I moved my blog

This blog has moved. Please change your bookmarks to:

Believing Jesus

believingjesus.org

I will no longer be updating this site. I moved everything over to the new blog.

If you previously had linked to my site, please feel free to re-link to Believing Jesus

If you have not previously linked to my site and would like to, let me know. Or, on second thought, just go ahead.

More Aggressive Arguments Against Teetotalism

I really don’t intend to attack any people in this post. I do have every intention of attacking ideas. This is the more aggressive side of the debate concerning alcohol.

In Colossians 2, the Holy Spirit inspired inerrant, infallible words penned by the Apostle Paul which forbid anyone judging another concerning alcohol. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink,” (Col. 2:16). He goes on in verse 18 to warn his readers that heeding such rules and regulations concerning asceticism (denying the body) could result in their disqualification. Now, there is certainly quite a bit of debate as to what exactly is meant by disqualification, but we can all agree that it is not a good thing. So, if you won’t listen to me about all this, listen to Paul – “Don’t get disqualified!” We should follow our conscience, not a bunch of rules imposed upon us by others. If you think this issue should divide Christians, ask youself if you think that abstinance from alcohol is a sign of salvation. If so, please read Galatians 5. Those who seek to be justified by that law have been severed from Christ and have fallen from grace (v. 4). Please, don't disqualify yourself by asserting wrongly that alcohol is this important of an issue.

But, what about when these leaders who we look up to explain? They often teach, “It isn’t sinful to drink alcohol, but it is unwise.” Well, if you think this is a good argument, first you have to acknowledge, along with the leader who taught you this that you are, in essence, saying that, while Jesus might not have sinned, the Son of God did make unwise decisions. That sounds really bad, doesn’t it? Don’t think people actually say things like this in order to defend their ridiculous ethics? They do. I dont' want to name names right now, but if you check around on the blogosphere, it's not hard to find comments even more absurd than this. Thus, if you want to say that God incarnate was not homoousia with the Father in His omniscience and His wisdom, go your own way and be a heretic. But, if you want to be a Christian, stay within the bounds of orthodoxy and acknowledge that this might truly be a cultural issue.

But, your leaders warn you that alcohol is evil (i.e. - the Joshua Convergence Articles passed Sept. 25, 2006)). Well, as I posted earlier, that’s about like saying cars are evil. But the Apostle also addresses this topic in verse 23: “These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Col. 2:23)

Lastly, I’ll attempt to tackle the weaker brother argument. As we approach this subject, let’s keep in perspective who the weaker brother is. This argument is very similar to the “above reproach” argument. First off, we should recognize that the only reason the primary reason that there are “weaker brothers” is because we create them by continuing to insinuate that alcohol is wicked. Thus, when they see someone drinking, they “stumble,” not by getting drunk, but by judging the Christian who has learned to enjoy God’s gifts in moderation. But, when we take a closer look, those who advocate this argument often are bolstering themselves as the holier, more mature Christian. This is quite the opposite of the humble low road that someone who truly is weaker would have to take in making this argument. This is contrary to the verse principle the Apostle Paul appeals to in Romans 14 – the weaker brother passage. If someone wants to make this argument, then they necessarily call themselves the weaker, less mature brother. If they cannot get past this most basic part of the Christian life, they are certainly not qualified for leadership.

Quite frankly, it’s just high time that we acknowledge that what may have been viewed as a sign of piety in generations past, but it’s just not anymore. No one from generation X or Y thinks anyone is holier or more sinful on the basis of their responsible consumption of alcohol. Wait. That’s not true. There are some who think this way, but only those who have been previously exposed to the legalistic lies behind the so called “holiness tradition.” My point here should drive that last nail in the coffin in asserting that this incorrect, anti-biblical worldview is self-propagating in an effort to defend itself. Our culture has changed – embrace it to redeem it, don’t reject it to condemn it.

But what if you’re still not convinced? After all, these are your elders, and you really respect them. There is nothing wrong with this. Follow your conscience. If you think you shouldn’t drink, don’t. No one, not even me, is trying to force you to drink alcohol. But, in the same manner, other people should not be imposing regulations forcing other people not to drink alcohol, like the SBC has been doing since its inception.

Why legalism is so Sinful

This was so good that I decided to transcribe the whole thing. Dr. Piper summarizes a lot of how I feel concerning the spiritual upbringing that I’ve had and how it relates to legalism.

If You Want to Love, You Must Die to the Law

If you wan to be a loving person, the way to pursue it is to die to the Law and to pursue a vital, all-satisfying union with Christ. Romans 7:4 says, “You also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.” Notice the exchange: die to the law and belong to the one who was raised from the dead, that is, Jesus. This leads, Paul says, to bearing fruit for God. And the preeminent fruit of the Christians life is love. Therefore the key to love is to die to the law and embrace Jesus Christ by faith as the Savior and Treasure of your life.

But this does not mean that the Law aimed at something other than love, Romans 13:10 says, “Love is the fulfillment of the law” (NASB). So it seems that death to the Law means something like: Stop using the Law unlawfully. That’s the way Paul talks in 1 Timothy 1. There are folks who want to be “teachers of the Law” but “they do not understand…what they are saying” (verse 7). What are they doing wrong?

Paul explains in 1 Timothy 1:5 that “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and good conscience and a sincere faith.” So Paul’s gospel ministry aims at the fruit of love. People who love from “sincere faith” are in sync with the gospel.

Where does this love come from? He says it comes “from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” In other words, the way to pursue love is by focusing on the transformation of the heart and the conscience and the awakening and strengthening of faith. Love is not pursued first or decisively by focusing on a list of behavioral commandments and striving to conform to them. That is what we must die to.

Then in 1 Timohty 1:6-7, Paul describes some men who don’t understand this and yet are trying to use the Law for moral transformation. They are making a mess of it. He says, “Some men, straying from these things [that is, from heart, the conscience, and faith], have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand…what they are saying.” So their error is a misuse of the Law. They are trying to teach the Law, but they are turning aside from matter of the heart and conscience and faith. And so they are not arriving at love.

Is then the Law at fault? No. Paul absolves the Law, by saying in 1 Timothy 1:8, “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully.” The “lawful” use of the Law is to use it as a pointer to the gospel of the risen Christ, which awakens love. Paul confirms this in verse 9 by saying, “Law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless, rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners.” What does he mean? He means that the Law does not need to do its job for those who are united to Christ by faith and are bearing the fruit of love. It needs to do its job by confronting sinners with the fact that their lives are contrary to the gospel and that they must pursue “the gospel of the glory of the blessed God” and belong to the one who was raised from the dead.

Paul says, with a sweeping statement in verses 10-11, that the Law is for pointing out, and convicting people of, “whatever is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God.” This is very significant. Notice the connection between the Law and the gospel here. Who is the Law for? It is for “the lawless, rebellious, the ungodly and sinners,” that is, for those whose lives are not “according to the glorious gospel.” That is, for those who do not love. For love is the aim of Paul’s gospel (verse 5). The point is that the Law does not produce lives that accord with the gospel. Used lawfully, the law sends us to the gospel. That’s the point of Romans 7:4 – you must die to the Law [as a way of producing the fruit of love] and be united to Christ by faith “so that you might bear the fruit [of love] for God.”

In other words, according to 1 Timothy 1:5-11, the Law is meant to accuse and convict people of breaking the gospel! “The law is for…whatever is contrary to…the glorious gospel” (verses 10-11). The law of commandments is not the first and decisive means of fruit-bearing for the Christian. Rather the Law brings us to Christ so that, as Romans 7:4 says, “you might be joined to…Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit [of love] for God.” Oh let us embrace the risen Christ!

Life is too brief to waste it romancing the Law of commandments. That marriage will not bear the offspring of love. Make haste to Christ. Let the Law be, not the wife, but the humble matchmaker between you and Jesus. Don’t fall in love with, and don’t hate, the humble go-between. Die to the Law. Belong to the living Christ.

Open the eyes of our hearts, Father, to see the precious and limited role of Your Law in bearing the fruit of love in our lives. Lead us into deep and personal union with Jesus. Let this relationship with the living Christ transform our minds and wills so that we want what He wants and hate what He hates. Make us, by this union, radically loving people. In Jesus’ name, we pray, Amen.

It seems to me that we often makes law out of does and don’ts that have the appearance of wisdom, but are of no value in stopping the indulgences of the flesh (Col. 2:23). Furthermore, such unlawful, legalistic uses of the Law prevent us, and point us away from what really matters – Love. It seems to me that if we read Piper correctly as he exposits the meaning of “union with Christ,” he is talking about intimacy with Jesus. Instead of fighting against this teaching, it’s time we embrace it and allow Him to, not merely reform our behavior, but rather truly transform our hearts towards love, the very thing that is impossible to do with the law.

On the Foolish Ethics behind Teetotalism

Right now, I really want to write an essay on the foolishness behind the anti-alcohol trend in the SBC. But I don’t have time. So, this may serve as an outline for me to do this sometime in the future, and will hopefully generate some good discussion.

First, the resolution states clearly in the title that it concerns alcohol use “in America.” If alcohol is as evil as the authors of the resolution insist (the SBC apparently agreed with this), why doesn’t it condemn alcohol worldwide? And why stop at today’s world? Let’s go ahead and say that alcohol has always been, and will always be, an instrument of the devil. Oh wait, that makes Jesus a sinner, and Paul the Apostle foolish and uninspired. I knew there was a reason.

So, what has happened? The older generation of the SBC is not in touch with reality. Maybe during their hay-day it was considered a sign of piety to abstain from alcohol. But our generation doesn’t. Instead, we’re smart enough to recognize these attitudes as legalistic, and not in agreement with the Bible. If we insist that the Word of God is the sole authority concerning faith and practice, why do we appeal to our own traditions? We have divorced the faith from culture in a bad way. As we look through Christian history, it is clear that “prohibition” has never been an important part of the Church’s moral agenda. In fact, we don’t even see this except from about 150 years ago. This was the hey-day of the SBC, thus, our denomination was born in an era of this kind of legalism. Hence, it is difficult for us to escape the generational curses that are upon us today. It would necessarily involve renouncing our heritage as unbiblical. Ouch.

So, let’s analyze briefly the ethical arguments behind teetotalism. 1) Alcohol can lead to drunkenness, which is sin, so let’s avoid it, 2) we must be above reproach, and 3) alcohol was different in the Bible.

1) No one really wants to follow this absolute ethic consistently. We might get upset at someone cutting us off while driving and loose our temper and curse God’s name, so we shouldn’t drive. In fact, cars are evil. By the way, car accidents destroy far more families year in-year out than alcohol. Even accidents that are alcohol related could be avoided if there weren’t any cars. Get rid of cars, we solve the problem. If you think this is stupid, then quit making the same logical argument about alcohol.

2) First, the only reason that alcohol (even in moderation) is viewed by some as sinful is because Baptists continue to tell people that it is. This lie is self-propagating because we don’t fight against it. Things like this are the reason that I’m sometimes ashamed to call myself a member of the SBC. Besides, most people don't view alcohol in moderation as sinful. Thus, it really isn't a matter of being above reproach at all. Second, when alcohol is enjoyed in a responsible, godly manner, the Holy Spirit is on display for the world to see (the fruit of self-control). How about testifying with your life to the goodness of God in giving good gifts to His children, and showing others how to enjoy them the way He wants us to? Third, the sin behind the idea of “above reproach-ness” is religious pride. While there are times and places that we do need to make sure that we have a good relationship with outsiders, and we need to avoid even the appearance of evil, alcohol is not one. To disagree with this statement is to assert your ethic as higher than that of Christ. I would not encourage this. Jesus ate and drank in such a way that the Pharisees called him a drunkard. He was not concerned about his reputation in this way, and we are all called to be Christ-like.

3) If the alcohol used in the Bible (wine) were different, we wouldn’t have the warnings to not get drunk with wine (Eph. 5:18). The same word here is used in John at Christ’s first miracle on record – turning water into wine to give to people who have already had too much to drink. Dr. Stein of SBTS argues that one glass of today’s wine is equivalent to about 28 glasses back then. Let’s round down to 25 glasses. It would take me between 3-4 glasses of wine per hour to get drunk. Why warn people not to get drunk with wine if they would have to drink 75-100 glasses per hour? That’s like telling people, “Don’t drink 2 gallons of water every hour.”

This is only part of what I’ve got on this. I’ll post the more aggressive stuff later. In the meantime, post you pithy ponderings in the comments.

Stuff other people found for me to post here

These thoughts from Touchstone briefly summarize some of my concerns from the "Theological Hermeneutics" series. Great minds think alike :) (HT: Mere Christians)

Also, Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds has linked to someone who has done an amazing job detailing the importance of studying the Puritans. A++++++ on this stuff.

How to be a Legalist - Part 1

As promised, I'm going to post a series on the recent on-goings within the SBC. Those of you from the College Station community will know what I mean when I say that this series may serve as a "theological sternum" - it may hit you in the chest. So, if you have a weak stomach, you may want to avoid this series. I'm attempting in this series to fight against the narrowing focus of the SBC, and against the poor appropriation of Christian Ethics in my denomination. Lastly, I'm also trying to show that we, as Christians, must learn to embrace our culture, interact with it, and, ultimately, seek to redeem as much of it as possible. This includes things that we condemn as evil becuase we viewed things with a bad perspective (i.e. - alcohol in moderation).

So, before we really get going, take some time to read SBC Resolution # 5 of 2006 (copy posted below). Leave a comment - let me know if you agree or disagree, and why.

Resolution No. 5
ON ALCOHOL USE IN AMERICA

WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); and

WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation's highways; and

WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and

WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and

WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ"; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.

RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.

How narrow will the SBC get?

Here is why an eccumenical attitude must prevail.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. (Emo Philips)

Raymond Lull: First Missionary to the Moslems - Samuel Zwemer

Raymond Lull: First Missionary to the Moslems - Samuel Zwemer

Raymond Lull is my new hero of the faith, besides Jesus. Since being called into full-time Christian vocational ministry, I’ve struggled with what exactly my calling was. I feel very comfortable in an academic setting because God has gifted me with an intellect that I can use well, and a desire to educate myself an others. But the Lord has seen fit to place me in a missions organization (HGM) where academic theology is not stressed. So, I’ve had to ask myself, “Is there a place for an academician in the missions world, or do I need to change in order to fulfill my calling?” Then I read Samuel Zwemer’s biography of Raymond Lull.

The man lived in the lat 13^th and early 14^th centuries. Living before the Reformation, Lull was ahead of his time. Though he certainly was, to some degree, a product of his environment, his theology was more catholic than Roman. The ecumenicalism his life was encouraging to read, and gave hope to me for our present age. In fact, the only things that Lull pushed in his dogmatic theology in apologetic debate with the Muslims were the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, and the love of God. What a crazy idea! He focused on the essentials of the Christian faith in seeking the conversions of Moslems.

But that’s only part of what I find so amazing about Lull. His theological arguments were indestructible. His arguments were rational, based on incredibly precise philosophical points of view from a pre-modern paradigm. Lull wrote extensively on philosophy, theology, medicine, and language. Not impressed? His works number greater than 4,000, and he wrote in three different languages: Arabic, Catalonian (a version of Spanish), and Latin. Truly, this man was a genius.

But it gets even better. Lull founded numerous missionary training centers and mobilized monks of the Franciscan order to be missionaries to the Islamic world. The same idea of Boot Camp that God has called me to found in Bryan, TX is what this colossal intellect did all across Europe. When I visited with my boss about what God was showing me through this biography, he encouraged me by “giving me permission” to be who God has created me to be – an academic missiologist. Lull, one of his heroes as well, is the kind of academic theologian this world needs today – one who takes his findings to the ends of the earth.

So, am I going to be the world’s next Raymond Lull? Probably not. I’m not that smart. But, by God’s grace, love Jesus more everyday with all my heart, all my soul, and (like Lull) ALL of my MIND. I’ll use every bit of what He has given me to glorify Him where I am and see His glory spread across every part of the world, as the waters cover the seas (Hab. 2:14).

Great thoughts from people other than myself

SBC Outpost has posted some great, pithy comments concerning the current SBC controversies. Personally, I think the precepts behind his statements are very applicable to our community in College Station.

After that, take some time to read Rachel Holland's thoughts concerning the SIN of gossip. A question: How is this sin compatible with the requirements for biblical leadership found in 1 Tim. 3? Discuss.

Thoughts on Aesthetics

There is something distinctly Christian about beauty, even though beauty can seem relative. How can this be since “beauty is in the eye of the beholder?” Because there is something evil about ugliness. When we really take a look at things, there are at least some universal principles when it comes to identifying something as beautiful. To truly analyze this requires more time than I want to take, and more philosophy than I know.

But, why does this matter anyway? I was struck in reading a devotional passage from John Piper. Consider this thought provoking paragraph.

“The other reason I say that imagination is a Christian duty is that when a person speaks or writes or sings or paints about breathtaking truth in a boring way, it is probably sin. The supremacy of God in the life of the mind is not honored when God and His amazing world are observed truly, analyzed duly, and communicated boringly. Imagination is the key to killing boredom. We must imagine ways to say truth for what it really is. And it is not boring.”

Right on! I think this is going to prove more and more important as we move further away from modernity, and more towards a post-modern culture. People will listen if there is something beautiful about what we have to say, and Christianity is beautiful because Christ is beautiful. Consider: love is a beautiful thing, and so is the end of world hunger, racism, and hatred. Death being destroyed is a precious thought. Living forever with God in supreme harmony is a joyous, happy, wonderful, beautiful thought! We’ve got to learn to appeal to people’s sense of beauty when we talk about Christianity. To fail to do so might be sin.

Through the Dust - Denny Gunderson

Through the Dust – Denny Gunderson

This book kicked me in the teeth. Gunderson’s commitment to Christology provided a rich examination of the model of the Savior, and a strong critique of modern “leadership.” The author repeatedly points out how modern Christians often look to Nehemiah or Joshua for examples of leaders in the Bible, but continually overlook the servant leadership of Jesus. Every chapter paints a picture in which, based on the wisdom of the world, it would seem that Jesus should have responded in a manner differently than He actually did. I took two months to read this book (one chapter per week) so that I could really digest what I was reading. Taking the extra time allowed me to truly examine my own heart, and the leadership structures that I’m familiar with based on my upbringing in the Christian church. I am thoroughly convinced that we need nothing short of another Reformation to deliver us from the ungodly methods that have been modeled for us.

However, where many have read this book and have rejected institutional Christianity en total, I have not. Instead, I have desired catholicity and accountability in the worldwide Church to fight against the problems we see running rampant in so many fellowships today. Furthermore, even though I loosely hold to a lay/clergy distinction, I firmly hold to the idea that both laity and clergy should serve together on a board of elders in governing a church. Thus, reading this book has convinced me that single elder/pastor led congregations are going to have certain problems that can be avoided if alternative forms of church government were chosen (i.e. – Presbyterianism). More over, the Reformation that I (along with Jesus) am calling for concerns orthopraxy (right practices and actions) and orthodpathy (right feelings and motivations) more than it does orthodoxy (right doctrine and theology). Read this book. Read it slowly. Examine what you’ve seen and heard. You’ll be convinced that much of what is called “Christian leadership” is little more than power-mongering territorialism. I know that I’m bringing my own bad situations into my reading of Through the Dust, but I’d be surprised to learn that I’m the exception. Hopefully others will give this book a read, and some beneficial, edifying conversations will be generated in the body of Christ.

Learning to Love People you don’t Like – Floyd McClung

Learning to Love People you don’t Like – Floyd McClung

This was a difficult book to read. Not because it was dry, and not because I disagreed with what McClung has to say. In fact, it was just the opposite. I was struck to the core over and over again as I read story after story that revealed my sin to me. By God’s grace, this conviction led to godly sorrow, and that to repentance many times over. This book, along with the other book mentioned below, aided me in reevaluating my paradigms for relationships and leadership. This book is highly practical and immensely beneficial to those who will take the time to pray through what the Holy Spirit reveals. Devotional in nature, the theological precepts of this book are simple: God has given us a command to love everyone – our friends, our neighbors, and even our enemies. This book should be required reading for all Christians when they join a church, or at least for clergy. If anyone has ever had a clash with someone, they should read this in order to learn what godly relationships can look like, even with people who you don’t like. Please don’t mistake this short review to communicate that this book isn’t important. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, view the brevity as me not wanting to spoil the fruit that will be born in your life by reading it. Furthermore, I can’t adequately describe how much this book helped me. Move this book up in your reading list. Read it slowly, and devotionally (one chapter a week, or something). It will be worth your effort.

Regurgitation

Sorry that so much of what I have to say is secondary these days. I guess I think others have said it better than I can. Hopefully, I can serve as someone who can direct others to valuable reading that they otherwise might not encounter.

In light of not-just-a-few discussions I've had about my post linking Peter Leithart, please read the following. It might help clear up what I dislike modernity so much. I'm actually a little bitter that it has not, and cannot, deliever the goods that it "promised." Read Michael Sawilowsky on Soren Kierkegaard on removing the offenses of Christianity.

Next check out Alistair Adversaria on N.T. Wright on Infant Baptism. It's long, but worth the read. I've never taken the time to think about how much modernity (read individualism) has influenced my view of this particular ordinance/sacrament. I'm still holding to a creedal baptist position, but, if A.A.'s representation of Wright's position is faithful ( and I think it is), then he (Wright) has a lot of good things to say that we (Baptists) need to appropriate somehow in our theology of baptism. How? I don't know...

The current problems

Everyone should take a look at Steve Camp's post "You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you, don't you? Don't you?"

He's right on about much of the evangelical world. What hits close to home is how much I have done the very things he condemns, and called it discernment and discipleship. But what I'm talking about is not just our group, but American evangelicalism in general. Take this quote for example:

There are no “Protestant Popes” (despite the supercilious stature of some evangelical leaders) who think that when they speak, we must obey with unquestioned "amens" and blind loyalty.

Now couple that with this:

What’s very disappointing, is that when you do question some of "them", they will not just disagree with you, but they want to hurt you.

I'm actually surprised that Steve Camp shares my feelings on this. I'm guessing that the critical spirit of this age has caught up with him and his friends. It really is sad. The way that I've lived out this sinful, critical lifestyle is by seeking to undermine those with whom I disagreee. Somehow, if my audience will think less of my opponent via my speaking evil of him/her, then I gain credibility in comparison to them. What pride! Can we not see that this strife is sown by still comparing ourselves with other people? (thanks to Ryan Wayson for this insight)

I'll just remind everyone to go re-read what my friend Michael said in one of his lists at Missions Blog. It's not okay to:

1. When you share something and people think it is strange and don’t like it, call it conviction. When someone shares something you think is strange and don’t like, call it discernment.

2. Assume that someone’s lust/gluttony/cursing problem is worse than your unlovingness/unkindness/just generally being a jerk. God is willing to overlook your sin because you hand out tracts, the good kind.

3. If something bad is happening to someone else assume it is because of sin. If something bad is happening in your life assume it is spiritual attack or persecution.

4. If you ever disagree with anything someone says, make sure to write off the 90% of good stuff they are saying. After all, a little leaven leavens the whole loaf. I don’t care if their book did point out a bunch of stuff I needed to hear.

5. Use the word heretic all the time. Don’t worry about whether it is true or appropriate. People need to know you are serious. Get really mad at people that call you one.

6. Establish a million extra-biblical rules. Make sure that everyone serves Jesus out of fear and “responsibility” and never cheerfully with grateful heart. You may be robbing people of their joy, but they can suck it up.

7. Preach the Bible as completely inspired and authoritative, but make sure to never talk about the verses that people “abuse”. Verses like “my burden is easy, my yoke is light” and “learn from Me because I am gentle and humble of heart” turn people into slackers. Don’t even get me started on Jer. 29:11.

8. Always believe the person that speaks the loudest and with the most certainty about their views. Become this person.

9. Always preach about the sins your not involved in. That way you can be really ungracious about it and not feel like a total hypocrite.

10. Preach a standard even you can’t keep. Preaching a standard twice as hard as you actually want people to keep will produce the results you’re looking for. People typically compromise and will only come halfway. Don’t worry about the condemnation they feel for the other half.

11. Never let people see you aren’t as spiritual as you portray. Don’t let on that you are feeling sad/depressed/stuggling with sin. This could cause people to stop esteeming what you have to say. You can suck it up and hold it together until Jesus comes.

So, everyone, just STOP IT! (HT: Nick Terry @ Shaking the Gates) Let's get back to Biblical, New Testament Christianity.

"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations - 'Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch,' (referring to things that all perish as they are used) - according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." (Colossians 2:16-23)

I'm going to write a expositional sermon in the next few weeks about this passage. When it's done, I'll post it. In the meantime, more concerning this stuff is coming down the pipeline. The very things condemned in this passage are the very things killing the SBC today, especially in my community.

What's coming up

Over the next few days, I’m going to be posting a number of things. First, be on the lookout for lots of reading log info. Most of what I’m writing is what the Lord has been showing me as I read these devotional books. An academic book requires an academic review. However, of late I’ve been spending a lot of time reading less than academic works in order to take time to slowly read a number of devotional type, character development books. Please let me know what you think.

Also, I’m going to be posting some stuff about this year’s Southern Baptist Convention. These posts will primarily revolve around ethics, and how we have been taught wrongly what it means to live an aggressive Christian life.

These posts will lead me into a more academic discussion regarding the sufficiency of Scripture. I hope to type out some provocative thoughts that should stir up quite a hornets’ nest. Tune in to find out what tradition is mandatory, and learn the impossibility of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

He's a genius

Peter Leithart is one of my favorite people right now. You can find his blog at Leithart.com. Check out his post in which he appropriates pre-modern thinking in relation to the debate concerning pluralism, which is currently plaguing the church.

What you’ll find is that this debate eventually reduces to what is really knowable with exact certainty (or Cartesian certainty). I find that little of Christianity can be “proven” beyond any shadow of a doubt. Thus, the need of faith, and the ability to listen to those who disagree with us, even though we don’t accept the validity of their claims.

This post of his on hermeneutics is also highly beneficial.

Though highly academic, Leithart is worth the read, if you can follow. Understand where he's coming from. He's a high presbyterian who likes catholicity. He's part of the Federal Vision project. I'd recommend coming to the table with a working knowledge of ancient thinking, modern thinking, and an idea of what post-modern philosophy is all about. Right now, I've been doing my best to find a book to recommend to those who are not aware of how much they've bought into modernity. If anyone has any ideas, let me know.