all of your media (CD, DVD, Books, etc). I’ve been really jealous of Mac users who can use Delicious Library for their media managing needs, so when I came across this progam, I was thrilled. Here are some of the highlights of the program features. - Import all information about media simply by typing in the ISBN, author or title (very handy and saves a lot of time typing) - A really cool view where your media covers are displayed on a shelf - Keep track of books/cd/dvd you have lent out and to whom they are lent

This is a great program and best of all. . . its FREE!!

LINK: MediaMan

Last week an historic event took place. There was a discussion/debate between two of the Supreme Court Justices: Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer. The debate was over the citation/relevance of foreign policy when interpreting the US Constitution. This was really a very interesting discussion. It touches on the issues like hermenuetics and the overall moral progression of humanity. I think that Justice Scalia did a wonderful job of laying out the issues in the debate and highlighting the purpose of a judge. I wish I had more time to comment on the rather lengthy discussion, but a link to the video and transcript will have to suffice for now.

LINK: Supreme Court Justice Debate

I’m usually not one to make predictions, but when it comes to new music I usually do pretty well. With that said, here are two new musical suggestions to check out.

Blue Merle This is a bluegrass/rock band. The best way I can think to describe their music is the perfect blend of Coldplay and Nickel Creek. Their CD will be released on Feb 15.

Stephen Kellogg and the Sixers I first heard Stephen Kellogg 2 years ago. He is from around the Boston area. He’s all about having fun; similar to a Jason Mraz. A great folk/rock sound. His new CD will be released on Feb 15.

LINK: Blue Merle Stephen Kellogg

I’ve added a new section to the image gallery. It contains screenshots of what my current desktop looks like. I’ll update the gallery when I update my desktop. Feel free to ask any questions about things you see in the screenshots. Here’s a preview

[g-85579]

Enjoy.

LINK: Screenshot gallery

On Larry King the other day, he interviewed leaders representative of various world religions concerning their views of the tsunami. Among them were a Muslim, a Catholic, an Evangelical, a Jew and a Buddhist and a “spiritual advisor”. It was really interesting to hear the ways in which their different worldviews inform the way they understand the tsunami. I’ll mention two highlights of the conversation. The first was the response of the Buddhist who said that there was a supernatural being had no involvement in the event. It is simply a natural phenomenon about which we have no explanation. The other response which I found particularly interesting was that of the Jewish leader. He spent a great deal of time talking about his understanding of God and how it is changing. At times, his comments would be indistinguishable from that of an open theist. Very interesting. You can read the transcript for yourself at the link below.

LINK: Larry King Live!

UPDATE You can listen to Albert Mohler’s reflective thoughts on the program at his site.

LINK: Mohler’s Comments

I have been deeply saddened by the news in Asia concerning the tsunami. At times, I am just numb to how much devastation occurred in such a short period of time. In a time such as this, how ought a Christian respond? What are we to say to one another and to a world who queries us for an answer about why the event occurred and what we should do?

First, I think that it is important that we mourn with those who mourn. It is appropriate in such a time as this to be sorrowful for those who have lost so much; especially those whose families have been torn apart. I think of Jesus who, though he knew exactly what had, was and would take place, wept at the death of his friend Lazarus. His example shows us that there is such a thing has righteous mourning – mourning which recognizes the devastation which has occurred and its wrongness, yet all the while maintaining a proper perspective on the situation.

This leads to my second response which is one of remembrance. In trying and difficult times, we must go back to the Scriptures and be reminded of the God whom we serve in order to maintain a proper perspective. In light of that, what do the Scriptures say concerning God and the seas?

God is the creator of all things, including the sea.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:9-10)

The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. (Ps 95:5)

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap; he puts the deeps in storehouses. (Ps 33:6-7)

The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers. (Ps 24:1-2)

God not only created the seas, but he actively controls them.

By awesome deeds you answer us with righteousness, O God of our salvation, the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas; the one who by his strength established the mountains, being girded with might; who stills the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, the tumult of the peoples, so that those who dwell at the ends of the earth are in awe at your signs. (Ps 65:5-8)

You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them. (Ps 89:9)

Mightier than the thunders of many waters, mightier than the waves of the sea, the Lord on high is mighty! (Ps 93:4)

Then he [Jesus] rose and rebuked the winds and the sea and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” (Matt 9:3)

This is but a sampling of the many verses which could be consulted concerning the matter of God and the seas. But from these we see that the Christian must affirm that God is lord of the seas. Inevitably from this plain assertion, the question then arises: Did God cause the deaths of 150,000+ people when the tsunami struck in December? Again, let us turn to the Scriptures for guidance in answering this question.

We know that God is lord of both life and death (Dt 32:39). Life is a gift; God gives us life and he has the power to take it away (Acts 17:23-26).

We also know that because both in Adam, all sinned, and that after Adam, all sin; all justly deserve death as punishment for their iniquities (Rom 3:23, 5:12, 6:23). No one can claim innocence before the holy God (Rom 3:9-20). All must come to repentance and place their trust and faith in God’s mercy as revealed in Jesus Christ and his atoning work on the cross. What is more is that not only does humanity suffer the effects of the fall, but the creation too longs for ultimate redemption (Rom 8:18-22).

Therefore, in light of all of this, we have to reject the notion that God is somehow unfair in allowing the death of so many in a storm like the one last week. God is perfectly just in all that he does and he does whatever he pleases, to the praise of his glory (Ps 135:6). But before saying any more, let me be quick to say that God is just but he is also merciful. Though God could deal with us as we are, namely sinners, daily he is merciful towards us. As Scripture says, his mercies are new every morning (Lam 2:22-23). There is not a day that we live in which we do not receive grace and mercy from Him.

All of this is then to say that, as John Piper has so wisely observed, in all things there is often a mixture of both God’s judgment and mercy. What I think is profound is that often the images of “the sea” in Scripture are also opportunities for both judgment and mercy. Immediately, one thinks of Noah and the flood. Here God both brings judgment upon the peoples of the earth for their wickedness and mercifully cares for Noah and his family. Or one thinks of the Exodus, where God’s mercy was revealed through the sea in the salvation of the Israelites as he parted the Red Sea so that they could safely escape the pursuing Egyptian army. At the same time, that same sea, which was an instrument of mercy for the Israelites, then became an instrument of judgment upon Pharaoh’s army. One sea, one event, both judgment and mercy.

Therefore, we have to be very careful when addressing meaning of the tsunami. In general, is the tsunami part of God’s judgment? Yes. This is because we know that death, destruction and disaster are a result of the Fall. Were it not for humanity’s rebellion against God these things would not occur. But we live in a fallen world and as a result events such as this take place. But is the tsunami part of God’s specific judgment upon individuals? To this question we must simply shut our mouth. We have no way of knowing another person’s heart and so we mustn’t try and address the question of another individual’s standing before God. We know that Job experienced great tribulation and not necessarily because of anything that he had done. Furthermore, we know that when Jesus was asked whose sin caused a man to be born blind, he replied by saying that it was not a result of someone’s sin. Instead it was an opportunity for the glory of God to be made manifest in the restoration of the man’s sight (John 9). So, to say that we know the specific cause or meaning of the tsunami is arrogant, irresponsible and ultimately an attempt to speak for God where he has not spoken.

Along with seeing God’s general judgment in the tsunami, we also see examples of his mercy. We see this in the amazing and miraculous stories of survival being told by those whose lives were spared from the disaster. We also see God’s mercy in prompting many around the world to give sacrificially of their finances and time to help with the relief efforts. Finally, the tsunami is also an example of God’s mercy by serving as a shocking opportunity for some to recognize their own finiteness and sinfulness and to turn to Jesus in repentance and faith. Therefore, I continue to affirm, as I did before the tsunami struck, that God was and is omnipotent, sovereign, just, merciful and loving. This event need not serve as an opportunity for doubt to those who know the God of the Bible. He is reliable and you can continue to trust Him.

A final place in which the Bible speaks of the sea is in Revelation 21:1ff. There John, describing the new heavens and the new earth, writes, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.” This might seem like an odd phrase as first, but in light of what we have seen before and what could be demonstrated by other places in Scripture, this passage makes a little more sense. We have seen that in the Ancient Near East (and even today) the sea is a terrible and terrifying part of the natural world. Moreover it is often associated with judgment. So when John writes that in the new heavens and new earth there will be no more sea, what he is saying is that the judgment will be complete. In the new heavens and the new earth there will be no more fear of judgment. Christ will have made all right in the world. Those who, by faith, are counted as righteous because of Christ’s cross work will be with him forever. And those who have not acknowledged Jesus Christ as both savior and lord will suffer everlasting punishment. Therefore, the most appropriate personal response to the tsunami is repentance and faith. We need to repent of our sinful nature and actions which separate us from the holy God and we need to trust in Jesus Christ for our comfort both in this life and in the life to come when by God’s grace there will be no more sea.

I love books. As a result, I read a lot of them. I’ve added a section on the sidebar called “currently reading”. This list includes a couple different categories:

1. Books I’ve recently obtained but haven’t started reading yet 2. Books I am currently reading (either for school or personal choice) 3. Books I’ve recently finished

I hope to keep this as current as possible. I also hope to develop my writing skills by providing book reviews to some of the books which I read. I trust that you find this list useful.

This Christmas season is turning out to be quite odd. The presidential election this year revealed a larger “religious” population in the US than was previously thought. It seems that this has awakened those in culture who are terrified of Christianity gaining any kind of voice in the public square. This has made for a very different kind of Christmas season. Even before this year, Christmas has been a strange time of year. Originally started as a Christian celebration of the incarnation of Jesus, it has turned into an opportunity for commercial gain. It is no secret that big business counts on this time of year as one of the biggest spending seasons. Oddly though, it is they who are now trying to downplay Christian aspects of the holiday. From the Christian perspective it seems as though these companies are biting the hand that has fed them. (see an interesting article in the NYTIMES on the history of gift giving).

There are many news stories which tell of individuals who claim that any mention of certain aspects of Christianity in relation to Christmas are a broach of the separation between church and state. This can be seen most clearly through businesses who encourage their employees to say “happy holidays” as opposed to “merry Christmas” to their customers. There are others who see this as simply trying to put a band aid on an open wound and would rather that we do away with Christmas altogether. Oddly enough this has been taken to such broad extremes as trying to ban the presence of evergreen trees and forbid students to wear the colors of red and green during the month of December (see Albert Mohler’s article) This has raised concerns amongst some Christian groups who are now on the offensive, attempting to again place Christ at the center of Christmas. Recently on the news was a story about a pastor in the south who encouraged his congregation to boycott stores which did not explicitly use the phrase “merry Christmas”. This seems to be somewhat of a strange response because it uses the aspect of the season which most Christians preach against, namely commercialization and materialism, and uses it as a weapon against secular businesses.

All of this raises interesting questions related to the place of Christianity in American culture. Ought the government recognize a holiday specifically associated with a religion? If so, how much can the government implicitly condone the celebration of such holidays? Moreover, who decides which religions and holidays will be recognized? If they do not promote them in ways appropriate to the specific religion, are they being unfaithful to that religion and ought they then abandon the celebration all-together? On the other hand, it is inevitable that many religions will be present in a country. In a democracy such as America, where the country is, in some sense, governed by the people, is it not then unreasonable to think that the country recognized days of celebration will be a reflection of the concerns of the people, many of whom will be members of some form of organized religion? Even if the government tries to remain non-religious, is not this too a form of “religion”?

Perhaps something to keep in mind is that this season is not being “forced” on anyone. Although that is what the secularists want to say, no one is forcing anyone to buy or celebrate anything. I think the question we need to ask is: In America, being a free society and a democracy, the majority of people want to engage in buying and selling gifts around December; if the majority of people freely choose to do that, what should those who do not want to participate do?

In the end, this state of affairs puts both parties, secular and sacred, in difficult positions. The secular feels that religion is given too much recognition when the government sanctions religiously affiliated holidays. So too, the sacred feel that their traditions are being disrespected when the state acknowledges but severely twists them.

Given this current situation, what is the Christian’s duty? Humbly, I say that it is the Christian’s duty to live peaceably with all his or her neighbors; to let their love be genuine. I also say that it is the Christian’s duty to stand firm upon the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Be resolute in your convictions: that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity was born of a Virgin; that he was both fully God and fully man; that he came to this earth to save his people from their sins; that he was crucified, died, and was buried, but that he rose again and is now with the Father in heaven and that he will come again. Jesus Christ is both Savior and Lord. That is our confession. May we honor him in all we do this season so that he, alone may receive all the glory. Merry Christmas!

In order to take advantage of all the new features on Modblog, I thought I’d share my current desktop wallpaper. It’s perfect for this time of year. Enjoy.

[g-60700]

Yesterday I finished my finals for this semester. That means that I only have 1 more semester left of college. What an odd thought? All of that means I that I really need to start working on what I’ll be doing next year. Right now, I’m leaning towards going to grad school/seminary. But at this point, I’m just ready for a nice relaxing break. Tomorrow I’ll be making the long drive back to Wheaton from Boston (18 hours). I always enjoy the alone time.

On a completely unrelated note, I just found out today that the site I use to host this blog (Modblog) just announced that they are making a whole bunch of features of the site free to all. As a result, I’ll try and take advantage of the ability to host pictures and files and post some links here. It is very generous of them to provide services like that free of charge. Well, that’s all for now, I’ll have more from Wheaton in a couple of days.

I’ve been really busy the past week or so. My parents came out to visit me here at college. That was a great time. I have also been trying to get ready for a conference that I am going to next week. The Evangelical Theological Society is having their annual conference in San Antonio, Texas next week, so I and some others from here at Gordon will be going down to that. It should prove to be a wonderful time.

In the past few weeks I have come across a number of items which I would like to recommend.

Shane Barnard: Clean

I always appriciate a new cd from Shane Barnard. I’ve been listening to him for a while now and with each new cd he always continues with the same message of how much better Christ is than anything else we try to use to satisfy our souls.

Griffin House: Lost & Found

One of the people who plays on Shane’s new cd is Ian Fitchuk. Ian is a friend of mine from High School. He is a very talented musician. He plays in a new band with this guy Griffin House. They are really great.

Caedmon’s Call: Share the Well

Caedom’s Call has really done a great thing with this new cd. They spent the better part of a year over in India and then in South America visiting fellow believers in Christ and this album is the fruit of those trips. It is a great encouragement to see and hear about believers around the world. At the same time this record serves as a call to be involved with much of the suffering and persecution which is taking place around the world.

Derek Webb: I See Things Upside Down

Derek’s new cd is a different kind of record. He has called it a musical exeriment, and I would agree with that. While the lyrics are pretty good, the music and recording quality takes a little getting used to. I’ll look forward to seeing where Derek goes from here.

Mozilla Firefox

Last week a great new web browser was released. It is called Firefox. I think I’ve probably plugged this before, but now the product is at version 1 and it is really nice. The two features which I really like are the tabbed browsing and the search-as-you-type. These really help to make using the internet much easier.

Konfabulator

I mentioned this the other day, but now Konfabulator is available for Windows. This is a great little program which allows you to run “widgets” on your desktop. Widgets are little “mini” applications to do all sorts of neat and helpful tasks. For example, I have the latest stock prices on my desktop as well as the current and future weather conditions. It is a very handy little app.

Here are 20 reasons why you should never post your picture on the internet. Very funny.

Link: 20 Reasons

It is with some nervousness that I post these thoughts. I am not a student of political science and have not done nearly as much research as I could, yet I am a member of society and of America and so I have an obligation to participate in the political fabric of our society. It is in this sense then that I feel okay posting these thoughts. They are meant for dialogue, so please feel free to engage me on them.

a Christian I find myself as a member of what Martin Luther called two kingdoms, the kingdom of earth and the kingdom of heaven. I am a member of both kingdoms and have responsibilities to and in each of them. My ultimate allegiance is to the Triune God, but in this present time I have been called upon to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matt 22:21). Governments are part of the fabric of society and as a member of that society I have a responsibility to be involved. This is because the government has been instituted by God; "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1). God has appointed the government has his appointed means of restraining evil and promoting good in this world; "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (1 Pet 2:13-14). In light of this, I ought to always be in prayer for our leaders and those in government (1 Tim 2:1-2) and to follow God's command: "seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare" (Jer 29:7). What does all of this mean? It means, at least, that I am to go to the polls and vote.

The question for me is not should I vote, but rather, for whom should I vote? Inevitably this is a difficult question. It has been answered by many in this country and on our campus, but in the end each voter must decide for whom they will cast their vote and be able to give some rational for the decision which they have made. What follows is a small portion of my rational for why I will be voting for George W. Bush in the 2004 Election. I make no claims concerning the strength of my reasoning; I am simply offering my thoughts on this year's election for public reading. My reasons for voting for a certain candidate are not the reasons of others, but again each voter ought to be able to provide some reason for their decisions and this is mine. As a side note, I would encourage you to write out your own reasons for why you have chosen to vote for the a certain candidate. Over time I expect these snapshots captured in writing will be most interesting to look back upon.

In this election, one of the main issues for me is the fact that whoever is elected president will be charged with the task of appointing a couple of Supreme Court judges. Given the moral shape of our culture and the growing number of renegade judges around the country who think it is their job to create law rather than interpret it, the appointment of new judges seems to be very important. Kerry is a self-claimed liberal on moral issues, and I am scared to think who he would appoint and how those individuals would shape our culture in years to come, long after either he or Bush are out of office.

On a related note, I believe that abortion is morally wrong. Similarly, I believe that the production of human embryos for stem cell research is morally wrong. These are not just personal morals but rather absolute ones. Therefore I have trouble understanding Kerry's position of disagreeing with abortion in principle but promoting it in practice. His desire to create an unhealthy divide between moral absolutes and public policy is one which I do not support and it then becomes difficult for me to cast my vote for him.

As for foreign policy, I am not sure how to state my thoughts carefully enough. The decision to go to war with Iraq is in the past. At the time the decision was made, we as a nation all had the same information. Since that point we have gained more information about the situation, information which may or may not have altered those prior decisions. I do not believe that George Bush intentionally misled the American public. But that is in the past, the reality of the situation today is that we are in Iraq and we need to continue the hard and difficult work there. I see President Bush's position on this issue as more consistent than that of Senator Kerry. I am not convinced that the apparent simplicity of Senator Kerry's position is the solution to the quagmire in which we find ourselves.

Given what I have written above, I will inevitably be labeled by the Christian left as a "single issue voter" Usually what is meant by a "single issue voter" is an individual who bases their decision for or against a candidate based on single issues apart from their broader platforms. The implication is that we can overlook certain "shortcomings" in a candidate because of other more important issues. In response to the charge of being a single issue voter, in some sense I acknowledge that this is the case. I am a single issue voter in the negative sense of the word, but not in the positive sense. What I mean is that there are some single issues which if accepted or denied would cause me to not vote for a certain candidate. There are some issues which are of such importance that when compromised, in my mind, disqualify that individual from holding public office. On the other hand, I would not claim to hold a view which we could define as a positive single issue voter. When considering a candidate I do not say that if they hold a certain position I automatically would vote for them regardless of whatever else they may say or do. Perhaps this distinction will be made more clear through the use of an analogy. The one which John Piper uses is that of marriage. When considering who to marry, there are some qualities which automatically remove someone from consideration. On the other hand, one could think of many positive qualities in an individual that ought to be considered in the selection of a husband or wife. It is in this sense that I am fine with being labeled a single issue voter. Let me also say that this charge of being a single issue voter could go both ways. I could just as easily level this charge against those who bring it against me. The question then becomes who gets to decide which issues are of such importance and which are not. I have great difficulty in answering that question, this is because in the end, at some level we all are "single issue voters". Therefore, I would much rather dialogue about each other's "single issues" than point fingers at each other as single issue voters.

In the end, when there is an incumbent candidate, the question for me is: is there a reason to change? At this point, I see no reason to switch presidents. While Bush might not be the best, I see no reason why Kerry would be better and therefore I have chosen to cast my vote for George W. Bush.

In just 8 short days Konfabulator will be released for Windows. Being a computer nerd, I’m pretty exicted about this. Konfabulator is a program which allows you to run little widgets on your desktop. Widgets are small programs which perform neat and interesting tasks or display information. For example, you could have a calendar on your desktop or view the local weather forcast or any number of other things. Up until now Konfabulator has only been available for Macs, but they have now begun the countdown for the release of the Windows version. Head over to their website to see the fun teaser images they have on the frontpage.

Link: Konfabulator

Yesterday was an interesting day in church history. A commission group from the Anglican church released their report on the actions of the American and Canadian churches ordaining homosexual bishops and blessing same sex unions. While, I am not an Anglican, this is really an unique day to be alive in church as history as these issues are being worked through. In light of the signficance of this document I provide a link to it below. I was intrigued by the comments relating to Christian unity, Scriptural authority and interpretation. I encourage you to read the document and, as always, feel free to leave comments on this site.

Links: Lambeth Commission Report Commentary on the document by Al Mohler

A couple days ago, I posted a short collection of verses from the Bible explaining the reasons for God’s working in the stages of redemptive history. Those verses and the doctrine which is taught in them are to me some of the most all encompassing truths I know. The implications for believing them are deep and wide. In order to give you a taste for this and to encourage you to do the same in your own study of the word and its applications to your daily living, let me share some implications that I see this truth having for our times of corporate gathering.

Why do we as Christians gather together regularly, in chapel and on Sundays? We do so in order to magnify God together. Indeed we do this individually in all that we do (1 Cor 10:13), but we also set aside times to come together as the people of God 1) to publicly declare to each other and to the world that God is God and he is to be praised and 2) to receive from him his gifts of life and salvation.

I see the implications of this truth for corporate worship are at least twofold.

First, that God’s passion is for His glory means that our services ought to be radically God centered. There can be no Christian corporate gathering which does not have as its purpose, the proclamation of the glory of God. This must be kept as central in all that we do because it is central in all that God does. When Christians gather together the focus is to be on God; but not in the sense that we are giving something to him which he did not already have. Instead the focus is upon God and our receiving from him those things which only he can give. If we focus upon our act of “giving” in the service the focus shifts from being on the worthiness of God to the acceptability of our offering. While we should be concerned about what it is we are doing in our times of corporate gathering, we can all to easily get caught up in trying to figure out how to best give to God. We then get into fights and arguments with each other about what constitutes our best or that which is most worthwhile to bring before a holy God. Slowly but surely the focus turns from being on God to our own individual wants and preferences. When this happens services then begin to become catered to what the majority of people want to do and not ordered towards the end of seeking to glorify God by being satisfied in him. To keep God as central in our services is to affirm that He is God. We do this because he has commanded us to and because we delight to.

Second, that God is most glorified when his people are most satisfied in him means that our services, when focused upon declaring the glory of God, will be most edifying and encouraging to the believers present. We will not need to try and figure out what people’s felt needs are in order to better meet them with our own devises. We will not need to alter our preaching by telling silly stories or providing mass counseling in order to be relevant. We can trust that when the full council of God’s word, revealing the fullness of his glory, is rightly preached, it will be embraced and enjoyed by the believers. The twin truths that we are to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:13) and that all elements of our corporate meetings should be for the edification of the believers (1 Cor 14:26) are not at odds. They are one end. Our joy is the glory of God and in this God is glorified.

So we must now ask the question: what does it mean to glorify God in our corporate gatherings?

First, we begin by contrasting the word glorify with that of beautify. When we beautify something we usually mean that we make it more beautiful than it was before. This is emphatically NOT what we mean when we say that we are to glorify God. God cannot be made more glorious; for there is nothing which we can give to God which he has not already given to us. Glorifying God does not mean that we add more glory to God.

Second, we might more positively define the word glorify by comparing it with another word, magnify. But in order to do so we must distinguish between the two meanings of magnify. There are two ways one can magnify an object. The first is like a microscope. When you magnify something using a microscope, you take something which is incredibly small and make it look bigger than it really is. If we take this as our definition of what it means to magnify/glorify God, then we make him out to be something less what who he is; this is evil. On the other hand, we can understand the word magnify like a telescope. When you magnify something using a telescope, you take something which might look tiny and begin to reveal its greatness. We look at the stars and they look very small, but through a telescope we begin to see them as they are; huge, fire burning balls of gas in the gigantic universe. To understand the term glorify in this sense is the essence of true worship. We are to declare God’s glory in such a way that others see him for who he truly is. [Taken from John Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life (Crossway, 2003), pg. 32.]

In our times of corporate gathering this takes a number of forms. We glorify God when we read His word to each other and preach it in such a way as to cause those in attendance to be more knowledgeable of God and to grow in their love for Him. We glorify God in our services when we sing of his mighty acts and our delight in Him. We glorify God by using our instruments to aid our fellow believers in singing in unison the praises of our King. We glorify God when we pray to him; thus affirming our deep need and his glorious providence and sufficiency. We glorify God when we acknowledge his work among us in continuing to regenerate sinners. This we in turn recognize by affirming them as part of the covenant community through the practice of baptism. We glorify God by recalling his wonderful work in salvation through the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. It is in all these ways that we glorify God in our times of corporate gathering as Christians.

Especially when we are in positions of leadership, we must seek to glorify God like John the Baptist (see John 1:19-34). John was clear in his denial that he was not the messiah and clear in his affirmation that Jesus was the messiah. So too, we in leadership need to point others to our all-sufficient Savior. Perhaps the best way in which this is accomplished is when the leadership sees themselves as underneath the authority of Scripture. It is easy for those in leadership to think that they are the ones who determine the form and content of the services because they are the ones planning and guiding them; but if this is our understanding we will not glorify God like John the Baptist. The believers in attendance are not to be subject to the inventions of the men in leadership rather all those involved both in leadership and in participation need to be subservient to the authority of God’s Word. It is especially important that those in leadership seek to lead the congregation in ways which are in accordance with what God has revealed in his word about how he is to be worshipped. In this way it is the Scriptures which then give rise to the form and content of the services and the consciences of the gathered community are kept free from submitting to man’s ideas about how God is to be worshipped.

These are just some of the things that come to my mind as I think about the implications of God’s passion for his glory as it relates to Christian corporate worship. There is much more that could be said on this topic, but let this serve as an encouragement to you to think through the deep implications that this truth has for how you live your life.

God's Passion for His Glory
A small survey of the reasons behind God's working in redemptive history

1. Why did God create?
"Bring my sons and daughters from the end of the earth, everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory" - Isaiah 43.6-7

2. Why did He elect Israel among all the nations of the world?
"I made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to me, declares the LORD, that they might be for me a people, a name, a praise, and a glory." - Jeremiah 13.11

3. Why did He save them from Egypt?
"Our fathers, when they were in Egypt did not consider your wondrous works; they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love, but rebelled by the Sea, at the Red sea. Yet he saved them for his name"s sake, that he might make known his mighty power." - Psalm 106.7-8

4. Why did He spare them in the wilderness when they complained against Him?
"But I withheld my hand and acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out." - Ezekiel 20.22

5. Why did He not punish the people in the time after they asked for a king?
"Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil. Yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart. And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty. For the LORD will not forsake his people, for his great name"s sake, because it has pleased the LORD to make you a people for himself." " 1 Samuel 12.20-22

6. Why did He restrain His anger during the Babylonian Captivity?
"For my name"s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you. . . . For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another." - Isaiah 48.9, 11

"Thus says the LORD God: it is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes." " Ezekiel 36.22-23

8. Why did Christ come?
"Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you." " John 17.1

"Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God"s truthfulness, in order to confirm, the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy." - Romans 15.7

9. Why does He forgive our sin?
"For your name"s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great." - Psalm 25.11

10. Why does He work to will and to do His good pleasure in sanctification?
"Your people shall all be righteous; they shall possess the land forever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I might be glorified." - Isaiah 60.21

"He restores my soul, He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name"s sake." - Psalm 23.3

11. Why is He coming again?
"When he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints and to be marveled at among all those who have believed." - 2 Thessalonians 1.9

(This small list was compiled with the help of a couple of theological giants, John Piper and Jonathan Edwards. Men who are described as having a God entranced vision of all things.)

After sitting through convocation yesterday, I walked away with an puzzling question: how do we as Christians encourage each other to be aware of global concerns and issues of social justice without implying that those who work in a secular workplace are a kind of second rate Christian, not really involved in Kingdom work? Maybe this is just something I have to wrestle with here at Gordon, but at times I feel like I am receiving conflicting messages. One week we will talk about vocation and how Christians are called to all areas of the world and can serve God and neighbor in all of them. The next week we will hold up for admiration people who have “left” their secular work for more “honorable” positions of devoting themselves fully to issues of social justice around the world. I fully agree that Christians are to be globally minded and concerned about the welfare of the poor or the AIDS crisis in Africa. But my concern is that when these issues are usually discussed it is with the attitude that if you are not concerned about these things, in the sense of committing yourself to them in a full time position, that you are not really doing what God has called us to do. So, I return to my original question, just how can we as Christians encourage each other to be globally minded and at the same time promote the need for Christians in all areas of work? God has called people to work for the Peace Core as much as in Washington or as in the Prudential building or McDonalds. In whatever your vocation, you are called to serve God and love your neighbor and to do so with all that you are.

The last few weeks I have been thinking, reading and dialoging a lot about the Bible. As one who is a Christian that should not be anything of surprise and yet I have been very saddened by the lack of emphasis on God’s word that I have witnessed. I have been very saddened by the disagreements I have with some over what it means that the Bible is “God breathed”. I have been disappointed by the lack of Scriptural emphasis in discussions about the Trinity. No one will ever understand the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity apart from its Scriptural support. I have been saddened by some research done by the Barna group revealing the large number of people who would call themselves Christians but lack a Biblical worldview; that is those who would believe in Christ, but do not seek to orient all aspects of their lives around what God has revealed to us in his word. Finally, I have been deeply saddened by the presence of a new book claiming to be a Bible translation called The Word on the Street. (You can read some samples from it here). I find it offensive that there are those who would compromise the language of God’s word for the sake of relevance to the culture. It reveals something about our priorities when we will change the word of God in order to try and make it appealing to the culture, as if what the Creator of the universe has said is not relevant enough.

In the midst of all of this comes a very needed book. It is called Scripture Alone by James White. I am very much looking forward to the release of this book in a few weeks. Because of the above scenarios, as well as others, I see this book as so important for all who call themselves Christians. If you are a Christian, please prayerfully consider purchasing this book for yourself as well as your pastor and friends. May we seek to honor God by rightly handling his word.

Link: Scripture Alone by James White

What exactly is the will of God and how does one know it? These are important, but complex questions that most college students wrestle with. The problem is that most students don’t spend time to think about what the phrase “the will of God” actually means and as a result then end up practicing some form of soft divination to determine this “secret will” of God. This is not the Biblical understanding of God’s will. Three weeks ago, John Piper preached a marvelous sermon on this issue. In it he covers what I think is one of the most helpful distinctions in theology, namely the distinction between God’s sovereign will and his revealed will. I recommend listening to this message.

Link: What is the will of God and how do we know it? – John Piper (10MB mp3)

If you’ve ever seen the VeggiTales cartoons then, you’ve probably seen the one with Larry singing a silly song about losing his hairbrush. I feel a little like that about this blog. Life has gotten increasingly busy and I am not able to write as much as I would like. This has mainly been due to the significant amount of time that I have been spending drafting a response to a presentation which was made in one of my classes a week ago. I will hopefully be posting that very soon. But until then I just wanted to say that I am still alive.

This is a question that I have been thinking about lately and I wanted to address publicly here on the site. The question that others have asked me and that I have of myself is: why do I write? I recognize that in a day and age such as ours it probably seems odd for a person to be so concerned with theological matters; issues which to most people seem to be of little relevance. What follows are two reasons why I care about theology and publicly write about it.

A deep love for the preservation and proclamation of God’s truth.

I love God’s written word! I could study it all day long for as long as I live and probably will. Contrary to what some might think, I don’t need controversies in order to study God’s word. But when God’s truth in compromised by individuals, I feel a great deal of responsibility to respond in ways which are appropriate to God’s revelation in Scripture. I believe that Scripture is the only rule of faith and practice in the life of the Christian. I believe that Scripture, as “breathed out” by God, needs to be handled with great care. To dishonor God’s word by not handling it correctly is to dishonor Him who gave it. The mishandling of God’s word is not anything new. Peter is clear in telling us that there will be ignorant and unstable people who twist the words of Scripture, to their own destruction (2 Pet 4:16). Paul tells us that there will be people who “will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Tim 4:3-4). Even from within the Christian community, people will act in ways not in accordance with what they believe about God’s truth (see Paul’s opposition of Peter in Galatians 2). The point main point is, to where are we to turn when these things come up? Listen to Paul’s very pastoral words to Timothy:

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:14-17 ESV)

Paul encourages Timothy to hold fast to what he has learned in the Scriptures. The Bible is sufficient to teach, reprove, correct and train in righteousness. As such, those who study under it will be competent and equipped for every good work. Only the Bible is sufficient to accomplish this task. Therefore, it is important that we study it, understand it, teach it to others and handle it with a great deal of care. This is what I am seeking to do.

I should add as a qualification that God doesn’t need my help in preserving his truth. He can do that just fine on his own. I have a great deal of trust in his sovereign control over all things, including the mind and so the work that I do is not to make up for some deficiency in God’s control over his creation. Often times I turn to John 10. Here Jesus gives Christians hope in order to proclaim his word uncompromised and with boldness. We are assured that His sheep hear his voice and when they hear it, they come to him. Therefore, I see it as my goal to clearly speak about Scripture and trust that God’s people will be encouraged. Again, to the degree that we sit back and let God’s word be mishandled, we dishonor God by not showing a deep concern for how his word is to be rightly taught and understood. So, first and foremost, I write in order that God’s truth may be clearly proclaimed for all to hear. The proclamation of His great glory throughout the world is His highest aim and the thing which brings me great joy.

A deep care and concern for my fellow students.

I recognize that not every student has the opportunity to study the Bible and theology in the way that I do. I, therefore, feel a great weight of responsibility upon my shoulders to be one who thoughtfully engages in Biblical and theological matters and does so in a public manner for others to see and benefit from. I try and make an effort to practice public discernment. Often we think of discernment as an individual quality. For the most part it is, but I would also add that there is a communal quality of discernment as well. I try to model Biblical and theological discernment so that others may learn how to do the same in their own spheres of influence. We as a Christian community need to be concerned about what is being taught and preached to us and we need to hold each other to the standard of God’s word.

Going back to Paul’s encouragement to Timothy, he goes on to say: “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Tim 4:1-2). This is the work of those, like myself, who concern themselves with the rigorous study of God’s word. Theology is always done in the service of the church. I do not read and study simply for my own sake, but I do so for the health and benefit of my brothers and sisters in Christ. I truly do love and care for them, which is why I sometimes respond harshly to those who would deceive them with errors not found in Scripture. It is not that I am trying to be mean, it is simply that I care deeply for the growth of my fellow believers. In summary, the second reason why I write is for the health and benefit of my brothers and sisters as I seek to point them to their all-sufficient Savior.

I hope that these words are helpful in putting a lot of what I write in perspective. There is much more that I could say about my interests here, but I will leave that for another time. I also hope that as you read what I have written and what I will continue to write, you are encouraged in your faith and that you are empowered to stand firm upon God’s written word in your daily encounters with others. To Him be all the glory!

Today is the first day of classes and the first day of chapel. I think what I would like to do in the future is take time to comment on things that were said in chapel. Our chapel’s take place on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; so if something caught my attention that day (usually it does), you can look for a post on it sometime later that day. These comments are mainly for the benefit of those who attend Gordon College. I hope to offer some encouragement to those who effectively communicate the truths of God’s word to the student body here, as well as, seek to offer correction where correction is needed. If you attend Gordon College and were in chapel, I would love to hear your comments either in person or here on the site.

That being said, it being the first day of chapel means that the professor who received the distinguished faculty of the year award by last year’s senior class would offer the “campus charge”. Today was Dr. Hildebrandt from our Bible department. He spoke on Exodus 3:1-6 and 4:1-5. He addressed three questions:

1. Can you still take off your shoes? 2. Who are you? and 3. What is in your hand?

All of these questions were to relate our experience here in college to Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush. I would like to respond to his second question.

In his explanation, Hildebrandt seemed to think that when Moses asked God, “who am I” in Exodus 3:11, he was asking a philosophical or existential question about his own existence – something similar to Descartes’ questions about his own existence. He then says that God’s response is interesting because it is relational. Hildebrandt had expected something along the lines of the imago dei, the image of God, but instead God gives a relational answer. His point was that, just as Moses asked the question, who am I, so also, we as college students need to examine ourselves this semester. And in doing so, no matter how we answer that, we need to recognize that God is with us.

That sounds all well and good, but the interpretation he provided makes no sense given the context of the passage. The passage (which was never read) actually reads, “But Moses said to God, ‘Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the children out of Egypt?’ He [God] said, ‘But I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain.’” (Ex 3:11-12 ESV)

When read in context, this passage has nothing to do with Moses’ own introspection; questioning his own personhood. The passage is about authority. When Moses asks the question, “who am I?”, he is saying, “I have no authority to go to Pharaoh and demand that he let the Israelites go.” God responds by saying, “I will be with you”, or in essence, you are going with my authority; I have greater authority than Pharaoh. In order to prove this, God gives Moses the assurance that this is so by saying when he has brought them out of Egypt they will meet with God back on this mountain.

It is really sad to me that “the distinguished faculty of the year” and professor of OT would miss this simple exegetical point. I do not mean to hold myself in higher regard than Dr. Hildebrandt. He is a good scholar, which is why I was so confused by his comments this morning. All that is to say, we need to be careful that our “traditions” do not over-ride the plain meaning of the text of Scripture. We must constantly make sure that our traditions and commitments are in line with Scripture what Scripture teaches. May we honor God by rightly dividing his word.

Another fall, another year of school. After my long 18 hour car drive, I am now back at Gordon College. I hope that everyone else’s summers were fun. There is lots to do to get ready for classes on Wednesday. I can already feel like this is going to be a busy year.

In the coming weeks I’ll be doing a couple of posts regarding Philip Jenkins’ book, The Next Christendom. It is kind of a hot topic here at school and as you can probably tell, I’m always up for a good theological conversation. I’ve read the book and am working on drafting some thoughts. I’ll post them when they are ready. If you’ve read the book, I’d love to hear what you think about it.

This is a great post about the epitome of nerdiness. I have definately done things that fall under the W?BIC (Why? Because I Can) category. Probably the nerdiest thing I’ve done with my PPC is walk around outside trying to connect to my neighbor’s wifi networks. I probably spent an hour trying to connect when I have a perfectly good connection inside. I also love to dial numbers on my cell phone vial Bluetooh instead of just typing them in. Many people ask why? I simply answer, because I can. Read some other stories below.

Link: W?BIC post

As many of your know, I am a computer science major in college. I also work in the IT department at the corporate headquarters of ServiceMaster. As you can imagine I receive many questions from people about how they can take care of their computer. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of viruses, spyware and pop-ups. Because I find myself answering these questions so often, I thought that it would be helpful for me to put together a document on general computer practices. This document does not address specific problems you might be facing, but rather seeks to give you the upper hand in the fight against those who seek to cripple computers. I have sought to do this by providing some instructions on practices you can use to better understand and maintain your computer. I hope that you find this helpful. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions concerning the practices I have outlined, feel free to contact me.

I am going to try and do more of these computer tutorials in the future. Please feel free to contact me with suggestions on what you would like me to write about.

(Click the link below to view the tutorial) to effectively maintain your computer The purpose of this guide is to give the average user some tools they can use to effectively manage their computer. It is written for Windows XP. A lot of the concepts are applicable to other operating systems, but the specifics of how to do them are not.

Table of Contents:

1. Programs installed on your machine
2. Programs set to run at startup
3. Programs running on your machine
4. Using Ad-Aware
5. A brief word about using email and internet
6. Viewing open connections
7. Other practices
8. Resources

The key to keeping your computer clean is knowing what is on your system. If you are familiar with what you have and what you use it will be much easier to identify potentially malicious software on your system.

Programs installed on your machine

There are a couple of places that you can identify programs installed on your computer. The most straight forward is in the START menu. The START menu contains a listing of programs on your computer. Included in most program folders is an uninstall tool to remove the applications you do not want.

Another place is to go to “Add and Remove Programs” in the “Control Panel”.

This is the definitive place for programs that exist on your computer. Here you can see what programs are on your machine and also choose to remove them. Look over the list for programs that you know you will never use and uninstall them. You may have to do a little research for programs that you don’t immediately recognize. A lot of times things like hardware drivers and system programs show up in this list. Be sure that you know what you are removing before doing so. This will help to keep your hard drive clean, saving you room for all of the things that you want to store. Periodically check this list of programs to make sure that only the applications you want on your machine are there. By doing so, you can easily recognize when an anomalous program shows up.

Some programs may be running in the background and therefore will not let you uninstall them. In that case you will need to kill the process first by going through the steps outlined under the Programs that are running section.

Programs set to run at startup

Windows keeps a list of programs that are set to run each time your computer starts up. A lot of the time you can find programs here that you don’t need running each time you start your computer. To view the list:

• Go to the START menu
• Click on RUN
• Type MSCONFIG and press enter
• Choose the STARTUP tab at the top

This is the list of programs that run automatically when your computer starts.

Look over the list of programs. You can see where the main program resides by looking at the “command” column. Many times looking at the path will tell you a lot about the program. For example, in mine there is a task called QTTASK set to run at startup. If you look at the path of this program you can see that it is in the QuickTime folder. This tells me a lot. Simply by knowing that this process is associated with QuickTime, I know that it is not malicious and that it is not required to run at startup. So, I can safely turn it off. I also have a program called VPTRAY set to run at startup. The path to this one tells me that it is associated with Symantec Anti-Virus. This is my anti-virus program. I do not want to turn this off, becaue I want my anti-virus to run at when the computer starts.

You will probably come across programs that you do not recognize. These are most likely programs that came pre-installed on your computer and may be necessary for your computer to work properly or they may be malicious files. You can find out more information about certain programs by going to WindowsStartup.com. Search for the file that you do not recognize and see if this site can tell you more about it. If after reading the site you realize that you do not need to have this file running each time your computer starts go ahead and turn it off. To turn off a program just uncheck the box next to it. If you are unsure about a program it is probably best to leave it on, but do some more research to see if you can find out anything about it. Simply searching Google for the file name may also yield some helpful information. It’s a good idea to document what you change so that if you end up turning something off that you should have left you can you go back and change it.

When you’re done the program will ask you if you want to restart. After you restart the machine a warning will show up telling you that you have modified your startup settings. Make sure to click the box to tell the dialogue not to display again and then dismiss the dialog.

If you would like an application for a more detailed view, check out: AutoRuns

Programs that are running

To get a list of all programs that are currently running on your machine, as well as, the number of resources they are using:

Press Control+Shift+ESC.

This will open up the Windows Task Manager. Here you can see each of the programs that you have started, as well as, those which are running in the background. The main column that you want to look at is the CPU column. This will tell you which programs are using up most of your processor. You can sort by CPU usage by clicking on the column heading. If you see a file there that you do not recognize and is taking up a lot of CPU (more than 30%) it may be cause for concern. This is especially true if you are not doing anything else on the computer. You can find out information about a given process by searching your hard drive for where the program resides or by searching Google.

Again, this may seem like a lot of work, but the more you do this, the more familiar you become with your computer. You will start to notice patterns of what programs are supposed to be running and what they are doing. If something suspicious shows up it will be immediately obvious to the informed user and they will be able to take appropriate steps to resolve the issue.

For Advanced Users: There is a program called Process Explorer that will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about processes running on your system. This includes other files associated with this process, threads, dlls, etc. It is a very handy tool for digging deep into the programs running on your system.

Using Ad-Aware

Ad-Aware is a great program you can use to scan your computer for potential spyware infections. Download the software at Download.com. After you have downloaded and installed the software. Run the program.

The first thing you will want to do is to get the latest updates. Click on “Get new updates”. This will make sure that you have the latest definitions.

After you download the latest definitions; run a scan of your entire hard drive. This may take a while if you have a large hard drive. It is also a good idea to run the scan when you are not online. When the scan is complete the program will tell you what it found. Look over the list and take note of what it identified. The program is very reliable and so you should be able to delete everything that it finds without any problem. It is good to periodically run this program to ensure that your system is clean.

A brief word about using email and the internet

Email and the internet are great tools of today. But given the increasing number of malicious items out there, one needs to be cautious in order to protect their machine from harm. The biggest thing you can do is just to be observant of where you are on the internet and what you are doing. Do not just go blindly clicking around. The same with emails; do not just open every email that is sent to you. Take an extra second or two to look at it and see who its from, if it has attachments, etc. Here are some other tips for using email and the internet.

Do not install anything from a website unless you know what it is. Sometimes a website may require you to download and install a certain addon to your browser in order to be able to view some part of their site. For example, if you go to Macromedia.com it will prompt you to install Flash player. This is legitimate because you purposely went to Macromedia.com and have identified what it is going to install. If ever you come to an unfamiliar website and you are asked to install something, carefully look over the what is being installed. If you have any questions about it, do not install it. You can always go back to the site and install it later if you really need it. But if it is malicious it could take you longer to clean your system than it would to do a little research and find out what you are installing.

It probably goes without saying that you should never click on a link if you do not recognize the source or destination. Meaning, if you don’t know where the link came from or you don’t know where it’s going to take you. If you receive a suspicious email with a link in it but the link has been replaced by text and not does not show the address; right click on the link and try to copy the address and paste that somewhere to see where the link is going to take you.

If you get a pop-up window and do not recognize the content, you can press F11 to display the window full screen. The reason you should do this is because it will display the source address of the pop-up allowing you to see where it came from.

Do not open unknown email attachments. Check with the sender first.

Do not unsubscribe from spam ads. When you unsubscribe from a piece of spam; you are basically telling the sender that you have a live account and to send more spam. If you are on a legitimate newsletter or receive subscriptions from trust websites it is ok to unsubscribe.

Do not visit gaming or gambling websites or sites that contain a large number of advertisements. Almost always these sites will install malicious software on your system.

For an overall better internet experience, I recommend using FireFox. It is a free web browser that will help protect you from attacks targeted at Internet Explorer. It also has great features like a pop-up blocker and tabbed-browsing, as well as many other helpful additions.

Viewing open connections: For Advanced Users

This section is really only for super-nerds that want to know about the network activity of certain processes, but feel free to try it out and learn something new. If you have an always on connection to the internet (e.g. cable, dsl, T1, etc), it is a good idea to keep track of which processes are trying to contact the internet and where they are trying to connect to. In order to view this:

• Go to START
• Choose RUN and type CMD
• In the command window type NETSTAT -a -o

This will show you a list of all of the running processes that are either listening on certain ports or actually have open connections. You can identify the processes by matching the PID with the column in your task manager. (To display the PID column in the task manager: choose VIEW -> SELECT COLUMNS and check the PID box) For an alternative way to do this download TCPView. This will give you a display of all processes and ports including an option to set the update interval. For you iTunes nerds like me, I use this program to see who is listening to my music. It is good idea to make sure that only the programs that you want are trying to connect to the internet and that your security is not being compromised by an outside source.

Other Practices

There are two other things that you should do when working on any system. First, make sure that you have anti-virus software (e.g. Norton or McAfee) installed on the machine. It is a good idea to go through the settings of your anti-virus program to get a better understanding of what it is and what it is doing. Simply having the program installed is usually sufficient, but it is a good idea to be familiar with the program. The program might give you pop-up messages telling you what its doing or what it found, the informed user will notice this and understand what is going on. If you are not familiar with the application, the messages, which are supposed to be helpful, may appear confusing. Read the help menu in your program for specifics. Also, keep the virus definitions up to date. This will protect you from the latest threats. Second, another good practice is to regularly apply all of the “critical updates” on Windows Update. This ensures that you are protected from the latest security vulnerabilities.

By following the practices outlined above you should be able to understand a lot about what is running on your system. Simply having this knowledge puts you far above the average computer user and a difficult target to those who would try to harm your computer. As long as you remain aware of what is on your machine you will be able to optimize your system’s performance for various tasks and keep it clean of unwanted software.

---

Resources

Apps
• Ad-Aware
• FireFox
• TCPView
• Process Explorer
• AutoRuns
  Security
• WindowsStartup.com
• Windows Update
• Symantec
• McAfee
• TrendMicro free online virus scan
• Computer Cops
• Bleeping Comptuer Tutorials

Disclaimer: I don’t really want to add this to the end, but in our day and age I feel I must. I do not take any responsibility for anything that may go wrong with your computer if you follow these instructions. I am happy to answer any questions you have concerning these or other computer issues, so feel free to contact me.

Steve Erickson 2004[/cut]

Sorry I’ve been out of the loop the past few weeks. I just got back from Santa Barbara, California. It was a great time of relaxing on the beach with some friends. What a gorgeous area. If you have not been out there, you really should look into it.

On another note, over the past few weeks I have come across some great new music. The first is Josh Rouse. He is a singer/songwriter from Nashville. Very relaxing music. The other new band that I’ve come across is Keane. They are from England. Their sound is like a cross between Travis and Coldplay. Very good stuff. I thought I would give them a plug here on the blog.

An announcement was made today that Google has aquired photo organizing software Picasa. The huge benefit of this is that the software is now free. That’s right free. I would say that this is one of the best programs out there for digital photo management. If you have just a bunch of pictures all over your computer, this is the program that you need. I highly recommend it.

Picasa

Today I turned 22 years old. It feels kind of weird to say that. Sometimes 22 years feels like forever and other times it feels like no time at all. There are many big decisions to be made this year as well as some significant milestones. I’m not really sure if I’m ready for them all, but come they will. One of the big events will be graduating from college. So often people, mostly adults, but then it affects their children, say that after college you get into the “real world.” Or during the summers when I have been working people say, “welcome to the ‘real world’.” What is meant by this phrase “the real world”? I’m not really a big fan of it, mostly because it denigrates the place in life that I am in. It carries overtones of not really being in touch with reality and living in some kind of fantasy world. That’s really sad to me, because I would like to think that my life has significance at all stages; that each stage is no “more real” than another. I mean, I am living and breathing; I experience highs and lows in life; there are great relationships and there are difficult ones; that are big decisions to be made and there are the everyday tasks involved with maintaining life. I’m not so sure how all of those things are “less real” than what I will supposedly experience a year from now, but we’ll have to see. Maybe I’m completing missing the point of this whole idea. I guess I’m just trying to figure out how to do this thing called “growing up” and it isn’t always the most encouraging when people keep talking about “the real world” as if what I’m living right now is not “real”. Well, those are just some random thoughts here on my 22nd birthday.

As you can see, I’ve updated my site design. I think I’ve finally found something I’m happy with. Thanks to Apple for the inspiration. I’ll be tweaking some things in the coming days, but nothing major. Enjoy the site and come back often.

Yesterday was a most interesting day at church. It was July 4th. What I would like to address is the relationship between the church and the state and the implications for Christian worship.

The Christian and the State

As Christians we live in two kingdoms, the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of heaven. The two kingdoms are distinct but have points of overlap. We would do well to distinguish between them. The kingdom of earth is where all humanity lives. We find ourselves living in a particular place in time and space. In this kingdom we are ruled by the government. The government is established by God. It’s purpose is to restrain evil and promote moral and ethical behavior. There is not any one form of government that can be called a “Christian form of government”. But all forms of government can be guided by Christian principles. The earthly government is not and was never intended to be a heaven on earth. Rather it is a part of God’s providential care for his creation.

This is in contrast to the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is eternal. It is made up of all of God’s elect, the church universal. Here on earth it is often time hidden. Against the nationalistic hopes of the Israelite people, Christ did not come to establish an earthly rulership but a heavenly one. Because God’s kingdom is not of this world, the Christian’s ultimate allegiance is to our heavenly citizenship and not our earthly one, but we belong to both and have responsibilities in both.

Implications for Christian corporate worship

You may be asking, why in the world would this have any connection with Christian corporate worship? The reason is this: our worship is governed by our understanding of God and of his word. Furthermore, our worship ought to reflect a Biblical understanding God, of ourselves and of the world. We would do well to carefully think through the elements of our services and make sure the align with what we profess about God. This is most important on a day like the fourth of July.

This is an overview of today’s service at the church I attend during the summertime. The service began with the singing of America the Beautiful. We then proceeded to corporately say the pledge of allegiance. We acknowledged those in our midst who have served our country in the military. There was a reading concerning the song, “the battle hymn of the republic”. And during the offering the leader sang a song about the flag. Interspersed through all of this were common Christian songs that would normally be sung on any given Sunday; songs like Great is thy faithfulness, Amazing Grace, Forever and He is Exalted. The message then addressed the 3 principles for Christian interaction in society. (1. A biblical understanding of the two kingdoms; 2. Pray for our leaders; 3. Patient participation)

All of this caused me to think about the relationship between our understanding the Christian and the State and the practice of Christian corporate worship. Here are some of my thoughts:

First, our worship ought to be guided by our understanding of God, his attributes and deeds. These are revealed to us in His word, therefore his word is to have preeminence in the service. All elements of the service should come from God’s word, be done in accordance with his word and toward the end of glorifying Him and edifying his people. As such, there is no place for nationalistic patriotism in Christian corporate worship. This is because patriotism has as it focus, the nation or country and not God and his people. It confuses our identity as citizens of heaven with citizens of the earth. Again, we belong to both and have responsibilities in both, but the kingdom of this world is not the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, the singing of songs about God’s “special” grace to America or pledging allegiance to our country or other related practices should not be a part of Christian corporate worship. Primarily, this is because there is no positive warrant in God’s word for this practice. But also, this is because God has not promised his “special” grace to any specific nation, most assuredly not America, given our rampant pluralism and materialism. He has created for himself a people out of every tribe, nation and tongue. Furthermore, our allegiance is ultimately to Christ and to his kingdom. While it is appropriate to be grateful for living in a country such as America and we are to honor and serve our nations leaders, this should not overlap into corporate worship. The church does not show allegiance to any nation, the church pledges her allegiance solely to her Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. The one element of today’s service which I thought was appropriate was prayer for our nation and our leaders. This is exactly what Paul commands to Timothy in 1 Tim 2.

All that I will say about the content of specific patriotic songs is that most of them were probably written by deists and not Christians; therefore the content of those songs reflects deistic understandings of God and humanity which should be carefully weighed against the testimony of God’s Word.

Another thing that made me uncomfortable today was the blatant parallelism between Christ’s work on the cross and the men and women who serve our country in our armed forces. This is because of the unbiblical view of humanity that is promoted in most modern presentations of war. Most people think that war is fought in order to free good and otherwise helpless people from the evil powers which oppress them. If this is the paradigm we have for thinking about what Christ did at Calvary, then we have grossly misunderstood the Gospel. According to the Biblical Gospel, humanity lives in rebellion to God and his law. We act in accordance with our desires and the desires of our heart are continually evil. We are therefore responsible for the evil that we commit and deserving of just punishment. But God, in his mercy, sent Christ to redeem those who were dead in sin. God did not sacrifice his Son for the innocent so that they could be “free”. Rather he redeemed them from their bondage and slavery to sin and paid the penalty which they rightly deserved. The person who sacrifices their life for another human being does so, because that individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. But sinners deserve nothing from God except his just wrath and punishment. These two understandings, that of warfare and the Gospel could not be more antithetical and we ought not confuse people by loosely equating them on a day such as the fourth of July or memorial day.

Finally, the focus upon only our nation and God’s general providence over it serves to promote an unhealthy view of God’s work in the global church. To the degree that we emphasize God’s “special” work in America (as if there ever was such a thing, which there is not) we lose sight of the fact that God is the Lord of all the earth. His rule extends to the furthest reaches of the globe and his church consists of people from all nations. We would do well to consider God’s work around the world in contrast to thinking that America is what is going to change the world.

In summary, it takes great thought and effort to plan services which are honoring to God and edifying to his people. I offer these critiques simply because I long to see Christ’s church continue to reform its worship in accordance with his word. On a day like the fourth of July, when national pride runs high; we should take that time to focus upon God and his work around the world. The church’s mindset should not be that of the world. Our focus should not be upon our nation and how great it is, but upon God and how great he is. I hope that we as worship leaders will be thoughtful about these things and encourage the churches we are a part of to have their services reflect the Biblical distinction between the church and the world.

So this whole blog thing has gotten a lot harder than I thouht it would be. I really need to become more disciplined in my posting habits.

Anyways, John Piper has begun offering a number of his books online for free. That’s right, free. no money. That’s really amazing. Piper is a great Christian man who has amazing things to say. I would highly recommend looking into reading some of these great books.

John Piper’s free books

As I was reading this weekend, I came across an amazing statement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the words of an unnamed early Christian writer – sometimes he is called “Mathetes”, but at any rate, this is what he wrote to a friend of his Diognetius.

“But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us. He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life.”

Taken from The God Who Justifies by James White, pg 20.

There have been some who have asked me for me recent paper concerning Martin Luther’s understanding of vocation. I thought I would post it here for all who are interested. Below is a short abstract which covers the highlights of the paper.

Abstract Especially in collegiate circles, vocation is a word which is used quite frequently. This is not new; indeed the concept has been around as far back as the Reformation. There Martin Luther engaged in a critical rethinking of the doctrine, calling Roman Catholicism back to the Bible, the only sure rule of faith and practice in the life of the believer. Often times, today, vocation is used to refer to one’s occupation or career. This comes as a direct result of Martin Luther’s writings, and while this is a correct statement of what Luther said, it leaves out a considerable part of his focus on the topic. For Luther, vocation is a very broad term. Generally it refers to one’s station or situation in life; it is any place where one has the opportunity to server their neighbor. Therefore Luther speaks of marriage, familial life, civic or political duties, as well as occupation all as one’s vocation. In each of these an individual has the opportunity to serve their neighbor in love; this is what God calls men to do. The main reason why Luther wrote on this subject was because of the way Rome had set up the monastic life or priesthood above the life of the common man. They thought of their way of life as more spiritual and viewed the laity as a kind of second rate Christianity. Luther argued that this was not the case at all. Instead, all ways of life, if in accordance with God’s word, are to be viewed as equal. This is by virtue of the fact that all are justified before God only by faith and that faith is a simple trust in God’s promises in Christ. Furthermore, because all are justified before God on account of their trust in the work of Christ, the Scriptures refer to them all as priests. Therefore, it is wrong to hold the title of priest over the heads of the lay people as if they were not in proper standing before God. As a result, the good works which one does in their vocation are not to be thought of a something which is meritorious before God but should be directed at their neighbor. In Lutheran terms this removes the place of vocation from the kingdom of heaven and puts it in the earthly kingdom. The priest does not perform the duties of his office as good works before God, but in service to his community. Similarly, the mother does not try to earn her salvation by doing her good works, but teaches and cares for her children in love so as to tend to their needs.

A fresh look back at Martin Luther’s understanding of vocation has great implications for us today. First, it will help people recognize that they have a vocation where they are at in life. God has called them to serve their neighbor in love; this will inevitably include a paid occupation but should not be limited to just that. Second, a renewed understanding of vocation will correct the association we have today of paid work as our paradigm for other vocations. Third, it will help us to see the communal aspect of calling.

LINK: Martin Luther on Vocation Paper

In celebration of my return to Wheaton, I decided to put up a new site design. I hope you like it.

I’m kind of unsure of whether to post the following link or not. Mostly because I just don’t know what to do with it. There is a new movie coming out on May 28^th. It is called “Saved!”. It looks to be a mockery of Christianity. I’m not really sure how to resond to it, but I thought that I would at least make you all aware. I’d appricate any thoughts you have about this movie as well.

News article Official movie site

Well, I finished my last exam today, so that means that it is officially summer. For all you in Wheaton, I will be home on Sunday and look forward to seeing all of you. It has been a fun year and I look forward to having some time to reflect upon it in the coming weeks. But now, time for a little relaxing.

I came across an interesting quiz the other day. It asks you a bunch of questions and then tells you which theologian you are most like. Who did you end up being most similar to? Here’s what mine said, go figure:

Martin Luther Yeah, you have a way of letting everyone know how you feel, usually with Bible quotes attached, and will think your way through the issues, although sometimes you make no sense! You aren’t always sure of yourself, and you can change your mind about things, something you actually consider a strength. You can take solitude, especially with some music.

Theologian Quiz

We have all heard the story of Jesus walking on the water a million times. The sad part is that usually means we miss out on what the story is really saying. That was the case for me, until today. As Pastor Dori, from Hamilton Congregational explained, this story immedialtely follows the feeding of the five thousand. After meeting with people for such a long period of time, the disciples get in their boat to cross the lake and Jesus goes up into the mountains to pray. A storm comes up which makes it difficult for the disciples to row across the lake. Then we get to verse 48ff: “And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, for they all saw him and were terrified.” Did you catch the odd phrase in the text? It says that Jesus meant to pass by them. The NIV obscures this passage by saying that Jesus “was about to pass by them”. But the langauge of the Greek is stronger that that. Literally it reads that it was his desire to pass by them. What does that mean? Was Jesus trying to get to the other side without the disciples seeing him? No. Jesus was not passing by them so that they would not see him, but in order that they would see him. This is the NT version of Exodus 33! There Moses asks, “Please show me your glory” and the LORD responds, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘the LORD’.” This is exactly what takes place in this story in Mark. Just after the disciples notice the figure passing by them on the lake Jesus says to them, “Take heart; it is I” or better “I AM.” Jesus declares to them who he is; the God of the OT. So the point of this passage is not that Jesus walks on the water, but that it is an ephiphany or theophany; a revealing of the glory of God to mankind. I found this to be an amazing connection and wanted to share it with all of you.

This is such a vital question for us today: Does God care what we sing? Here is a great lecture given by Albert Mohler (President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) on that very topic. I recommend you listen to it.

Does God Care What We Sing?: Albert Mohler (Real audio required)

Here is a facinating article on a proposed “Academic bill of rights”. It seeks to protect academic diversity and promote a pluralism of ideas in the academy.

Academic Bill of Rights

Over the course of this year, I have had conversations with some friends concerning God’s sovereignty and evil. Each time, I am reminded of the amazing words of Jonathan Edwards on this subject. Edwards was a brilliant man; his knowledge of the Scriptures and his ability to preach and expound them are simply amazing. I commend this reading to all those who wish to have a better understanding concerning God’s sovereign control over all things, including evil.

Is God less glorious because he ordained that evil be John Piper and Jonathan Edwards

Also, for those who would like a deeper reading from Edwards on issues related to this, I recommend The End for Which God Created the World: Jonathan Edwards

I have been sick since last Monday. This is really terrible. I just cannot seem to fight this cold. It is really annoying, especially in light of the fact that classes end on Wednesday and then finals begin. If you have any tips on how to get rid of a stubborn cold, please let me know; otherwise stay healthy.

I just finished reading a great dialogue between a Calvinist (Michael Horton) and an Arminian (Roger Olsen) concerning the boundaries of evangelicalism, its relation to open theism and its future. It is a very helpful exchange for those who are involved in similar converstations.

The Nature and Future of Evangelicalism: A Dialogue

For those of you who have never heard Dr. John Piper explain God’s passion for His glory and that being our greatest joy, I would encourage you to listen to the following message. Be warned though that this message is only for those who want to have their understanding of Scripture, God and the world be rocked. This message could change your life as it did mine.

God Glorified in His Providence: John Piper (right click and choose “Save target as”. Also this is an 11mb download so it’s probably only for those who have a fast ethernet connection)

Go download the new iTunes v4.5 It’s pretty nice.

GoDaddy.com has a huge sale on domain names right now. As cheap as $6.95/yr for .com You should go get your own and have it point to your ModBlog.

The summer is rapidly approaching and that is always a great time to do some reading. As such, I am trying to put together a list of books that I would like to read. Here is a list of some of those books which I am looking into picking up. If you have any suggestions of books that you think I should read, feel free to leave a comment; also let me know what you are planning on reading this summer, I would love to know. Recognize that this list is in process and I’m still trying to figure out what is the best use of my time and energy this summer.

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood John Piper and Wayne Grudem

Deconstructing Evangelicalism D.G. Hart

The God who Justifies James White

The Glory of the Atonement Charles Hill & Frank James

Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates Mark Husbands & Daniel J. Treier

The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity Philip Jenkins

The Works of BB Warfield (I don’t plan on reading all of these but at least having them available)

The Justification of God John Piper

Let the Nations Be Glad John Piper

the Five Points of Calvinism

Inspiration and Authority of the Bible BB Warfield

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ John Owen

Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective Peter Stuhlmacher Donald Hagner

What Is Faith? J. Gresham Machen

Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole Roger Nicole

Standing on the Rock James Montgomery Boice

Inerrancy Norman Geisler

A Biblical Case For Total Inerrancy Robert Lightner

What Saint Paul Really Said NT Wright

Well, I finally got some time to make a new design. The only problem is that I used png graphic files which do not display properly in internet explorer. To solve this problem, go get a real browser.

I just left from a class where an all out attack was launched against the inerrancy of Scripture. I fear that this is the case for many other places around the world as well. In an effort to provide some kind of Biblical grounding for those of you who read this site and care about God’s truth, I post the following links. Please read them. God’s truth as contained in His Word is too precious for us to treat it lightly! May we honor Him by honoring His Word.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Monergism articles on the Bible

Update Many people are asking me what I meant by an “all out attack”. Really I just meant a dismissal of the doctrine. It seems irresponsible to me for a professor to go out of his way to raise the issue without then providing students with some kind of foundation upon which to ground their faith. The majority of the comments focused on three issues. The first went like: “well I believe in inerrancy, but I define it differently than has been traditionally understood.” The second was: “I believe that the Bible is true but I am skeptical of our ability, as fallible, finite human beings to get at that truth.” The third was to disregard the historicity of Scripture for a more theological understanding. To me, I don’t see how each of these revisions provides people with more hope than saying that Scripture does contain errors. I hope to offer more helpful comments on this in the coming weeks, but there is much to do this time of year and I am only one person trying to do all he can with just 24 hours in a day. But, we worship a God who is not bound by time. My hope is that we would be driven to our knees in prayer for the preservation and proclamation of God’s truth.

Jesus Cast a Look on Me

Jesus cast a look on me,
Give me sweet simplicity
Make me poor and keep me low,
Seeking only Thee to know

All that feeds my busy pride,
Cast it evermore aside
Bid my will to Thine submit,
Lay me humbly at Thy feet

Make me like a little child,
Of my strength and wisdom spoiled
Seeing only in Thy light,
Walking only in Thy might

Leaning on Thy loving breast,
Where a weary soul can rest
Feeling well the peace of God,
Flowing from His precious blood

In this posture let me live,
And hosannas daily give
In this temper let me die,
And hosannas ever cry!

So, it’s getting near the end of the school year and I still don’t have a job for this summer. If you have any suggestions as to what I could do to earn some cash I would greatly appricate it. Until that gets sorted out I’m kind of starting to freak out. oh well.

Yesterday, I heard an excellent sermon at Hamilton Congregational by Dr. McDonough from Gordon Conwell. He preached probably the most encouraging sermon on Revelation I have ever heard. Usually you don’t think of Revelation being a very encouraging or relevant book, but this is not the case at all. While, I will not seek to explain everything to you, I would like to convince you of this: Revelation is for today. If you are like I was before yesterday, you probably think that Revelation is alll about the end times and cryptically tells us how the world will come to an end. While this may be part of the story, rememeber that this is a letter. John was writing to encourage the Church. Therefore, if Revelation is solely about end times events, how does that encourage the believers that he was writing to? This letter was written that it might be understood and might bring revelation and encouragement to God’s people. Also, if we worship a fatihful God who remains the same yesterday, today and forever, then His word will reveal something to us about His character. And by better understanding His character we can come to know, love and serve Him more. So Revelation tells us, not only about end times, but even more about God’s work and character both past and present. This may seem like a simple point, but for me, it shed some light on what used to be a pretty confusing text. Therefore, I encourage you as the little children encouraged Augustine, “take it and read”. The Bible is meant to be read, studied, understood and applied. “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” (2 Tim 2:7)

I’m going to see Derek Webb tonight in concert. It should be a good time. If you have not heard his CD, She Must and Shall Go Free, you really need to listen to it. It is an excellent prayer for the Church; both passionate in its concern for the Church as well as heartfelt in its encouragement. I’ll let you know how it is.

derekwebb.com

Here is an excellent link to an address given by Richard Mouw (President of Fuller Theological Seminary) at Wheaton College last spring. Would that we all would learn to live as he encourages us to do.

Today was a gorgeous day. Tomorrow is supposed to be even better. Aside from the weather being really nice, I was fortunate to be able to sit in on a very well done presentation on Open Theism today. I also got to congradulate my friend, Oliver, who recieved the Collegian of the Year award. Then I rounded out the day with a great friend at Starbucks. All in all, a great day.

Today, I came across an interesting interview with Rick Warren, the author of the Purpose Driven Life. While I’m not a huge fan of the book, I did find this interview to be helpful in better understanding Warren, where he’s coming from and what is goals are. You can read the article below.

Rick Warren Interview

I arrived back at school safely yesterday, after a great weekend at home. It again impressed upon me the value of strong friendships. I had a great time with those whom I got to see. Apparently Modblog thinks the same thing, so now I have a new addition to the site: a friends list. It will point you to current posts of other blogs which I read. So for example, you can see that [u-claytonius] recently posted an excellent little thing about the church. I see the formation of small communities of thought as a result of this nice feature. You can find the new friends section on the left side of your screen just below the poll.

I’m going home to Wheaton tomorrow morning. If you live in Wheaton, give me a call, I would love to see you. Otherwise, I’ll be back in Boston on Monday. I hope that all of you in college have a wonderful break. Enjoy the time of rest and relaxation. See you in a few days.

Alright!! So, if you’ve signed up for ModBlog, guess what? They just started supporting remote blogging. Which means you can update your blog from a desktop client intead of via the web. It’s pretty nice; I’m posting remotely right now! You can get all the details here

So, I’d really like to be able to play with the desing of my site more. Right now I’ve only been modding the default templates. Does anyone know where I can get some basic info about CSS and/or XML that I could then quickly apply to redesigning this site? Any links would be appricated. Thanks.

Well, two more of my friends have signed up for ModBlog.

Wes Dave

You should sign up too. It’s a lot of fun.

I have added to new links to my links section. Both reformation theology portals. There is some great stuff here.

Reformation Ink Reformation Theology

Today I had to share some thoughts on a couple of songs that we sang in chapel. I thought I’d post my notes of what I said. Enjoy.

Here are the lyrics for the songs as well:

Before The Throne Jesus With Thy Church Abide

---

Hi and welcome to this day of song. [as Elizabeth mentioned] one of the things which we would like to take time to do today is explain some of the songs that we will sing. Perhaps, though, my reasoning for wanting to do this may be different than your understanding of it. For me, the reason that I explain songs is not to be able to better sing the song, but rather, to give the song something to point to. The message of the song is what’s key, not the song itself. The message would still exist without the song and it would be just as beautiful and glorious. So as you learn more about the songs we sing today reflect on the fact that those explanations are more important than the song. Learn something new about God and his word. With that in mind, we would like to begin today, not by singing a new song, per se, but instead by giving perhaps new meaning to a song which we have sung before in chapel. That song is

Before the Throne

This is a really powerful song, which is just rich with Biblical allusions. If I had to give you one word to explain this song it would be: intercession. Perhaps, intercession is not a word that we use very often when speaking about Christ as Savior. Yet the ministry of intercession is integral to who Christ is, what he did and how we are saved. It is for this reason that I would like to provide some comments on it and offer some passages from Scripture in support of those statements. These are profound truths and deserve much more time and thought than we will give them here today, but engage with me as we think about what it means for Christ to intercede for us.

First of all, intercession is necessary because humanity, by virtue of being united with Adam in the fall, are all dead in sin, alienated from God and live in rebellion to Him. We could put this in the form of a question, as Psalm 130:3 does: “If you, O Lord, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand?” The obvious answer is none of us. Therefore, we see our need for one to go before the Father and intercede on our behalf for the salvation of our souls. This is one of the roles of Christ. Yet, God the Father is a just and righteous God and so he cannot simply disregard our sin. Our sin must be atoned for and we must also obtain some more positive active righteousness whereby we can then be seen as worthy to be in God’s presence. Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God came to this earth and lived the perfect life which met the righteous demands of God. Not only this but he suffered, died and rose to life in order to make atonement for our sin. It is then these two things, Christ’s life of righteousness and his substitutionary death which become the basis for his intercession before the Father on our behalf. So we see then how Christ’s life, death and resurrection are intimately connected with his role as intercessor. Those for whom Christ lived and died are those for whom he intercedes before the Father. Let me share with you two passages from Hebrews which clearly bring out this point.

HEB 7:22-28 22This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. 23The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. 26For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

If we continue to read in Hebrews, we see that Christ lives to make intercession for us on the basis of his perfect life of righteousness and his substitionary death in our place. Chapter 9:12-28 reads,

HEB 9:12-28 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Our school thinks that this message is extremely important, it is one of the beliefs which defines us as an institution. Listen to how the statement of faith words these precious words: To effect salvation He lived a sinless life and died on the cross as the sinner’s substitute, shedding His blood for the remission of sins. On the third day He rose again in the body which had been laid in the tomb. He ascended to the right hand of the Father, where He performs the ministry of intercession. He will come once again, personally and visibly, to complete His saving work and to consummate the eternal plan of God.

Turning more specifically to the song, we see the emphasis upon Christ as intercessor from the very first line, “before the throne of God above, I have a strong and perfect plea, a great high priest whose name is love, who ever lives and pleads for me.” The second and third verses beautifully fill out the understanding of Christ bearing on his body the penalty for our sin and also achieving for us a righteousness which we then obtain only by faith.

One final thing about this song is the line, “my name is graven on His hands, my name is written on His heart”. This line comes from Isaiah 49:16, where God says of Israel, “Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.” This is a profound statement in light of the Ancient Near East culture. The pagan religions of that day would carve the names of their gods into their flesh. This is similar to what we find with the prophets of Baal when they confront Elijah in the contest they had. The ironic thing is that this grotesque picture of utter devotion for the pagan religions is exactly the thing which our God says he has done with those whom he loves. He has quite literally, engraven our names upon the palms of his hands. This is the message of the Gospel and the reason why we sing. So as we now sing, may the words of this song point to back to Scripture and cause you to praise our God who lived, died and was raised from the dead that we would be his people. Please stand and join us in singing Before the Throne of God Above.

Jesus With Thy Church Abide

This semester in chapel, we have been studying the church. We have heard from many people on it and maybe it has caused you to think more about her than you had previously done. Although, at times, I have been kind of saddened by the apparent low view of the church which has sometimes come across. There has been a lot of pointing out the Church’s faults and at times that has felt like it has come at the expense of loving the Church and holding her in high regard. The church is mighty and powerful; She is the glorious bride of Christ. She is the way that God works in the world. She is his chosen people. I am one who deeply cares for and loves the Church. She is very precious to me. Does that mean that I naively disregard her short comings? No, instead I am moved by that deep love which causes me to go before the Lord in prayer for her.

This song, I think, beautifully upholds the uniqueness of the Church and also pleads with God to continue his work in and through her, as he has promised to do. It upholds the place of the Church as God’s ordained means of reaching the world with His love and of building up those whom He has called out of this world and redeemed for Himself. It is a deep heartfelt prayer that all who call themselves Christian’s should pray. I find that it beautifully recognizes the need for doctrinal unity based on God’s Word. It does not settle for a false and trite unity which is based on a tolerance of all things but a strong binding of believers in Spirit and Truth. It is only because Christ is the head of the church and maintains her by His Word that she then can have hope as she goes out to minister to a lost and broken world. It is to these ends that we pray and may the words of this song truly be your prayer for the Church.

More and more I run into other Christians who are extremely hesitant to say anything definitive about the Word of God and their beliefs concerning it. Especially in academic situations, it is the intellectual thing to simply assess a number of different and opposing view points without ever providing a basis for what is to be believed and why. In light of this, Martin Luther’s words to Erasmus in the Bondage of the Will should be well noted. I post them here for your encouragement to know God’s Word and His Truth and to hold fast to it with all that you are, never ceasing to proclaim it boldly regardless of the cost.

Of the necessity of assertions in Christianity

There you spoke quite generally of all religious dogmas whatsoever? There you say that you would take up the Sceptics’ position if the inviolable authority of Holy Scripture and the Church’s decision permitted you to do so, so little do you like assertions. What a Proteus that man is to talk about ‘inviolable authority; and ‘the Church’s decisions!’ – as if you had a vast respect for the Scriptures and the Church, when in the same breath you tell us that you wish you had liberty to be a sceptic! What Christian could talk like that? If you are speaking of doctrines that are unprofitable and uncertain, what news do you bring us? Does not everyone wish for liberty to be a sceptic in such matters? Does not every Christian in fact freely avail himself of such liberty, and censure those who become slavish devotees of any opinion? Or perhaps you thin (as your words certainly suggest) that all Christians are people whose dogmas are useless things, for which it is absurd of them to quarrel and fight with their assertions! But if you are referring to essential truths – why, what more irreligious assertion could a man possibly make than that he wants to be free to assert precisely nothing about such things? The Christian will rather say this: ‘So little do I like sceptical principles, that, so far as the weakness of my flesh permits, not merely shall I make it my invariable rule steadfastly to adhere to the sacred text in all that it teaches, and to assert that teaching, but I also want to be as positive as I can about those non-essentials which Scripture does not determine; for uncertainty is the most miserable thing in the world.’ What, now, shall we say of your next clause – ‘I gladly submit my judgement to these authorities in all that they lay down, whether I follow it or not.’ what do you mean, Erasmus? Is it not enough to have submitted your judgement to Scripture? Do you submit it to the Church as well? – why, what cant eh Church settle that Scripture did not settle first? . . . In a word, what you say comes to this: that you do not think it matters a scrap what anyone believes anywhere, so long as the world is at peace; you would be happy for anyone whose life, reputation, welfare or influence was at stake to emulate him who said ‘if they affirm, I affirm; if they deny, so do I;’ and you would encourage him to treat Christian doctrines as no better than the views of human philosophers – about which, of course, it is stupid to wrangle and fight and assert, since nothing results but bad feeling and breaches of outward peace. ‘what is above us does not concern us’ – that is your motto. So you intervene to stop our battles; you call a halt to both sides, and urge us not to fight any more over issues that are so stupid and sterile. . . The Holy Spirit is no Sceptic, and the things He has written in our hearts are not doubts or opinions, but assertions – surer and more certain than sense and life itself. (Bondage of the Will, 68-70)

On his radio program today, James White commented on some material put out by a pro-homosexual Christian group called SoulForce. He responds directly to issues regarding the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, true Christian love, as well as, interpretations of Romans 1. A good thing to listen to for those who are concerned about the state of the church in the midst of this controversity.

Listen here (real audio required)

The John Mayer concert was great. Aside from a couple of troubles getting to RI, everything was a blast. He really puts on a good show. I love to new additions to the band; they really add a lot. He did a little showing off on the guitar as well. During “Come back to bed”, he started playing guitar behind his back and then he set the guitar on the ground and played it while it was lying on the ground. (if you don’t know anything about guitar, that’s pretty hard to do). All in all, a great time with great friends and great music.

I’m going to see John Mayer tonight!! Wahoo. He is playing at the Dunkin’ Donuts Cetner in Rhode Island. It should be fun. “Maybe I will tell you all about it, when i’m in the mood to lose my way with words.”

So, I know this is a little late, but I thought it may be beneficial nonetheless. A friend of mine sent me some info about St. Patrick as well as a prayer that he wrote. Enjoy.

St. Patrick (389-461) was born in Scotland but was kidnapped and taken to Ireland as a teenage slave. He later escaped to continent Europe and, incredibly, became a bishop and returned submissively to Ireland as a missionary to preach the gospel.

Prayer of St. Patrick

“Christ be with me, Christ within me, Christ behind me, Christ before me, Christ beside me, Christ to win me, Christ to comfort and restore me. Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, Christ in the hearts of all that love me, Christ in the mouth of friend and stranger.”

By now we should all be aware of the debate raging within our country over the issue of homosexuality. While I am still in the process of sorting through how to approach this important topic, I wanted to provide some links (even though seemingly old) which I have found helpful in thinking through the issues. I hope to offer some further comments in the future, but for now read these:

• John Piper on homosexuality (part 1) (part 2)
• Antithesis article
• Monergism links
• Stand to Reason article

Feel free to add links to this list by clicking on the “add comment” link.

Well I’m back from Spring Break. It was great to be up in NH visiting the family of one of my roommates. When I got back I got a special suprise from Best Buy. They told me that they were going to replace my monitor (which has been broken) with a new one. Wahoo!! I ended up getting the one pictured on the right. Which brings me to the second thing, I figured out how to get pictures working with this whole blog thing. So look for some pictures in the gallery in the coming days.

PS: Don’t forget to tell your friends about smerickson.com

Well, I can’t believe it but spring break is here. I’m off to New Hampshire for a couple days with one of my roommates. It should be a fun time. What are you doing for Spring Break? Post a comment here on the site or send me an email. I would love to hear about it.

I was told about this guy Taylor Sorensen the other day. Very cool music. He has a new cd coming out in a few weeks.

Listen @ Taylor Sorensen

Well, here is something new for a change.

Many of you already know (and mock me) that I am a computer geek. Here is a great program that I came across and use all the time. It is really helpful. It will scan certain folders on your hard drive cataloging what’s in them. You can then instantly search all of them from anywhere on your computer. you can also use it as an explorer replacement and browse around your file system. It’s very cool and helpful.

AppRocket website

Now that the film has been released, I have had some ask me for my views on it. After many conversations, these are some of the issues that I see as important. I will comment on them under the following four headings: 1) Scripture, 2) mediums of communication, 3) meaning, intention and interpretation, and 4) the Gospel.

1. The Sufficiency of Scripture

I begin by affirming that this movie does, for the most part, remain true to the telling of the Passion of Christ as it is written in the four Gospels. I do not deny the fact that there are many Biblical citations and allusions all throughout the film, and for this I am truly grateful. However, it should also be noted that there are things in this film which do not have their foundation in the pages of Holy Scriptures. The two main sources where these things have come from are Anne Catherine Emmerich’s book and Gibson’s own experience and imagination. Many have said that these extra-biblical scenes have enhanced the film and made it more powerful to watch. Scenes which give us more insight into the Spiritual realm of what is happening, the thoughts and memories of Christ as he reflects on his life and ministry, and more details about certain characters. All of the things in the film which are added to the Biblical account of Christ’s passion could have possibly taken place, but they are just that, possibilities. What is the warrant or reason for introducing these mere possibilities into the Biblical account? There are many things which I could think of that could have possibly happened during those twelve hours, but establishing possibilities is not the issue, the issue is establishing the necessity of introducing these extra-biblical details, no matter how beneficial they may seem to be. Why is it necessary, not just possible, to supplement the Biblical account?

While I know that it is not the intention of those who say these things to downplay the authority, sufficiency and clarity of Scripture, it is not the comments that I would expect from those who would claim a strong commitment to God’s Word. As Protestants, we are people who believe firmly in the power of God’s word. So much so that there were some in our heritage who gave their lives that the Scriptures might be available to every person. It is makes me sad, then, that some would say that God’s Word does not “move” them in the way that a movie like the Passion does. Our emotions are more stirred by a man’s vivid depiction of Christ than we are by God’s own revelation to humanity in the Bible. We are no longer grateful or amazed that God has made himself known in history and ordained means whereby that revelation was recorded in written form for future generations. Instead we look to the things around us for a fuller understanding of that revelation and perhaps even a better way of communicating it than writing, reading, teaching and preaching.

2. Mediums of Communication

This brings me to my second major issue which I see as foundational to other concerns about the movie. The question that has been raised in my mind is this: Is the visual an adequate medium for communicating Christian truths? It should be clear to all that we live in an age where the visual is seen as the highest form of communication. We have TV’s in every room of our houses, there are billboards and advertising posters everywhere, we use PowerPoint slides to enhance our oral communications, etc. Studies have been done which claim to teach us that people learn best when they can see something rather than just read or hear it. With all of that in mind, it can seem somewhat shocking when one comes to Scripture and finds command after command to read, teach and preach the Word. Is it simply our cultural distance which makes these forms of communication seem “outdated”? I guess my main question is, when the Bible speaks of preaching the Word, does it have in mind the use of images or movies? Has God promised to work through the viewing of a movie in the same way he has through the preaching of his Word? Many would say that these are the same thing; that a movie can communicate truth equally as well as preaching and in most cases, better. Gibson has told stories about why he attends the Latin mass. Because there in an element of mystery involved and it is not about understanding what is going on but simply seeing it. Undoubtedly this was probably an influence in wanting to film the movie in Latin and Aramaic. My concern then is, what does that say about our belief in the personal aspect of communicating Gospel truth – if it can be communicated more powerfully by seeing an impersonal movie than in the personal faith of believers acted out in love for their neighbor? What does that say about our belief in the spoken and preached Word of God – if pictures (even in another language) can communicate to our understanding the truths of the Christian faith better than words? Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that God cannot work through movies. What I am saying is that he has not promised to do so in the same way he has when his word is faithfully preached.

3. Interpretation, Meaning and Intention

If indeed the visual is an adequate medium for communicating Christian truth, how then is it to be interpreted? Wherein does the meaning lie? As already stated there are scenes in this movie which are not found in the Gospel accounts. They do not just happen to be in the movie; they were put there with a purpose. The place of Mary in this film is directly related to Gibson and Emmerich’s Catholic beliefs about her. That is not a secret. Likewise, the flashbacks on the cross to the scenes of the Last Supper are in the film because, as Gibson has said, see understands the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass to be the same thing. Gibson is not trying to hide these things and subversely communicate them to his audience. He has been forthright in sharing his reasons for certain cinematic decisions. With all of that said, this is a movie, and films can be viewed by many and interpreted in many different ways. As a result, can we legitimately dismiss the director’s stated intentions for certain things in this movie with which we do not agree? Can we simply dismiss his motives for including a scene and interpret it another way? I’m not sure.

My concern is that there will be those who go and see this movie who, having never read their Bibles, will think that this is an accurate portrayal of Evangelical beliefs when on some accounts it is not. Again, let me state that this movie does, for the most part, remain true to the testimony of Scripture, but it is at the other parts, especially when they are juxtaposed with Scriptural accounts, where we need to offer a Biblical corrective, not reinterpret them and simply dismiss their stated objectives.

4. The Gospel

Finally and most importantly, even after having spoken with people who have seen it, this film does not adequately convey the truth of the Gospel. Yet this that is exactly what it has tried to do. That this is the intention behind the movie is clear. On the homepage of Passionoutreach.com they have a quote from Gibson, “My hope is that this movie will affect people on a very profound level and reach them with a message of faith, hope, love and forgiveness.” Gibson’s movie is the way he has chosen to communicate that message. By seeing this film, Gibson hopes that people will be affected on a very profound level and recognize the message of faith, hope, love and forgiveness. Does this film adequately present the entire truth of the Gospel message?

While I have heard many praise this movie because it so clearly communicates the message that Christ died for us and bore on his body the penalty for our sins, I have not heard anyone talk about how in this movie the righteousness of God is revealed. Not the righteousness of God whereby he justly punished the sins of the Church on Christ, but the righteousness of God in Christ which is imputed to us only by faith. True that this movie probably brings out the point that Christ was innocent and according to the world’s standards being unjustly punished, but it does not stress the righteous life which he lived that satisfied God’s holy demands. When we place our trust in Christ we are trusting not only in his sacrifice on our behalf but for his righteousness which permits us to stand before God as just. Salvation, specifically justification (being in right standing before God), requires two things. The first is that the penalty for the sins of the guilty be paid. This is being communicated when people point to passages like Isaiah 53 for support of this movie and in saying things like “Jesus died for us”. While it is interesting to me that we have non-Calvinists proclaiming the specifically Calvinistic doctrine of subsituntionary atonement, this is only half of the message. The forgiveness of sins is necessary, but it does not put us in right standing before God, it only makes us neutral before Him. It is not only that we must be forgiven of our sins but that we must also obtain righteousness, righteousness which is in accord with God’s eternal and holy demands. It should be abundantly clear to all that we, as sinners, can never hope to attain this righteousness of our own striving, running or willing; we need a righteousness that is outside of ourselves. The glory of the Gospel is that God, in Christ, has perfectly lived the righteous life. He has met his own eternal standard of holiness. It is this righteousness which is then counted as ours only when we have faith in Christ. We trust in him, not only for the forgiveness of our sins, but for his active and positive righteousness on our behalf.

This message is integral to the distinctly Evangelical doctrine of justification by faith alone – the article, according to Luther, on which the church either stands or falls. This is the thing which separates the Biblical Gospel of historic Evangelicalism from that of Rome. Without it, the Reformers argued, there is no Biblical Gospel. Have we come to a day and age where that is no longer the case? Why is it that we do not see this as important as our fore-fathers in the faith did? Perhaps, we as Evangelicals need to reaffirm what it is we believe about the Gospel instead of assuming that everyone knows it.

With that in mind, how can one say that “the message will come through in this movie”? To what message are they referring? Are they referring to the entire Gospel as it is found in the pages of the New Testament and affirmed throughout Church history by faithful Evangelicals? The two main questions that I think people who see this movie should wrestle with are: Who was Jesus? and Why did he die? If we do not adequately, fully and Biblically answer these two questions people will leave the theaters having had a profound “spiritual” experience but there will be no repentance of sins, saving faith, or desire for baptism and involvement in local Churches. They will go back to watching their TV’s, buying clothes and worrying about all of the concerns of the world, all the while never realizing that their very soul is in jeopardy.

In sum, does this movie have the potential to spark conversations about the message of the cross? Absolutely. But should that be our only standard of judging it? Is it enough to view it from a pragmatic perspective and not think about other issues that may be wound up in it? I offer these comments not with the hope of stifling conversation about these things but that we might better know and love God as he has revealed himself to us most perfectly in the person of Christ through His word and faithfully proclaim him and the entire Gospel to a lost world.

Please feel free to post your comments on these things as we continue dialoging about this important film.

My friend, Clayton, saw the Passion yesterday and has posted his thoughts on his blog. He responds to those who have concerns about this movie and I am grateful to him for filling out my understanding of the film. I will post more concerning his thoughts this weekend. In the mean time read them for yourself.

Clayton’s blog

Many of you know that I respect John Piper. He was on a radio program today where he shared his thoughts about the Passion. I post them here for your listening. John Piper radio program

Also, he has a great book out which addresses the question that this movie does not answer, namely “why did Christ die?” The Passion of Christ the book

If any of you follow James White’s blog on his site then you will know how blatantly I use links to and from his site. I do so not simply to mimic all that he does but because I believe he is providing helpful links to resources on important issues.

With that said, here is a link which I commend to you before you see this movie

This is the BEST interaction with this movie that I have heard or read. I’m not sure if I agree with all of the points made, but I think it should be listened to by any Bible-believing Christian who seeks to honor God in all he does and test everything against the standard of God’s Holy Word. A.N. Martin’s Sermon

Perhaps I should add that although the conclusions of this link is one which would tell people not to see this film, please don’t then make that my intentions. I will say that after listening to this sermon, I am not sure what I am going to do when this film is released.

Be sure that I’ll have more thoughts here in the coming days. I’m anxious to hear some of your thoughts about the release of this movie. Feel free to email me or post your comments here.

You can now pre-order Shane Barnard’s new cd on his website. You can also download some of the tracks to listen to before the disc is released. It sounds pretty good.

http://www.shaneandshane.com/

Seeing that Wednesday is almost upon us, here is a review of the Passion that I think is worth reading.

http://www.aomin.org/BressonPassion.html

My friend Clayton, started up a new modblog too. Check out his site http://claytonius.modblog.com/

Why don’t you start of modblog of your own?

With the release of Mel Gibson’s new movie, the Passion of the Christ, there have been many opportunities for Christians to engage in dialogue about Jesus and Christianity. Most of the public conversations seemingly focus on the same question, ‘Who Killed Jesus?’ This is evidenced by the latest Newsweek cover article, as well as, Diane Sawyer’s interview with Gibson. There have been three primary answers offered to the question, ‘who killed Jesus’; we can categorize them as follows: 1) The Jews, 2) Pilate and 3) every individual of the human race. Each of these responses deserves a full explanation in its own right, but for the purposes of this essay I would like to focus on the element that is lacking from each of these responses. While it is in some sense true that the Jews, Pilate and even humanity are responsible for the death of Christ, it is the Biblical testimony that they are not the primary or ultimate cause for Jesus’ death. The Bible is clear in its teaching that answer to the question ‘who killed Christ’ is: God. Let us examine the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures to see where this is taught and why it is important.

Gibson’s movie opens with a quotation from part of Isaiah 53. This is indeed a powerful passage, one which foretells of the horrible things that Christ, our Lord would one day suffer. When we go to the context of Isaiah 53 we find this verse, “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (53:5). In our culture we do not use the word smote (or smitten) very often. It is defined as: “to attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows” (Dictionary.com). This is what the Scriptures say happened to Christ, not by Jews or Romans, but by God. Why would God do such a thing to His son; what were His purposes for doing so? I think the clearest answer to this question can be found in Romans 3:23-26, “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” According to this passage, God sent and afflicted Christ for two reasons: 1) to vindicate His justice and 2) to reconcile man to Himself. Indeed this is the continued witness of the New Testament. In Galatians Paul writes, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (1:3-4). Later in the letter he adds, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (4:4). Colossians 1:19f reads, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.”

The New Testament church, when faced with opposition from Jewish authorities (dare we say, similar to that of our own day), was clear to affirm that it was the Jews who had killed Christ, but never without declaring the greater purpose behind that death. At Pentecost, in the first “evangelistic sermon” ever preached, Peter affirmed, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know – this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:22-23). Soon after that Peter and John were taken before the Jewish authorities. When they had been released, they praised God saying, “truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the people’s of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan has predestined to take place” (Acts 4:27-28). All of the wicked and evil deeds committed in the crucifixion took place exactly how God had planned. While Herod, Pilate, the Jews and Gentiles were the material agents of that evil, none of it took place out of God’s control or against His will. God sent Christ to earth knowing that He would die, indeed because He had decreed it, in order that He might ransom for Himself a people, His Church.

Therefore, the answer that it was the Jews who killed Christ, or Pilate who manipulated them or even that it was humanity who killed Christ, misses the entire point of the Gospel message. We must answer this question with clarity and in accordance with Scripture because it addresses both why Christ came and why He died, which is the Gospel. The Good News is that, when we were dead in sin, God, in His mercy, sent Christ to reconcile His elect to Himself. It was God who initiated salvation, but what is more, He has and will accomplish it without fail. Truly, all those for whom Christ died will be brought to repentance and saving faith and will be raised up on the last day. The glory of the Cross is that God killed His son instead of us. Praise be to our God; a God who intentionally, actually, and perfectly saves.

---

I am deeply indebted to James White for pointing this important fact out to me. Visit his site by clicking on the link in the sidebar on the left.

I am constantly amazed at how fast information can be put up onto the web and the speed with which it can be interacted. Within 1 hour of my 2nd post here there were some comments regarding my thoughts on Mel Gibson’s new film. It seems as though I should clarify some of my views on issues related to Roman Catholicism. I will not try and respond to all of this at once, so what follows is the beginning of things to come.

I will begin by making some initial comments about Mary. First, I recognize that Roman Catholics do not at all claim that Mary is equivalent with Christ. She is not a member of the God-head nor is she comparable to Christ. That is why in my previous post I said she “in some ways plays just as significant of a role in salvation”. I tried to limit the effect of what I was saying because I did not want to push that further than the Roman Catholic does and misrepresent their position. That said, the Roman Catholic does hold Mary in very high regard and speaks of her in connection with salvation. I would also add that it could be seen by some to be somewhat misleading to use the term “Co-Redemptrix” with Christ. To me that just seems like a sticky word which would require great explanation. The reason that I mentioned Mary at all is because while it has been said that this movie trys to remain faithful to the telling of the Passion as it is recorded in the four Gospels, Gibson has said that he has used Emmerich’s book to supplement the Biblical account, especially in those places where Mary appears in the movie. The movie will not portray Mary in any kind of salvific role, but I’m guessing she will be more prevelant in this movie than she is in the Gospels because of Gibson’s beliefs about her.

I hope that those comments clear up a little of the confusion which has come about. I appreciate people’s comments on my posts. That is one of the reasons why I post them. Please feel free to use the comments button on the top of each entry. I will do my best to respond to what is posted there, but it is sometimes difficult to write a response in as timely a manner as I would like.

I will be posting my thoughts on what seems to be the “question of the hour” regarding this movie; that being “Who Killed Jesus”. Look for those in the next day or two.

Undoubtedly, everyone has heard of Mel Gibson’s new movie, to be released later this month. It is sure to bring conversation, and controversy, even Gibson has called it a potential career killer. Many in the Evangelical community are hailing this as the best movie which has been made about our Lord and a great evangelistic tool for telling others about Jesus, including both Bill Bright (Campus Crusade) and Billy Graham. I recently came across an interview with Mel Gibson where he explains some of the factors which influenced his decision to make this film, as well as, explanations concerning some of its scenes. After listening to this interview, I am not so quick to embrace and promote this new movie; what follows is some information concerning the film, along with some of my reservations.

People do not make movies about Jesus for no reason; there is always something that motivates an individual to undertake such a monumental task. For Gibson, he has said that one of the things that prompted the making of this movie is a book called “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ” by Catherine Emmerich. This book recounts in gruesome detail the vision which Emmerich had of what happened to Jesus and Mary during the passion week. Many Catholics, including Gibson, have said that Emmerich’s book has been most helpful for them in knowing where the Holy Mother was during the final hours of her son’s life and the content of her inner-most thoughts. When Gibson was asked about why he included so many scenes of Mary in this movie, he responded by saying this is because he feels she “suffered as much as Christ.” This reflects the Roman Catholic belief about Mary being a Co-Redeemer with Christ, who in some ways plays just as significant of a role in salvation as our Lord. Gibson’s Catholic beliefs about Mary are not the only thing which has influenced his cinematic decisions in the making of this film. During the interview, he was asked why he devoted so much of the movie’s time to the scene of the Last Supper. He did not respond by saying that this is because the account is one of the longest scenes we have recorded for us in the New Testament. Rather, he said this is because to him the Eucharist and the atonement are “the same thing”. While these things may not be explicitly stated in the film, recognize that Gibson’s beliefs concerning Mary, Christ and the Gospel have influenced its making.

My main concern about the release of this movie is the ecumenism that it is already and will continue to bring about, an ecumenism which is not based on a common understanding of the truth of the Gospel. Many will see this movie as an opportunity for unifying the Evangelical and Catholic communities, unfortunately at the expense of core doctrines like justification by faith alone and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness on behalf of sinful man. Some may say, “why are you trying to be so divisive by bringing up such inconsequential doctrinal matters. Can’t you see that this man obviously loves Jesus?” My goal is not to blindly reject anything that comes out of Rome. My goal is to see us, as Evangelicals, be prepared to give a defense for what we believe about Christ and the Gospel, and to be able to fill in the holes of the Gospel message that this movie will leave. For the Gospel is not simply the narrative story of Jesus, but it is the intention and purpose behind why he came and what he accomplished. This is, perhaps, why the New Testament has so much more material interpreting the meaning and application of the cross than it does telling about it. As such, when one simply sets out to provide a very emotional, seemingly objective, historical presentation of the life and death of Christ, the content of the Gospel will inevitably be lacking. It will lack an emphasis on the deadness of humanity in sin as a result of our being “in Adam” during the fall. It cannot adequately explain that God, in Christ, came into the world to propitiate the wrath of the Father against sin; He lived a life that met the righteous demands which God required and substitutionaly died in our place in order that, solely by faith we might be counted as righteous in His sight, thereby securing a foundation upon which our sanctification can be built.

Before concluding, perhaps I should offer two qualifications of what I have written so as to not be misunderstood. First, some may question my understanding of the relationship between Evangelicals and Catholics. In this essay, my aim is not to respond to the question, “Is the Catholic my brother?” (maybe that could be the topic of another article ☺) Briefly, I would say that I believe there are some in the Roman Catholic church who are among God’s elect. My second qualification is that, maybe contrary to what you think, I am encouraging people to go see this movie. Rarely in our culture are we afforded such an opportunity to converse with people about Christ and the Gospel. My hope is that we will be prepared to respond to the many questions that will arise from the viewing of this film. We must know the Gospel and always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is within us and to give that with gentleness and reverence (1 Pet 3:15-16). I provide this information so that we will better understand the influences that went into the making of this film and that we might not forget how content is not divorced from presentation; the one has an affect on the other. Let us not be so naive as to think that just because this is a moving story about Jesus that it is therefore inline with what the entirety of Scripture teaches. We must constantly compare everything, even things that come out of our own Christian communities, with the entirety of Scripture to measure its truthfulness. May God use us in this time for the full proclamation of His Gospel and to declare worth of His glory both here in Boston and around the world.

Sources: Gibson’s Interview: rtsp://rxns-rbn-sea04.rbn.com/farm/*/ewtn/g2ewtn/g2demand/odaudio/wo031403.ra Emmerich’s Book: http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/Dolorous-Passion.pdf

Welcome to the smerickson.com blog. I’m going to use this as a means of communication with large numbers of people and as my own personal publishing service. I will post events in my life as well as commontary on things I’m learning. It will usually be pretty infomal, although from time to time I may post something a little more formal. check back often. I’ll try and keep it updated pretty regularly.

Feel free to post comments as well. I would love to have some responses.