Hands Free Device

Philippians 3

2011-12-02T00:28:00.001-05:00

This is the outline of a Sunday School lesson I taught on March 3, 2011. I have no idea how closely I stuck to the outline. Sometimes I can‘t read my own typing.

Intro: A common expression

Have you ever heard the expression “so heavenly minded that you’re no earthly good”? If that’s true of someone, then the one thing you can count on is that the thing that’s that person’s mind is not Heaven as it’s talked about in the Bible.

2 things inside the church that will rob your joy.

Not talking about the obvious things like drunkenness, violence, etc.
These are temptations for all of us.
These will keep our minds and our lives from moving where they should be moving. I.e., they will distract us from Christ, who is our life. (Colossians 3:4)

What are the monsters that will rob our joy?

I.e., what are the wrong ways to think about heaven?

Legalism

Legalism is any notion that you can achieve a right standing with God by personal effort. It is to put “confidence in the flesh”.
“My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” Everything else is less!
There are different forms of this:

Roman Catholics who believe that performing a ritual guarantees the results.
- Church of Christ believes this about baptism.
People like the preacher in the movie Footloose, who believe that avoiding sins guarantees your acceptance by God.

What is Paul’s response?
“not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”
What is Paul’s goal?
“that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”

Perfectionism

This is similar to (but different from) Legalism. Some Methodists believe you can reach the place where you no longer sin or no longer have great sins.
What’s the problem? If perfectionism is true, then

Why does Paul say he, the guy writing over half the books in the New Testament, hasn’t got there yet?
Why is Romans 7 there at all?
Why, in I Corinthians, the book written against the most sins, does Paul end with the statement of the Gospel? Of all the things he could have built up to (more law, higher spiritual “levels”) does he end with: “This is of first importance &dots; Christ was crucified according to the scriptures, was buried, and was raised on the third day according to the scriptures”

The problem is not with faith, it’s with the object of our faith, with what we have our faith in.

We put our faith in our obedience.
We put our faith in our ability to not sin in some way.
We put our faith in our having overcome some particular sin.
We forget that God is infinite, and that the smallest sin against him is therefore infinite.

Pursuit of Christ

Paul’s attitude about his past:

Garbage
Rubbish
Dung

Paul’s attitude about his present:

I have no righteousness of my own.
Whatever righteousness I have is by faith.
The faith I have is in the Jesus who was really there, and not the Jesus I imagine.
I haven’t reached the end yet.
I press on to know Christ — the Christ who’s really there.

How can we pursue Christ?

Bible
- Reading — just to know what it says
- Study — to understand
  - the depth of the “easy” parts
  - the truth of the “hard” parts
- To find Christ
Prayer
Worship
Fellowship
Serving our neighbor.

You should be ashamed if this is true of you

2011-07-05T22:00:00.001-04:00

“I just spent an evening about a month ago with very close friends of mine who are Mormons. We had a very interesting conversation as we always do when it comes back around to the Gospel, and my friend’s wife said, ‘You know, I just don’t know all the debates between these different churches and denominations … I know evangelicals in town; our kids play together … I’ve even been to their churches a few times … There’s nothing different … My kids wear the bracelet [WWJD] … Look up there on the wall: There’s a picture of Jesus. We teach our children every day who Jesus is and the teachings that Jesus gave us to follow. As long as our children are being taught to follow Jesus, what’s all this division over doctrine?’”
— Mike Horton

The many and the few

2011-02-14T22:31:00.002-05:00

Tim Challies is a baseball fan (if you call what they play in Toronto “baseball”) but he manages to hit this one out of the park.

Two motions

2011-01-31T23:35:00.002-05:00

At the risk of 2 Doug Wilson quotes in a row, I offer this:

The unregenerate heart has only two motions it can make -- that of trying to climb to God on its own, or trying to run away from God.
The unregenerate heart can understand the holiness of God and flee from Him, or misunderstand it, and try to attain to it on its own. Only the converted heart can see the holiness as gladness, and the gladness as righteousness, and the righteousness as glory, and love all of it. As John Piper has argued concerning 1 Tim. 1:11, we have to have our eyes opened so that we see the gospel of the glory of the gladness of God. Would this really resolve all these issues? Taste and see.
— Doug Wilson

Far worse

2011-01-19T23:56:00.001-05:00

As I periodically tell people in counseling, there is no problem you might have that you can't, by diligent effort, make far worse.
—Doug Wilson

Not necessarily warm and comforting

2011-01-13T23:11:00.001-05:00

Phil Johnson once again splits the goalpost.

2010-11-24T20:40:00.000-05:00

I keep thinking I'd like to try my hand at debating Frank Turk, but there are 2 problems:

He's smarter than me.
I can't find anything we disagree on.

Here's an example.

The End

2010-10-21T12:01:00.000-04:00

Regarding the death and end of Bob Guccione, the publisher of Penthouse magazine, Albert Mohler said

You will no doubt hear many Christians who are going to be tempted to say they would not want to be Bob Guccione on the day of judgement. Well, that is certainly true, but in truth every single sinner who does not come to know salvation in Jesus Christ is going to face the full justice and judgement of God. On that day, Bob Guccione will not stand out from the mass of sinners, because every single sinner will be seen with his or her sin fully exposed.
What we see in the death of Bob Guccione is another signal of the fact that human sinfulness is just as ugly as we must know it to be.

Looking around

2010-09-27T22:55:00.000-04:00

In this essay, the inimitable Frank Turk laments that when he moved to Little Rock he was unable to find a Southern Baptist church that looked, well, like a church in 2 years of looking. This is at once what I want to say and convicting to me with respect to my own behavior.

Offensive line in the sand

2010-09-20T21:30:00.000-04:00

Once again, 120 years ago, Charles Spurgeon said something yesterday.

Liberation theology of the right

2010-09-12T22:20:00.003-04:00

Todd Wilken:

You have written that there is a liberation theology of the left and there’s also a liberation theology of the right. Of course a criticism of many of those who were supporting Glen Beck and his Restoring Honor rally was that President Barack Obama is a “liberation theologian.” What do you mean by a liberation theology on the right?

Russell Moore:

Well I think liberation theology is any kind of theology that seeks to bypass the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ and the empty tomb in order to get to some temporal value.
And so I think on the left you’ve got a liberation theology that says what we’re looking for is freeing the oppressed and we’re looking for all these — which may be good and right in and of themselves, but when you get to them apart from the Gospel you’re getting something other than the Gospel.
The same thing happens on the right, where you can take values that can be good in and of themselves and can be commendable, but you seek to get to them some other way than through the Gospel.
That’s essentially exactly what is happening in the third temptation of the Lord Jesus. Satan says to him, “You can have all of the kingdoms of the world if you just bow down and worship me.” Jesus refuses to do this even though Jesus ruling over the kingdoms of the world is obviously a good thing.

John 6:29

2010-09-07T23:01:00.003-04:00

This evening as part of my personal study in John's Gospel, I read John 6:29: “Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ ”

I very nearly couldn't believe what I read: If I believe, it's God's work.

I consulted about 20 translations (via Biblia.com). All the translations that simply deliver the words from the original language into English had translated this verse very nearly as it's quoted above (from the ESV); the translations that do more interpretive hand holding of the text provide something similar to the Good News Bible: “Jesus answered, ‘What God wants you to do is to believe in the one he sent.’ ”

Perhaps the latter gives the correct sense of the words. But the words say that my belief is God's work.

John's Gospel is filled with stuff like this:

Nicodemus said, “We know you are a teacher sent by God;” Jesus replied, “You must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.” Why did Jesus’ reply seem to have nothing to do with what Nicky asked?
The woman at the well said, “Give me this [living] water so I won't have to come back to the well;” Jesus replied, “Go fetch your husband.” Was Jesus answering her question or not?

Am I all wet? Do you have more examples of this kind of response by Jesus, especially from John's Gospel? Is this irrelevant?

Privacy

2010-07-07T23:00:00.000-04:00

There is nothing hidden from the Lord’s eyes. There are no secrets with Him. Alone or in company, by night or by day, in private or in public, He is acquainted with all our ways. He who saw Nathanael under the fig-tree is unchanged. Go where we will, and retire from the world as we may, we are never out of sight of Christ.

— J.C. Ryle

Everybody! Everybody!

2010-07-06T22:05:00.001-04:00

A while back, I wrote a little essay about what's in Calvinism. (You can probably find it if you look hard enough.) The idea was to give some definitions so that at least Christians could be sure we're talking about the same thing.

But almost all of the arguments could be avoided if everybody understood that Calvinists (real ones, not ones born of anti-Calvinist imaginations) believe the following 2 things.

The Gospel must be proclaimed freely to everyone.
Everyone — everyone — who repents and believes the Gospel is saved by God.

Wash your hands

2010-05-12T21:35:00.000-04:00

Apropos to this blog’s whimsical (IMNSHO) title, washing your hands after making a difficult decision can help you get past it. But sometimes it isn't enough.

Impossibilities

2010-05-04T22:53:00.001-04:00

The amazing Justin Taylor posted this: Imperatives – Indicatives = Impossibilities. It expresses something I have been trying to say for a long, long time, but never found the right words.

Linked using Share this.

Ultimate trust

2010-04-27T22:19:00.002-04:00

If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings — no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history.
— Thomas Sowell

What is this message?

2010-04-08T11:57:00.005-04:00

[I]ngredients of preaching and teaching that we might want to link with the gospel would include the need for the gospel (sin and judgment), the means of receiving the benefits of the gospel (faith and repentance), the results or fruit of the gospel (regeneration, conversion, sanctification, glorification) and the results of rejecting it (wrath, judgment, hell). These, however we define and proclaim them, are not in themselves the gospel. If something is not what God did in and through the historical Jesus two thousand years ago, it is not the gospel. Thus Christians cannot ‘live the gospel’, as they are often exhorted to do. They can only believe it, proclaim it and seek to live consistently with it. Only Jesus lived (and died) the gospel. It is a once-for-all finished and perfect event done for us by another.
— Graeme Goldsworthy

And lives that death may die

2010-04-07T23:48:00.005-04:00

I know Easter has passed by for the year, but I can’t help posting these lyrics, the words to one of my favorite hymns. I don’t think it has a match anywhere for the simplicity, directness, power of the worship it expresses.

Crown him with many crowns,
the Lamb upon his throne,
Hark! how the heavenly anthem drowns
all music but its own.
Awake, my soul, and sing
of him who died for thee,
and hail him as thy matchless King
through all eternity.
Crown him the Lord of life,
who triumphed o'er the grave,
and rose victorious in the strife
for those he came to save.
His glories now we sing,
who died, and rose on high,
who died, eternal life to bring,
and lives that death may die.
Crown him the Lord of peace,
whose power a scepter sways
from pole to pole, that wars may cease,
and all be prayer and praise.
His reign shall know no end,
and round his pierced feet
fair flowers of paradise extend
their fragrance ever sweet.
Crown him the Lord of love;
behold his hands and side,
those wounds, yet visible above,
in beauty glorified.
All hail, Redeemer, hail!
For thou hast died for me;
thy praise and glory shall not fail
throughout eternity.

The Best

2010-03-22T23:33:00.002-04:00

If you have been a Christian for over, say, 5 years, it is nearly certain you have heard a sermon about King David committing adultery and murder. I have heard many. This one is the best I ever heard. Settle in: It's over an hour long.

Worship of Idols

2010-03-12T13:33:00.003-05:00

I have not (yet) read the articles that this article points to, but they come from a trusted source. Bob Kauflin is an associate of C.J. Mahaney. If you don't know who that is, you should find out.

Update: I have now read these, and I recommend them highly.

More than a teacher

2010-03-09T11:26:00.004-05:00

Preaching about Mark 10:1–12:

Jesus was more than a teacher. Did you notice that in our passage? Even up there in verse 3. You know when the Pharisees asked him the question, look at what He said: “ ‘What did Moses command you?’ He replied.” Veeery interesting. Not us like the humble good rabbi should say, but you, as if Moses never commanded Jesus anything.
And even more so when you look again at verse 5 and you think about it for a minute. “ ‘It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,’ Jesus replied.” You see what Jesus is doing there? It is something unheard of for a rabbi to be doing. Jesus is speaking of the motive behind God's law that Moses gave. Huh! Okay, how could he do that? That seems … hmm … Maybe there's a verse in Deuteronomy I didn't know about where God says this. Yeah, you read through all of Deuteronomy, all of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, you won't find any verse like that. How could Jesus claim something like this with a straight face --- unless he was, himself, claiming to know the mind of God, because he was claiming, himself, to be God?

— Mark Dever

Can you believe it?

2010-02-23T09:21:00.004-05:00

Here's another article about The Shack. This one's an indictment of us for falling for this stuff.

The Shack as Christian Literature

2010-01-14T10:55:00.001-05:00

If anyone is actually reading this, there's a new(ish) essay about The Shack over at Christianity Today. It points out how, in several ways, this silly novel is sub-Christian.

Re: suffering

2010-01-12T14:57:00.004-05:00

With reference to Romans 8:22:

If you're in the hospital and you hear a scream across the hall, it makes a huge difference whether you know you're in the maternity unit or the oncology unit. [For those who trust in Christ,] [a]ll of your sufferings, including your death, [are] birth pangs.
— John Piper

This is big

2010-01-02T01:38:00.002-05:00

I know this is late for the “official” Christmas season, but I offer it to you anyhow. This is not so much about a baby (to paraphrase Fozzie Bear: There's a hundred babies around) as it is about the enormity of the incarnation.

You should notice that we almost never hear the last two verses. Does anyone know why? I mean, come on, don't we want the serpent's head bruised in us, i.e., in our own personal walking-around lives? Don't we want Adam's image replaced with Jesus’ image? Are these not the purpose of the incarnation?

Hark! The herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King;
Peace on earth, and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled!”
Joyful, all ye nations rise,
Join the triumph of the skies;
With th’angelic host proclaim,
“Christ is born in Bethlehem!”
Hark! the herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”
Christ, by highest Heav’n adored;
Christ the everlasting Lord;
Late in time, behold Him come,
Offspring of a virgin’s womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th’incarnate Deity,
Pleased with us in flesh to dwell,
Jesus our Emmanuel.
Hark! the herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”
Hail the heav’nly Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings,
Ris’n with healing in His wings.
Mild He lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth,
Born to give them second birth.
Hark! the herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”
Come, Desire of nations, come,
Fix in us Thy humble home;
Rise, the woman’s conqu’ring Seed,
Bruise in us the serpent’s head.
Now display Thy saving power,
Ruined nature now restore;
Now in mystic union join
Thine to ours, and ours to Thine.
Hark! the herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”
Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface,
Stamp Thine image in its place:
Second Adam from above,
Reinstate us in Thy love.
Let us Thee, though lost, regain,
Thee, the Life, the inner man:
O, to all Thyself impart,
Formed in each believing heart.
Hark! the herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”

Elders and pastors

2009-12-31T23:26:00.001-05:00

The post that follows started life as an email I was drafting last summer. I never finished it, so I never got around to sending it. The thoughts here are rough, but I submit them for your comment anyway.

I've been thinking about the whole subject of elders that we were talking about the other day, and I came up with a few random thoughts.

There's nothing inherent in the NT about the elders of a church being the church staff. By analogy, the U.S. government does not put ultimate power into the hands of any one man, or even any one branch of government. A church may be free to implement that, but it is a questionable choice, since a staff might become insulated from the members it's supposed to be leading. Which means …
Having "lay elders" in addition to the ones on the pastoral staff might be a good idea. (Scripturally, this is a position I am not qualified for, BTW.)
Traditionally, Baptists have taken one of two equally wrong tacks:
- Pastor as the only elder
- Deacons as defacto elders
Not having the organizational structure written and knowingly agreed to means some people will become disgruntled. This used to be done via a church covenant and bylaws members understood and agreed to abide by. If there are bylaws they should be published to the members. If the bylaws don't express the way things are done, one or the other should be changed. I.e., yes, leaders are accountable to God, but they are also accountable to the congregation.
Baptists have always been congregational in their government. As one pastor put it, all churches that are not cults are ultimately congregational: When they aren't given a vote otherwise, people will still vote with their feet and their checkbooks. I think we have seen the truth of that.
Regardless of elder structures, there is a great danger in leading people spiritually the way Jennie's dad used to lead Jennie and her mom through airports. His attitude was, "I'm going, and God help anyone who can't keep up." That's NOT leadership. So …
Before great changes are made, the congregation needs to be convinced of the change, not merely told where the church is going, the people being expected to follow. That is, the pastor is a shepard, not a commander. This is because …
There is a priesthood of all believers (not a priesthood of the individual, BTW).
The senior pastor is not just another elder, he is the chief among equals, setting the direction for the staff and persuading the people to follow. After all, if where the elders lead is scriptural, old, ingrained patterns may need to be overcome. This takes time. You persuade a friend by showing him the truth from Scripture, not by clonking him with a 2x4. (The 2x4 is for people who are in wilfull sin. But I digress.) But …
The senior pastor and the other elders, in order to be able to lead, must first learn to listen, learn, and love.

Got any thoughts?

The search for a new pastor

2009-11-13T00:13:00.005-05:00

I have some trepidation in posting this. I am an outsider, i.e., though I am a church member, I'm not in the leadership structure anywhere. As such, I have no real credibility. But this is what I'm thinking.

When my pastor resigned to start a new church in another city, one of the obligations the church inherited was that of finding a new pastor. A search committee has been constituted, and to get a feeling for how to find a pastor the church will embrace, the committee has distributed a survey. While I am slightly unnerved by survey as a method, I guess it maximizes efficiency so the committee can get to work sooner.

The survey starts with some standard questions about who's answering it (church membership, gender, age, household composition, etc.), then starts in on the questions about our preferences for the new pastor:

Minimum education level
Prior ministry experience
Acceptable age range
Acceptable family situation
Ministry priorities

This little essay is about the last one. The survey asks us to select the top five priorities for a new pastor, ranking from 1 (most important) to 5 (least important of the top five). The selections follow; I have numbered them for easy reference later.

A gifted teacher who enables persons to learn and understand deep spiritual truths
An administrator of the church office, giving attention to bulletins, correspondence, newsletter, etc.
A person active in associational, state-convention [sic], and denominational life
A community volunteer who cooperates in community and denominational activities/programs
An effective communicator of well-prepared sermons
A skilled counselor available to assist with personal and spiritual problems
A person who emphasizes evangelism and the importance of lifestyle witnessing
A person who emphasizes discipleship and spiritual growth
A person with leadership vision and a wll-developed vision for the the future of the church
A person who uses praise songs and/or drama in worship (contemporary worship)
A person who prefers to feature hymns, gospel songs, prayers, and preaching in worship (traditional worship)
A nurturing leader who grows personally and helps others grow
A person who communicates well with youth
A person who communicates well with preschoolers and children
A person who understands and communicates well with senior adults
A person who understands and communicates well with single adults
A person who emphasizes the importance of strong families

Looking at this list, nothing here is bad. I have a few preferences among them, but only a few.

But, with due respect, this is the wrong list.

Here are my personal top priorities for the new pastor. I will list the priorities as such and offer a few comments as I go. The order is flexible as long as #1 is #1.

A person who preaches Christ as Savior from the whole Bible. Does not preach about himself or this year's fad.
Christ as Savior is the Bible's primary “deep spiritual truth” (from survey item 1), and it is therefore God's primary deep spiritual truth. I have a list of fads, but I'm certain you would be mad at me for naming at least one of them. (To be fair, I'd probably get mad about something on your list, too.)
A person who leads by communication, persuasion and example, not by command or slogan.
This includes items 3, 4, 5, but goes beyond them. When the leadership has simply announced a new direction, most folks didn't “buy in”. The new thing was just announced with the expectation that everyone would follow. Examples: Community groups, the auditorium upgrade, dissolution of Sunday night worship. None of these things was bad as such, but the congregation didn't unite behind them. I believe the congregation's not following has been a source of frustration to the leadership.
A person who will change and publicize the church's bylaws to reflect the way things are actually done.
Even elders are under authority, and are not a law unto themselves. I believe the congregation will unite behind a leader (or leaders). But we need to know what limitations are in place. I'm not sure this touches any of the survey items.
To be a little provocative, leadership by fiat can be used in a work setting where the participants are employees. However, a church is inherently congregational, regardless of how the organization is nominally structured: If all else fails, people vote with their checkbooks and their feet. (HT: Mark Dever)
A person who knows content is more important than style in worship.
This touches items 10 and 11, obviously. I admit I have preferences about style, but my preferences are not important. I can participate wherever the Jesus revealed in Scripture is being worshiped as Lord and Christ. I'm not being critical of how things are done now, but elevating style over substance would be a mistake.
A person who understands that “You can do better” is not the Gospel.
“You were forgiven at the cross and you are now free” is the message of the Bible for Christians. Binding people under the bondage of “go do better” will burn them out.
Someplace I recently heard about someone going through the New Testament letters finding out what the responses are to all the problems in the early church. In every case, the apostle (whether Paul, Peter, or John) said that the reason the church was having problems was because they failed to believe the Gospel.

A sinner

2009-10-26T09:04:00.003-04:00

Every minister is a sinner also, and every minister needs to know what it is like to preach to himself as well as to others. But regardless of whether the minister is also in the congregation, the message he preaches is to be found in the text, and not in his own panicked fear or sense of envy.
— Doug Wilson

Elegance

2009-10-13T12:24:00.006-04:00

Reviewing The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins, Tim Challies wrote this:

A scientist can conjure up in his mind ways of describing the world without God, but he has a lot more trouble explaining it. Design seems to scream for a designer, elegance for agency.
— Tim Challies

Sacrament?

2009-10-12T11:41:00.002-04:00

If we're Baptists, why do we treat the invitation (which isn't even found in the Bible anything like the way we practice it) as more of a sacrament than the Lord's Supper?

If we don't have a liturgical year, why do we sing Christmas songs every December?

Why do we talk about “listening to God” when we aren't writing a new book of the Bible?

Happiness

2009-10-04T14:50:00.005-04:00

Our effort to create our own happiness is just about as successful as our effort to create our own righteousness: It's pretty much a “crash and burn.”
— R. Albert Mohler

The Old Testament

2009-09-23T22:00:00.005-04:00

Over the years, [the trend among Christian scholars] has been toward a study of the Old Testament in and of itself. This is not a Christian approach to the matter. Christians in increasing numbers have written books on the Old Testament which hardly even mention the fact that the New Testament exists. […] As Christians, we must return to the priciples of Old Testament interpretation dictated by the New Testament.
— Graeme Goldsworthy

I believe this is true. But I wonder how much we have it backward. As a couple of examples:

Do we expect the culture we live in to conform to the Old Testament law, i.e., to encode and enforce it as law?
Have we grown to believe that the promises made in the Old Testament to national Israel continue to the present day nation-state of Israel? Then what's the meaning of Acts 2:30–31, Acts 13:16–33, Galatians 3:15–29, Ephesians 2:14?

Better than revival

2009-07-05T16:08:00.001-04:00

Go read this: Pyromaniacs: Keep to the Old Truth

The Secret

2009-02-24T08:13:00.005-05:00

“The Christian's secret of a happy life is to know about the hope, not merely something subjective, not merely something that happens in the realm of my own feelings or states or moods.”

— D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

More about The Shack

2009-01-26T15:31:00.007-05:00

Here's 45 minutes or so about The Shack. This is a radio program, and there is an announcement (45 seconds) at the beginning and a couple of breaks (2 minutes each) in the middle.

The missing word

2008-11-04T22:00:00.001-05:00

There's a missing word in the political debate over abortion. See, the “pro-choice” crowd almost always phrases the thing they're defending as “a woman's right to choose.” But there's a problem.

As an aspiring writer, I feel compelled to point out that “choose” is a transitive verb. That is, the way should be phrased, to be grammatically correct, is “a woman's right to choose X,” where X is some object. Whenever you hear that phrase, always ask, “a woman's right to choose what?”

In the current election

2008-10-14T22:00:00.009-04:00

“There is no message in the New Testament for the lost except to tell them that they are lost, that they are under condemnation, that they are under the wrath of God, and that unless they repent they remain lost and will be lost to all eternity. This is what I want to emphasize, that the New Testament has nothing to say to the world this morning except that — nothing whatsoever. Our only message to those who are in the world is to repent and to believe the Gospel — nothing else. There is no further interest taken.

“If a man does not repent and believe the Gospel, well he remains where he is, and the Gospel has nothing further to say to him. There is no hope for the world outside Christ — none whatsoever. There is no improvement predicted or prophesied for the world — none whatsoever.

“There is no greater error or heresy than to think that it is the business of Christian preaching to improve the world somewhat. It's a denial of the Gospel. I am using my language advisedly and soberly. The idea that it is the business of the church to recommend Christian principles to the world and plead with it and ask it to put [them] into practice, to send messages to statesmen and ask them to put [them] into practice, I say, is a denial of [the Gospel].

“The only message of the Gospel to the world is to tell it to repent because it's under the wrath of God, and that unless it repents it's lost, and lost eternally.”

— D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Happiness and eternity

2008-10-01T22:00:00.002-04:00

“Friend, if your kind of Christianity makes sense even if there's nothing after the grave, then you've gotten hold of a false product. The kind of Christianity that the Bible talks about and that we are calling you to will not all add up to necessarily what's considered a better life on this side of the grave. Because we believe in those eternal realities, and we live for them for Christ, so it is that we Christians are happy under any circumstances in this world — as Habbakuk said, even if our resources are entirely spent — as long as we have God, because God is our strength and our hope.”

— Mark Dever

Emotional response

2008-09-29T22:00:00.002-04:00

How do I know when I have worshipped? Is it when I have had some kind of emotional or visceral response? Is it when I have performed certain actions or cried a certain number of tears?

I think both of these answers, the emotional and the mechanistic, are wrong and for the same reason: They are both about me.

Years ago, I was participating in a celebration of the Lord's Supper. (For all you Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed folks, I'm a Zwinglian in this. If you're a Southern Baptist, it means that I almost certainly believe the same as you about what's going on. But I digress.) At that particular time, I was deeply moved by the service: Meditating on my sin and on the greatness of my Savior. But the next time our church celebrated the Supper, I tried to get the feeling back.

When I was in college (the first time, for those who are keeping track of these things), I did what every underclassman had to do: I took a course in basic psychology. One of the things the book talked about was the lengths to which people will go to capture a feeling they called Nirvana. One of the examples they gave was actually of Roman Catholics celebrating mass. Now, I don't think the authors were talking about the Hindu Nirvana in the theological sense, but only about an emotional sensation.

The authors of the psychology text (No, I don't remember who they were — it was thirty years ago. Deal.) were starting with the assumption that there was nothing there, and that the external observer had a truer idea about what was going on than the participants. (As a response to that, you should try to find C.S. Lewis's little essay, "Meditation in a Toolshed.")

And I realized that was exactly what I was doing, even with my Evangelical belief in what's going on in the Lord's Supper: I was trying to capture an emotional sensation.

It was a sin.

It was a sin because it was about me and what I was feeling and about my response to the message and the ceremony.

So I started thinking about worship and what we go through to "get there," to know we have worshipped. And I wondered if it didn't amount to the same thing.

As Christians, however, we believe there is something there, that it is independent of us, and that something is really going on in the Supper. Where can we go to find out what it is? How about 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

People from various traditions will interpret this in different ways, but the apostle's final statement is something we can all agree on: The Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the Gospel, a declaration that there is forgiveness of sins and of the way forgiveness was procured, and all those who trust in that forgiveness have it.

Whew.

I brought all that up, not as a thing to talk about (though it's a great subject), but as an example of worship. In particular, when I celebrate the Lord's supper, it's not about me and my feelings, not about me and my response, but about Jesus and His forgiveness.

I claim that this principle holds for all worship: It's not about me and my feelings; it's not about me and my response. It's about Jesus and His forgiveness. I have worshipped when, as a believer, I have proclaimed the Gospel.

A new reformation (small "r")

2008-09-28T14:48:00.004-04:00

At Pyromaniacs (linked on the right), Phil Johnson was writing about a particular individual who had seemingly become apostate (fallen away from the faith). He followed that with some general comments about folks who've done this, and in those, this was number five:

A disproportionate number of apostates seem to come from the kind of über-rigid fundamentalist backgrounds where what you do seems to be given ultimacy over what you believe. That kind of stress on externals naturally cultivates Pharisaism rather than authentic faith, so we shouldn't be surprised at the high percentage of apostates such a system produces.

I wonder if that applies equally to the popular preacher who said, "We need a new reformation of deeds, not creeds."

Is it a sin?

2008-09-25T22:00:00.001-04:00

Is it a sin to be shy?

Not Scrooge

2008-09-22T22:00:00.005-04:00

The hardest thing about the hymn verse below is the word “Ebenezer”. That word comes from I Samuel 7:12. In that chapter, the people of Israel came together and repented, and while they were together — well, here, read it for yourself:

As Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to attack Israel. But the Lord thundered with a mighty sound that day against the Philistines, and threw them into confusion, and they were routed before Israel. And the men of Israel went out from Mizpah and pursued the Philistines and struck them, as far as below Beth-car.
Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen, and called its name Ebenezer, for he said, “Till now, the Lord has helped us.”

So “Ebenezer” means “stone of help” and it refers to a particular memorial set up to help the people remember that the Lord has helped them, and he is the source of all their help. (For a closely related reference, see Psalm 121.)

Here I raise my Ebenezer; hither by thy help I've come,
And I hope by Thy good pleasure safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger wand'ring from the fold of God.
He to rescue me from danger interposed his precious blood.

Death

2008-09-11T22:00:00.005-04:00

I have heard it said that death for a Christian (and for those who love him/her) should not be a sad occasion, but a happy time of homecoming. I can appreciate the contrast with suffering this represents — especially if the suffering is concentrated around the time of death. The relief of the suffering of a loved one and the burden of care for the family can be great.

But when Jesus stood at the tomb of Lazarus, John's Gospel tells us that He was “troubled in Spirit.” Francis Schaeffer wrote (I have forgotten which book I read it in; sorry) that in the Greek, it is plain that Jesus was angry, not just about his friend dying, but about death itself. I wonder how this should color our view of death.

Eternity

2008-09-09T22:00:00.003-04:00

When I was considering beginning blogging, but before I chose the (in my opinion) whimsical name and theme now found here, I very nearly settled on the name Verge of Jordan, based on this verse of the old hymn, “Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah.” The point was that because life in this world is short — especially compared to eternity — we are all on the “verge of Jordan,” i.e., near death, and all our actions, all our words, all our thoughts, all our desires, when rightly oriented in this life, always have eternity in view.

As it stands, what this verse expresses is reliance through Jesus on our Heavenly Father's grace and mercy to see us through this life.

When I tread the verge of Jordan,
Bid my anxious fears subside;
Death of deaths, and hell’s destruction,
Land me safe on Canaan’s side.
Songs of praises, songs of praises,
I will ever give to Thee;
I will ever give to Thee.

Christian issues in the presidential election

2008-09-02T22:00:00.004-04:00

I have to admit in advance that many of you (as if anyone is actually reading this) may not agree with this, but there are few — very few — Christian issues in the current national election cycle. What I'm thinking of is not indirect issues such as taxation, defence, entitlements, etc., even though these are important issues; in fact, they are issues I have strong opinions on. I'm thinking now of issues the Bible addresses directly.

Here are all I can think of:

Abortion
Definition of marriage

Can you think of any others?

Sheep and Goats

2008-08-20T18:37:00.005-04:00

At the beginning of [the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25] the sheep and the goats are separated by what they are, and only Christ can take a goat and turn that person into a sheep. We don't have the ability to change ourselves from goats into sheep, and the transformation takes place when Christ gives us faith through the proclamation of the Gospel. So salvation is a gift from beginning to end. The sheep aren't even aware of the good works that they have done.

— Chris Rosebrough

One problem

2008-07-24T09:50:00.002-04:00

One of the problems we see, even in our churches, is people pursuing spirituality without Jesus. This is entirely backward. We should pursue Jesus and whatever spirituality follows will be enough.

2008-06-30T13:27:00.008-04:00

Frail children of dust, and feeble as frail,
in thee do we trust, nor find thee to fail;
thy mercies how tender, how firm to the end,
our Maker, Defender, Redeemer, and Friend.

Resources available for those who want them

2008-06-23T12:43:00.006-04:00

I have downloaded and listened to (most of) the audio listed below. It's all in MP3 format, so if you live close by me, let me know and I can loan you a copy on a USB “thumb drive” that you can copy to your computer, and from there to your iPod or other device, or even burn onto a CD. Note: These were all given away by their various sources (church, conference, whatever), so there is no copyright issue with my giving them away to you.

A series of 69 sermons:

Introduction to the Bible
Introduction to the Old Testament
Introduction to the New Testament
A sermon on each of the 66 books of the Bible.

The addresses from a conference held in 2006 called Together for the Gospel. Speakers: Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C.J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper.
Together for the Gospel conference held in 2008. Same speakers as above, plus Thabiti Anyabwile.

By the time you have asked for it, there may be additional resources on the thumb drive. If it's there, you can copy it!

Legalism

2008-06-19T09:41:00.005-04:00

Legalism is seeking to achieve forgiveness from God and acceptance by God through obedience to God.

— C.J. Mahaney

Sermons

2008-06-10T12:47:00.008-04:00

In my roaming around the internet for lo! these several years, I have, at times, strayed out of the Southern Baptist fields and found things. One of the things I have found is advice on how to evaluate a sermon. So below are two different methods.

First from a Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod pastor comes his three step evaluation criteria. Apply the steps in this order:

Is Jesus mentioned?
Is Jesus the subject or the object of the verbs?
What are the verbs?

The point is that the content of the sermon should be that the Gospel is what Jesus did, not what we do.

The second, one-step, criterion comes from a Methodist bishop. His is probably logically equivalent to the Lutheran's, but is a great deal more succinct. It goes like this:

Did Jesus have to die for this to make any kind of sense?

A Relationship with Jesus Christ

2008-06-04T12:10:00.011-04:00

“Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship.” How many times have you heard that? Besides having a dubious perspective on James 1:26-27, this statement is demonstrably incomplete. Every sentient being in the universe has a relationship with every other sentient being in the universe. If nothing else, they have a relationship called “strangers.”

But when someone says some variant of what I quoted above, they mean a human has a relationship with God through the finished work of Christ. Abraham, though he didn't know Jesus by name, had the promise of God concerning his “Seed”, and in believing God, he was called a friend of God. That was their relationship.

But friendship isn't the only relationship people can have with God: “Creation” is an action by a Creator that establishes a relationship between a Creator with some other being.

“But,” you're protesting, “I mean a personal relationship, not an object relationship.” Fair enough. You may not believe it, but the Bible declares that every human, lost or saved, has a relationship with God. You probably agree that saved people have a relationship of love, as child to Father, as slave to Redeemer, as lost to Finder (see Luke 15).

But I'm guessing you don't think about the relationship of the lost to the Father, Son and Spirit. But they have one. The Bible's word for this relationship is "enmity," the relationship between enemies.

The lost are enemies of Jesus Christ. When stated that way, it's a bit of a shock. But it has the benefit of being true.

So how can anyone be saved? People can be saved because God loves his enemies.

Re: The Shack

2008-04-30T12:07:00.008-04:00

Before you read The Shack, watch this.

Updated May 21, 2008

And read this. Here's a quote to whet your appetite:

The way to avoid being [someone who claims to love God, but whose life shows little evidence of the transformation] is not to avoid theology, but to love and to embrace and to pursue it. Those men and women who live most like Christ are not the ones who know the least about Him, but the ones who know Him best. We wish to be Christians who know God deeply and intimately. And to know Him in that way we turn first to the Bible.

God's will among men

2008-04-24T12:41:00.007-04:00

Before the Civil War, before his presidency, Abraham Lincoln was known to be a scoffer toward Christianity. I have read elsewhere that when Lincoln went to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to deliver his most famous address, his commitment to Christ was cemented. It was about the time he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, over a year before the Gettysburg Address, that a change began to come over him. Below is a brief meditation by Lincoln, written around the time of the Proclamation. I am posting it here because it reveals a maturity in thinking about the will of God that is rarely heard.

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party; and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect his purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true; that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power on the minds of the now contestants, he could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun, he could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.

Friendly Fire or Faithful Wounds?

2008-04-16T01:01:00.008-04:00

Phil Johnson (from now on, I'll call him Phil), Pyromaniac, has completed a blog series on “contextualization.” To read what I'm talking about so this makes some kind of sense, go here and start reading from the bottom for the first post; to read the comment threads click on the dates; to comment on Pyromaniacs you have to have a Blogger/Google login (but you can read the blog and the comments without registering and you can comment here without registering, though it would be kind if you did so).

I want to comment on the series and its motivations and its implications. I waited until the series was complete before starting — it wasn't intentional, but it turned out to be better, since I've now followed Phil's entire train of thought.

There is an interesting difference between the text of the series proper and the comment threads — including Phil's own comments — that ensued. Please understand that I do not believe for a second Phil has any personal animosity in this; his concern is and ever was for the Gospel.

The motivation: I surmise from the timing that Phil started this series as a result of a sermon (about an hour long) and a speech (about an hour and a half long) given by Mark Driscoll (I'll call him Mark from now on), both freely available for download or in the Mars Hill podcast, founding pastor and usual preacher at Mars Hill Church in Seattle (not to be confused with that other Mars Hill). If you only have time for one, pick the speech. In both, Mark makes much of the word “contextualization,” by which he means translating the Gospel into terms that are understandable in the culture in which it is being proclaimed.
The problem: As Phil sees it, some have bent “contextualization” in a church planting context or missionary context into a shape that means “syncretism,” the adopting of pagan practices and beliefs as Christian. There are some for whom this is undeniably true, e.g., Doug Pagett or Rob Bell.
The implication (or the inference Phil seems to want us to draw): Mark should be avoided because he uses a word others use to mean something different. Further, since Mark's church participates in “worldly practices” as a church (this is the subject of previous blog posts and/or comments), even his detailed declarations of orthodoxy (right Biblical belief) are suspect.
The method: Phil begins the discussion by deconstructing (!) the word “contextualize”.
More method: Phil disputes the claim by the postmoderns that Paul the apostle in Acts 17 “affirmed” the culture in Athens in any way. Rather, Paul's strategy was to declare the Gospel as a contradiction of their culture and beliefs by “[unpacking] the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection and proclaim it with clarity”.

Analysis

There are several things Phil is right about.

Phil rightly protests the fact that the definition of “contextualize” is in general difficult to pin down.
Deconstruction can be a useful tool in “tearing down strongholds” of unbelief.
Using a word that is so wide open to interpretation that it has to be explained every time you say it to know which of the variegated meanings you intend is burdensome on both the speaker and the listener. In deconstructing “contextualize,” Phil is pointing out that many of the folks who are saying it are putting themselves in the position of Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass: (‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that's all.’).
Some of the people saying “contextualization” have bad theology and mean bad things when they use this particular word. The same thing could be said of those who abuse a word like “love.” As the old song says, “We say we love Coca-Cola, and we love mother's hot apple pie.” (Is anyone old enough to recognize that reference?)
Much of what goes on in the culture around us is questionable at best. Television, movies, music are all unreliable sources of belief. Or reliable sources of unbelief.
No one objects to translating the Gospel into understandable terms so people within a culture are able to understand it. (Phil said this in one of the comment threads.)

There are, however, several assumptions that lie under what Phil has said, and it is useful to bring them to the surface for examination .

Anyone who uses a word for which the definition across the spectrum of those who use it is fluid or even nebulous is automatically suspect, a kind of “guilt by vocabulary.”
Evaluation:Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in. For all of Phil's protest over “contextualize” as a word (along with its conjugates), he continues to use words like “charity” in an in-house manner that won't be understood by those who only think of “charity” in terms the IRS will understand.
In protesting that the culture is opposed to the Gospel (which is true of every secular culture) Phil has implicitly embraced the notion that there is such a thing as a “Christian culture.”
Evaluation: There's no problem with that statement as such. There are, however, two questions we must frequently ask ourselves:
1. What part of what has grown up in our churches, what part of our culture, is extra-Biblical?
2. What part of the Christian culture is therefore disposable?
To ask these questions at once and in an operational and slightly more provocative, way: How has the offense ceased to be the Gospel and started being merely the Christian culture?
And, to drive on to the next logical question, what does this say about our attitude about the sufficiency of Scripture?

Phil's series and the comments of many might be construed by some as friendly fire, i.e., the shooting of one's compatriots and allies. However, I believe Phil is engaged in polemics, the way you argue with your friends over some principle or doctrine you disagree about. I think Phil would get more yardage of substance (to mix metaphors) out of his disagreement with Mark over continuationalism. But in the present discussion, Phil is really talking more about others in the debate, and Mark gets drawn in via guilt by vocabulary (he said, repeating himself).

Thoughts, anyone?

2008-04-15T10:35:00.007-04:00

Be Thou my Shield and hiding Place,
That, sheltered by Thy side,
I may my fierce accuser face,
And tell him Thou hast died!

— John Newton

This was in the news

2008-03-28T09:44:00.009-04:00

Go read this. Just to whet your appetite, here's the ending. But to see what he's saying, read the whole thing.

Where anything other than Christ is preached, there is no truth, and there is no freedom. There may be shouts of affirmation or silently nodding heads in response, there may be left-wing politics or right-wing politics, there may be culturally liberal psychotherapy or culturally conservative psychotherapy, but there's nothing but judgment in the air.

Then come back here and comment.

Instant classic on our state before God

2008-01-22T11:48:00.007-05:00

Pyromaniacs: In What Sense Is Depravity Total?

Words of warning from a liberal theologian

2008-01-16T22:00:00.008-05:00

This quote comes from someone you don't want to be associated with, one of the proponents of “post-liberal” theology. Here he is offering a critique of the way modern Evangelicals think about the Cross of Christ. I have inserted some expanatory notes in [brackets].

Our increasingly feel-good therapeutic culture is antithetical to talk of the Cross, and our consumerist society has made the doctrine a pariah. A more puzzling feature of this development as it has affected professedly confessional churches is the silence that has surrounded it. There have been few audible protests. Even most contemporary theologies of the Cross fit the pattern of Jesus as model. But justification itself is rarely described in accordance with the Reformation pattern, even by conservative Evangelicals. Most of them are conversionists holding to Arminian versions of the ordo salutis [the order of events in the salvation of an individual], which are further removed from Reformation theology than was the [Roman Catholic] Council of Trent. Therefore, where the Cross once stood is now a vacuum.
— George Lindbeck

About the Council of Trent: Follow the link, then look at the Canons (laws) that follow the heading “ON JUSTIFICATION” about two-thirds of the way down, starting between the markers [Page 44] and [Page 45]. Pay special attention to Canons IX, XI, XII, XXIV, and XXV (that's 9, 11, 12, 24, and 25 in English). If you agree with what these canons say, go make your confession to a priest, because you are already functioning as a Roman Catholic.

Leadership and decisions

2008-01-11T14:29:00.007-05:00

Okay here's a quote that's too long to be one of my email signatures. Enjoy and comment:

Our polity, that is, how we structure making decisions, whose authority we recognize, reflects our theology. If you have a higher view, a deeper view, of the falleness of man, you will tend to want more diffusion of authority. You will not trust authority being so concentrated in the hands of a sinner, regardless of whose parents that sinner may be, or how rich or educated that sinner may be. On the other hand, if you tend to have a lower view of the depravity, don't think the fall affected mankind that badly, think people are basically kind of good, you'll probably feel more more comfortable with power being more concentrated in peoples' hands, believing that they can do better. You see this in politics; you also see it in the Church.
— Mark Dever

Meat vs milk

2008-01-09T23:24:00.011-05:00

A friend sent an email to several folks wondering whether it's more important to live a particular way or to learn doctrine. (It was a bit more involved than that, but I don't want to quote the entire thing, and I think you'll get the drift anyway.) Bits where you see “quotes” around the text are where I am quoting his phrasing. Let me know what you think.

I'm finally getting around to replying to your email from September. I'm truly sorry for the delay. Here're some random thought about what you wrote, guaranteed to be out of order. BTW, for those of us who still check your blog every day (!), this would have been good fodder in that trough.
The degree to which I consider the Gospel to be good news is directly proportional to my perception that I am a sinner justly condemned by a holy God.
The notion that what Jesus focused on was “loving others and changing lives” seems odd when you read more of the Sermon on the Mount than the Beatitudes. The most frightening words in the whole New Testament are in Matthew 7. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, Jesus said most of the hard stuff, and Paul said most of the comforting stuff. Somehow we've gotten it backwards ...
The notion that the Gospels and the Epistles can or should be set in opposition to each other is hard to believe when you read all of either.
Setting “changed lives” above “knowledge” really means the Law (usually a weakened, non-crushing version of the Law) has become more important than the Gospel of free forgiveness. Setting “knowledge” above “changed lives” is just making an excuse for being puffed up (at best) or neo-gnosticism (at worst).
The problem with the preaching of justification isn't that it is done too much (vis-a-vis life-changing), it's that it's done badly. “Life-changing” messages just give me something to do, and all too frequently, they tell me it is actually possible to do it. Everything God requires of us is impossible for us to accomplish.
When we do accomplish something good, it's like this story (which is told by the son as true): There was a father who did all his own work on his car, and never took it to the shop. Mike, his son, was a klutz. But the dad loved Mike, and once when the dad was just finishing up, he called Mike over. The wrench was already sitting on the nut, and the dad told him, “Turn that wrench a quarter turn clockwise.” The son did so, then they packed up the tools and went inside, where the dad told the mom, “Mike fixed the car.”
I wonder what proportion of Christ's teaching was actually about “love and forgiveness”. Has anyone actually compiled the real data on this? Surely John 6, for example, leans toward doctrine rather than practice.
In the end, both the “meaters” (doctrine) and the “milkers” (love and forgiveness) have the wrong goal: They are both trying to pick and choose from the Bible what they're interested in rather than learning from the Scriptures (the “apostles' teaching” from Acts 2:42) what is there, in the proportion it is there, and in the order it is there. (BTW, trying to achieve “balance”, whatever the heck that is, is another way of picking and choosing. Working through the Bible passage by passage is the only way I know of to avoid hobby-horsing around.)
Finally (can you believe I'm gonna stop?), there are ways in which we can never be Christ-like. Here's a partial list, all obvious things, but when we talk about being Christ-like we must never forget them.
We are not the creators of the universe.
We do not have as our mission dying for the sins of the world.
We are not sinless. If we are honest, we are the exact opposite. (Added March 28, 2008) In fact, we are the exact opposite even if we aren't honest.

Welcome!

2008-01-09T00:00:00.010-05:00

This blog is named after a silly sign my (unidentified) employer has installed. (Photography is not allowed in the facility, so the image you see in the header is a mock up, not a photograph. Rats.) The wording so ridiculous because without knowing the context it is impossible to tell what it means.

Are hand held devices ever allowed?
Are hands free devices allowed when not driving?
Is any non-driving activity ever allowed?

These questions — and this sign — have no real bearing on this blog. This is not, for example, a Dilbertesque blog of the foolishness of corporate America. (We have newspapers for that.)

What I intend to do here is post some (short) things I have written and open them up for comment to friends and other interested parties. I will also (probably weekly) post a quote from someone for open comment. All are welcome, though I will read comments and delete any with inappropriate content.

Oh, I almost forgot: If I'm not talking about corporate foolishness, what is the subject? Most anything in Christianity — theology, practice, foibles and kudos — will eventually be included if the Lord tarries. But I'm not in any hurry to cover everything. Once in a while, I may talk about politics, but I don't plan for it to be often.