Should Christians "Forgive" Everyone?

I don't frequently just re-post someone else's article, but this one really has me thinking... Are we to "forgive everyone" unconditionally? When wronged, are we merely to "forgive and forget"? Is that the Biblical mandate?

The author makes a convincing argument that we are NOT to do that. In part:

"Christians are not called to automatically forgive every offense. Rather, we should offer forgiveness to all. Said another way, we should maintain an attitude of forgiveness. But biblical forgiveness is more than a feeling. It is something that happens between two parties, and it takes place in the fullest sense only when the offending party repents and the relationship is restored..."

It is, I think, very helpful to adopt a Biblical approach to forgiveness... especially these days.  All too often, breaches happen in relationships - from families to churches - and it is very uncommon to find people willing to do the hard work of actually addressing the breach.  How many marriages, families, friendships or church memberships are shattered - with potentially years of wasted time - because the parties involved don't want to address the problem? 

So here"s my question:  In the case of a relational breach, are we Biblical when we ignore the breach and "let time heal all wounds" or should we offer forgiveness freely, but withhold it's delivery until repentence and restoration is achieved?


If you missed the link above, you can find the entire article at http://www.reformation21.org/articles/unpacking-forgiveness.php. Read more!

Evangelical Confusion: What Is Justification?

Confusing? Sometimes the direction you get just isn't really helpful...

If you're listening, you've noticed that there is a LOT of confusion in the Evangelical church these days… in a LOT of areas. Many - even pastors - seem confused (at best). Certainly, the lack of practical commitment to sound doctrine lends itself to this confusion, and the Evangelical trend towards viewing doctrine as divisive has lead to increasing distain – at both the lay level and even among leadership - for precision and consistency in theology.

American Evangelicalism is increasingly a sub-culture which seems determined to distance itself from its historical roots. The bounds of orthodoxy are being stretched in every direction, churches are setting aside their own historic distinctives, and practical theological training is increasingly ignored or even ridiculed in some Evangelical circles. (I confess to not understanding the reasoning for this; after all, I don’t think any of us want to go to a dentist who didn’t go to dental school! But that’s the subject for another post.)

If what we think about God matters, it’s no wonder there is rampant confusion, even on this fundamental question: What is the Gospel?

How do you answer that question?
I’ve been astonished as I’ve listened to answers from those who claim to represent Jesus. Too often, their response is some variant around the theme of personal transformation – that is, what I have done, am doing now, or what I have experienced. It may sound something like this: “I was [bad/unhappy/unfulfilled/addicted, etc.], but I accepted Jesus and now I’m [getting better, etc.]” Said another way, the answer is “inside” us. It is the Good News about our transformation.*

If anecdotal evidence is at all indicative, the common Evangelical answer is miles away from the way the Bible defines the Gospel… which is the objective declaration of the finished, historical work of Jesus Christ, particularly in His death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). What happens to us (through the work of the Holy Spirit) is the result of the Gospel - not the Gospel itself... and that is an important distinction to remember.

There is a lot of confusion these days in the Evangelical church about this. Even where Biblical doctrine is affirmed in a church's statement of faith, all too often the primary focus of attention in ministry practice is on changing a person's life without addressing what they believe! These churches operate under a false dichotomy (“we’re not interested in doctrine, we’re interested in life” or “we don’t want ‘head-knowledge,’ we want to live the gospel”), as if they had never read Romans 12:1-2! This has lead to a de-emphasis on - and even more importantly, a lack of confidence in, Truth as revealed in Scripture, and an over-emphasis on one's personal experience. This is why sound doctrine is a bad word in many circles, and the focus of ministry is shifting from "mind-renewing" to the pragmatic focus on pietism and personal fulfillment.

Here's my question: Is “the Gospel” at its core the good news about Jesus or good news about us?

I’m not saying, of course, that we are not transformed by the Gospel – we are (2 Corinthians 5:17). But the shift in focus has led to a growing confusion among the rank and file in Evangelicalism between “justification” and “sanctification.”

So, What's the Difference?
The Biblical position is that justification is a legal determination which occurs on the basis of faith the finished work of Jesus Christ alone. In temporal terms it is an event, and distinguished from the process of sanctification. That is what Evangelicals have historically believed as essential.

Other positions deviate from the Biblical view. For example, the Catholic position historically (effectively) has been that “justification” is sanctification. Similarly, while claiming “Evangelical” status, N.T. Wright’s position in his variant of the “New Perspectives on Paul” is essentially the same - that we are justified (finally and definitively) at the end of our life “on the basis of the whole life lived.” Sadly, the view of the average current Evangelical is strikingly similar in practice. Because the Good News we share is about our personal transformation, the primary assurance of our salvation is also our personal transformation. Our assurance is undermined by an honest evaluation of our lives and our own current performance!

No wonder Semi-Palagianism is the default theology of the Evangelical movement** as the common thought seems to be that one can lose the salvation God has given. Some people try to ignore theological labels and, if pressed, seek to draw a distinction between “assurance” and “security” (the former being knowing that you have been converted and the latter that you will persevere). Others seek to try to carve out novel positions, like “God won’t let go of you, but you can somehow 'nullify' God's work on your behalf.” (I'm serious! I've heard both taught... and they are both are just variants of the same old Semi-Palagian thinking).

It is important to be precise in our understanding between our justification and our sanctification because it underscores the source of our confidence. So let’s draw the distinction:

Said simply, the Bible teaches that justification is being legally declared righteous by God. This happens only one time and changes our legal standing before God as a result of faith in the finished work of Jesus on our behalf (Romans 5:17-19). Sanctification is being made experientially righteous by God over time by God. This is a process, continuing through our lives, and it is both the work of God and something we are commanded to pursue (Philippians 2:12-13). They are both part of the Salvation process, but they are different. More precisely:

Justification is the legal determination made by God Himself, which addresses everyone’s “most urgent need” – that is, the need to deal with our condition by birth of being enemies of God and under His Divine wrath. We are born with a sin nature, hostile to – and enemies of - God Himself (Romans 1:18, 3:23, 5:12, etc.). We all stand guilty before Him (Romans 3:23). In other words, we have two distinct, but related problems: First, we are sinners (that is, NOT righteous), and second, we have sinned – that is, we deserve God’s wrath. The first separates us from God and the second demands punishment. And the good news is that God has dealt with this Himself on behalf of those whom He has chosen (Romans 8:29-30) in two very important ways:

First, God addressed our need for punishment by making Jesus to be a propitiation by his blood on our behalf (Romans 3:25). This means that Jesus’ death paid the penalty due to us by God’s righteous wrath for our sin. He paid our price for us and, as a result, we are forgiven… “just as if” we had never sinned. This is why the Biblical view of the work of Jesus on the cross is described as a substitionary atonement. But that by itself does not address the whole problem, because if that were it, we still would be separated from God because of our unrighteous nature and our failure to be perfect in His sight. So...

Second, to address our unrighteousness and imperfection, God imputed Jesus’ perfect righteousness to us (Romans 4). In other words, God credits the righteousness of Jesus to those of us who believe. This faith itself is, of course, itself a gift from God – not of works (Romans 4, Ephesians 2, etc.) This second point is increasingly lost in Evangelical discussion, but it is critical to understand. Wayne Grudem, in his systematic theology, says this:

"It is essential to the heart of the gospel to insist that God declares us to be just or righteous not on the basis of our actual condition of righteousness or holiness, but rather on the basis of Christ's perfect righteousness, which he thinks of as belonging to us. This was the heart of the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism at the Reformation. Protestantism since the time of Martin Luther has insisted that justification does not change us internally and it is not a declaration based in any way on any goodness that we have in ourselves." (Grudem, Systematic Theology 1994, p. 727)

Grudem rightly contrasts this with the Roman Catholic view, which mixes justification with sanctification, defining it (for example, from the Council of Trent) as as "the sanctifying and renewing of the inner man" (Grudem, p. 727, quoting Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.257).

So, Why Does It Matter?
The difference - and the implications - between the Protestant and Catholic view are massive. It is critically important because a misunderstanding between these two parts of salvation leads to all sorts of confusion around whether or not we can have assurance of our salvation... and what that assurance (if any) really looks like. If you believe that your assurance depends on your personal transformation – as many seem to these days, you will have a very difficult time accepting the Biblical teaching on assurance. On the other hand, if your confidence rests on what Jesus has done, you will find the comfort and encouragement that God has intended for His children (1 John 5:13).

If one sees their personal progress in holiness (that is, their sanctification) as an evidence of their legal standing before God (that is, their justification), any sin at all calls their status before God into question. But the Good News is that God has – in the past – historically and finally – justified us. Made us right with Himself… forgiven us and credited us with the righteousness of Jesus Christ himself. And here is my point: The reason that we can have confidence before God is all based on the finished work of Jesus Christ – not on our personal transformation or other "inner"experience. The Good News is an external, objective reality… not an internal, subjective experience.

Of course we are being transformed (or sanctified)… and the God will complete the work He has begun in us (Philippians 1:6). All who have been justified are being sanctified. But the two must not be confused, because all Christians continue to wrestle with sin… it is our experience in this life (Romans 7). We cry out with Paul in the struggle between who we are currently and eschatologically (Romans 7:15-25). As we grow in knowing God and understanding His character and requirements, we see ourselves falling farther and farther short and who we are to be.

The problem, of course, is that Evangelical teaching is all too frequently indistinguishable from Catholic doctrine on this point. Mike Horton touched on the growing confusion about this in the Evangelical movement - and its implications - in the October 21, 2007 edition of the White Horse Inn (“Faith and Assurance”). He said this:

"In his book Revisioning Evangelical Theology, Stanley Grenz argued that Evangelicalism is more a spirituality than a theology, more interested in individual piety than in creeds, confessions, doctrines and liturgies. Experience gives rise to, in fact determines doctrine - rather than the other way around. The main point of the Bible, he says, is how the stories can be used in daily living. He goes on to write this:

“Although some Evangelicals belong to ecclesiological traditions that understand the Church as in some ways a dispenser of grace, generally we see our congregations foremost as a fellowship of believers. We share our journeys, our testimony, of personal transformation. Thus, a fundamental shift in self-consciousness may be underway… a move from a creed-based to a spirituality-based identity that is more like medieval mysticism than protestant orthodoxy.

Consequently, spirituality is inward and ‘quietistic,’ concerned with combating the lower nature and the world in a personal commitment that becomes the ultimate focus of the believer’s affections. Therefore, the origin of faith is not to be attributed to an external gospel but arises from inner experience, because ‘spirituality is generated from within the individual, inner motivation is crucial… more important than ‘grand theological statements.’

The spiritual life is above all the imitation of Christ. In general, we eschew religious ritual, not slavish adherence to rights, but doing what Jesus would do is our concept of true discipleship. Consequently, most Evangelicals neither accept the sacramentalism of many main line churches, nor join the Quakers in completely eliminating the sacraments. We practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but understand the significance of these rights in a guarded manner. In any case, these rights are practiced as goads to personal experience, and out of obedience to the Divine command.

So, get on with the task! Get your life in order by practicing the ‘aids to growth’ and see if you don’t mature spiritually. In fact if a believer comes to the point where he or she senses that stagnation has set in, our counsel is to re-double one’s efforts in the task of exercising the disciplines.”

Check up on yourself, the Evangelical counselor admonishes. We go as Evangelicals to the Church, he says, but not in order to receive means of grace, but for fellowship, instruction and encouragement.

All of this emphasis, as you can see, is on what happens inside of us, what we can do by ourselves alone, and what we do – not on what God does for us and gives to us when we assemble as His people.


This is a very different kind of view than you have with the spirituality generated by the doctrine of Justification. Here there is real assurance, genuine assurance. Luther says because you believe in me, God says, and your faith takes hold of Christ whom I have freely given to you as your justifier and Savior, therefore be righteous. Thus, God accepts you or counts you righteous only on account of Christ in whom you believe. Whatever other piece of good news concerning New Birth, Christ’s conquest of sin’s tyranny, the gift of the Spirit, His promise to renew us throughout our life, the resurrection of our body and the freedom from the presence of sin, much less the useful exhortations we may offer ourselves. The announcement that Luther here summarizes is the only thing that can create and sustain the faith that not only justifies but assures and sanctifies as well.


The External Gospel creates assurance. We don’t focus on something inward to create something inward… its something outward that creates inward assurance that we belong to Christ… Christians are the people who make it to the finish line; those who persevere to the end will be saved. We’re not justified by the level of our faith, by the degree of our faith, or by how strong our hold is on Christ, but by how strong his hold is on us. We will endure to the end, because he has saved us. Having been justified, we have peace with God.”” (White Horse Inn Broadcast, October 21, 2007, my emphasis added.)

So what is the Gospel? What is the Good News God has for us? It is an announcement of the finished work of Jesus Christ. It is external to us… because of Jesus’ perfect life, God has declared us righteous. Because of Jesus’ propitiating death, God’s justice is displayed and satisfied, and through His resurrection, we are justified (Romans 4:25).

The Gospel is Good News because it is OUTSIDE of us! So don’t be confused: Your confidence should rest on what has already happened (your justification), not your current status in personal transformation (your sanctification). And that confidence leads us to be encouraged in the process of our ongoing sanctification. After all, this is what John meant when he said Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as He is pure." (I John 3:2-3).

Think about it this way: The question for our lives is NOT primarily “What Would Jesus Do?” That is consistent with our tendency to put our confidence in ourselves… if we could obey perfectly, we'd be fine - but since we don't, we would always be in trouble. The Good News is the answer to the question “What Has Jesus Done?” Our confidence is not in ourselves and our performance, but in Jesus who said:

“…I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:38-39)

And that, my friend, is good news!

------------------------

* By the way, the “testimony” is typically moralistic (Jesus is making me a better person), therapeutic (God is helping me become happier, a better husband, beating my addiction, etc.) and deistic (as a practical matter, God requires very little of me… He’s not that involved, but He’s there when I need Him) – Mike Horton describes that so much better than me in his book Christless Christianity... give it a read!

**We’re always thankful for thoughtful exceptions. Please consider – and give a listen – to the ministries of solid teachers like John Piper, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, James MacDonald – and some locals including Josh Moody, Craig Troxel, David Helm, and (thankfully) others. But be "Berean" in your hearing... (Acts 17:11). Read more!

Evangelical Confusion: What Is the Gospel?

I've been thinking about confusion in Evangelical thinking lately, particularly around the core message of the Gospel.  This thought from David Wells seems to capture both the problem with the movement's underlying philosophy - and the results succinctly... It's a sad commentary, and I think his choice of descriptives is both helpful and Biblical.  But what do you think?

“If we mute the biblical gospel by our misunderstanding, or by our practice in the church, we destroy the possibility of spiritual authenticity in the church. In theory, most evangelicals assent to all of this. In practice, many evangelicals – especially those of a marketing and emergent kind – are walking away from the hard edges of these truths in an effort to make the gospel easy to swallow, quick to sell, and generationally appealing. They are very well aware of a deep cultural hunger for spirituality in the West, and they are trolling in these waters. The problem, however, is that this spirituality is highly privatized, highly individualistic, self-centered, and hostile to doctrine because it is always hostile to Christian truth. Evangelicals gain nothing by merely attracting to their churches postmoderns who are yearning for what is spiritual if, in catering to this, the gospel is diluted, made easy, and the edges get rounded off. The degree to which evangelicals are doing this is the degree to which they are invalidating themselves and prostituting the church.” (The Courage To Be Protestant, page 372, emphasis added.)

Ouch.  I see too often churches who "mute the Biblical Gospel by ... misunderstanding" and even open hostility to doctrine.  Have you seen this in your experience?  Is Wells right or wrong in his assessment?  Comments are open! Read more!

Genesis Confusion - What Can We Really Know?

Christianity Today published an interview last week with Francis Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, who also recently launched the BioLogos Foundation, which "promotes the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms seeking harmony between these different perspectives."  Collins gave a personal account of his attempt to harmonize faith and science in his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, published in 2006.  Karl Giberson (who became Executive Vice President at the request of Collins  in 2008) conducted the interview. There's certainly a lot one can say regarding this article.  (By the way, if you are interested in a solid, Biblical response to the theory of evolution, I'd highly recommend listening to John MacArthur's talk on Creation, Theology and the End of the Universe from the opening of the 2009 Shepherd's Conference.)  But what stunned me in the interview was the pejorative tone used by Mr. Gilberson - sanctioned apparently by the editors over at CT.   For example, what is one to think of the introduction to this question posed by Mr. Gilberson (on page 4 of the website)?

"One of my theologian friends once said, in great frustration over this issue, "I wish they had never put the Bible in the hands of ordinary people." It seems to me that we need to take more seriously the teaching ministry of the church. We encourage people to read the Bible on their own, but certain misunderstandings are bound to emerge with that approach. Young people are going to read Genesis and think of Adam and Eve as real biological parents of the human race..."

What a shocker, Karl.  Imagine that people might read the Bible and actually believe what it says.  What has happened to CT - and the Evangelical movement that it seems to represent?  Has the idea of creationism really become that unpalatable?  Not surprisingly, Collins reviews favorably Dr. John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One:  Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, in which Walton advances his theory that Genesis 1 isn't about creation at all (not withstanding Genesis 1:1), but rather a description of the functional ordering (as opposed to material creation) of the Earth, in a pattern recognizable to the ancient middle-eastern culture. 

I guess I'm just too simple minded.  The point of much of this seems to be to make the Bible obscure... why anyone is seeking to apply scientific law to a miraculous event seems to be a category error to my limited way of thinking.  I remember sitting in a class listening this theory once, and hearing from a good friend and younger Christian afterwards who said this:  "Wow!  He's smart.  I'll never understand the Bible!"

Maybe that's what some are aiming at these days - and one wonders what the Reformers would have thought of the re-institution of the Magisterium... and counter to the Reformation principles we're remembering following a half-millennium since Calvin's birth.  There was a time when we recognized the supremacy of theology over the other sciences; now, folks like Collins seem to assume it's subordination to science!

For those of you who don't accept the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, here's a question:  Why not?  Have you considered the following?

• If you believe in evolution as the origin of humanity, when did "the fall" happen?  
• Evolution, by the way, requires death - in the process of natural selection.  Where did "death" come from prior to the fall of man (who, under the theory, is the product of evolution)?
• Is it not possible for God to have operated outside of the laws of science in creation - and why do you insist on judging the account of creation by something that may not even be applicable?'
• If you don't believe Genesis 1 and 2, just when do you start believing the text?  What other chapters would you have us not believe?
  

Perhaps most importantly, for people who don't believe in God's miraculous intervention in creation (and, as a result, don't accept Adam's headship and representative status for the human race), how do you explain man's sinful condition? 

So many questions... and here's mine:  Why not just take God at his word, and believe Him? Read more!

Why This Blog??

I’ve been asked on some occasions why this blog exists. I assume that the question isn’t referring to a philosophical question (“Cogito Ergo Blog” or “I Think, Therefore I Spam”), but rather what my point is in the eclectic series of periodic posts published here.

I think that’s a fair question… one that I’ve been thinking about for some time.  So, I thought I’d “re-boot” the blog with a modest attempt at articulating an answer.

I am a student of history. Or at least a product of the History Department of a Christian liberal arts college, a frequent reader of history and a person with a life-long interest in the ebb and flow of “what-has-gone-before” us. In addition to history generally, I have grown up with a love of the history of the Church. I love this not merely culturally, but because it is the Bride of Christ – He laid down His life for it, He loves it, He will glorify those in it. I think that anyone who gives up on the Church really misses the heart of our Lord.

But things aren’t going so well for the church in America these days – and especially for the Evangelical church. Watching it, participating in it, praying for it, grieving for it… You’ll note that I focus on this frequently, and this is the heart of the question I’ve gotten: Why focus on what’s wrong – why not just talk about what is right? Why be “negative” anyway?

J. Greshem Mechan was faced with this same question early last century. If you don’t know him, you should… at least read his book Christianity and Liberalism. Here’s his take on the question:

“...men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end.  Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational institutions of America. One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made an address.  In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the Epistles of Paul; but, said he in effect, the real essence of Paul’s teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians; and we can avoid controversy today, if we will only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn.  In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the Church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth.” [“Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the Faith," in J. Greshem Machen: Selected Shorter Writings (Pages 148-149, emphasis added).

I’m not comparing myself to Machen, mind you. But I share his understanding of the authority of the Bible, and the clarity of its message.  But is it possible today:

• Even with all of the talk about “humility” in our theology, that there is much that God has revealed clearly - and that the Evangelical church obscures it by alternative views on every possible theological issue? 
• That the Bible really is God’s word to us and that He intends for us to know it - and that the Evangelical church dilutes it through a variety of means (from Archeology to bad hermeneutics) which undermine the practical authority of Scripture? 
• That somewhere, deep in our sinful hearts, we rejoice in the confusion some find in Scripture because it gives us an excuse to “wriggle off of the hook” of the conviction we’d experience from a clear presentation of Scripture?

The sad fact is that when reading the Bible, you are repeatedly confronted with the disparity between what we are supposed to experience in a corporate body and actual experience.   You'll also see our clear responsibility to stand up against the doctrinal error constantly confronting us from all sides within the Church.  But to recognize the disparity and stand against error is a sure-fire way to be vilified and marginalized in the average Evangelical congregation.

I'm no longer surprised by teaching which seems to “darken counsel by words without knowledge” (Job 38:2), which is so prominent in pulpits and Sunday School classrooms (that's in the rare cases where adult Christian education even exists anymore).  I am surprised though that so few Christians seem to want to stand against it!

Loving Truth requires me - no, all of us - to recognize that it is wrong to obscure the truth of God's Word by make disputable that which God makes clear in the Bible.   The results can be seen in tolerating broken relationships, abusive and disfunctional authority structures – and most clearly in lack of sound, Biblical doctrine taught. 

To acknowledge the existence of this type of error in many Evangelical churches is one thing - which seems undisputable to me.  It is heart-breaking when you see it in your own community of faith.  It cries out for someone to stand up and point it out.

It's interesting to me that I usually don’t get much push-back on the existence of the problem…  In fact, the people I’ve found myself in debate with seem comfortable to agree that things aren't what they should be, but they assume that things always have been this way, and that they will always continue.  The argument I most usually get is that even though these problems exist, we shouldn’t focus on them because to do so is "negative."

So what does the Bible intend for us to do with calls to “contend for the faith once for all delivered” (Jude 3)?    How ought we rightly emulate the Berean attitude towards teaching (Acts 17:11)?  The answers - however uncomfortable - seems clear to me.  

Those are the question I’m wrestling with in this blog… and the reason I write.  And in light of the usual reaction received, I've been slower to post lately as I have been asking this:  When "contending for the Truth," what should our heart attitude be? I love John Piper’s words in this regard, in setting the stage for the great battles for truth in the lives of Athanasius, John Owen and - coincidentally - J. Gresham Machen:

“Some controversy is crucial for the sake of life-giving truth. Running from it is a sign of cowardice. But enjoying it is usually a sign of pride. Some necessary tasks are sad, and even victory is not without tears—unless there is pride. The reason enjoying controversy is a sign of pride is that humility loves truth-based unity more than truth-based victory. Humility loves Christ-exalting exultation more than Christ-defending confrontation—even more than Christ-defending vindication. Humility delights to worship Christ in spirit and truth. If it must fight for worship-sustaining truth, it will, but that is not because the fight is pleasant. It’s not even because victory is pleasant. It’s because knowing and loving and proclaiming Christ for who he really is and what he really did is pleasant.” (John Piper, Introduction in Contending for Our All, page 17.)

So why do I blog? Because the Truth of Jesus is far better, far more desirable, far more profitable than the error… even today.  I long to see the day – even in my lifetime – when the error is confronted appropriately and dismissed, Christian unity is based on a common Truth rather than merely a shared program and where real love is embraced and displayed – even (or maybe especially) in how we pursue the Truth.

I may fail in the process of contending well, but I'll go with A. W. Tozer when he says that "what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us."  A.W. Tozer, Chapter 1 of Knowledge of the Holy, page 9.)   And that's my heart behind these musings.  Perhaps you'll help in dialogue, leading to a more Biblical understanding of God and His Truth. Read more!

Why I Don't "Tweet"

Ok, I must be getting old. I love technology - I am usually the first to buy it, try it or at least read about it.

But not this. I think it's evil... no matter what the kids say about it.

It's twitter. And here are my top 10 reasons why I think it may foreshadow the end of modern civilization - even though I may try it out!

Top 10 Reasons I Don't Twitter

10. The people who need to know "what I am doing" already know

9. I have never seen a "tweet" that was important enough to merit the time I spent reading it... do I need to know what you had for lunch, your workout schedule, your random thoughts while watching "24" or your semi-profound insights?

8. People's tweets aren't as interesting, funny and/or profound as they imagine

7. Unlike blogs - which can admittedly be trivial - Twitter's character limit guarantees triviality. Besides, you can blog about ideas, present argument and reason, etc. In tweets, you are limited to mere information or assertion

6. As "a way to stay in touch with family and friends," its a lame substitute for a phone call or (gasp) a conversation

5. Particularly pathetic is the false sense of community - and even intimacy - perpetuated... (should I be getting regular messages from Oprah?)

4. Tweets are forever. No edits. No erasing.

3. What people tweet generally tells more about them than they think.

2. Twitter is a stalker's dream... accessible to anyone who can google your name and the word "twitter"

and the main point...


1. Narcissism is spelled "T-W-I-T-T-E-R"

Comments? Read more!

What is Happening to the Pulpit?

I found this article - about the loss of the pulpit in church - very interesting. Although the "worship wars" seemed to have ended in Evangelical-dom (with the methodology and ministry philosophy of the Marketers having clearly won the hearts and minds of most non-denominational evangelical churches)... I think it’s especially important to note the symbolism of the pulpit – even for those who’s preaching is biblical, we risk undermining our message (or at least confusing it) by how – as well as what – we do.
What do you think? Read more!

Dystonia...

Very rarely would I post something this personal, but...

My older sister has suffered for years from a condition called dystonia. I love her very much - and I've been troubled for literally my entire life at the lack of information and, more importantly, attention and understanding about this disease.

I saw this story today on CNN, and my heart aches for the Staab family - and for my own, too. I'm grateful for the attention they are willing to bring to this... and I'd ask for you to consider helping them - and to pray with me that God might provide direction to the doctors and healing to people with this condition - the Staab children, and my sister too.



For more information about the Staabs and their efforts, please visit their foundation website, Tyler's Hope. Read more!