Category Archives: Uncategorized

Unknown's avatar

Why some folks believe?

by
Some people believe in God for different reasons, or at the very least, find some evidences more compelling than others. Being primarily a pre-suppositionalist myself, and having submitted myself first to the biblical worldview, I find this approach makes more sense of reality than any other system of thought. However I do find some reasons like Blaise Paschal’s “greatness and wretchedness” principle-that man is capable of so much good and so much evil-one of the most intellectual satisfying (we are created in the image of God and yet fallen).  While Tim Keller takes a more pre-suppositional approach in the first section of A Reason for God he does give “clues” rather than “proofs” that God does in fact exist in the latter chapters. Whether a curious unbeliever or mature believer, who like most of us wrestle with doubts, this book does us both a great service. 
And yet outside of this intellectual framework or body of evidences, sometimes very small things “happen” to us which get our attention and serve as clues of God’s existence and presence. For instance, take running into someone at some place at some time, when only a combination of other events would allow such a “chance” meeting to happen. That’s why this guy says he believes in God.
Those kind of events which we believe couldn’t ever happen if God had not somehow ordered them to fall out accordingly never cease to amaze and affirm. But I’m not sure we can build our faith upon such events, and certainly we can’t use them to definitively give a “reason for the hope we have (I Peter 3:15).” After all, there are other “chance” meetings which turn out pretty bad. I’m sure plenty of folks, due to a series of unusual events, found themselves in the path of the southern tornadoes and died. 
The faith described in this article is personal, and I don’t necessarily question it (though I would probably not connect evangelical, Rob Bell, gay and lesbian award winner). I didn’t watch the video but just read the article.
Perhaps if we ever cross paths-and who’s to say that we couldn’t ever (we could both agree on that), I’d probably ask him to check out Keller’s A Reason For God. If nothing else, he might get a fuller picture of the gospel than with Bell.
Unknown's avatar

Judas in Hell?

by
I often find myself drawn to the CNN belief blog. I don’t necessarily find a ton of affinity for the particular expressions of Christianity presented, but I’m almost always thankful for the thoughtful dialog. Sometimes folks will raise questions I’ve never thought too much about. One such title is this: Is Judas in heaven or hell?
I, along with Dante, presume the latter, rather than the former. Not that I’m good company, but I think I’m in good company. 
But this hip young pastor has some interesting takes. I’ve summarized some and quoted another.
1.) He argues that both Judas and Peter sinned, and made a “mistake.” Both were filled with remorse. Peter just didn’t kill himself, so he lived long enough to see Jesus’ forgiveness.
  
Was Judas’ sin worse than Peter’s? Well, Jesus does tell Pilate that “he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin (John 19:11).” So I guess Jesus kind of squashes that thinking. And he does say, “it would have been better for Judas, “if he had not been born.” (Matt 14:21; 26:24). Still it doesn’t tell us where Judas is, only that it doesn’t bode well for him. But in my mind, 2 Corinthians 7:10 has always cleared up the difference between Judas and Peter in regards to sin, sorrow, repentance, and salvation: “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.”
2.)  The bible doesn’t speak of Judas’ eternal state, so we shouldn’t speculate. How do even know who’s there and who’s not?
Speculation on who’s in and who’s out is never a good thing. Great point. We’ve simply been given parameters: have the Son=life/No Son=judgment and wrath. But those parameters are such that we shouldn’t throw up our hands and say, “God only knows.” It is true that God only knows, but God does more than just know, He gives us His trustworthy Word. If someone professes faith, displays faith, and perseveres until the end (or professes faith at the end-like the thief on the cross), we ought to have a level of confidence where that person is. The “God only knows” type thinking only celebrates unbiblical uncertainty for the sake of trying to make others more gracious and less dogmatic in gray areas. Noble goals, but there are better ways to reach them.
3.)  “It is easier to debate these issues and make speculations about others than it is to actually look at ourselves in the mirror. It is always easier to think someone else is worse off then we are. But maybe as we approach Easter, we can be reminded that for Christians, the cross and the grave should silence all of these debates. We all fall short and deserve death, but because of what Jesus did on the cross 2,000 years ago, we are able to have life. And I believe that where you end up, God only knows.”
I really like this paragraph, minus the last sentence. He draws us away from speculation because it only serves to take our gaze off our own sin and to stare at the sin of others. Beautiful. That is our tendency, to look at others sins’ as worse than ours; we all could make a good living if we got paid for that type of thing. Then the truth of the gospel-that Jesus died for those deserving death. Amen. Nailed it.
I could ask some more speculative questions like “What would repentance have looked like for Judas,” but I’ll take heed of the pastor’s challenge to see my sin and see my Savior. That should take up enough time.
Unknown's avatar

Is God really a gentlemen? Part II

by
This is take two on “Is God really a gentlemen?” I’ve already made the point that we need a God who intervenes in our lives, who does in a very real sense “force Himself on us.” So in that way, I would say, we don’t need or should want a gentlemen God.
However, I don’t think the term gentlemen is completely without merit. It all depends upon the picture you have of a gentlemen. In the movie Last of the Mohicans, one of the characters Duncan, plays the role of the perfect-or close to it-gentlemen. While his commitment to what is “proper” leaves those less anal about “proper” (particularly during a time of war) dissatisfied, one cannot completely begrudge him his mentality. There seems a consistent commitment to sacrifice for more than just his country under the surface of this military man.
He loves a woman who refuses to love him back. He would be happy to see the one whom she does love hanged, and even bluntly says so. But he leaves us no doubt that this is truly a gentlemen of gentlemen. When the Native American captures his “love”, they decide to burn this woman to atone for the sins of her father. And so he literally steps in, offering himself instead as a replacement sacrifice. 
He dies so that she can live, even though it meant her living and loving another man. That’s a gentlemen. Giving up his life for the good of another whom he wished could be his wife.
If this is a gentlemen, then we have a God who does even more. Jesus, as the perfect gentlemen, offers himself not to temporary flames but to God the Father in order to exhaust his burning hot wrath. And he does this to secure and purchase the hand of His bride, the church. For the joy set before Him, he willingly suffers and gives himself up for the joy of His bride. Because of his death, the two can now live in intimate relationship.

So yes, I think we can say, in some ways, God is a gentlemen.

Unknown's avatar

Is God really a gentlemen?

by
Several weeks ago, Rebecca St. James came to Charleston WV to play and promote the pro-life cause. I really have been impressed with her over the years, not because of her music-which I don’t listen to-but because of her life. I can remember hearing her discuss her commitment to chastity before marriage during a youth group video as a youth director. That was 10 years ago. As I understand it, she is getting married soon or has recently married. So, like I said, I greatly appreciate the Lord’s work in her.
But I can remember a phrase in that video series which seems to pop up in others from time to time. Now in regards to that phrase popping up, it is more a zit (not good, but hardly destructive) than a cancer (destructive) or desired hair growth (desirable, especially by me). It was the first time I had heard the phrase, “The Lord is a gentlemen; He will not force Himself on you.”
The bible describes God in anthropomorphic language, or human terms, so that we can understand him better. Some pictures include “mighty warrior” (Jer 20:11), “heavenly father” (Lk 11:13) and a jealous and pursuing “husband” (Hos 2:16).
But could “gentlemen” fit? Is that a healthy anthropomorphic term for the 21st century to help us understand what God is really like? In some ways, God is very gentle and Jesus was prophesied as being so gentle he wouldn’t even break a bruised reed (Isa 42:3). And through his ministry, at least one person named Matthew recorded that prophetic consistency (Matt 12:20).
 
Yet do we want, or rather need a God who is more than a gentlemen, who actually will “force himself on us?” Or would we rather do the changing and converting by our own power? The answer for most would be the latter.
But I will say that I don’t want a “gentlemen God” who refuses to “force” himself on me, simply because the most important thing in the world to Him is my free will (allegedly). I really don’t. 
The other day I clearly I sinned before my family and I flat out did not want to repent. I didn’t.  For a while. I asked God to make me want to, and He eventually did an hour or two later. I wouldn’t have repented, unless God somehow “forced” Himself on me. It’s not just for the point of conversion (since we’re all dead in sin and need more than a gentlemen), but for the whole of the Christian experience.

We need a God who deals gently with us, perhaps even the way a gentlemen deals with a lady. But we also need a God who actually does force Himself on us and literally changes our wills. I’m thankful we have one.

Unknown's avatar

From Christian to Muslim

by
I’m always fascinated to hear stories where devout Muslims become Christians. I would imagine most Christians feel the same way. But sometimes we think that the door only swings one way, when in fact there are devout Christians who become devout Muslims. Here is one instance.
While it is sad to listen to this young man’s testimony, particularly since he admittedly had such a strong church background, it shouldn’t shake your faith (provided you are reading this as a Christian).
Here are some takes on this lad’s conversion to Islam.
1.) Personal relationship. One thing this lad cherishes is a close personal connection to God. In fact, even the Arabic dude in charge of the mosque (not sure what you call those guys) emphasizes this “relationship.” I think this is important to realize because Christians like to talk about Christianity as a “relationship” with God, as though that distinguishes them from other religions (or at least the claims of other religions). But that claim of such a personal “relationship” is NOT what distinguishes Christianity from other religions. It is (among a host of other things) what this personal relationship actually cost God:Himself through Jesus’ perfect life, death, and resurrection. No prayer or assent to facts about a deity, or your personal desire to follow it, can suffice without this perfect atonement. Christianity admits God had to purchase us with His own flesh and blood for the relationship option “to be on the table.” Because of this truth, other religions and Christianity, by default, diverge and take you on different paths in regards to a personal relationship.
2.) Wild, Wild, West. Just as the West has culturally influenced Christianity at times for good and at times for bad, it is very clear that Islam has likewise been influenced by it. What you hear in this mosque is not what you would hear in a mosque in the Middle East. Many American muslims don’t believe you need to help God out by killing people who blaspheme Muhammad, Allah, or the Quran. That’s a good thing. God doesn’t need to be protected or avenged; He can do fine by himself. If only the Middle Eastern Muslims would believe that…..
3.) Perseverance. Folks who do seem to act and talk like true believers DO walk away from the faith, as Paul shares his experience of a co-laborer deserting him for “love of the world (II Tim 4:10). Sometimes we assume folks are true believers because they prayed a prayer when they were age 6, regardless of what faith their actual lives belie. But the reality is that saving faith will display itself by fruit and persevere until the end (Luke 8:4-15). The message of the book of Hebrews finds summary in my favorite Journey song. The writer employs the metaphor of traversing through the wilderness, and having not yet arrived in the promised land; therefore, cue the music, “Don’t stop believing!”
Whether people desert for love of the world, or love of Allah, the aforementioned parable of the Seed and Sower reminds us that people may profess faith one day, but not another.
That shouldn’t cause parents to lose hope for their wayward children as the WCF 17.3 reminds us that even true believers, whose faith is ultimately sustained by God (WCF 17.2), may stray for a season and fall into deep sin and continue “for a time.” But all true believers will eventually return to rest upon Jesus alone. Jesus doesn’t lose those who are truly His (John 10:27) so that should give us hope in praying for the straying.

4.) How do I know I won’t follow this dude’s lead? Everyone who looks to the Son will be saved (John 6:40). Never stop looking at the Son and we have nothing to fear. For the over-analytical folk like myself, how do I know I won’t stop looking at the Son? Fortunately the Son has a longer attention span for us than we do for him.

Unknown's avatar

Going deep

by
I know I’ve said, and I know I’ve heard the expression, “I would like this book/sermon/study to go ‘deeper.'” What that really means varies from person to person. One time I actually asked a pastor I respect what “going deep” really means? He responded like this: “It’s giving someone a fresh perspective on the passage that they’ve not heard before.” I don’t disagree that this is a good thing. But what does, or rather should, going “deep” or “deeper” really mean? Trevin Wax on his blog Kingdom People poses this question and considers an answer from a “gospel-centered” perspective.
It’s interesting you bring up discipleship materials. There are always people asking for “deeper Bible study” or for a “deeper walk” with Christ. But what people mean by “depth” is not often clear. Some people think in terms of information. They want to know more facts, whether they come from history or theology. Information dump. Others think “deep” means a practical tidbit for my life tomorrow. They think in terms of immediate application. But this can turn the Bible into a self-help manual.
The gospel-centered movement has the opportunity to redefine what “depth” means. We shouldn’t see depth as “more info” or “life insights” but gospel-centrality. Going deep means we immerse ourselves in the truth that Jesus Christ bled and died to save helpless sinners like you and me. We’ve got to see the depth of our sin and the depth of God’s grace in such a way that it is clear we can do nothing to make ourselves more acceptable to God. Depth means going deeper into the gospel until it confronts the idols of our hearts.

I love it when studies/sermons to go deep into background and history (though I have a feeling most people don’t). But this snippet is a good reminder to go deeper into my personal history and background to see my deeper need for Jesus. See your sin, and see your Savior. Just make sure you realize the latter is bigger, much bigger than the former.

Unknown's avatar

Bashir interviewed: Redeemer, search for truth, and asking questions

by
On one of the blogs I follow, I found this recent interview with Martin Bashir, after he had already interviewed Rob Bell. Apparently he had been given much flack for his candor and desire to get to the bottom of Bell’s question behind the question: aren’t you just trying to make a palatable Christianity more than really seeking what the bible and the Church have to say about the issue of Hell?
If you have about 25 minutes, be sure to check out this interview. In it Martin Bashir explains he is a believer and actually goes to Redeemer in New York City with Tim Keller. I assumed he wasn’t because I was playing the law of averages. Glad I was wrong.
Anyhow, in addition to discussing the poor historiography and scriptural manipulation in Bell’s book Love Wins (quoting a letter from Luther, but ignoring the scope of the letter; quoting a verse in the bible, yet ignoring the next verse or two which gives the context and actually contradicts his point), he gives several fascinating and challenging insights.
1.) The church should be take the lead in diligently seeking what is true regardless whether that claim  is found in scripture, politics, or pastors promoting books. The truth can’t be left out in pastoring, parenting, or politicking. 
2.) Any truth that is not open to being challenged or questioned is not a truth worth following. How true. Bashir was born into a Pakistani Muslim family and remembers one time questioning the prophet Muhuammad. He was told he dare not even ask or think such a question. Bashir thought and you’re supposed to follow someone whom you can’t even question?
I would hope that we don’t embrace this attitude in the church. The church is a place where we are to “have mercy on those who doubt (Jude 22)” and not be afraid of questions. 
If we don’t allow our young and our old to ask questions in our families or our covenant community, they will ask them somewhere else. Yet Jesus isn’t afraid for people to question his uniqueness among other religions. I rather think he welcomes it because he knows that the scriptures shout of his unique glory. I don’t think Jesus is afraid to tackle questions on whether or not He exists. Because He does, he’s not afraid for folks to ask such questions. Jesus can take that one as well.
The church is a place where seekers, those asking questions, and those struggling with doubts can co-exist with those who have been granted faith (Eph 2:8-9) or simply granted greater measures of faith (Rom 12:3).
Unknown's avatar

Don’t believe in a "spiritual" Jesus

by
I’ve been working my way through Matthew for my devotional time, supplementing it with David Platt’s Radical. This morning I came across the passage where Jesus feeds the 4000. Of course this is not to be confused with the time when Jesus fed the 5000; and it is not that eye witnesses interviewed by gospel writers pulled a Roger Clemens and “mis-remembered” the same activity as liberal folk will say. This event actually has a different emphasis. 
You’ve probably heard it said, “Why care about taking care of physical needs, when the eternal soul is what counts?” Sounds spiritual, doesn’t it? We should care about where people spend eternity, and not about whether or not they live in poverty or have enough to eat for only a temporary period of time, right? While it may sound “spiritual” to the evangelical mind, it is, like my Cuban high school physics teacher taught us to say: “a bunch of bunk!” 
Jesus never thought like this, so we can’t either. Check this out.
“Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion on the crowd because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way.” Matthew 15:32
When Jesus emphasizes the soul over material possession, it is never in relation to the poor and needy, but in connection to the rich and extravagant (Luke 12:19-20).
Why didn’t Jesus say, “It doesn’t matter if they faint or die of hunger, because they now have a chance to go to heaven since they’ve heard the gospel?” Because that kind of thinking is bunk. He cared not only that they not die, but that they not faint for lack of food. He cared about more than their souls, but their physical needs. 

Fortunately missionaries in Japan don’t believe in this western, comfortably concocted, “spiritual” Jesus, but instead believe and follow the Jesus of the bible. Let’s never forget that Jesus cares about people not fainting as well as people not spending eternity with Him.

Unknown's avatar

Are there truly bad fans?

by
I have certain teams at the college and pro-level which I ALWAYS root against. The reason is in large part because their fans are, what I deem, obnoxious. My wife has always challenged my reasoning and questioned even the hope of objectivity in this matter. Is she right? Is there real objectivity in determining which fans are truly more obnoxious, or worse: which ones are most evil? Do some fans simply seem more obnoxious or belligerent, or are they essentially more obnoxious and belligerent?
Well GQ magazine, the bastion of objectivity, believes that some fans collectively are actually worse than others. Philly Eagle fan came in at #1 with Phillies fan at a close #2. My West VA readership might be interested to know their beloved Mountaineer Nation came in at #3. You can read why they get such a rating here.

If you read some of the other one’s I will warn you that it is GQ reporting WHY they gave such ratings, so there may be some offensive material (largely because they are repeating what they’ve heard). But most of the stereotypes are pretty clever, funny, and spot on.

All in all, there may be more objectivity to whether a team really has “bad” fans than one would at first think. I would have ranked Red Sox fan a little higher (he came in at #6, though I realize I’m a somewhat biased Ray’s fan), but in the end I still think they did a good job. 
If you think GQ missed the boat, comment with some of what you think are the worst fans.
Unknown's avatar

Peterson and the "modern" slave trade

by
 Some times football players say stupid things. Not that I don’t-my stupid words could fill a book. Its just that my “book” isn’t nearly as public or as heavily trafficked. Here are some words that might go beyond stupid: Minnesota running back Adrian Peterson compares the NFL to modern day slavery. Check it out below or read the whole thing here.

“It’s modern-day slavery, you know?” Peterson said. “People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money . . . the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money.”
Really. I know that the owners are really greedy. I know the players are as well. But slavery? Hmmm…..International Justice Mission, international sex slave trade, Islamic fundamentalism, cults which enslave little girls, and the NFL? Not sure that last one fits.
Of course Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall agrees and tweets:

@AdrianPeterson is correct in his anology of this game. It is a lot deeper than most people understand.  Anyone with knowledge of the slave trade and the NFL could say that these two parallel eachother.”

 
Finally the voice of reason comes with injured Green Bay’s Ryan Grant, realizing the ludicrosity of such comments.
“I have to totally disagree with Adrian Peterson’s comparison to this situation being Modern day slavery. . . false,” Packers running back Ryan Grant wrote on Twitter.  “Their is unfortunately actually still slavery existing in our world.. Literal modern day slavery.. That was a very misinformed statement.  I understand what point he was trying to make.. I just feel like he should have been advised a little differently.”
The very interesting thing to me is that Adrian Peterson is actually going to Africa where slavery and much worse things still exist. “Modern day” slavery of the NFL might not look as civilized as NFL slavery.
He and some other former Oklahoma Sooners like Bucs DT Gerald McCoy are going to Uganda and Rwanda this summer. I doubt real slavery impacted, genocidally depleted families and rape victims will feel too sorry for their “slavery.” I just hope the Rwandans don’t follow Peterson on Twitter.