This year we enjoyed a visit from my parents (Thanksgiving) and Andrea's (Christmas). We are grateful to God for our Christian families.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Global Warming strikes again...
Nationwide Chill
Below average temperatures expected all across the country today; snow spreads to Intermountain West. (Meanwhile Al Gore takes his personal Lear Jet to Caribbean for Christmas vacation)...
Freeport weather:
Currently -2 F
Feels like -13 F
http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/coldandflu/local/61032?lswe=61032&lwsa=Weather36HourColdAndFluCommand&from=searchbox_localwx
Below average temperatures expected all across the country today; snow spreads to Intermountain West. (Meanwhile Al Gore takes his personal Lear Jet to Caribbean for Christmas vacation)...
Freeport weather:
Currently -2 F
Feels like -13 F
http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/coldandflu/local/61032?lswe=61032&lwsa=Weather36HourColdAndFluCommand&from=searchbox_localwx
Saturday, December 20, 2008
What I'm Reading...
1. Numerous Revelation Commentaries by various authors
2. After Darkness Light by various authors
3. The Mischief of Sin by Thomas Watson
4. Singing And Making Music: Issues in Church Music Today by Paul Jones
5. Current TMS Journal on Homosexuality
6. A Passionate Plea for Preaching by various authors
Monday, December 15, 2008
Preaching and application
Application via exhortation is an important aspect of expository preaching. One of the great challenges in preaching is trying to manage your time. I rarely have enough time to say all that I want to say on a given passage. One of the things i try and do from time to time is provide “application handouts” for my congregation. These handouts typically go along with the morning message but sometimes highlight areas that i don’t have time to go into in great depth.
Here is one such example.
The Discerning Church: Ephesus
Revelation 2:1-7
Part 2
There are two levels of biblical discernment needed to maintain a vibrant Christian walk and a healthy Christian church.
One is the ability to discern error or half truth, especially when it is being presented as truth. First level discernment is needed to protect and preserve the purity of the Christian gospel (note Galatians 1, Jude 3, 2 John 7-11, Matthew 7:15-16, Acts 20:27-32, Romans 12:9, 1 Tim 6:20). “Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth.” “Discernment is the skill of understanding and applying God’s Word with the purpose of separating truth from error and right from wrong.” Study the example of the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:2-3, 6.
The following list includes some recommended books that deal with this 1st level area of biblical discernment. Books that defend the gospel against various heresies and cults:
The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin
Spirit Wars by Peter Jones
Is the Mormon My Brother? by James R. White
The Roman Catholic Controversy by James R. White.
The Future of Justification: by John Piper
The second level of biblical discernment is the ability to distinguish between ok, better, and best. In other words, just because something isn’t rank heresy doesn’t mean that it should be accepted hook, line, and sinker. With that said, the Bible forbids hypocritical judging (Matt 7) or judging another person’s thoughts and motives (Prov. 16:2, 1 Cor 4:5). But God does want us to examine everythingcarefully (note 1 Thess. 5:21-22) and to test everything against the Divine standard, God’s Word. Study the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11.
The following list includes some recommended books that deal with this 2nd level area of biblical discernment.
The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment by Tim Challies
Fool’s Gold? Discerning Truth in an Age of Error by multiple authors
Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur
Revelation 2:1-7
Part 2
There are two levels of biblical discernment needed to maintain a vibrant Christian walk and a healthy Christian church.
One is the ability to discern error or half truth, especially when it is being presented as truth. First level discernment is needed to protect and preserve the purity of the Christian gospel (note Galatians 1, Jude 3, 2 John 7-11, Matthew 7:15-16, Acts 20:27-32, Romans 12:9, 1 Tim 6:20). “Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth.” “Discernment is the skill of understanding and applying God’s Word with the purpose of separating truth from error and right from wrong.” Study the example of the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:2-3, 6.
The following list includes some recommended books that deal with this 1st level area of biblical discernment. Books that defend the gospel against various heresies and cults:
The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin
Spirit Wars by Peter Jones
Is the Mormon My Brother? by James R. White
The Roman Catholic Controversy by James R. White.
The Future of Justification: by John Piper
The second level of biblical discernment is the ability to distinguish between ok, better, and best. In other words, just because something isn’t rank heresy doesn’t mean that it should be accepted hook, line, and sinker. With that said, the Bible forbids hypocritical judging (Matt 7) or judging another person’s thoughts and motives (Prov. 16:2, 1 Cor 4:5). But God does want us to examine everythingcarefully (note 1 Thess. 5:21-22) and to test everything against the Divine standard, God’s Word. Study the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11.
The following list includes some recommended books that deal with this 2nd level area of biblical discernment.
The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment by Tim Challies
Fool’s Gold? Discerning Truth in an Age of Error by multiple authors
Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur
Why I Am Not a “Purpose Driven” Pastor by Larry DeBruyn
Jesus Christ: Self Denial or Self Esteem? By David Tyler
Will Medicine Stop the Pain?By Elyse Fitzpatrick & Laura Hendrickson
The following list includes some recommended websitesthat often include discerning articles and blog posts.
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/index.asp
http://www.aomin.org/
http://www.challies.com/
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
Jesus Christ: Self Denial or Self Esteem? By David Tyler
Will Medicine Stop the Pain?By Elyse Fitzpatrick & Laura Hendrickson
The following list includes some recommended websitesthat often include discerning articles and blog posts.
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/index.asp
http://www.aomin.org/
http://www.challies.com/
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
Monday, December 08, 2008
Newsweek actively promotes "gay marriage"
My favorite Christian blog author has posted another wonderful article (see below)
Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage
By Al Mohler at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881
Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument. In its cover story for this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.
Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible's relevance to the question of marriage in the first place. "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does," Miller suggests. If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.
She concludes: "Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?" She answers, "Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so."
Now, wait just a minute. Miller's broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage. She argues that, in the Old Testament, "examples of what social conservatives call 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found." This is true, of course, if what you mean by 'traditional family' is the picture of America in the 1950s. The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.
But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment. And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual.
As for the New Testament, "Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere" to be found. Miller argues that both Jesus and Paul were unmarried (emphatically true) and that Jesus "preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties." Jesus clearly did call for a commitment to the Gospel and to discipleship that transcended family commitments. Given the Jewish emphasis on family loyalty and commitment, this did represent a decisive break.
But Miller also claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." This is just patently untrue. Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator's intention, a union of one man and one woman. To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage "between one man and one woman" is understood as normative.
As for Paul, he did indeed instruct the Corinthians that the unmarried state was advantageous for the spread of the Gospel. His concern in 1 Corinthians 7 is not to elevate singleness as a lifestyle, but to encourage as many as are able to give themselves totally to an unencumbered Gospel ministry. But, in Corinth and throughout the New Testament church, the vast majority of Christians were married. Paul will himself assume this when he writes the "household codes" included in other New Testament letters.
The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality. Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men. She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women -- with the women mentioned first.
Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because "our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions." But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul. Paul, she concedes, "was tough on homosexuality." Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that "progressive scholars" have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.
In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations. Elliott, like other "progressive scholars," suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," as Miller quotes Elliott.
Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion. Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth -- and that we are now dependent upon contemporary "progressive scholars" to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed.
Tellingly, Miller herself seems to lose confidence in this line of argument, explaining that "Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching." In other words, when the argument is failing, change the subject and just declare victory. "Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," Miller simply asserts -- apparently asking her readers to forget everything they have just read.
Miller picks her sources carefully. She cites Neil Elliott but never balances his argument with credible arguments from another scholar, such as Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [See his response to Elliott here]. Her scholarly sources are chosen so that they all offer an uncorrected affirmation of her argument. The deck is decisively stacked.
She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is "exactly the same thing" as skin color when it comes to discrimination. As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.
As always, the bottom line is biblical authority. Lisa Miller does not mince words. "Biblical literalists will disagree," she allows, "but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history." This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as "we change through history."
For the complete article click on the link above....
Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage
By Al Mohler at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881
Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument. In its cover story for this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.
Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible's relevance to the question of marriage in the first place. "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does," Miller suggests. If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.
She concludes: "Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?" She answers, "Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so."
Now, wait just a minute. Miller's broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage. She argues that, in the Old Testament, "examples of what social conservatives call 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found." This is true, of course, if what you mean by 'traditional family' is the picture of America in the 1950s. The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.
But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment. And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual.
As for the New Testament, "Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere" to be found. Miller argues that both Jesus and Paul were unmarried (emphatically true) and that Jesus "preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties." Jesus clearly did call for a commitment to the Gospel and to discipleship that transcended family commitments. Given the Jewish emphasis on family loyalty and commitment, this did represent a decisive break.
But Miller also claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." This is just patently untrue. Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator's intention, a union of one man and one woman. To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage "between one man and one woman" is understood as normative.
As for Paul, he did indeed instruct the Corinthians that the unmarried state was advantageous for the spread of the Gospel. His concern in 1 Corinthians 7 is not to elevate singleness as a lifestyle, but to encourage as many as are able to give themselves totally to an unencumbered Gospel ministry. But, in Corinth and throughout the New Testament church, the vast majority of Christians were married. Paul will himself assume this when he writes the "household codes" included in other New Testament letters.
The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality. Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men. She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women -- with the women mentioned first.
Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because "our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions." But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul. Paul, she concedes, "was tough on homosexuality." Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that "progressive scholars" have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.
In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations. Elliott, like other "progressive scholars," suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," as Miller quotes Elliott.
Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion. Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth -- and that we are now dependent upon contemporary "progressive scholars" to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed.
Tellingly, Miller herself seems to lose confidence in this line of argument, explaining that "Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching." In other words, when the argument is failing, change the subject and just declare victory. "Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," Miller simply asserts -- apparently asking her readers to forget everything they have just read.
Miller picks her sources carefully. She cites Neil Elliott but never balances his argument with credible arguments from another scholar, such as Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [See his response to Elliott here]. Her scholarly sources are chosen so that they all offer an uncorrected affirmation of her argument. The deck is decisively stacked.
She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is "exactly the same thing" as skin color when it comes to discrimination. As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.
As always, the bottom line is biblical authority. Lisa Miller does not mince words. "Biblical literalists will disagree," she allows, "but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history." This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as "we change through history."
For the complete article click on the link above....
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Al Mohler on media exposure and your kids
Here are some suggestions parents might want to consider.
1. Limit the total media exposure experienced by your children. The statistic that the average child and adolescent is immersed in the media for 45 hours a week should be sufficient motivation for parents to hit the brakes and gain control of media exposure. Access to entertainment media should be a privilege earned, not a right assumed by the child.
2. Do not allow children and teenagers to have televisions and Internet-connected computers in the bedroom. There is simply too much danger in unsupervised media exposure, and too much temptation in terms of both quantity and content. No child needs a television in the bedroom, and a computer connected to the Internet is an invitation to disaster.
3. Make entertainment media a family experience. There is a massive difference in the experience of a child watching programming alone and that same child watching with a parent. Parents should be in unquestioned control of media decisions. Parents should also be eager to discuss what is seen with teenagers and children, helping them to grow in discernment and judgment.
4. Parents have to do the hard work of actually knowing what their children and teenagers are watching, playing, hearing, and experiencing through media exposure. No one said parenting was supposed to be easy.
5. Realize that a revolution has taken place in the lives of children and adolescents. The emergence of social media technologies means that children (and adolescents especially) now expect to be in constant communication with their peers. This is not healthy, sane, or helpful. All of us -- children and teenagers included -- need a break from this immersion. Put a charging dock in the kitchen and confiscate cell phones as the kids come in the door. That will send a message the old fashioned way -- in person.
6. Take a regular look at what your child is posting and what others are posting on his or her social media sites. Look at the instant messaging exchanges and emails. You are the parent, after all, and your child's access to these technologies should come with the open and non-negotiable requirement that parents see it all.
7. Remember that saying "no" is a legitimate option. I do not believe that saying "no" is always the right response. The media bring opportunities for good as well as for evil. Children and teenagers who are never allowed access to media technologies and entertainment will emerge into adulthood with no powers of discernment. But "no" is sometimes the best and only appropriate answer, and parents should always be ready to use it when needed.
Today's generation of children and adolescents is, by all accounts, a generation immersed in media. This new report reminds us that this exposure cannot come without real costs. Let's hope America's parents are paying attention.
1. Limit the total media exposure experienced by your children. The statistic that the average child and adolescent is immersed in the media for 45 hours a week should be sufficient motivation for parents to hit the brakes and gain control of media exposure. Access to entertainment media should be a privilege earned, not a right assumed by the child.
2. Do not allow children and teenagers to have televisions and Internet-connected computers in the bedroom. There is simply too much danger in unsupervised media exposure, and too much temptation in terms of both quantity and content. No child needs a television in the bedroom, and a computer connected to the Internet is an invitation to disaster.
3. Make entertainment media a family experience. There is a massive difference in the experience of a child watching programming alone and that same child watching with a parent. Parents should be in unquestioned control of media decisions. Parents should also be eager to discuss what is seen with teenagers and children, helping them to grow in discernment and judgment.
4. Parents have to do the hard work of actually knowing what their children and teenagers are watching, playing, hearing, and experiencing through media exposure. No one said parenting was supposed to be easy.
5. Realize that a revolution has taken place in the lives of children and adolescents. The emergence of social media technologies means that children (and adolescents especially) now expect to be in constant communication with their peers. This is not healthy, sane, or helpful. All of us -- children and teenagers included -- need a break from this immersion. Put a charging dock in the kitchen and confiscate cell phones as the kids come in the door. That will send a message the old fashioned way -- in person.
6. Take a regular look at what your child is posting and what others are posting on his or her social media sites. Look at the instant messaging exchanges and emails. You are the parent, after all, and your child's access to these technologies should come with the open and non-negotiable requirement that parents see it all.
7. Remember that saying "no" is a legitimate option. I do not believe that saying "no" is always the right response. The media bring opportunities for good as well as for evil. Children and teenagers who are never allowed access to media technologies and entertainment will emerge into adulthood with no powers of discernment. But "no" is sometimes the best and only appropriate answer, and parents should always be ready to use it when needed.
Today's generation of children and adolescents is, by all accounts, a generation immersed in media. This new report reminds us that this exposure cannot come without real costs. Let's hope America's parents are paying attention.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Thanksgiving visit from Grandma and Grandpa K
Here are some pictures from Grandma and Grandpa Kolstad's recent visit. We were very grateful to have family in town for the holidays. The other grandparents will be with us during Christmas. We are most thankful for our Christian parents (grandparents)!
Women Pastors
For Dr. Mohler's full article click http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php
Regularly, The Los Angeles Times makes for interesting reading. In terms of political slant, the paper has moved to the left of The New York Times, and it now occupies a major position among the nation's most influential newspapers. Even as paid circulation has dropped significantly since the 1990s, the editorial slant to the left is a constant.
Interestingly, the paper's editors decided to take on the issue of women in ministry in Sunday's edition. The editorial, "Women and Religion," was introduced with this tag under the headline: "Gains among women in the clergy are under attack in both Catholic and Protestant churches."
Gains under attack? Here is how the editors introduced their essay:
According to the New Testament, women were among the earliest followers of Jesus and played an important role in early Christian communities. Even today, the "man in the pew" is likely to be a woman. But women in many Christian denominations continue to complain that they have been unable to break through what is sometimes called the stained-glass ceiling. Obviously, theology plays a part in this phenomenon, but so does the conviction -- found among believers and nonbelievers alike -- that this is a man's world.
This is fascinating, to say the least. The editors of The Los Angeles Times have been reading the New Testament? They are certainly right in their statement that women have been central to the Christian movement from the very beginning of the Church. But the editors then offer a sympathetic lament to those women who complain of a "stained-glass ceiling." They then concede that "theology plays a part in this phenomenon," but go on to insist that patriarchy and discrimination against women also plays a part.
The editorial then shifts to look at recent developments in the Roman Catholic church, including warnings from the Vatican and the local Cardinal, Los Angeles Archbishop Roger M. Mahoney. In the first case, the threatened excommunication of a priest for participating in the "unauthorized ordination" of a woman is cited as a hardening of the Vatican's position. This hardly seems to be the case. Has the Vatican ever looked lightly at "unauthorized ordinations?" The editors do seem to understand that the Roman Catholic restriction of the priestly office to men is based on tradition and the representational and sacerdotal nature of the priestly office. "It's tempting to think that women face barriers only in the Roman Catholic Church and others that limit the priesthood to men," the editors explain. "But even in churches that do ordain women, equality between the sexes has been elusive."
Indeed, the pulpits of liberal Protestantism are still generally occupied by men. The editors cite a study that indicates that 93.7 percent of "solo pastors" are men. This is all the more shocking given the fact that women students now outnumber men in liberal seminaries. It does seem that the editors have a point here. These churches and denominations claim to have no theological problem with women serving as pastors. But, in reality, few congregations actually make the choice to call a woman as pastor. Why? They alone can tell us.
Finally, the editors turn to more conservative Protestant churches and denominations. As the editors acknowledge, the conviction that the role of pastor and the teaching office is limited to men is rooted in a biblical argument:
In the Roman Catholic Church, tradition is cited as the grounds for not ordaining women. In Protestant churches, resistance to female pastors is likelier to be grounded in biblical passages such as 1 Timothy 2:12: "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."
Regularly, The Los Angeles Times makes for interesting reading. In terms of political slant, the paper has moved to the left of The New York Times, and it now occupies a major position among the nation's most influential newspapers. Even as paid circulation has dropped significantly since the 1990s, the editorial slant to the left is a constant.
Interestingly, the paper's editors decided to take on the issue of women in ministry in Sunday's edition. The editorial, "Women and Religion," was introduced with this tag under the headline: "Gains among women in the clergy are under attack in both Catholic and Protestant churches."
Gains under attack? Here is how the editors introduced their essay:
According to the New Testament, women were among the earliest followers of Jesus and played an important role in early Christian communities. Even today, the "man in the pew" is likely to be a woman. But women in many Christian denominations continue to complain that they have been unable to break through what is sometimes called the stained-glass ceiling. Obviously, theology plays a part in this phenomenon, but so does the conviction -- found among believers and nonbelievers alike -- that this is a man's world.
This is fascinating, to say the least. The editors of The Los Angeles Times have been reading the New Testament? They are certainly right in their statement that women have been central to the Christian movement from the very beginning of the Church. But the editors then offer a sympathetic lament to those women who complain of a "stained-glass ceiling." They then concede that "theology plays a part in this phenomenon," but go on to insist that patriarchy and discrimination against women also plays a part.
The editorial then shifts to look at recent developments in the Roman Catholic church, including warnings from the Vatican and the local Cardinal, Los Angeles Archbishop Roger M. Mahoney. In the first case, the threatened excommunication of a priest for participating in the "unauthorized ordination" of a woman is cited as a hardening of the Vatican's position. This hardly seems to be the case. Has the Vatican ever looked lightly at "unauthorized ordinations?" The editors do seem to understand that the Roman Catholic restriction of the priestly office to men is based on tradition and the representational and sacerdotal nature of the priestly office. "It's tempting to think that women face barriers only in the Roman Catholic Church and others that limit the priesthood to men," the editors explain. "But even in churches that do ordain women, equality between the sexes has been elusive."
Indeed, the pulpits of liberal Protestantism are still generally occupied by men. The editors cite a study that indicates that 93.7 percent of "solo pastors" are men. This is all the more shocking given the fact that women students now outnumber men in liberal seminaries. It does seem that the editors have a point here. These churches and denominations claim to have no theological problem with women serving as pastors. But, in reality, few congregations actually make the choice to call a woman as pastor. Why? They alone can tell us.
Finally, the editors turn to more conservative Protestant churches and denominations. As the editors acknowledge, the conviction that the role of pastor and the teaching office is limited to men is rooted in a biblical argument:
In the Roman Catholic Church, tradition is cited as the grounds for not ordaining women. In Protestant churches, resistance to female pastors is likelier to be grounded in biblical passages such as 1 Timothy 2:12: "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Happy 1st B-day Jude MacArthur Kolstad
Thanks to all who made this a wonderful day! Highest praises to the Lord for two wonderful children. We had a nice birthday lunch at Pizza Hut and came home for cake and presents. It is hard to spend too much time outside when it is 20 degrees. Happy birthday son!!!!
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
Does Church attendance matter?
A great blog post by Dan Phillips at PYRO http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
"Everything old is new again," and the saying certainly holds true when it comes to heresy, false doctrine and plain old unbiblical nuttiness.For instance, back in the anti-establishment 60s and 70s, Christianoid kids would verbally trash the "organized church." Didn't need to go to a building, they'd say; they were the church. The real Bible scholars among them (relatively speaking) might yank 1 Corinthians 6:19 out of context and waterboard it a bit, until it said what they wanted to hear.
But no, Trevor, you're not the church. You're part of the church. The word ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) means "assembly," and no, you're really not an assembly. Doesn't matter how many chins you have, you still aren't an assembly.
What you are (you tell me) is a Christian. If you're a Christian, you claim Jesus as your Lord.Where's your Lord today? He depicts Himself as walking among local assemblies (Revelation 1:12-13, 20), holding their pastors in His right hand (vv. 16, 20). What do you think the message is, there? Why is He not watching a lovely sunset, or fishing, or walking the dog, or riding a comet? Why among churches, among assemblies, cherishing their pastors? Because that's where Jesus is. That's where His great heart is. Do you know better than He? Which one of you is "Lord," again?
That's the church, that local assembly of believers where pastors lead, the Word is preached, the ordinances are observed, and discipline is carried out. Christ loved it and gave Himself for it (Ephesians 5:25). He died for it.But you won't walk into one of them, and stay there? Which one of you is "Lord," again?Before He died, Jesus prayed for the church, all of it (John 17). Even (especially!) with what He was facing, the church was on His heart.
But you won't attach yourself to one, to join it and work in it and pray for it? Which one of you is "Lord," again?
Who is your pastor? Are you fool enough to say "Jesus is my pastor"? Nonsense. When He ascended, He gave pastors to the church (Ephesians 4:11). If He gave them, then He isn't them. Which one is your pastor, your toe-to-toe, eyeball-to-eyeball pastor?
Your "Lord" charged pastors with the care of souls. That means Jesus — your Lord, so you say — thinks your soul needs watching over (Hebrews 13:7, 17). Which individual flesh and bones living pastor is watching over your soul, in person, individually?
If "none," how is it that you decided you are smarter than Jesus? You know, Jesus. Your "Lord." Which one of you is "Lord," again?Jesus, your Lord, also called you to know, show respect for, esteem highly in love, and submit to the leadership of your flesh-and-blood in-person pastor (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; Hebrews 13:17).
Which pastor is it that sees you come regularly to be discipled and led, and sees you loving and trusting God enough to yield him the love and submission to which God calls you?If you bristle at the thought of embracing what Jesus calls you to — which one of you is "Lord," again?And if you fall into unrepentant sin, which assembly will even know of it, let alone discipline you? Jesus says you need that, too (Matthew 18:13-20).
I don't care what complex, high-sounding Dagwood sandwich of excuses you can slap together. If you say you don't need to be in a local assembly, you say you're smarter than Jesus, and are sufficient.Fool!And remember, that Jesus you say is your "Lord" said that the second most important thing in the world is to love your neighbor (Matthew 22:39). He moved Paul to tell you your fellow-church-member is your premier neighbor (Galatians 6:10). That's where you take all that rich doctrine (Ephesians 1—3), and live it out in community (Ephesians 4—6). That's where you do all those dozens of "one anothers."And if you tell yourself that your spouse or children are all the "one anothers" you need, God already said "No." If you insist, you put your judgment over God's.
Meaning that, whatever your mouth professes, your choices say you find God's judgment deficient, and yours superior.Meaning you're a fool and a de facto blasphemer — whether you intend to be or not.And you thereby bring harm on your spouse and children, by preaching and living a lie to them.That's for starters.So, Jesus — your "Lord" — says you need to be in a local church. You say you don't?Which one to believe? You? Or Jesus? You? Or Jesus? Hmm.Here's the problem, I think. I've said a word thirteen times: Lord. The confession of Jesus as Lord is fundamental to Christian faith (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:11). In repentant faith, we bow the knee to Christ's Lordship.
I think the problem with a lot of these late-blooming hippies is, at root, authority. They don't like to have to sit still and listen while someone else talks. They don't like someone else being in charge. They don't like being encouraged to join, commit, join in, be with, commit themselves, be accountable, be answerable.
Our race was bitten with an anti-authority bug when great-grandma bought the "You shall be as gods" line, and great-granddad followed her lead. But conversion — real conversion — deals with that bug.It all really comes back to Jesus, the Lord. You may not like the idea of being accountable to a man, or a group of men. You'd rather sit home, watching TV or listening to tapes. Whenever you want, wherever you want. No yucky people to be patient with; don't have to listen to all their whiny problems and needs. No need to adjust to different accents, different ways of thinking, different cultures. Just you, you, you.
But Jesus — the Lord — commands you to go to church, join in church, participate in church, and submit to the God-ordained human leadership of the church.That's your issue. Is Jesus your Lord in reality, or in theory alone? When convenient, or no? Are your ego and control-issues the boundary of His Lordship?See you in church.
PS: and I think I can speak confidently for Phil and Frank in saying — God forbid that someone use our blog as a substitute for obeying Jesus and involving himself in the fellowship of a local church of Christ.
"Everything old is new again," and the saying certainly holds true when it comes to heresy, false doctrine and plain old unbiblical nuttiness.For instance, back in the anti-establishment 60s and 70s, Christianoid kids would verbally trash the "organized church." Didn't need to go to a building, they'd say; they were the church. The real Bible scholars among them (relatively speaking) might yank 1 Corinthians 6:19 out of context and waterboard it a bit, until it said what they wanted to hear.
But no, Trevor, you're not the church. You're part of the church. The word ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) means "assembly," and no, you're really not an assembly. Doesn't matter how many chins you have, you still aren't an assembly.
What you are (you tell me) is a Christian. If you're a Christian, you claim Jesus as your Lord.Where's your Lord today? He depicts Himself as walking among local assemblies (Revelation 1:12-13, 20), holding their pastors in His right hand (vv. 16, 20). What do you think the message is, there? Why is He not watching a lovely sunset, or fishing, or walking the dog, or riding a comet? Why among churches, among assemblies, cherishing their pastors? Because that's where Jesus is. That's where His great heart is. Do you know better than He? Which one of you is "Lord," again?
That's the church, that local assembly of believers where pastors lead, the Word is preached, the ordinances are observed, and discipline is carried out. Christ loved it and gave Himself for it (Ephesians 5:25). He died for it.But you won't walk into one of them, and stay there? Which one of you is "Lord," again?Before He died, Jesus prayed for the church, all of it (John 17). Even (especially!) with what He was facing, the church was on His heart.
But you won't attach yourself to one, to join it and work in it and pray for it? Which one of you is "Lord," again?
Who is your pastor? Are you fool enough to say "Jesus is my pastor"? Nonsense. When He ascended, He gave pastors to the church (Ephesians 4:11). If He gave them, then He isn't them. Which one is your pastor, your toe-to-toe, eyeball-to-eyeball pastor?
Your "Lord" charged pastors with the care of souls. That means Jesus — your Lord, so you say — thinks your soul needs watching over (Hebrews 13:7, 17). Which individual flesh and bones living pastor is watching over your soul, in person, individually?
If "none," how is it that you decided you are smarter than Jesus? You know, Jesus. Your "Lord." Which one of you is "Lord," again?Jesus, your Lord, also called you to know, show respect for, esteem highly in love, and submit to the leadership of your flesh-and-blood in-person pastor (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; Hebrews 13:17).
Which pastor is it that sees you come regularly to be discipled and led, and sees you loving and trusting God enough to yield him the love and submission to which God calls you?If you bristle at the thought of embracing what Jesus calls you to — which one of you is "Lord," again?And if you fall into unrepentant sin, which assembly will even know of it, let alone discipline you? Jesus says you need that, too (Matthew 18:13-20).
I don't care what complex, high-sounding Dagwood sandwich of excuses you can slap together. If you say you don't need to be in a local assembly, you say you're smarter than Jesus, and are sufficient.Fool!And remember, that Jesus you say is your "Lord" said that the second most important thing in the world is to love your neighbor (Matthew 22:39). He moved Paul to tell you your fellow-church-member is your premier neighbor (Galatians 6:10). That's where you take all that rich doctrine (Ephesians 1—3), and live it out in community (Ephesians 4—6). That's where you do all those dozens of "one anothers."And if you tell yourself that your spouse or children are all the "one anothers" you need, God already said "No." If you insist, you put your judgment over God's.
Meaning that, whatever your mouth professes, your choices say you find God's judgment deficient, and yours superior.Meaning you're a fool and a de facto blasphemer — whether you intend to be or not.And you thereby bring harm on your spouse and children, by preaching and living a lie to them.That's for starters.So, Jesus — your "Lord" — says you need to be in a local church. You say you don't?Which one to believe? You? Or Jesus? You? Or Jesus? Hmm.Here's the problem, I think. I've said a word thirteen times: Lord. The confession of Jesus as Lord is fundamental to Christian faith (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:11). In repentant faith, we bow the knee to Christ's Lordship.
I think the problem with a lot of these late-blooming hippies is, at root, authority. They don't like to have to sit still and listen while someone else talks. They don't like someone else being in charge. They don't like being encouraged to join, commit, join in, be with, commit themselves, be accountable, be answerable.
Our race was bitten with an anti-authority bug when great-grandma bought the "You shall be as gods" line, and great-granddad followed her lead. But conversion — real conversion — deals with that bug.It all really comes back to Jesus, the Lord. You may not like the idea of being accountable to a man, or a group of men. You'd rather sit home, watching TV or listening to tapes. Whenever you want, wherever you want. No yucky people to be patient with; don't have to listen to all their whiny problems and needs. No need to adjust to different accents, different ways of thinking, different cultures. Just you, you, you.
But Jesus — the Lord — commands you to go to church, join in church, participate in church, and submit to the God-ordained human leadership of the church.That's your issue. Is Jesus your Lord in reality, or in theory alone? When convenient, or no? Are your ego and control-issues the boundary of His Lordship?See you in church.
PS: and I think I can speak confidently for Phil and Frank in saying — God forbid that someone use our blog as a substitute for obeying Jesus and involving himself in the fellowship of a local church of Christ.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Praying AFTER the elections
Taken from http://www.almohler.com/ Another wonderful article by Dr. Mohler on how we Christians should pray after yesterday's election.
The election of Sen. Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States came as a bang, not a whimper. The tremors had been perceptible for days, maybe even weeks. On Tuesday, America experienced nothing less than a political and cultural earthquake.
The margin of victory for the Democratic ticket was clear. Americans voted in record numbers and with tangible enthusiasm. By the end of the day, it was clear that Barack Obama would be elected with a majority of the popular vote and a near landslide in the Electoral College. When President-Elect Obama greeted the throngs of his supporters in Chicago's Grant Park, he basked in the glory of electoral energy.
For many of us, the end of the night brought disappointment. In this case, the disappointment is compounded by the sense that the issues that did not allow us to support Sen. Obama are matters of life and death -- not just political issues of heated debate. Furthermore, the margin of victory and sense of a shift in the political landscape point to greater disappointments ahead. We all knew that so much was at stake.
For others, the night was magical and momentous. Young and old cried tears of amazement and victory as America elected its first African-American President -- and elected him overwhelmingly. Just forty years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, an African-American stood to claim victory as President-Elect of the nation. As Sen. Obama assured the crowd in Chicago and the watching nation, "We will get there. We will get there." No one hearing those words could fail to hear the refrain of plaintive words spoken in Memphis four decades ago. President-Elect Obama would stand upon the mountaintop that Dr. King had foreseen.
That victory is a hallmark moment in history for all Americans -- not just for those who voted for Sen. Obama. As a nation, we will never think of ourselves the same way again. Americans rich and poor, black and white, old and young, will look to an African-American man and know him as President of the United States. The President. The only President. The elected President. Our President.
Every American should be moved by the sight of young African-Americans who -- for the first time -- now believe that they have a purchase in American democracy. Old men and old women, grandsons and granddaughters of slaves and slaveholders, will look to an African-American as President.
Regardless of politics, could anyone remain unmoved by the sight of Jesse Jackson crying alone amidst the crowd in Chicago? This dimension of Election Day transcends politics and touches the heart of the American people.
Yet, the issues and the politics remain. Given the scale of the Democratic victory, the political landscape will be completely reshaped. The fight for the dignity and sanctity of unborn human beings has been set back by a great loss, and by the election of a President who has announced his intention to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law. The struggle to protect marriage against its destruction by redefinition is now complicated by the election of a President who has declared his aim to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. On issue after issue, we face a longer, harder, and more protracted struggle than ever before.
Still, we must press on as advocates for the unborn, for the elderly, for the infirm, and for the vulnerable. We must redouble our efforts to defend marriage and the integrity of the family. We must be vigilant to protect religious liberty and the freedom of the pulpit. We face awesome battles ahead.
At the same time, we must be honest and recognize that the political maps are being redrawn before our eyes. Will the Republican Party decide that conservative Christians are just too troublesome for the party and see the pro-life movement as a liability? There is the real danger that the Republicans, stung by this defeat, will adopt a libertarian approach to divisive moral issues and show conservative Christians the door.
Others will declare these struggles over, arguing that the election of Sen. Obama means that Americans in general -- and many younger Evangelicals in particular -- are ready to "move on" to other issues. This is no time for surrender or the abandonment of our core principles. We face a much harder struggle ahead, but we have no right to abandon the struggle.
We should look for opportunities to work with the new President and his administration where we can. We must hope that he will lead and govern as the bridge-builder he claimed to be in his campaign. We must confront and oppose the Obama administration where conscience demands, but work together where conscience allows.
Evangelical Christians face another challenge with the election of Sen. Obama, and a failure to rise to this challenge will bring disrepute upon the Gospel, as well as upon ourselves. There must be absolutely no denial of the legitimacy of President-Elect Obama's election and no failure to accord this new President the respect and honor due to anyone elected to that high office. Failure in this responsibility is disobedience to a clear biblical command.
Beyond this, we must commit ourselves to pray for this new President, for his wife and family, for his administration, and for the nation. We are commanded to pray for rulers, and this new President faces challenges that are not only daunting but potentially disastrous. May God grant him wisdom. He and his family will face new challenges and the pressures of this office. May God protect them, give them joy in their family life, and hold them close together.
We must pray that God will protect this nation even as the new President settles into his role as Commander in Chief, and that God will grant peace as he leads the nation through times of trial and international conflict and tension.
We must pray that God would change President-Elect Obama's mind and heart on issues of our crucial concern. May God change his heart and open his eyes to see abortion as the murder of the innocent unborn, to see marriage as an institution to be defended, and to see a host of issues in a new light. We must pray this from this day until the day he leaves office. God is sovereign, after all.
Without doubt, we face hard days ahead. Realistically, we must expect to be frustrated and disappointed. We may find ourselves to be defeated and discouraged. We must keep ever in mind that it is God who raises up nations and pulls them down, and who judges both nations and rulers. We must not act or think as unbelievers, or as those who do not trust God.
America has chosen a President. President-Elect Barack Obama is that choice, and he faces a breathtaking array of challenges and choices in days ahead. This is the time for Christians to begin praying in earnest for our new President. There is no time to lose.
The election of Sen. Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States came as a bang, not a whimper. The tremors had been perceptible for days, maybe even weeks. On Tuesday, America experienced nothing less than a political and cultural earthquake.
The margin of victory for the Democratic ticket was clear. Americans voted in record numbers and with tangible enthusiasm. By the end of the day, it was clear that Barack Obama would be elected with a majority of the popular vote and a near landslide in the Electoral College. When President-Elect Obama greeted the throngs of his supporters in Chicago's Grant Park, he basked in the glory of electoral energy.
For many of us, the end of the night brought disappointment. In this case, the disappointment is compounded by the sense that the issues that did not allow us to support Sen. Obama are matters of life and death -- not just political issues of heated debate. Furthermore, the margin of victory and sense of a shift in the political landscape point to greater disappointments ahead. We all knew that so much was at stake.
For others, the night was magical and momentous. Young and old cried tears of amazement and victory as America elected its first African-American President -- and elected him overwhelmingly. Just forty years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, an African-American stood to claim victory as President-Elect of the nation. As Sen. Obama assured the crowd in Chicago and the watching nation, "We will get there. We will get there." No one hearing those words could fail to hear the refrain of plaintive words spoken in Memphis four decades ago. President-Elect Obama would stand upon the mountaintop that Dr. King had foreseen.
That victory is a hallmark moment in history for all Americans -- not just for those who voted for Sen. Obama. As a nation, we will never think of ourselves the same way again. Americans rich and poor, black and white, old and young, will look to an African-American man and know him as President of the United States. The President. The only President. The elected President. Our President.
Every American should be moved by the sight of young African-Americans who -- for the first time -- now believe that they have a purchase in American democracy. Old men and old women, grandsons and granddaughters of slaves and slaveholders, will look to an African-American as President.
Regardless of politics, could anyone remain unmoved by the sight of Jesse Jackson crying alone amidst the crowd in Chicago? This dimension of Election Day transcends politics and touches the heart of the American people.
Yet, the issues and the politics remain. Given the scale of the Democratic victory, the political landscape will be completely reshaped. The fight for the dignity and sanctity of unborn human beings has been set back by a great loss, and by the election of a President who has announced his intention to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law. The struggle to protect marriage against its destruction by redefinition is now complicated by the election of a President who has declared his aim to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. On issue after issue, we face a longer, harder, and more protracted struggle than ever before.
Still, we must press on as advocates for the unborn, for the elderly, for the infirm, and for the vulnerable. We must redouble our efforts to defend marriage and the integrity of the family. We must be vigilant to protect religious liberty and the freedom of the pulpit. We face awesome battles ahead.
At the same time, we must be honest and recognize that the political maps are being redrawn before our eyes. Will the Republican Party decide that conservative Christians are just too troublesome for the party and see the pro-life movement as a liability? There is the real danger that the Republicans, stung by this defeat, will adopt a libertarian approach to divisive moral issues and show conservative Christians the door.
Others will declare these struggles over, arguing that the election of Sen. Obama means that Americans in general -- and many younger Evangelicals in particular -- are ready to "move on" to other issues. This is no time for surrender or the abandonment of our core principles. We face a much harder struggle ahead, but we have no right to abandon the struggle.
We should look for opportunities to work with the new President and his administration where we can. We must hope that he will lead and govern as the bridge-builder he claimed to be in his campaign. We must confront and oppose the Obama administration where conscience demands, but work together where conscience allows.
Evangelical Christians face another challenge with the election of Sen. Obama, and a failure to rise to this challenge will bring disrepute upon the Gospel, as well as upon ourselves. There must be absolutely no denial of the legitimacy of President-Elect Obama's election and no failure to accord this new President the respect and honor due to anyone elected to that high office. Failure in this responsibility is disobedience to a clear biblical command.
Beyond this, we must commit ourselves to pray for this new President, for his wife and family, for his administration, and for the nation. We are commanded to pray for rulers, and this new President faces challenges that are not only daunting but potentially disastrous. May God grant him wisdom. He and his family will face new challenges and the pressures of this office. May God protect them, give them joy in their family life, and hold them close together.
We must pray that God will protect this nation even as the new President settles into his role as Commander in Chief, and that God will grant peace as he leads the nation through times of trial and international conflict and tension.
We must pray that God would change President-Elect Obama's mind and heart on issues of our crucial concern. May God change his heart and open his eyes to see abortion as the murder of the innocent unborn, to see marriage as an institution to be defended, and to see a host of issues in a new light. We must pray this from this day until the day he leaves office. God is sovereign, after all.
Without doubt, we face hard days ahead. Realistically, we must expect to be frustrated and disappointed. We may find ourselves to be defeated and discouraged. We must keep ever in mind that it is God who raises up nations and pulls them down, and who judges both nations and rulers. We must not act or think as unbelievers, or as those who do not trust God.
America has chosen a President. President-Elect Barack Obama is that choice, and he faces a breathtaking array of challenges and choices in days ahead. This is the time for Christians to begin praying in earnest for our new President. There is no time to lose.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Election Day prayers
I came across this well written article this morning from Dr. Mohler...
"Americans head for the voting precincts today as the 2008 election is now at hand. Already, some 20 million citizens have voted through early voting options. Some expect a record turn-out for today's election. In any event, millions of citizens will participate in the first duty of freedom -- the freedom to vote.
There is so much at stake. We hear every election cycle that the stakes have never been higher. In one sense, this is usually also true. There is always the sense that there is more at stake this year than last, and, given the way issues unfold, that perception often seems validated by the times.
Christians face the responsibility to vote, not only as citizens, but as Christians who seek to honor and follow Christ in all things. But, beyond the vote, we also bear responsibility to pray for our nation.
First, we should pray that God will bless America with leaders better than we deserve. Democratic systems inevitably reflect the electorate's decisions, and these decisions reveal underlying worldviews. And, truth be told, all we can expect from democracy is the government we deserve. We must pray for a government and for leaders better than we deserve. May God grant us mercy as he reigns and rules over all things, including this election.
Second, we should pray that Americans will be motivated to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship, yet also that we will be stripped of an unhealthy and idolatrous confidence in the power of government to save us. God has given us the gift of rulers and governments in order to restrain evil, uphold righteousness, and provide for civil order. No human ruler can save. No government official or office holder can heal the human heart, solve the sin problem, or accomplish final justice. These powers belong to God and God alone.
Third, we must pray that Americans will vote by conscience, not merely on the basis of celebrity or emotion. Christian citizens must vote to uphold righteousness and contend for righteous and just laws. But, at the same time, we must repent of moralism and the tacit assumption that better laws would produce better people.
Fourth, we must pray that Americans will vote to defend the least among us -- and especially those who have no vote. This starts, but does not end, with concern for the unborn and for the recovery of respect for the dignity and sanctity of every single human life at every stage of development, from conception until natural death.
Fifth, we should pray that God will prick the conscience of the nation on issues of morality, righteousness, and respect for marriage as the central institution of human civilization. So much ground appears to have been lost on these issues. We need to pray that much ground can be regained.
Sixth, we should pray that God will protect these candidates and their families. They have been through an arduous ordeal and now face the deadline of the vote. They are physically exhausted and now face the judgment of the people. They are public figures, but they are also flesh and blood human beings, who are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters. Their families have withstood much. We should pray for their marriages and their children. May God protect them.
Seventh, we should pray that the election is conducted with honor, civility, respect, and justice. We must pray that we do not face another round of litigation after an election. This brings democracy into disrepute. May there be a clear winner, not a contested result.
Eighth, we must pray that Americans will be prepared to accept the results of the election with respect and kindness. This will be no time for rancor, condemnations, and conspiracy theories. Instead, we must pray that God will settle the hearts of the people. May Christians be ready to respond with prayer, respect for office, and a gentle spirit. Others will be watching.
Ninth, we should pray that this election would lead to even greater opportunities to preach the Gospel, and that the freedom of the church will be respected, honored, and protected.
Tenth, we must pray for the church, praying that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ would be strengthened in the truth, grounded in the faith, and empowered for witness and ministry. May the church, the sign of the coming kingdom, be faithful to declare the Gospel -- knowing that this is the only message that will save.
May God grant us mercy and grace as we seek to fulfill our responsibilities as citizens -- and our responsibilities as Christians. This world is not our home, but we do bear responsibilities as followers of Christ as we are living here.
May God bless America, not because this nation deserves to be blessed, but because He is a God of grace and mercy. Oh God . . . save us from ourselves."
"Americans head for the voting precincts today as the 2008 election is now at hand. Already, some 20 million citizens have voted through early voting options. Some expect a record turn-out for today's election. In any event, millions of citizens will participate in the first duty of freedom -- the freedom to vote.
There is so much at stake. We hear every election cycle that the stakes have never been higher. In one sense, this is usually also true. There is always the sense that there is more at stake this year than last, and, given the way issues unfold, that perception often seems validated by the times.
Christians face the responsibility to vote, not only as citizens, but as Christians who seek to honor and follow Christ in all things. But, beyond the vote, we also bear responsibility to pray for our nation.
First, we should pray that God will bless America with leaders better than we deserve. Democratic systems inevitably reflect the electorate's decisions, and these decisions reveal underlying worldviews. And, truth be told, all we can expect from democracy is the government we deserve. We must pray for a government and for leaders better than we deserve. May God grant us mercy as he reigns and rules over all things, including this election.
Second, we should pray that Americans will be motivated to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship, yet also that we will be stripped of an unhealthy and idolatrous confidence in the power of government to save us. God has given us the gift of rulers and governments in order to restrain evil, uphold righteousness, and provide for civil order. No human ruler can save. No government official or office holder can heal the human heart, solve the sin problem, or accomplish final justice. These powers belong to God and God alone.
Third, we must pray that Americans will vote by conscience, not merely on the basis of celebrity or emotion. Christian citizens must vote to uphold righteousness and contend for righteous and just laws. But, at the same time, we must repent of moralism and the tacit assumption that better laws would produce better people.
Fourth, we must pray that Americans will vote to defend the least among us -- and especially those who have no vote. This starts, but does not end, with concern for the unborn and for the recovery of respect for the dignity and sanctity of every single human life at every stage of development, from conception until natural death.
Fifth, we should pray that God will prick the conscience of the nation on issues of morality, righteousness, and respect for marriage as the central institution of human civilization. So much ground appears to have been lost on these issues. We need to pray that much ground can be regained.
Sixth, we should pray that God will protect these candidates and their families. They have been through an arduous ordeal and now face the deadline of the vote. They are physically exhausted and now face the judgment of the people. They are public figures, but they are also flesh and blood human beings, who are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters. Their families have withstood much. We should pray for their marriages and their children. May God protect them.
Seventh, we should pray that the election is conducted with honor, civility, respect, and justice. We must pray that we do not face another round of litigation after an election. This brings democracy into disrepute. May there be a clear winner, not a contested result.
Eighth, we must pray that Americans will be prepared to accept the results of the election with respect and kindness. This will be no time for rancor, condemnations, and conspiracy theories. Instead, we must pray that God will settle the hearts of the people. May Christians be ready to respond with prayer, respect for office, and a gentle spirit. Others will be watching.
Ninth, we should pray that this election would lead to even greater opportunities to preach the Gospel, and that the freedom of the church will be respected, honored, and protected.
Tenth, we must pray for the church, praying that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ would be strengthened in the truth, grounded in the faith, and empowered for witness and ministry. May the church, the sign of the coming kingdom, be faithful to declare the Gospel -- knowing that this is the only message that will save.
May God grant us mercy and grace as we seek to fulfill our responsibilities as citizens -- and our responsibilities as Christians. This world is not our home, but we do bear responsibilities as followers of Christ as we are living here.
May God bless America, not because this nation deserves to be blessed, but because He is a God of grace and mercy. Oh God . . . save us from ourselves."
Monday, November 03, 2008
Newspaper story
I ended up in the Freeport paper again....This time with my Chicago Bear shirt.
http://www.journalstandard.com/news/x199484723/Pounding-the-pavement-with-the-Bivins-campaign
http://www.journalstandard.com/news/x199484723/Pounding-the-pavement-with-the-Bivins-campaign
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Is the Abortion argument changing?
From the pen of the brilliant Al Mohler....http://www.almohler.com/
"Election cycles serve to confuse as well as to reveal. Reading voting patterns is not quite like reading a CAT-scan, but something does appear to be happening among some parts of the electorate that had been solidly pro-life in voting patterns.
The Boston Globe reports on developments that now appear among at least some Roman Catholic and Evangelical voters.
As the paper reports, the argument now takes a form something like this: That the legislative battle to outlaw abortion is hopeless and that antiabortion groups would be better off devoting themselves to preventing unwanted pregnancies and persuading pregnant women to carry their fetuses to term rather than trying to change the laws of the land.
For several months now, some have argued that pro-life voters might plausibly vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate, because the pro-abortion rights candidate might lead to social effects that might lead to some reduction in abortion rates.
As the Boston paper points out, this was the very argument put forth by former President Bill Clinton, who argued that he would make abortion "safe, legal, and rare."
Now, similar arguments are being promoted by backers of Sen. Barack Obama, who is the most extreme proponent of abortion rights ever to gain a major party's nomination for President. This line of argument has attracted both Roman Catholics like Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec and some evangelical voices as well.
Nicholas Cafardi, a legal scholar at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, wrote last month: "While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle - permanently."
That is quite an argument -- that the abortion battle has been lost permanently. There is good cause to wonder if he is right. Thirty-five years after Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand is now an ingrained part of American culture. Many Americans are willing to consider it a "right" even as they would never consider an abortion for themselves. Roe is now a precedent protected by a wall of other precedents in the law. If Roe were to be overturned tomorrow, we would be in for a battle on a state-by-state basis that might take decades -- and might not turn out as we hope.
I can understand the fatigue and the sense of frustration. On the other hand, we have witnessed a growing respect for life as ultrasound technologies have opened the womb to view. We have seen the Supreme Court allow that some abortion procedures can be ruled outside the law. We see pro-life convictions growing among the young. This is a moral conflict that might take a century or more to run its course.
I can understand the desire to reset the equation, to transcend the tired divisions. I can even understand the desire to move on, to go on to other issues of great and grave concern. I can sense excitement about a candidate who represents generational hope, and whose election could do so much to heal racial lines of division.
But I just cannot get past one crucial, irreducible, and central issue -- the moral status of those unborn lives. They are not mine to negotiate. If abortion were a matter of concern for anything less than this, I would gladly negotiate. But abortion is a matter of life and death, and how can we negotiate with death? What moral sense does it make to settle for death as "safe, legal, and rare?" How safe? How rare?
Our considerations of these questions will reveal what we really think of those millions of unborn lives. Do we consider the battle for their lives permanently lost?
Those fighting for the abolition of slavery pressed on against obstacles and set backs worse than these because, after all, these were human lives they were defending. What if they had listened to those who, after Dred Scott and the Missouri Compromise, said that the battle was "permanently" lost? What if they had been intimidated by critics accusing them of "single-issue" voting?
If every single fetus is an unborn child made in the image of God, there is no moral justification for settling for a vague hope of some reduction in the number of fetal homicides. If the abortion fight is "permanently lost," it will be lost first among those who claim to be defenders of life -- those who tell us that the argument is merely changing."
"Election cycles serve to confuse as well as to reveal. Reading voting patterns is not quite like reading a CAT-scan, but something does appear to be happening among some parts of the electorate that had been solidly pro-life in voting patterns.
The Boston Globe reports on developments that now appear among at least some Roman Catholic and Evangelical voters.
As the paper reports, the argument now takes a form something like this: That the legislative battle to outlaw abortion is hopeless and that antiabortion groups would be better off devoting themselves to preventing unwanted pregnancies and persuading pregnant women to carry their fetuses to term rather than trying to change the laws of the land.
For several months now, some have argued that pro-life voters might plausibly vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate, because the pro-abortion rights candidate might lead to social effects that might lead to some reduction in abortion rates.
As the Boston paper points out, this was the very argument put forth by former President Bill Clinton, who argued that he would make abortion "safe, legal, and rare."
Now, similar arguments are being promoted by backers of Sen. Barack Obama, who is the most extreme proponent of abortion rights ever to gain a major party's nomination for President. This line of argument has attracted both Roman Catholics like Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec and some evangelical voices as well.
Nicholas Cafardi, a legal scholar at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, wrote last month: "While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle - permanently."
That is quite an argument -- that the abortion battle has been lost permanently. There is good cause to wonder if he is right. Thirty-five years after Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand is now an ingrained part of American culture. Many Americans are willing to consider it a "right" even as they would never consider an abortion for themselves. Roe is now a precedent protected by a wall of other precedents in the law. If Roe were to be overturned tomorrow, we would be in for a battle on a state-by-state basis that might take decades -- and might not turn out as we hope.
I can understand the fatigue and the sense of frustration. On the other hand, we have witnessed a growing respect for life as ultrasound technologies have opened the womb to view. We have seen the Supreme Court allow that some abortion procedures can be ruled outside the law. We see pro-life convictions growing among the young. This is a moral conflict that might take a century or more to run its course.
I can understand the desire to reset the equation, to transcend the tired divisions. I can even understand the desire to move on, to go on to other issues of great and grave concern. I can sense excitement about a candidate who represents generational hope, and whose election could do so much to heal racial lines of division.
But I just cannot get past one crucial, irreducible, and central issue -- the moral status of those unborn lives. They are not mine to negotiate. If abortion were a matter of concern for anything less than this, I would gladly negotiate. But abortion is a matter of life and death, and how can we negotiate with death? What moral sense does it make to settle for death as "safe, legal, and rare?" How safe? How rare?
Our considerations of these questions will reveal what we really think of those millions of unborn lives. Do we consider the battle for their lives permanently lost?
Those fighting for the abolition of slavery pressed on against obstacles and set backs worse than these because, after all, these were human lives they were defending. What if they had listened to those who, after Dred Scott and the Missouri Compromise, said that the battle was "permanently" lost? What if they had been intimidated by critics accusing them of "single-issue" voting?
If every single fetus is an unborn child made in the image of God, there is no moral justification for settling for a vague hope of some reduction in the number of fetal homicides. If the abortion fight is "permanently lost," it will be lost first among those who claim to be defenders of life -- those who tell us that the argument is merely changing."
Monday, October 27, 2008
Anti-women Feminists
Every since Sarah Palin decided to join the McCain ticket she has been barraged and attacked from all over the place. For one example of this hatred click here http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/effigy-palin-hanging-noose-halloween-fun-says-owner/
One of the surprising groups that has consistently attacked Gov. Palin has been the "Feminist camp." Now you would think that this group of ladies would be thrilled that the Republican party choose a gifted WOMAN as the parties first ever national V.P. pick. You would think that they would thrilled George W Bush choose a black woman (Ms. Rice) to serve as our nations Secretary of State.
Feminists are not for the advancement of women in the workplace and home. Feminists are really only for women who think and act like they think and act. Because Sarah Palin supports more traditional/conservative values she is considered an outsider to this group. I mean heaven forbid that a powerful, intelligent, woman actually supports the right to life for unborn babies OR marriage as defined as a union between one man and one woman. The crazy thing is that Sarah Palin is more than likely an Egalitarian (an Evangelical Feminist) yet Feminists treat her like dirt. Could you imagine if she were actually a Complementarian? Hell's guns would attempt to shoot her off the face of the planet.
You probably already knew this but in case you didn't i thought I'd say it again. Feminists are not for the advancement of women in the workplace and home. Feminists are really only for women who think and act like they think and act.
One of the surprising groups that has consistently attacked Gov. Palin has been the "Feminist camp." Now you would think that this group of ladies would be thrilled that the Republican party choose a gifted WOMAN as the parties first ever national V.P. pick. You would think that they would thrilled George W Bush choose a black woman (Ms. Rice) to serve as our nations Secretary of State.
Feminists are not for the advancement of women in the workplace and home. Feminists are really only for women who think and act like they think and act. Because Sarah Palin supports more traditional/conservative values she is considered an outsider to this group. I mean heaven forbid that a powerful, intelligent, woman actually supports the right to life for unborn babies OR marriage as defined as a union between one man and one woman. The crazy thing is that Sarah Palin is more than likely an Egalitarian (an Evangelical Feminist) yet Feminists treat her like dirt. Could you imagine if she were actually a Complementarian? Hell's guns would attempt to shoot her off the face of the planet.
You probably already knew this but in case you didn't i thought I'd say it again. Feminists are not for the advancement of women in the workplace and home. Feminists are really only for women who think and act like they think and act.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Obama on homosexuality
Obama claims to be a Christian. Some people believe he will be the President that will unite the two major political parties in America. Here is how Obama views the Biblical sin of homosexuality.
Story taken from Justin Taylor http://theologica.blogspot.com/
"Robert Gagnon--the leading evangelical scholar on homosexuality and the Bible--has a new article online: Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex. On his homepage, Dr. Gagnon writes:
Regardless of how one votes on election day, it is important to be aware of how this presidential candidate interprets Scripture to fit his political views and what kind of impact this will have on his policies regarding government endorsement of, and incentives for, homosexual practice should he become president. Obama's record is clear:
Obama wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which he has called “abhorrent”, even though the Act's main purpose is merely to prevent “gay marriage” adopted in one state from being foisted on all other states. Even Hillary Clinton did not come out in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.
In Obama's own words: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether."
Obama strongly opposes California’s Proposition 8, which merely limits the definition of marriage to a “marriage between a man and a woman.”
Obama has stated that he “respects” the California Supreme Court decision foisting “gay marriage” on the state.
Obama opposes any federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Obama strongly endorses granting every single marriage benefit to homosexual unions, not to mention every “sexual orientation” special protections law imaginable. Such legislation will make civil and cultural bigots of everyone who espouses a male-female prerequisite to sexual relations, in the workplace, at school, in the media, and throughout the public sector..."
Story taken from Justin Taylor http://theologica.blogspot.com/
"Robert Gagnon--the leading evangelical scholar on homosexuality and the Bible--has a new article online: Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex. On his homepage, Dr. Gagnon writes:
Regardless of how one votes on election day, it is important to be aware of how this presidential candidate interprets Scripture to fit his political views and what kind of impact this will have on his policies regarding government endorsement of, and incentives for, homosexual practice should he become president. Obama's record is clear:
Obama wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which he has called “abhorrent”, even though the Act's main purpose is merely to prevent “gay marriage” adopted in one state from being foisted on all other states. Even Hillary Clinton did not come out in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.
In Obama's own words: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether."
Obama strongly opposes California’s Proposition 8, which merely limits the definition of marriage to a “marriage between a man and a woman.”
Obama has stated that he “respects” the California Supreme Court decision foisting “gay marriage” on the state.
Obama opposes any federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Obama strongly endorses granting every single marriage benefit to homosexual unions, not to mention every “sexual orientation” special protections law imaginable. Such legislation will make civil and cultural bigots of everyone who espouses a male-female prerequisite to sexual relations, in the workplace, at school, in the media, and throughout the public sector..."
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Worship Songs
Top 10 Ways to Write Bad Worship Songs
BY Bob Kauflin:
1. Aim to write the next worldwide worship hit.
2. Spend all your time working on the music, not the words.
3. Spend all your time working on the words, not the music.
4. Don’t consider the range and capabilities of the average human voice.
5. Never let anyone alter the way God originally gave your song to you.
6. Make sure the majority of your songs talk about what we do and feel rather than who God is and what he’s done.
7. Try to use as many Scriptural phrases as you can, and don’t worry about how they fit together.
8. Cover as many themes as possible.
9. Use phrases and words that are included in 95% of all worship songs.
10. Forget about Jesus and what he accomplished at the cross.
For the full article click here http://www.worshipmatters.com/2008/10/top-ten-ways-to-write-bad-worship-songs/
BY Bob Kauflin:
1. Aim to write the next worldwide worship hit.
2. Spend all your time working on the music, not the words.
3. Spend all your time working on the words, not the music.
4. Don’t consider the range and capabilities of the average human voice.
5. Never let anyone alter the way God originally gave your song to you.
6. Make sure the majority of your songs talk about what we do and feel rather than who God is and what he’s done.
7. Try to use as many Scriptural phrases as you can, and don’t worry about how they fit together.
8. Cover as many themes as possible.
9. Use phrases and words that are included in 95% of all worship songs.
10. Forget about Jesus and what he accomplished at the cross.
For the full article click here http://www.worshipmatters.com/2008/10/top-ten-ways-to-write-bad-worship-songs/
Friday, October 17, 2008
Christians and abortion
Justin Taylor of http://theologica.blogspot.com/ linked to this sermon by Russell Moore from SBTS
Justin writes, "One of the most poignant sections of the sermon comes when Moore makes a comparison between “Christians” of a former generation who tolerated the lynching of African-Americans and “Christians” of this generation who tolerate the atrocity of abortion:
“There are churches, and there are pastors, and there are young evangelical leaders who are saying to us, ‘We ought not be single-issue evangelicals. We ought to be concerned about more issues than simply abortion.’ Which means that we ought to be willing to join ourselves and to vote for and to support candidates who will support legalized abortion, who will deny the personhood of children who are still in the womb, because we are able to support them on other issues . . . Many of them are in a desperate quest to say to their congregations and to people potentially in their congregations, ‘I’m not Jerry Falwell.’ And many of them believe that it is missional to speak to people while blunting or silencing a witness about the life of children so that you can reach them with the gospel. . . Some will tell us there are many other issues: economics, global warming—issues I’m very concerned about too. Previous generations have said that as well. Previous generations of preachers have stood in the pulpit and preached until they were red in the face about card-playing and movie-going and tax-policy and personal morality and tobacco-smoking and a thousand other issues, but would not speak to the fact that there were African-American brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus swinging in the trees! And there is judgment of God upon that. And there is here too.'"
This is a message that needs to be distributed far and wide. I hope you will do so.
“Joseph of Nazareth Is a Single-Issue Evangelical: The Father of Jesus, the Cries of the Helpless, and Change You Can Believe In” (Matt. 2:13-23) - by Russell Moore
Justin writes, "One of the most poignant sections of the sermon comes when Moore makes a comparison between “Christians” of a former generation who tolerated the lynching of African-Americans and “Christians” of this generation who tolerate the atrocity of abortion:
“There are churches, and there are pastors, and there are young evangelical leaders who are saying to us, ‘We ought not be single-issue evangelicals. We ought to be concerned about more issues than simply abortion.’ Which means that we ought to be willing to join ourselves and to vote for and to support candidates who will support legalized abortion, who will deny the personhood of children who are still in the womb, because we are able to support them on other issues . . . Many of them are in a desperate quest to say to their congregations and to people potentially in their congregations, ‘I’m not Jerry Falwell.’ And many of them believe that it is missional to speak to people while blunting or silencing a witness about the life of children so that you can reach them with the gospel. . . Some will tell us there are many other issues: economics, global warming—issues I’m very concerned about too. Previous generations have said that as well. Previous generations of preachers have stood in the pulpit and preached until they were red in the face about card-playing and movie-going and tax-policy and personal morality and tobacco-smoking and a thousand other issues, but would not speak to the fact that there were African-American brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus swinging in the trees! And there is judgment of God upon that. And there is here too.'"
This is a message that needs to be distributed far and wide. I hope you will do so.
“Joseph of Nazareth Is a Single-Issue Evangelical: The Father of Jesus, the Cries of the Helpless, and Change You Can Believe In” (Matt. 2:13-23) - by Russell Moore
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Piper on sermon preperation
C.J. Mahaney: Most of these guys are already in the process of preparing a sermon for this Sunday. If they were to meet with you for lunch, how would you counsel them about both the preparation process and the preaching event?
John Piper: The most important thing I want to say in answer to that question is this: There isn’t any technique to preaching. It is not a technique. It is not a profession that you go to a homiletics class to learn how to do. God is doing sermon preparation when your throat is blazing with yellow pustules and you have a fever and you feel like quitting. He is doing sermon preparation there. Don’t begrudge the seminary of suffering. Don’t begrudge the marriage difficulties. Don’t begrudge the parental stuff that is so hard. He is making you a preacher. He is making you a pastor. So the main preparation work is walking with him through it all, and going deep with him, and being there and not running away from it into endless food or television.
That would be a—very practical thing to do would be to get rid of your television so that you have some time, family time and reading time and reflection time, and basically keep your mind free from pornography. We were talking about this pornography thing over lunch the other day, and we who are 60 years old were reflecting on how difficult it was to get pornography when we were teenagers. The implication of that is that in my brain I have two pornographic images from my teen years. I found a Playboy in a Laundromat, and they were passing a really weird book around in the locker room one day. I remember both images like I saw them yesterday. Most of you have a thousand images in your brain. That really makes sermon preparation hard, but not impossible. He died to purify our conscience, although you make your job a lot harder if you keep going to that cesspool. …Keep your minds from being contaminated, because the preparation moment is a heart/mind thing in which every three minutes you are crying out to the Lord as you are reading your text in Greek or Hebrew or English. You are reading it and you are saying, “God, please. I have got to have a word. I have got to have a word for my people. Let me see what is really here.” That is a prayer for the mind part. My points must be here in the text. I can’t make this up. My people have to see it. I have to see it. I don’t want to pull rank on these folks by quoting Greek—and they say, “I don’t see that,” and I say, “Well, believe me it is there.” I don’t want to do that. I want them to see what is really there, so I need to see what is really there. So I am pleading with the Lord, “Show me what is there.”And then I am pleading just as strong, “Help me to feel what is there. If it is a horrible thing, help me to feel horrible. If it is a beautiful thing, help me to feel thrilled over its beauty. Bring this dead heart into some kind of conformity—moral, affectual conformity to what is really there.”Those are my two kinds of prayers, light and heat. If you try to work it up without the Holy Spirit giving it, people will know. They will know. Your people will know sooner or later. “I don’t think that was a real affection. That was planned.”So there are a thousand details I could say about the preparation moment as far as poking at the text, but the preaching moment is the same. You plead with the Lord. I do APTAT, before I stand up. A—I admit, O Lord, that I can do nothing of any lasting value.P—I pray for self forgetfulness, for fullness of the Holy Spirit, for love, for humility, for passion, for zeal, for prophetic utterance that may come to my mind while I am preaching so that I can say things that I hadn’t prepared that might penetrate where nothing else would. T—I trust a particular promise from the Lord that I have found in my devotions early in the morning. So today I read Deborah’s song in Judges 5 as well as Psalm 84 between 6:30 and 7:00 this morning, and pointed out a verse to Mark as we were sitting there. “Oh my soul, ride on in strength.” That was my word this morning. The Lord gave a word from his Word this morning: “Ride on in strength.” So I take that. That’s my T: trust. So as I am walking up, I am saying, “This is your work. It has come. Don’t leave me here. You have got to do something here. I am counting on you.”And he is saying, “I got this under control.” He is God.A—Then you act. You have got to do it. It is your hands that are moving. It is your voice that is moving. You have got to do this. Walking by the Spirit, putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit, being led by the Spirit, bearing the fruits of the Spirit is a mystery. “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10, ESV). That is the mystery. So sermon preparation is: You put out when you are preparing and when you are preaching.
You put out, but if you have prayed and done APTAT and God is merciful, you won’t be putting out. He will be putting out. T—Thank God. And when you have acted and you go sit down, you thank him. He is going to do, and is doing what he is going to do, and he regularly does more than you think he does. I don’t think after 28 years of preaching that I can correlate with any degree of confidence my sense of effectiveness in the moment and the true effectiveness of the moment. I don’t know any keys to know how to correlate those two. This keeps me from being too excited or too depressed. The Lord will be sure to put me in my place if I do the one and lift me up if I do the other, because he said, “I am working out there in ways you can’t make happen at all. You thought that was a good thing to say? That wasn’t it. You missed it. That wasn’t what did it. This thing over here that you didn’t even know I gave you did it, and you will find out in heaven that that happened.”
John Piper: The most important thing I want to say in answer to that question is this: There isn’t any technique to preaching. It is not a technique. It is not a profession that you go to a homiletics class to learn how to do. God is doing sermon preparation when your throat is blazing with yellow pustules and you have a fever and you feel like quitting. He is doing sermon preparation there. Don’t begrudge the seminary of suffering. Don’t begrudge the marriage difficulties. Don’t begrudge the parental stuff that is so hard. He is making you a preacher. He is making you a pastor. So the main preparation work is walking with him through it all, and going deep with him, and being there and not running away from it into endless food or television.
That would be a—very practical thing to do would be to get rid of your television so that you have some time, family time and reading time and reflection time, and basically keep your mind free from pornography. We were talking about this pornography thing over lunch the other day, and we who are 60 years old were reflecting on how difficult it was to get pornography when we were teenagers. The implication of that is that in my brain I have two pornographic images from my teen years. I found a Playboy in a Laundromat, and they were passing a really weird book around in the locker room one day. I remember both images like I saw them yesterday. Most of you have a thousand images in your brain. That really makes sermon preparation hard, but not impossible. He died to purify our conscience, although you make your job a lot harder if you keep going to that cesspool. …Keep your minds from being contaminated, because the preparation moment is a heart/mind thing in which every three minutes you are crying out to the Lord as you are reading your text in Greek or Hebrew or English. You are reading it and you are saying, “God, please. I have got to have a word. I have got to have a word for my people. Let me see what is really here.” That is a prayer for the mind part. My points must be here in the text. I can’t make this up. My people have to see it. I have to see it. I don’t want to pull rank on these folks by quoting Greek—and they say, “I don’t see that,” and I say, “Well, believe me it is there.” I don’t want to do that. I want them to see what is really there, so I need to see what is really there. So I am pleading with the Lord, “Show me what is there.”And then I am pleading just as strong, “Help me to feel what is there. If it is a horrible thing, help me to feel horrible. If it is a beautiful thing, help me to feel thrilled over its beauty. Bring this dead heart into some kind of conformity—moral, affectual conformity to what is really there.”Those are my two kinds of prayers, light and heat. If you try to work it up without the Holy Spirit giving it, people will know. They will know. Your people will know sooner or later. “I don’t think that was a real affection. That was planned.”So there are a thousand details I could say about the preparation moment as far as poking at the text, but the preaching moment is the same. You plead with the Lord. I do APTAT, before I stand up. A—I admit, O Lord, that I can do nothing of any lasting value.P—I pray for self forgetfulness, for fullness of the Holy Spirit, for love, for humility, for passion, for zeal, for prophetic utterance that may come to my mind while I am preaching so that I can say things that I hadn’t prepared that might penetrate where nothing else would. T—I trust a particular promise from the Lord that I have found in my devotions early in the morning. So today I read Deborah’s song in Judges 5 as well as Psalm 84 between 6:30 and 7:00 this morning, and pointed out a verse to Mark as we were sitting there. “Oh my soul, ride on in strength.” That was my word this morning. The Lord gave a word from his Word this morning: “Ride on in strength.” So I take that. That’s my T: trust. So as I am walking up, I am saying, “This is your work. It has come. Don’t leave me here. You have got to do something here. I am counting on you.”And he is saying, “I got this under control.” He is God.A—Then you act. You have got to do it. It is your hands that are moving. It is your voice that is moving. You have got to do this. Walking by the Spirit, putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit, being led by the Spirit, bearing the fruits of the Spirit is a mystery. “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10, ESV). That is the mystery. So sermon preparation is: You put out when you are preparing and when you are preaching.
You put out, but if you have prayed and done APTAT and God is merciful, you won’t be putting out. He will be putting out. T—Thank God. And when you have acted and you go sit down, you thank him. He is going to do, and is doing what he is going to do, and he regularly does more than you think he does. I don’t think after 28 years of preaching that I can correlate with any degree of confidence my sense of effectiveness in the moment and the true effectiveness of the moment. I don’t know any keys to know how to correlate those two. This keeps me from being too excited or too depressed. The Lord will be sure to put me in my place if I do the one and lift me up if I do the other, because he said, “I am working out there in ways you can’t make happen at all. You thought that was a good thing to say? That wasn’t it. You missed it. That wasn’t what did it. This thing over here that you didn’t even know I gave you did it, and you will find out in heaven that that happened.”
Friday, October 10, 2008
Biblical Womanhood document
Check out this new document http://www.truewoman.com/assets/files/TW08_Manifesto.pdf
that supports Biblical womanhood.
that supports Biblical womanhood.
KOLSTAD Vacation to the Dells
This was really our first family vacation of the year and we praise God for this "time away." My younger brother Jordan was able to join us on this road trip to the Dells via Madison. It had been over 15 years since my last trip to Wi Dells. The last time i went to the Dells i was the child enjoying vacation with my parents and siblings. I am grateful for God's kindness in giving my my own family to love and to shepherd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)