Jeremy Mulder @jeremymulder - Tumblr Blog

Thabiti Anyabwile’s One America

But he now stands ready to serve this country — my country — as president. Which means, in part, that many people in this country — my country — either actively supported his campaign or were at least willing to overlook deeply problematic aspects long enough to vote with hope that some other positives might carry the day.

It’s that last line, the recognition that there are at least some who voted with “hope that some other positives might carry the day” that allows Thabiti to speak truth to his fellow Christians. He doesn’t type-cast Trump supporters.

I’m not pointing this out as some escapist exercise to soothe personal disappointment in election results. I think escapism has been killing us for a long time. President-elect Donald Trump will be, Lord willing, my president in about three months’ time. I didn’t vote for him. I actively opposed his candidacy. I think his campaign was built on fear, hate, nativism, isolationism, religious bigotry and intolerance, racism, and sexism. I think he represented America’s version of #Brexit. I’ll be on guard against all I find unrighteous according to God’s word. But he now stands ready to serve this country — my country — as president. Which means, in part, that many people in this country — my country — either actively supported his campaign or were at least willing to overlook deeply problematic aspects long enough to vote with hope that some other positives might carry the day.

I’m a black Christian, and guess what? Donald Trump’s America is my America, too. - The Washington Post

That final line, the recognition that some may have voted for Trump because of “hope that some other positives might carry the day”, is why Thabiti is able to consistently speak truth to power. He speaks what he believes but is humble enough to know that other people have different experiences that shape their views as well.

Religion, Irreligion, & Grace

A few words in response to what I see as an increasing divide in the Christian community as evidenced by the varied responses to the situation in Newtown. In my opinion, the voices from the right and the left, if I can simplify it to that degree, are both missing the mark fairly significantly when it comes to the message of Jesus Christ, which is the message of grace. It’s the culmination of a problem that’s been developing for some time as the church collective has tried to make itself culturally relevant, and as a result has adopted certain stances that don’t square with what the Bible teaches.

On the right, we end up with a civil religion that claims the United States as a land with which God is particularly pleased (or at least, with which he used to be pleased!), based almost solely on our ability to meet a particular set of standards that he has set. On the left, God is presented more as an unconditional lover without standards. Since any particular moral standard will only serve to alienate, we are much more likely to emphasize God’s love and tolerance of us, even to the extent of doing away with–or at least downplaying–any particular biblical teaching that seems cruel or outdated.

The inadequacies of our respective theological position are generally teased out in the face of crisis. I won’t pretend that my view, then, is the superior view. I offer it simply as a reminder of what I believe Christ taught, and what we should keep in view even as the prevalent theological views tend to swing from right to left, missing the central ground of grace. And that, as it turns out, is the problem.

The imaginary Christian America of the conservative right and the reality of the secular America that we live in today both suffer from the same problem. Morality without grace and immorality without grace both lead to the same destination: oppression, brokenness, and fear. Only grace leads to freedom.

This is the what makes the message of Jesus so compelling. Jesus didn’t capitulate to the moral, religious crowd who believed that their own merit made them superior. He also didn’t agree with the immoral, irreligious crowd who opted to obfuscate the law in favor of creating their own standard, and, in so doing, validated themselves and their actions.

This compelling message is seen in one of the most famous passages recorded in the Bible, when we see the religious leaders bringing a known prostitute to Jesus to see how he would respond. The religious law said that she should be killed by stoning for what she had done. Would Jesus uphold this law, thus proving that he approved of their religious efforts, validating them? Or would he confirm what they already believed about him, that he was some sort of rebel teacher that was threatening upheaval of the whole religious system, and thus, their power?

In the end, Christ did neither (although his response did threaten the religious establishment). To the religious crowd he offered a solution: if indeed this woman has violated the standard of God, then let anyone who has kept it in full throw the first stone. His message is clear. If any one of you can claim to be perfect, and in full accordance with how God has called you to live, then you are free to take aim. All the stones were dropped, and the crowd dissipated. (Notably, the older ones leave first. The longer you have been trying to earn your own salvation through religious activity, the more quick you are to realize how often you fail!)

Jesus then turns his attention to the prostitute. “Where are your accusers?” Since they had all left, so Jesus says the woman is free to go, and he would not condemn her either. Instead, he said, she should “go, and sin no more”. By letting her go without condemnation, he did not ignore the law of God, but rather validated the fundamental principle of it. Namely, that it functioned as it was supposed to, by revealing that this prostitute, and all who come into contact with God’s standard, fall desperately short and are in major need of grace and mercy.

The grace in the story comes in the form of Jesus himself, who being the only perfect one in the story, had earned the right to cast the first stone, but rather chose forgiveness over condemnation, and mercy over judgment. This is the message of grace: that Jesus bears the condemnation of God so we can receive the mercy of God. Thus, in opposition to the both the religious and irreligious, the way of grace is made known.

The religious path to salvation is to uphold the standard of God, and seek to achieve it based on our own merit. We stand in condemnation and judgment of all around us who have not earned as much perfection as we ourselves have. In this way, our pursuit is validated; we are validated.

The irreligious path is just the opposite, albeit with the same result: self-validation. If God’s revelation tells us that we don’t measure up, we should rid ourselves of that revelation and put in it’s place a standard by which we do measure up. There has never been a man who would create as his own reality a world where he is not fully capable and qualified to achieve the highest perfection. And in that self-created reality, our pursuit realizes it’s goal: we are validated.

Jesus path rejects both as valid means to achieve what it is that we are looking for (validation), and what we truly need (salvation). The path of grace upholds the standards of God as perfect, but rejects our efforts at attaining it, since they cannot produce the desired outcome. On the other hand, it affirms our sense of self-worth while rejecting the means by which we seek to attain it. In it’s place, it inserts the love of Jesus as the creative force that offers us salvation, restores our worth, and validates our existence.

We stray from this third way–the way of grace–when we seek to earn the love of God through our own merit, believing ourselves to be worthy of even the slightest amount of God’s pleasure based on our own efforts. We also stray when we seek to create our own reality, where God’s standard is seen as irrelevant at worst, or unimportant at best. In both cases we will be left with pervasive failure, brokenness, and ultimately oppression (in the case of the religious path) or depression (in the case of the irreligious path–for what is depression except for self-oppression?)

The way of Jesus, and the way of grace, removes the burden of achieving the perfection of God from us because we are given the perfection of Jesus for free. As a result, our worth and our value, stemming from the love of God, is renewed, increased, and validated. It is something we cannot earn, and do not deserve. And yet, we live in it’s reality because of our trust in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That’s the gospel.

#Religion #Irreligion #Grace #Jesus #Prostitute

A Response to the Tragedy in Newton, Connecticut

Dear Friends,

Whenever a tragedy like this strikes there are several questions that I always ask myself.

The first question I ask is, “what is the real impact of this tragedy on myself and the community around me”? That question is important, because we don’t want to make someone else’s tragedy our tragedy, and as a result, lose focus on the people who are really hurting. Sometimes what we think is empathy is really only self-focus.

In situations like this, it’s often helpful to remember that the vast majority of us did not lose any children to this particular tragedy. That’s not to say that some other thing in our life doesn’t help us relate to the suffering in a particular way, or that their suffering doesn’t recall some very real memory of suffering in our past. It is simply a reminder that we ought not create undue fear in our homes or in our children by treating every news story like it’s talking about us, or our town. It’s not. For today, most of us are safe. It is they, in Newtown, who are suffering. So while we suffer with them in spirit, let’s not exacerbate the situation by pretending that we, too, have suffered loss, and thereby minimize the true pain that the folks in Newtown, Connecticut, might actually be feeling.

The second question I ask, though, and the one that is far more pertinent to our situation today is this, “how should a Christian think about tragedies like the ones we just witnessed”? What we see is that people are asking questions, and many of us wonder whether or not we can provide any answers.

The plain facts is that what we witnessed on Friday through the lenses of television and other media is that a man entered into a school full of children and did the unthinkable: he began to take lives. The reality of this should shake us awake; it is informing us that something has gone terribly wrong.

But what? What is it that has gone wrong? That is the question.

The immediate response will be the standard ones: the problem is access to guns! The problem is violent video games! The problem is that he had a mental health disorder! And in each case, there is a kernel of truth. In each case, there is something that needs to be addressed. But all of them are far too simplistic a response to the “what has gone wrong” question that actually runs much, much deeper.

The question should really be, “what drives a person to commit such atrocities?” There are plenty of people with guns who would never do this. There are plenty of people who play violent video games and never lash out. There are plenty of perfectly sane people who go out and commit murder, so it is premature to blame it on his mental state.

And while we’re asking questions, perhaps a deeper one still is this: what makes you think it’s an atrocity, at all?

The truth of the matter is that there are only two places where we can turn to attempt to formulate a theory as to why what we witnessed is wrong. On the one hand, we can turn to humanity, as many have done. The reason this is wrong is because it does damage to society, or because we all agreed it was wrong, or whatever.

The problem with that worldview, though, is that if, as it professes, men are able to determine whatever it is that is right and wrong, then each of us has just as much of a right as another to determine what is right and wrong for ourselves. If it feels right, do it. Whatever is right and true for you is okay. And whatever is right and true for me is okay.

Ultimately, however, we are left with a problem. If this is how we view the world, then we have no ground to say that a man walking into a school and taking the lives of children is wrong, because we have no universal right and wrong to weigh it against. In the final analysis, if we are honest, we cannot actually say that what the shooter did was wrong; at best, we can say we don’t like it, and therefore, as a society, we won’t allow it.

But you and I know, as rationale people, that what I have just described does not do justice to the level of evil that we have witnessed. To say it is wrong simply because we don’t like it does not ring true to our heart. And the reason it does not ring true is because in our spirit we know that something far greater has been ignored; something far greater has been wronged in this moment. It’s greater than whether or not I or you or society dislikes it, or even thinks that it is wrong. It is objectively, in reality, evil.

So if we are going to be true to our spirit then we must turn elsewhere for answers, and the other place to turn is to recognize that there is a higher authority–a God–who sets the standard for how we should live, and how we should treat one another, and how we should conduct our business. And when we breach that standard, literally, all evil breaks loose.

The story that the Bible tells begins with a world that is perfectly in line with this standard, and barely gets beyond a brief description of what life was like in that glory before the first breach occurs. The breach of God’s standard sent the world spiraling into disaster and chaos. Instead of experiencing life in perfection, we would experience life with evil breaking loose, but for the grace of God restraining it. Instead of being united to a creator God who creates and sustains life, we are separated from him, and we experience death in all its forms.

That experience of death is what drives us not just to misuse guns, but to create guns in the first place. It is the experience of death that drives us to fantasize about it through video games; of what it might be like to kill another human being without restraint. And it’s that experience of death that ultimately turns some people’s minds in on themselves: if this life that ends in death is all that there is, then why should I even go on?

We learn through these experiences of death that no matter how much we try to collectively better ourselves as a society, we appear to be going in the opposite direction. No matter how much we think we’ve advanced, even the advancements themselves seem to introduce a new form of destruction and death into our lives. And every now and again, it’s as if a veil has been removed and the dark underbelly of the human race is revealed: it is far more dark than we ever dared imagine.

Furthermore, in moments like this, we recognize that the best we can do is to regulate the symptoms of this deep, dark problem. We can legislate who can access guns, and the types of guns that they can acquire. We can regulate the violence that is found in video games, or restrict who can purchase them and hopefully in doing so, restrict who can play them. We can provide counseling for those who seem headed down a path that will end in destruction. And all of these are worthwhile and necessary when things have gone so wrong. But what they will not and cannot do is fix the deeper problem. Eventually, the veil will be pulled back again, the darkness will be unleashed, and we’ll realize that for all our advancements, we haven’t made any progress.

Thankfully the Christian has not just been given the ability to diagnose the problem, we have also been given the remedy. If the problem is that God’s standard has been breached, then the solution is that the standard must be repaired. As we have already seen, though, the only thing we show ourselves to be capable of is breaching the standard; it will require some thing, or some one, else to do the repair. And like an expert creator, and the one familiar with the standard, God himself comes to repair the breach that we created. This is the message of the “good news”, or what we call the Gospel.

The good news of the Bible is that God himself took on the form of humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, and lived a life that perfectly met the standard that he set, and we breach, with alarming regularity. Since he could hold the weight of the standard, and since he had fulfilled it in his life to it’s fullest, he could also bear the weight of those who had breached the standard and bear the full weight of the punishment they deserved. This is what took place on the cross. At the pinnacle of history, the truly and only innocent one to ever have lived bears the punishment and destruction of evil unleashed. And then, once he bears it, he defeats it.

This is the great exchange that takes place when we put our trust in Jesus for our salvation, instead of our own measures or our own merit. Jesus is treated as if he created the breach, we are treated as if we upheld the standard. The motive for this exchange is grace; it is lavish love poured out on the undeserving. The acceptance of this exchange is called faith.

When we understand and accept the exchange that happens because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we are given a new lease on life. Our perspective has changed. Rather than looking to ourselves to solve the problem (a proposed solution we know will not work), we look to the love of God to solve the problem. Rather than live as standard breachers, we can live as standard bearers: ones who reflect the love and goodness of God because of Jesus Christ. Rather than fear, we live in absolute gratitude for what God has done on our behalf.

The offense of the gospel message is this: that you and I share far more in common with a lunatic than we do with the perfect standard-bearer, Jesus Christ. Yet what laws could never do, and trying harder could never accomplish, love achieves. We no longer live as people walking in darkness, but people living in light.

There are many people who have heard this message of love and have still gone on to commit unspeakable acts. The fact is that not everyone who hears the message of grace takes it to heart; their heart will remain cold. But for those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see, the message of grace and love transforms broken people into whole people; it turns paupers into kings. That’s what it means to be redeemed.

When we witness a tragedy like the one in Newtown, Connecticut, we often wonder whether there is any hope for humanity. In reality, the tragedy only affirms what the Bible has taught us since the beginning: people are broken, and without the grace and love of Jesus Christ we are destined to futility, trying to fix a problem we’ve created with efforts that only address the symptoms, and not the deeper brokenness.

Yet hope still reigns.

Because in the midst of this darkness, and in the midst of this tragedy, God has chosen a people–his church–to proclaim his mercy and grace and point them back to the true solution, Jesus Christ. He is the hope of the world. And he enters this world not through rules and not through legislation, but through unrestricted, unregulated, unending, and undeserved, love.

For God so loved the world that he sent his only son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

And one day, all things will be renewed, in Him.

With Hope,

Jeremy Mulder

#Newtown #Christianity #God #Worldview #Tragedy #Love

Myth: You Don't "Need" a Mac

Back when I was a PC/Windows evangelist, this was the line of reasoning I used to convince many a family member out of purchasing a Mac.

"Mac's are for creative people doing a lot of video editing or graphic design, and they're great for that type of stuff!"

(Note my technique here: make it look like you're really supportive of the platform! Then when you tear it down it's not biased, it's just informed.)

"Unless you're planning on doing a lot of that, you really don't need a Mac."

I was reminded of this myth this evening as I was discussing a family member who was contemplating buying a Mac, her first. I commented that at least the discussion had moved from whether or not she should purchase a Mac or a PC; she was firmly in the Mac camp. Now she was simply deciding whether she wanted a desktop or a notebook. My wife's response was to say, "well, she doesn't really need a Mac for the stuff she does on the computer."

I quickly debunked this argument, since I think it's irrelevant for today's consumer. (Whether or not it was always irrelevant I'll leave for someone else to defend. I'll just defend why it's an irrelevant argument now.)

I think the line of reasoning I outlined above emerged for at least two reasons. Number one, it used to be the case that there was a niche market that used Mac's and that niche happened to be occupied by a lot of creatives. The Mac was better for creative professionals working in the field. Number two, the Mac was more expensive. So, if you weren't a member of the niche class, there was no reason to spend the extra money to buy a Mac.

(When I was buying laptops 9 years ago and 6 years ago, the first question asked was the same: is there anything you do on the computer that would require a Mac? The question was ultimately a financial question: how much money do we have to set aside for this computer purchase?)

In today's world, the situation has changed dramatically. Number one, everyone is working with graphics on their computer to some degree. We are shooting HD video on our smartphones, taking 16+ megapixel photos on our DSLR's, and then trying to manipulate them in some fashion before uploading them to Facebook. Number two, the Mac is no longer a niche product commanding a premium price tag. Sure, you can find a computer that's cheaper than a Mac, but if you start putting together a machine with similar technical specifications, chances are you'll end up in the same or a higher price range.

In other words, the financial question is relatively moot (there will always be those who buy the cheapest computer possible, for financial or other reasons.) And the question of "what do I need to do with my computer" has expanded to include a lot more than just "writing emails and going on the internet".

With that being said, here are a few "needs" you might want to consider when you purchase a new computer (and why I think a Mac is the best choice...)

I need my data to be secure. What I mean by secure is that it's always backed up, ready to be recalled at a moments notice. I can't express how easy Time Machine is to use. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the closest I've seen for the average consumer.

I need a reliable computer. Maybe this isn't really a relevant argument for the Mac, but it's definitely impossible to argue against the Mac based on this need.

I need help. Every time I've had an issue with one of my Apple products, I knew where to go for help. And every time, they've fixed my problem. Is that always the case? Probably not. I'm sure they sometimes can't fix the problem and it's a big hassle. But I'd rather be able to bring my Apple computer to the Apple store, and know that the software and the hardware are Apple's product. That's a lot easier than bringing it to the Sony store, the Dell store, the HP store, the Acer store, or the...oh, wait, none of those stores exist (as far as I'm aware). You could bring it to a Microsoft store, if you can find one, but that's at best only half the problem.

I need my computer to just work. Look, I know that Windows has come a long way and that, technically speaking, everything you can do on a Mac you can do on a PC. I just don't think it comes close to the way that everything on the Mac feels seamlessly integrated. It just seems to work the way you mean for it and want it to work.

There's probably more. I'm not even debating the differences between iPhoto vs. any Windows counterpart, or iTunes vs. any Windows counterpart. I'm not mentioning Mac specific things like the Mac App Store, or the fact that you probably already have a bunch of Apple Products, or iCloud, or the aesthetics of the hardware, or anything like that. For every person who claims that the Mac has a superior user experience in those regards, you can find at least one person who will refute them.

My point is this: far from being a computer that only a select few really "need", the real "needs" of a consumer today are better met by a Mac than any other machine. And given that the price difference is negligible (if any), it just seems like the better choice.

#Mac #PC #Apple #iMac #Macbook #Myth

Two thoughts on The Trellis and the Vine

Just got done reading The Trellis and the Vine. I had high hopes for this book, given the recommendations it has been given. I was especially intrigued by the metaphor that they employed and detailed in the opening chapter, and as the title suggests. Imagine two trellis: one of them looks great, but has no vine. The other trellis you can't even see, because the vine is growing like a, well, like a weed.

For the purposes of the book, the trellis was the church work that supported the growth of the vine, but the real work of the church was the vine work. In other words, between the two trellis' in the yard, the one that you could barely see but upon which the vine was growing rapidly was the successful trellis. The other trellis, although beautiful, had no vine. It was unsuccessful as far as trellis' go.

Awesome metaphor.

So the first thought on the book is that I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that the majority of the book is dedicated to vine work, and trellis work is never actually addressed. I kept reading, anticipating when we'd finally get to talking about how to build a trellis that didn't function just for the sake of the trellis (the beautiful trellis in his backyard with no vine) but functioned for the sake of the vine. How can you modify the trellis or build the trellis or fix the trellis so that it actually becomes that trellis that's hidden underneath the vine?

I'm disappointed because I think most people are going to read the book and say, "absolutely!" I have a feeling that most people reading the book already believe that vine work is important. That the goal is the vine. That a trellis with no vine is a disaster. The problem isn't that they don't think vine work is important, it's that they have no idea how to build a trellis that can actually give the vine the freedom to grow. To do vine work requires the proper trellis otherwise the vine crumbles and sits like a lump on the backyard grass. Let's talk about making a trellis that works!

Okay, so there's my rant. The reality is that they did talk about the trellis, but it was in the background. That was probably intentional, since the whole metaphor began by talking about how the vine had grown so that the trellis wasn't even noticeable anymore. Saying, "train others instead of doing it all yourself" is great, and necessary. But setting up a system where you can actually do that is a trellis task, and I didn't feel like that was addressed.

In other words, we agree that the vine is the point. Most pastors probably want to do mostly, or at least more, vine work. But here's my point: it's not just that they need to focus less on the trellis and more on the vine. It's that the trellis needs just as radical an overhaul as their focus on the vine does. I didn't feel like that was addressed.

Oh, and the second thought? If there are "vine guys" and "trellis guys", I'm a trellis guy. Can you tell?

#The Trellis and the Vine #Trellis #Vine

I've been experimenting with how much work I can get done using only my iPad. The results so far have been, "a lot". Almost all my research, reading, writing, emailing, and other tasks can be done using the combination of hardware/software that McCracken describes. Could I get away with not having a regular PC/Mac at all? No. But after having used my iPad as my primary mobile computing device, it's reframed how I view my other machine. I used to think there was no way I could function without a laptop, since I needed to be mobile with most of my tasks. Now that the iPad covers the vast majority of those tasks, I no longer feel the need to make the power/portability compromise that still exists in the purchasing of a typical computer. Not to mention the one thing he doesn't mention in the post, which is just that the iPad is so fun to use. Yeah, it sounds like a stupid reason–until you've used it.

#iPad #Apple

Grabbing Daylight

I've decided that the key to blogging consistently is grabbing the creative moments when they come, and generating some content right then and there. Usually, I file away the creative thoughts until later, assuming I'll come back to it. I never do.

#Grabbing Daylight

I agree with Mohler

"Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost," Schneider says. "So Christians, I think, have a challenge, have a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings."

If this is Schneider's position, then it was good that he parted ways from Calvin College. I'm not sure that you have to make the leap from evolution to the moral experience of humans, though. To say, "I believe in evolution, and therefore there was never a moment where man consciously separated from God's intended design" destroys the foundational doctrines listed in the previous post. I think there's a middle ground that preserves the doctrine while is also faithful to scientific evidence.

"From my viewpoint, a historical Adam and Eve is absolutely central to the truth claims of the Christian faith," says Fazale Rana, vice president of Reasons To Believe, an evangelical think tank that questions evolution. Rana, who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Ohio University, readily admits that small details of Scripture could be wrong. "But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you've got a problem," Rana says. Rana and others believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve for many reasons. One is that the Genesis account makes man unique, created in the image of God — not a descendant of lower primates. Second, it tells a story of how evil came into the world, and it's not a story in which God introduced evil through the process of evolution, but one in which Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, says that rebellious choice infected all of humankind. "When Adam sinned, he sinned for us," Mohler says. "And it's that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior. Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin. "Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.

Christians should never close their eyes towards scientific evidence. We should embrace the evidence, pursue it, and apply it. But, there's also the danger of reaching too far, and I think that's what Schneider has done. In the process, he's unintentionally cut his own legs out from underneath him, if he continues to call himself an evangelical Christian.

#Calvin College #Mohler #Schneider #Harlow #Evolution #Creation

He's right, but he'll probably leave anyway

Harlow, who like Schneider has tenure and considers himself a committed Christian, said that the backlash reflects the views of fundamentalists within the Reformed denomination, not what most people think. "I work in the mainstream of Biblical scholarship, and we believe that the early chapters of Genesis are divinely inspired stories which imagine the human condition and creation of the world. Their intent is to make theological statements. They weren't written to provide geological or biological information," Harlow said. "My college freshmen seem to be able to handle this, but fundamentalists get all bent out of shape over this."

"Fall From Grace", InsideHigherEd.com

What are the theological statements the creation accounts make?

God created a perfect world.

God creates man in his image.

Man is separated from God by sin, which becomes a fundamental part of our nature, and effectively breaks the shalom.

You might list more theological statements (e.g., God has a plan for salvation, God is the provider, etc.) but those first three are fundamental. If you lose them, you lose the Gospel.

So why did Schneider get fired? Was it because he denied a fundamental, historically accepted theological point? Or was it another incident where a group of people weren't able to separate their traditions (in this case, Genesis is a literal, seven day account of creation) from their doctrine (the three points above)?

#Calvin College #Evolution #Creation #Schneider #Harlow #CRC

Note the Order...

Note the order of “complementarianism” vs “credobaptism”. The Bible is more explicit when it comes to the complementary roles of men and women than it is about when we should administer the sacrament of baptism.

#Complementarian #Baptism #Credobaptism

If we fail to see these disciplines and habits as responses to divine grace, we will slip into the trap of thinking that they have value in themselves. Those who think this way suppose that when they meditate or fast, they are spiritually superior to those who do not. Their disciplines become external, self-energized, and law-driven. They are tempted to quantify spirituality by reducing it to a set of external practices rather than an internal, grace-drawn process of transformation. Instead, we must see the disciplines as external practices that reflect and reinforce internal aspirations. Spiritual growth is inside out, not outside in; our focus should be more on the process of inner transformation than on outward routines. This understanding will free us from thinking that the disciplines we practice are magical in themselves or that others should be engaging in the same activities that we practice. Spiritual disciplines are good servants but poor masters; they are useful means but inadequate ends.

From Conformed to His Image by Kenneth Boa. The best paragraph on Spiritual Disciplines I've ever read.

#Spiritual Disciplines #Kenneth Boa #Conformed to His Image

While working in an Indonesian national park, British nature photographer David Slater had his camera purloined by a clever macaque monkey who took several self-portraits, apparently fascinated by her own reflection in the lens.

Reverse evolution. Apes win.

Evangelicals are Total Rubes, Man

CNN Religion article on Michelle Bachmann. I'm not as interested in Bachmann as I am in the fact that the most quoted source for the article is D. Michael Lindsay, who is the new President of Gordon College, my Alma Mater.

This struck a chord, though...

Even as more evangelical women pursue top jobs in politics, there is little sign that they will be invited into similar roles in evangelical churches, which continue to be led by men, with some exceptions. Some evangelical denominations, including Southern Baptists, have recently moved to put more restrictions on women serving as pastors.

“It seems to me that most evangelical congregations make a sharp divide between the sacred and secular realms,” says Lindsay, “so that church is the last context where you’ll see women in ordained roles.”

Certainly, Lindsay's not saying that there is no distinction between the secular and sacred realms. In fact, I'd venture to say that the real issue is that the evangelical church as a whole has actually blurred the line between the two realms, rather than embracing the distinction more clearly. I think you have a problem when the church tries to export the values from the "sacred" realm that were never intended to hold true in the "secular" realm. In other words, even if the Bible teaches that Elders in the church are supposed to be men, that certainly doesn't mean that therefore men should lead in all areas of life, eg. politics, business, and such. That would be a ridiculous interpretation.

The solution, though, isn't to import the values of the "secular" into the "sacred", and it isn't to merge the two into one as if it's all one and there should be no distinction at all. Maybe a better way is to teach people what the Bible actually says, and recognize that life in the new kingdom won't always make sense to those living in the old one. And then, teach people where those distinctions actually end.

#Evangelicals #CNN Religion #Michelle Bachmann #Michael Lindsay #Gordon College #Elders

How Would You Define Marriage Apart from the Bible?

ThinkChristian.net following the overturning of Prop 8 in California:

So can a non-religious case be made against gay marriage? Perhaps. Even Judge Walker seemed to want to hear one. I know I would. I’m not convinced by what I usually hear. One non-religious argument against gay marriage is the long tradition in world and national history of heterosexual marriage, but polygamy and bans on interracial marriages are also well-supported by centuries of tradition (and, by the way, also a few Bible verses, but again that’s not the point right now). So Judge Walker is right to say that tradition shouldn’t be the sole basis for legislation. Another argument is social stability, which would supposedly be harmed by a radical change to a long-standing institution. But with its high rate of divorce, heterosexual marriage could also be charged with causing social instability, and indeed Walker was convinced by the argument that gay marriage results in more stability, not less, for the institution of marriage and society at large. Finally, people worry that having two gay parents is bad for children, but Walker said the plaintiffs made their case through numerous expert witnesses that the kids are turning out fine.

The most common non-religious argument against gay marriage, of course, is that gay parents cannot naturally reproduce, and that reproduction ensures the continuation and viability of the existence of the state. This comes the closest to meeting the criterion of a state interest that is not connected to religious belief. The problem is that by this standard, infertility would render a heterosexual marriage as equally threatening to the state. So would vasectomies. Or even staying single after reaching child-bearing age. Marriage is legal for the non-reproductive.

What is marriage if the Bible is removed from the equation?

#Gay Marriage #NYS Legislature #Christian #Marriage #Bible

8 Questions about Gay Marriage That Will Definitely Generate Discussion at Your Next Small Group Meeting

I’ve spent the last few days processing the New York State legislature’s decision to recognize gay marriage in the State of New York. As I’ve pondered my own position on this issue in the last few years it has become increasingly more nuanced. Were I to draw out my thought process, there would be lines connecting bubbles with many “what-if’s” drawn in. The explanation I’d have to give in written form would be lengthy; it’d certainly be too lengthy for a single blog post. As a primer, then, let me pose a few questions that I’ve been thinking about, and that I believe all thinking Christians should be processing as we dialogue about this issue in the public forum. The following list of questions is certainly not exhaustive. I’ve tried to ask them in a way that’s not “leading”. Think them through and process them, and I hope to formulate my own responses in the coming days.

What is the role of civil/human government?

What are our natural rights?

How do we know what our natural rights are?

How does the Bible define marriage?

Whose job is it to protect marriage, the way that the Bible defines it?

Could you come up with the Biblical definition of marriage without having read the Bible?

In the absence of the Bible, is it the role of the government to define what constitutes a "marriage"? Why or why not?

Does the government have some role in protecting other natural rights that may be associated with marriage? Like what?

Good luck to you. And if you are going to bring this up at small group, I recommend bringing a bottle of wine.

#NYS Legislature #Gay Marriage

I think this guy is angry because of his comically large hands.

#Large Hands #Kids Toys #Funny

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Jeremy Mulder