I went to pray with some friends of mine last night. We sat there talking about the events of the week and what was going on in each other’s lives. I shared with them my doubts and fears including my disbelief in God’s promises. Someone asked me if the lack of trust that I have in God’s provision is cyclical. I told him no and the way I described it was this.

We're going over the Westminster Confession on Wednesday nights and we talked about Chapter 6 last night. It's titled "Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof" and can be found in its entirety here.

A post on the Thinklings got me to thinking (thinkling?). House and Shark, whatever you may think about their relative merits entertainment-wise, are both about these scoundrels that we are supposed to root for. They are cruel, mean-spirited, hardened men who enjoy coming down on their underlings like a ton of bricks. Both in an effort, one would assume, to teach them. And both men are charged with laudable goals.

Are we supposed to root for them?

A mix of busy-ness, business, and NaNoWriMo have kept me from blog posting as much as I wanted to on my sparkling new website. These days I'm faced with what I believe.

I read Letter to a Christan Nation recently and there was quite a bit of much needed criticism leveled at the Church in (of?) America. A lot of what I'm going through gets back to what it means to be a Christian. According to the author (and more than a few of my brethren) to be one in America means that you're anti-abortion, anti-science, pro-war (mostly), and anti-homosexual. If you aren't those things then folks around here are going to question who you stand with. You might even be accused of not having any spiritual fruit.

I found a good list of questions to ask myself regarding the coming New Year. Not trying to start a meme or anything but if you read this and feel so inclined, then feel free to answer them on your own blog and link back here!

ht to Dan Phillips at TeamPyro

Have we gotten there yet? No, but I think we're further along.

I was listening to NPR and they did a broadcast about the concept of a corporate chaplain. There's certainly a history of chaplains in the military and in hospitals. The idea of a pastor on staff at a religious organization makes sense, but I've never thought about a secular company having one. Apparently it's not all that uncommon.

I was asked to write a letter of challenge (and encouragement) to my brethren. I thought I'd share it here. Hope it speaks to you.

I visit many sites in my internet wanderings, both those that support what I believe and those that don't. Today I ran across a post on Religious Freaks that referred to Richard Dawkins — The God Delusion.

In the book Dawkins said

But to teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse.

That got me to thinking about truth.

Centuri0n and Phil Johnson have been blogging about authenticity and adopting an appearance/culture/lifestyle in order to be more "effective". (Hopefully) needless to say they are pro-former and anti-latter. The idea that someone would get a tattoo or wear all black to try and become some sort of weird counter culture missionary seems more than a little weird to me. Combine that with a story I read regarding a "Christian" doctor who refused to treat a little girl because her mom had a tat (and I really hope there's more than meets the eye there, like maybe mom was totin' a shotgun) and it all gives me the impression that some folks in our flock care more than a little too much about appearances.

Our small group is doing a study called Sonship and the Sunday school class I’m taking is studying sanctification. I’m also reading Celebration of Discipline, which talks about why we would pursue spiritual disciplines. It seems like, based on the message I keep hearing from all of these sources, God wants me to learn about the idea of passive righteousness.

In an effort to develop a sense of community at church, we're dividing the city up into chunks based on where members/regular attendees live. These communities won't have any more than forty families/individual members in order to facilitate communication. Each one will have a community coordinator whose job it will be to communicate, organize, and identify leaders in that area. I think it's a really interesting idea. As churches get larger and more geographically spread out our challenge is to find a way to keep them feeling like family.

The project will take a couple of years to really flesh out, unless God has other plans. This includes identifying areas and training volunteers. They also want to raise up "shepherds", volunteers who will take up duties like going with elders to pray with folks in their homes and leading efforts to meet the community needs.

So what are your thoughts on doing this versus just having a bunch of smaller "home churches" as some do? Steve at Theological Musings who participates in a home or "simple" church has a link to house2house that goes into a bit more detail on that concept, which is in no way new.

I have no problem with either way of doing things as long as the teaching is sound and the Kingdom is advancing. I like the diversity that a larger church offers as long as it also has the community focus that Redeemer does. My reflex is to bring up the hobgoblin of error that a lack of training could bring into a simple church, but even mega churches are no stranger to cults of personality or theological problems. Bottom line, if you're gathering with other believers and are being encouraged to get out of the "big building" and spread the gospel then we're cool. If you're sitting at home/in a pew trying to be an island, we're not.

Also, listen to the Ezra 10 sermon on worldliness.

I was back on the Rocky Mountain Ride this week where Aaron and I talked Imus, abortion, and Fox News. If those words alone don't give you indigestion then listen to the show (my audio does clear up, dang VOIP). Aaron and I will also be doing a weekly religious show. All of these shows can be called in to, so give us a ring, Saturday at 11:00 pm EST for politics and TBA for religion.

And so I've returned from the mountains. Our men's ministry (such as it is) has an annual retreat and it's always good, fun, exhausting, and uplifting. This year was no different. Our guest speaker was Charlie Peacock (in the words of his daughter "not famous, just well known") and we talked about "Stories of the Kingdom". It's a bit hard to boil it all down and as I decompress a bit more I'll probably share my thoughts.

In the moments available for fun I talked, played video games, availed myself of the beautiful weather, ate, relaxed, and slept almost none at all. I also took a lot of pictures, only a handful of which will be of interest for you. I'll have those posted in the gallery as soon as I can figure out why the UI on it is blowing up.

If you listened to either my BTR podcast Saturday or the Rocky Mountain Ride show last night (and shame on you if you didn't!) you know that there was much talk about community. I believe that there's a clear mandate in the Bible to belong to a local body of believers. Hopefully that body will have a strong sense of community. That goes beyond (but definitely includes) things like having smaller gatherings outside of the "church" proper (by that I mean the building all y'all meet in). While fellowship is important, it's also important that the church (and by that I mean all y'all and not the building) have a presence in the community.

I'll be travelblogging my concert and trip both here and at HJ Live!. Due to preparations I'm suspending my fiction writing project (unless I find a spare few minutes) and I missed my "Coffee with Scott" spot on BTR, but I'll still be doing the political and religious Rides with Aaron this weekend.

Pray for safe travels!

Check out my Rock the Boat - Concert Coverage and let me know what you think. I'll be posting concert pics this evening along with a bit of a blog post on my LA adventures. Also perhaps I will pick 500 words back up.

If you like to study the Bible, but have a hard time knowing where Tyre or Gilgal is or the difference between the Ammon and the Amorites is then you need to check this out. BibleMap.org is a mashup of Google Maps, the Bible, and a Bible dictionary. You select book and chapter, it highlights cities, regions, people groups, and geographic features in the passages and sticks a pin in the map related to those things. Click the pin and read an entry on that thing. Is that not cool?

The headline "Do 'Gay Adoption' Opponents Oppose 'Obese Adoption'?" practically screamed from my feed reader this morning. I'm not particularly against homosexuals adopting children. Provided they're put under the same scrutiny that heterosexual parents are I can't see the harm. I understand how some Christians may think that an environment without both a father and a mother may be at least less than ideal and at most harmful, but this raises an interesting question. If you as a Christian are opposed to the adoption of a child by a homosexual single or couple based on the grounds that they are living a "sinful" lifestyle, then what about gluttons? What about non-Christians who are living a heterosexual monogamous, but unmarried life? The possibilities are endless. And if your basis is that the sinful life may be harmful to the child, what about the beam in your own eye?

If none of these things form the basis of your opposition to "gay adoption" and instead you think that there is something simply inherently unhealthy psychologically (too many y's) about it then what about this decision? The judge ruled that the five hundred pound trucker would be unfit because of his weight. Is it legitimate to "take heath concerns such as this into consideration"? Perhaps so. I mean you don't want to allow someone who is terminally ill to adopt. And this gentleman is more likely to die early due to his weight. There is also the question of mobility and other things that the article raises.

For me this is the real kicker though;

Stocklaufer adopted another son seven years ago when he weighed about the same he does now. That adoption was approved by the same judge who ruled against him this week. Stocklaufer and his wife said they plan to appeal the judge's decision.

Here's the thing. There are a lot of kids out there that need a loving home. If someone can provide that home and prove that they aren't criminals, molesters, or Repub generally bad role models then why can't they adopt? No one knows when you might get hit by a bus. And with childhood obesity being a huge problem even for "natural" parents and their kids, unless we're ready to take those kids away, how can we say that this man and his wife can't adopt?

As you can see by my sidebar I'm reading what has become known as The Art of War by Sun Tzu. From today's reading this jumped out at me, "In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns." This section focuses largely on the need to make war quickly and to use the bounty of your enemy to bolster your ranks and pay your way rather than relying on money from home. There's good sense here that could certainly be applied on a variety of fronts, not just war.

What would Orwell say of theological writing?

According to Mark Hornes, this is a good start:

A few guesses:

Never use a Latin term when there is a perfectly good vernacular word or phrase available.
Never say ordo salutis when you can say “order of salvation.”

Whenever possible discard specialized vocabulary when everyday words will suffice.
I think Trinity would survive this rule, but not much else.

Never use a common Biblical word as if it were a special theological term.
Claiming justification is not vindication, for example, when they are synonymous outside inbred linguistic secret societies.

As much as possible use synonyms for words that have become “religious.”
Call Jesus “deliverer” or “rescuer” rather than savior, “liberator” rather than redeemer.

Use straightforward sentences that are easy to understand.
Like when John Frame finally translated Cornelius Van Til into English.

Never substitute a tautology for a statement with content.
Say, “Only those are saved whom God choses to be saved and all are saved of those whom God choses to be saved.” But don’t say, “Only the elect experience saving benefits.”

Any thougts?

Having an interesting discussion at Letters From Kamp Krusty regarding Bibliolatry or turning the Bible into an idol.

I certainly believe it's possible, but I also believe that it's possible to go the other way. I personally believe that the Bible is the closed revelation of God. As a good Presbyterian I posted the following from the Westminster Confession.

Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, to such an extent that men are without excuse, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary for salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at various times and in diverse ways, to reveal himself and to declare his will to his church; and afterward—for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world—to commit this revelation wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scripture is most necessary, God's former ways of revealing his will to his people having ceased.

I did so in part to get a feel for what the folks in the thread thought of it. Both Brant, kamp kounselor, and Steve, from the excellent Theological Musings Blog take issue with that notion and propose that the WCF is claiming more about the Bible than the Bible does about itself. So let's pick this paragraph apart and see if I can find scriptural support for it. This is more than even the writers of the confession did so wish me luck.

Did some more thinking and something just struck me (and no it didn't hurt). In a way I'm looking for something that isn't going to be there. Nowhere in the Bible am I going to find "The End!". Not gonna happen. So I look back at that passage from Romans 15. And I think about Paul. He was certainly writing "to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" and I believe that what Paul wrote was a revelation directly from God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. So there goes God committing revelation to writing.

I think that idea fits in really well with God. The Ten Commandments were written in stone. God instructed John to write Revelation. "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." While God used a variety of means to communicate to people over the ages it always got written down, at least so far as we know. So given God's penchant for either writing things himself or having others write it for him it certainly makes sense to me that he would commit the important bits to papyrus "for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world". Does the Bible say that he did it for that reason? Not that I can explicitly find, at least not in such a way that indicates that that was his purpose for making sure that these particular 66 books survived until today, but I don't think that that's a stretch.

So I suppose the real question is, is God done revealing himself as he had in the past and can I find scriptural support for that? Well how did he reveal himself in the past? He did it in part through prophesy. Paul says that he wants folks to prophesy rather than speak in tongues. Peter tells us in the last days people will prophesy. Of course when those last days are isn't precisely clear. There's direct revelation which happens less often in the New Testament. Paul prays for it for the Corinthians. Then we have signs and miracles. Again, those things happened quite a bit in the New Testament. Of course just because someone does all of these things doesn't make them a Christian or guarantee that the power comes from God.

In Hebrews we're told that God distributes these things according to his will. That indicates to me that he could cease distributing these for a time. 1 Corinthians 13 seems to indicate at some point that some of these gifts will cease, though the when part falls into various camps, either when the scripture is complete or when we are, and possibly some third and even fourth options I'm not aware of. The second, though it goes against what I've been taught, would seem to make more sense. And of course we won't be complete until the new Heaven and new Earth are.

Here's the rub though. When you have a book that contains all that you need to know for the purposes of this life and our salvation, you have the Holy Spirit to help you interpret the book, and you haven't experienced any of God's former ways of communicating, what are you supposed to be left thinking? Most prophesies that I'm aware of that have been anything other than simply restating what's in the Bible have fallen flat. Most tongue speaking I've been a party to has little or no relationship to what's done in Acts. I'm unaware of any miracles that have happened, improper uses of that word aside. Just about all the "revelation" I've heard tell of has been incredibly suspect at least and resulted in cults in the worst cases. So in closing (for today anyway) while it is certainly possible that when the WCF says what it does, it may be making claims for the Bible that it doesn't make for itself (setting aside for the moment that there are certainly things that most Christians believe that aren't explicitly laid out therein), that doesn't mean that what it says doesn't have some weight. If God still does reveal himself in his former ways I'd like to hear some examples. Is that fair?

Okay so hopefully this won't go on much longer. I'm not sure I can count past five in French any more.

So Steve pointed out that I made a big time overstatement in part the second. I said "While God used a variety of means to communicate to people over the ages it always got written down, at least so far as we know." and even with the qualifier it doesn't work. Now I could qualify that yet again and say that while God used a variety of means to communicate to people over the ages it usually got written down, at least so far as we know. I could say that God made sure that the parts he wanted to pass on to future generations got written down. I'll say that. I feel good about it, especially since I think we can agree that at least the Old Testament has given us everything we need to point to the coming of Christ. I think the same can be said to be true of the New Testament as well.

Granted not everything that Jesus said is in the Gospels. I don't think it needs to be. As John wrote, "If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." So God spoke to us through his son. And God also spoke to us through Paul. God in the person of the Holy Spirit continues to speak to us through the Bible. The idea that God speaks new things to us today is something that we have to be careful with I think. That idea has resulted in all sorts of troubling doctrines and "prophesy". While it might be true that not everything God has to tell us is in the Bible, we have warnings against false prophets and teachers who will come in the last days. I'm sure Steve agrees that as the Bible teaches we must test every word that someone claims is coming from God. What do we compare them against? I would say the Bible.

Steve says "So the speaking to us through Jesus goes beyond words on a page." and I would like to know what that means to him. He also says "God seems to want something much more personal than written communication alone." Certainly I agree. We speak to God through prayer. He answers those prayers. He's never answered me verbally. I don't know of anyone whom I trust that has gotten a literal spoken word from God. So what sort of personal communication is Steve talking about? If it is, as Jesus promised us, the helper so that we may interpret what God has given us then we're on board.

I don't think anyone's disputing that God wants a very intimate relationship with us. Why else would he choose the most intimate relationships as the metaphors he uses to describe it? The question is if Jesus is God with us and we have his words and the Spirit's guidance, what more do we need as the penultimate communication before Heaven? I do think that it's fairly natural to talk about this in relation to cessationism vs. continuationism since if we're talking about wholly new revelations then we're definitely in the continuationist's territory. If we aren't talking about new revelations then what do we have beyond the Bible and the Spirit? How is God communicating to us today?

Well we've been on a little bit of a religious kick here and that's a good thing for me anyway. A comment on a post at Steve's blog poses this question:

Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What is Christianity? Is it (a) a set of activities in a sacred place on Sunday morning, with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership

or

(b) a way of living, every day, 24/7, in relationship with Jesus Himself, and with others who also are in relationship with Him.

Now my kneejerk is that this is in some ways a false dichotomy and that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. But the original poster goes so far as to say that you can't have it both ways.

Going through the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, I cannot find anything that leads to (a); in fact, he often rebuked the leaders of the (a) system of the day. I grew up in churches, have been in churches all my life, and my conclusion now is that in most situations, the more of (a) you have, the less you have of (b); in fact, (a) tends to replace and eliminate (b)!

I could point out that Jesus never told these folks to stop going to the temple. I could also point out that both Jesus and Paul went into synagogues to preach/teach. So it's a bit of an argument from silence. Now I'm not arguing that Christianity is a, I don't think it is. It often involves a and I don't think that that's a bad thing as long as it doesn't, as he says, replace and eliminate b. God set up something exactly like a in the Old Testament and thus I don't think it can entirely be a bad thing. Of course that's not Chrisitanity, but since our faith did come out of that tradition we need to be careful not to throw tradition away in an effort to be "more like the first century church". We are supposed to gather together and any time a group of humans does that you pretty much wind up with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership. It's also important to note that Jesus rebuked the leaders and not the system. So which rightly get's the blame?

One of the things that interests me about this statement most though is the part where we are to be in relationship "with others who also are in relationship with Him". So what does this look like and how long before you wind up with your own list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership? Do you think it won't? If not, why not? I'm pretty sure that I belong to a church that manages to combine the two in a way that stays as true to the stated goal of b as one realistically can, but it's far from perfect.

How did “Abide in me” come to mean “Be at the church building every time the doors are open”?

I certainly agree that there is no need to be at the church every time it's open. I think that there's a lot more to abiding than any of us really understand. You can abide in Christ in church, at home, at work, etc.

This is probably pretty close. I scored high percentage-wise because on tests where I have a spectrum to chose from I tend to go to one extreme or the other. That has more to do with annoyance with trying to decide wether I somewhat agree or somewhat disagree and what the difference between the two is than anything else.

ht to Southcon and Rey

I got the opportunity to meet with philosopher, mathematician, semi-frequent commenter and all around cool frood Sid Faiwu yesterday. We ate good food, drank better beer, and talked about religion, science, how much extremism sucks for everyone, whiskey, and all sorts of things. It gave me food for thought and more importantly for blogging.

Future posts from this meeting?

- Are we truly better off now than we were in the past?
- God: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, which two is he?
- The problems/advantages of the English Language
- Passions vs. Paychecks
- Neo-whatever: Is there anything truly new in the world of theistic/atheistic though?

All this and more coming at you when I get around to it!!

By way of encouraging this blogs religious tendencies (a dangerous thing at best) Casey has blessed me with the Mathetes award. According to the blog Management By God who originated it, mathetes "is the Greek word for disciple, and the role of the disciple (per the Great Commission) it to make more disciples. I'd like to take the opportunity to award five other bloggers with this award and badge for acting in the role of a disciple of Christ. These five all share the message in their own creative ways, and I admire them all for what they do."

I'm honored and as the way things usually work, I am to pass this on to five other bloggers whom I feel are deserving. These folks should pass the love on as they see fit.

RC at Strange Culture for his deep looks at faith and media.
Pink aka Bear at Pinakidion a long time friend and certifiable certified man of God.
Dan at Cerulean Sanctum who consistently brings the knowledge.
Steve at Theological Musings who consistently raises the level of discussion to higher heights.
And the Thinklings as a group, their being no more welcoming, touching, and most importantly gospel oriented group blog in the god-blogosphere.

So there you have it. If you're a person of faith or an honest seeker, or heck even an "opponent" you could do little better than to check these folks out. Careful though, you might learn something.

In this post (and perhaps subsequent posts as this one is getting long already) I will outline some of the reasoning behind why I'm still a Democrat and how I reconcile that with being a Christian. Why do I want to do this? Well it's my long held belief that some of my brethren on the Right have branded Christianity as the official Republican religion. I won't go so far as to say that they have highjacked the faith, but they have certainly cast aspersions on anyone that claims to be simultaneously a Christian and a Democrat.

History of Religion

Pretty interesting.

at being a blogger and NaNoWriMo-er. No writing of any kind this weekend. I'm flying to California on bidness Wednesday and hope to get some writing done at some point between then and Friday when I return. We'll see.

Food for thoughts:

I think Hillary crying sexism is pretty funny, but is she right when she intimates that being sexist in this country is easier than being a racist? I think so.

Olympians won't be able to carry any religious items into the Olympic village in China. I'm not surprised, I'm not even angry. I'm something I'm just not sure what.

The writers strike hurts good shows and helps crap (reality) shows. I'm not a big fan of unions and strikes and in this case I think that if writers are so worried about their monetary future I think that they should be creating it instead of clinging to DVD sales. Still they are in some sense fighting the power and so rock on with your bad selves.

The JLA movie will rawk hard as will Iron Man. Don't pinch me.

Why do people inist on building houses where they know they will burn down/blow away?

TTFN

Kamp Krusty a foine, foine blog by Brant Hansen led me to read a number of articles on new atheism that I thought I'd share.

We covered a good chunk of 1Timothy 4 tonight in leadership training. What stuck out most to me was the first five verses.

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

We talked a bit about hyper-religiosity and how that can come from demonic influences. Vs. 3 talks about asceticism and I think that this is more than just abstaining from meat or marriage. Being more "religious" is not necessarily a good thing. Seeking some sort of false holiness from avoiding things that are in and of themselves good is contrary to what God would have for us. We need to be thankful for wonderful food, our families, friendship, spouses, the weather, every good thing that God made. Any religion/group that asks you to cut yourself off from these sort of things needs to be examined closely (especially ones that are anti-coffee).

So what are you recieving with thanksgiving this year?

I've been wanting to tackle this, but Pyromaniacs' own Dan Phillips takes an excellent stab.

Religion is stacking up to be quite the topic during this election cycle. When questioners bring up the matter of religion, or try to pursue it very far, one of the common preferred responses is, "My religion is very private. I keep it separate from my politics. My religion will not influence me one way or the other in office."

To which Dan says:

This response — if it means anything at all — can only mean one of three things:

The speaker is a liar
The speaker is a hypocrite
The speaker can't rub two live neurons together

I'd say that's pretty fair. Go read the article then come back and we can discuss.

Back in October I said that I would post something on miracles. This was, as best my memory can recall, "inspired" by a conversation I'd had with Sid over lunch. Recently I read a challenging post on Steve Sensenig's blog titled You Might Be Misrepresenting God If…. Steve and challenging posts go together like peanut butter and chocolate but this one was particularly good. Drawing from Jeff Foxworthy for format, if not inspiration, he posited this, "If you believe that sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, freedom to the captives, and walking to the lame were only for first-century “verification of the message”, you might be misrepresenting God."

So here we are. Miracles.

This is dead on accurate even to the picture of what I'll look like in 20 years.

What Kind of Evangelical Are You created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Evangelical Presbyterian You're an Evangelical Presbyterian, probably a member of a PCA church. Sound theology and reverent worship are important to you, but so are outreach and ministry to the community. You are likely to be from the deep South, and perhaps at one time you were Southern Baptist. Evangelical Presbyterian 85% Moderate Evangelical 75% Baptist 60% Reformed Baptist 55% Conservative Evangelical 55% High Church Nomad 55% Presby - Old School 50%