Yale’s Jonathan Edwards Archive is now in public beta so go check it out, a fair bit of this has never been published. There is far more to this man than “Sinners in the hands of an angry God,” so get over your grade-school fear of him and read yourself into a fuller picture of what he really had to say.
(via reformation 21)
Oct 20
from an excellent post at pyromaniacs
LA Times story (via boingboing) looks into the world of christian music downloading. I’ll be plain, I think it is stealing… flat out wrong… unless of course they’re giving it away (check out Bored-Again Christian.)
Oct 10
Here’s a post from Mere Comments that looks at how something perceived as “good” lead to sinful things. It is a thought-provoking post with even better conversation in the comments! Church activities need to be looked at to see what they really do for the community and for the mission of Christ – if it is just inward facing cliques there needs to be some serious corporate assessment of the activity, either to redeem it or remove it.
Oct 8
Wonderful quote, really gives the sense of conviction behind those who preach in the exegetical style and why they do so:
Exegesis v. Eisegesis
A quote from Dr. James White’s forth-coming book “Pulpit Crimes”…
Eisegesis. The reading into a text, in this case, an ancient text of the Bible, of a meaning that is not supported by the grammar, syntax, lexical meanings, and over-all context, of the original. It is the opposite of exegesis, where you read out of the text its original meaning by careful attention to the same things, grammar, syntax, the lexical meanings of the words used by the author (as they were used in his day and in his area), and the over-all context of the document. As common as it is, it should be something the Christian minister finds abhorrent, for when you stop and think about it, eisegesis muffles the voice of God. If the text of Scripture is in fact God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and if God speaks in the entirety of the Bible (Matt. 22:31) then eisegesis would involve silencing that divine voice and replacing it with the thoughts, intents, and most often, traditions, of the one doing the interpretation. In fact, in my experience, eisegetical mishandling of the inspired text is the single most common source of heresy, division, disunity, and a lack of clarity in the proclamation of the gospel. The man of God is commended when he handles Gods truth aright (2 Tim. 2:15), and it should be his highest honor to be privileged to do so. Exegesis, then, apart from being a skill honed over years of practice, is an absolutely necessary means of honoring the Lord a minister claims to serve. For some today, exegesis and all the attendant study that goes into it robs one of the Spirit. The fact is, there is no greater spiritual service the minister can render to the Lord and to the flock entrusted to his care than to allow Gods voice to speak with the clarity that only sound exegetical practice can provide.
Many thanks to Reformation Theology for this post! I don’t firmly believe that exegetical teaching is the absolute only way; I do, however, believe that it is generally the most fruitful way to preach. Any non-exegesis should be done with the prayer and the peace of the holy spirit, not the consultation of your local pals at starbucks or some weird self-help perspective.
Check this story out, the writer is covering a lecture given about Johnny Cash, and it is well worth the read:
Cash’s lyrics to “The Folsom Prison Blues” acknowledge the cold-blooded mind of a murderer, but the lyrics also echo Paul’s words in the book of Romans, chapter seven, Black said.
“The idea that we know what we are doing is bad, but we can’t stop ourselves from doing it on our own power are clearly the ideas of Paul the apostle,” he said.
I’m a treehugger as well as subscribing to classical reformed theology (it used to be an odd combo, it is no longer so rare) and I first became a member of Creation Care in 1999, I figured it was only a matter of time until more people realized this!
I cannot understand a coherent Christian argument against working to recycle and preserve the environment, not that I haven’t heard an attempt made to rationalize both suburban sprawl and clear-cut/monoculture “forest management.”
Check out Mark’s post on his blog, it includes an exchange between he and Dr. Piper.
…these are important times and big issues are on the table and unity on what counts is critical.
Let us remember what is critical.
I admire both John Piper and Mark Driscoll, so it caught my attention that there seems to be a fair bit of chat in the Christian blog-o-sphere about this past weekend’s “Desiring God” conference. Flack is coming from both the more conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum. I use those terms to describe my observations, not as a value judgement. Although, for full disclosure, I have drifted away from the “emergent conversation,” as I find their jargon driven communications too distracting- I agree with what they want to do, just not how they are doing it.
Frankly, I’ve been thinking a fair bit about this since reading these two posts (Immoderate: Mark Driscoll The Impresario and Tall Skinny Kiwi: John Piper and the Desiring God Conference – as well as others, however these are the best representatives of the views I have come across.) I have a great respect for both of these bloggers, although I know neither personally and their views are vastly different.
When it comes down to it, I think Mark and John are espousing classic reformed theology. If reading Luther or Calvin gets you riled up, these guys will too (most emergents would have a hard time sitting at a table with the great reformers.) Mark has a little bit of an explosive personality, rich in contemporary cultural references (and not always condemning those things he is referencing,) which sometimes draws a negative response, so I will try an make a little foray into thinking about him.
The reason why I feel compelled to think about Mark Driscoll’s personality is that I believe he is preaching in the character of Luther; passion and effectiveness are natural by-products of his personality and mission, not a convenient marketing strategy meant to cash in on his hipster appeal. Mark might be a bit off color, but Luther himself was very much so, even while defending sound doctrine. I’ll grant that other times Luther’s theology was a little off, but my theology is also off and as we are all members of a fallen mankind anyone reading this suffers likewise… we are trying to get our collective head around the glories of God, infinite glories – glories that await us in eternity.
Anyway- check out the primary source material here. I’m blessed enough to have at least a two and a half hour daily commute so I’ve already listened to most of it and find it excellent, useful, and fruitful teaching.
Faith alone (Sola Fide)
Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura)
Christ alone (Solus Christus)
Grace alone (Sola Gratia)
Glory to God alone (Soli Deo Gloria)
Oct 3
I currently find employment in a job I take no pleasure, waiting until I can go to graduate school next fall (Lord willing,) and one of the parts of the jobs I have is morning rounds. I make sure that the paper is there, the computers are still there, and no student is violating the ‘No Food or Drink’ policy in the computer labs. Today, as I often do, I found a student with coffee in one of the rooms. I asked them to take it outside (our policy is a $10 fine, but I really don’t like to do so.) Here is the conversation, to the best of my memory:
“Could you take that outside,” I said pointing to the coffee cup next to her keyboard.
“Well, if it gets knocked over out there, you’re cleaning it up.”
I apologized, “I’m sorry, I don’t really have a choice.”
“Yes, you do have a choice.”
I shot back defensively, “Our policy is a no drinks in the lab and a 10 dollar fine – I don’t want to get fired.”
Now, there is no secret about our drinks policy – it is quite clearly posted on the wall, and consistantly enforced. Now I’ll be the first to admit that my nature is not one of the diplomat, not that I can’t be diplmatic at all, just that it isn’t my primary trait. My reaction was a little curt, but I didn’t feel like it was a matter up for discussion.
As soon as I left the room I saw the corallary with what scripture says about the state of man. Here man, confronted with a violation of a law (and having received the grace to have the penalty go unenforced), objects to the very nature of the law and scoffs at the grace which they received. This is response is of the fallen human nature; it is my nature; it is a basic component of the behavior of man post-Adam. We/I hate laws, even if they make sense to us abstractly, as soon as they effect us personally I/we try to rationalize my/our way out of them. No matter how many preachers argue that man simply has to do good (They’ll never argue that God is gracious, but like Erasmus they will think that our actions have some effect,) I fear that deep within that all our “good” is rooted in our fallen selfishness.
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? – Jeremiah 17:9
I pray that I would be transformed, as Paul writes to the church in Ephesus:
But that is not the way you learned Christ!– assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. – Ephesians 4:20-24