Thursday, April 07, 2011
Start At Home
David French excoriates the American church for divorce:
I can only add that I have watched divorce do a great deal of damage in the lives of children - some that I love very deeply. Of all the divorce I have witnessed, but once should it have happened and in that case the botched the process so badly it made matters worse rather than better.
The fact that the church stands by and watches this is very much to its shame.
For more than three decades, the American Christian Church has participated fully and completely in the institution of no-fault divorce. Sacred bonds formed before God -- bonds that take two to form and two to live -- can be severed at the whim of one. Even worse, they're often severed even when Christian spouses are living fully immersed in the church culture. I've been in "accountability groups" that offer more empathy than accountability. I've seen counselors become puppet-masters for their emotionally vulnerable clients, marching them out of marriages the counselor subjectively views as dysfunctional. And I've read fashionable Christian bestsellers that offer such sweeping indictments of "judgment" in the church that they blur the distinction between judgment and mere reading comprehension.This is a must read and a must convict for anyone that is serious about living a life of discipleship to Jesus Christ.
I can only add that I have watched divorce do a great deal of damage in the lives of children - some that I love very deeply. Of all the divorce I have witnessed, but once should it have happened and in that case the botched the process so badly it made matters worse rather than better.
The fact that the church stands by and watches this is very much to its shame.
Technorati Tags:church, divorce
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Wholeness
Evangelical Outpost reviews a book on work and leisure:
Rest is not necessarily a state of inactivity, but rather a state of letting other power handle the burden. I rest in God's hands so that even when I am active, He does the "work" and I still rest.
Secondly, God defines culture, not us. If we rest in God's hands, whether in activity or inactivity, then God can do His work to define our culture, but if we depend on our philosophy, the our culture will be as corrupt as we are.
But what most amazes me about this is how hard we seem to work to justify doing what we want to do, instead of learning what God wants us to do and doing it - even when we think we can't He can, if we will but let Him.
He contrasts leisure with the world of work, which looks at life though utilitarian glasses.I could not disagree more. Firstly I think God calls us to be whole creatures, not divided into such realms. I think this confuses "rest" with "work."
[...]
These experiences are what foster our ability for leisure, and on Pieper’s thesis, as leisure develops, so does culture. He sees the two as almost synonymous, defining culture as human achievement that transcends utility: poetry, art, music, education. Piper argues that the greatest capacity for culture comes from philosophy, because it is contemplation of reality. Though culture is not more important than our real need to work, it should be our capacity for leisure which defines us.
Rest is not necessarily a state of inactivity, but rather a state of letting other power handle the burden. I rest in God's hands so that even when I am active, He does the "work" and I still rest.
Secondly, God defines culture, not us. If we rest in God's hands, whether in activity or inactivity, then God can do His work to define our culture, but if we depend on our philosophy, the our culture will be as corrupt as we are.
But what most amazes me about this is how hard we seem to work to justify doing what we want to do, instead of learning what God wants us to do and doing it - even when we think we can't He can, if we will but let Him.
Technorati Tags:work, liesure, wholeness
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Distinctive, but not Different?
Justin Taylor reprint some comments trying to understand the verses in Titus on dissension. I just does not sit right with me. They seem to want to carve out a place where it is "OK" not to take the verses literally.
They make distinctions, but is there a difference? See, I don't think there is an intellectual answer to the issue. It is not about, "Where is the line where we have to split?" It's about who we are when we disagree.
I just wish that sometime we would quit focusing on the lines and start focusing on who we are when we are near them. It seems to me that if we are God's people, attuned to Him we will make the correct decision in each instance and it will not be the same decision every time.
Our first response to a divisive situation should not be to evaluate where it stands in the priority of things to get angry about. What we should do is drop to our knees and pray for guidance. The answer lies not in intellectual activity, but in submission.
Submission - that's a difference.
They make distinctions, but is there a difference? See, I don't think there is an intellectual answer to the issue. It is not about, "Where is the line where we have to split?" It's about who we are when we disagree.
I just wish that sometime we would quit focusing on the lines and start focusing on who we are when we are near them. It seems to me that if we are God's people, attuned to Him we will make the correct decision in each instance and it will not be the same decision every time.
Our first response to a divisive situation should not be to evaluate where it stands in the priority of things to get angry about. What we should do is drop to our knees and pray for guidance. The answer lies not in intellectual activity, but in submission.
Submission - that's a difference.
Technorati Tags:ideas, submission
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Kitty Kartoons
Monday, April 04, 2011
What Do You Sing?
Justin Taylor links to a coupe of pieces about "Singing Songs About God's Judgment. Go read it and the posts it links to - I'll wait.
...
OK, good - I'd have had to quote too extensively to say this so I hope you have read it.
The whole thing just did not sit right with me - two misconceptions. The first is that Singing=Worship. No, No, and NO - singing is part of worship, but it does not define worship. Worship is sacramental, it is obedience - it is granting God Kingship. Not to mention that singing can be as empty and void of genuineness as any other ceremonial activity - singing is singing - we make it worshipful or we do not.
Secondly, while worship is the basis for all that a Christian does, in a democracy it is not of itself a political activity. In a tyrannical nation where it is forbidden or restricted, it is political activity, but in America, it takes more.
Now, if you equate singing with casting a vote - then you have something, but that's stretching a metaphor don't you think?
...
OK, good - I'd have had to quote too extensively to say this so I hope you have read it.
The whole thing just did not sit right with me - two misconceptions. The first is that Singing=Worship. No, No, and NO - singing is part of worship, but it does not define worship. Worship is sacramental, it is obedience - it is granting God Kingship. Not to mention that singing can be as empty and void of genuineness as any other ceremonial activity - singing is singing - we make it worshipful or we do not.
Secondly, while worship is the basis for all that a Christian does, in a democracy it is not of itself a political activity. In a tyrannical nation where it is forbidden or restricted, it is political activity, but in America, it takes more.
Now, if you equate singing with casting a vote - then you have something, but that's stretching a metaphor don't you think?
Technorati Tags:worship, politics
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Comic Art
Let's face it - given that on a typical day one supervillain holds off the entire Justice League, a group of them should be able to conquer the world, no problem.There is just one hitch in this get along - villains are egomaniacs by definition, so getting them all stroking in the same direction is a bit of a chore. That is certainly the theory behind The Secret Society of Super-Villains. (With a name like that you would think this group was Stan Lee at Marvel, but it came from the pen of Jack Kirby at DC, leaving you to wonder who was cornier of the great team.)
I find it hard to be funny about this group. They are too "real." We live in such a narcissistic age that it seems like a bunch of individual agendas, barely harnessed towards a single goal, constantly breaking apart because of the individual agendas colliding - the goal never reached - is just the way of things. It's not entertaining, it's painful.And since I am not being funny I am forced to reflect how come people cannot see this happening day after day. How come we do not associate this behavior with "evil" anymore. The Justice League grows ever closer to looking very much like this group in terms of the personal interaction.
The SSoSV is a testament to narcissism. So is much of our societal discourse today. There is a lesson in there somewhere.
Technorati Tags:comics, comic books, comic art, villains, secret society
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Friday, April 01, 2011
Defining "Reality"
I grow weary of people trying to "fix" history. MSNBC runs a piece on a PBS show about the "historical accuracy" of some Biblical accounts:
It is conceivable and theoretically possible that electrons have randomly organized themselves inside MSNBC servers to produce his work, or that a cabal of science geeks have created him as a front since they do not wish to take any credit for their own work. Maybe the people that read him just want his work to be real so badly that they have created this unintentional conspiracy to foist his thoughts on the rest of the world, and history.
Fact of the matter is,the show he reviews is about a search for King Solomon's mines - an extra-Biblical legend the sprung into prominence primarily in the Victorian era. This has almost nothing to do with Biblical accounts the history of Israel, Judaism or Christianity.
And yet, Alan Boyle sees fit to open his piece questioning the very fact of one of the most pivotal moments in world and religious history.
No, no agenda journalism here. Sheesh - give me a break.
Did King David and Solomon actually exist? The long-running debate over the accuracy of biblical accounts is resurfacing on TV and in print.Does Alan Boyle exist? After all, I have never met him, nor have any archaeologists produced any peer reviewed papers of findings confirming his existence.
It is conceivable and theoretically possible that electrons have randomly organized themselves inside MSNBC servers to produce his work, or that a cabal of science geeks have created him as a front since they do not wish to take any credit for their own work. Maybe the people that read him just want his work to be real so badly that they have created this unintentional conspiracy to foist his thoughts on the rest of the world, and history.
Fact of the matter is,the show he reviews is about a search for King Solomon's mines - an extra-Biblical legend the sprung into prominence primarily in the Victorian era. This has almost nothing to do with Biblical accounts the history of Israel, Judaism or Christianity.
And yet, Alan Boyle sees fit to open his piece questioning the very fact of one of the most pivotal moments in world and religious history.
No, no agenda journalism here. Sheesh - give me a break.
Technorati Tags:history, truth, agenda
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Friday Humor
Technorati Tags:joke, humor, friday humor, yogi bear
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
