2008 August archive at Zeal For Truth

« Older

Loading Newer »

Less

Excerpts Headlines Full Length

Archive for August, 2008

Links: McCain May Be Smarter Than He Looks, Pelosi is An Idiot

Published by Colin August 29, 2008 in Current Events. 6 Comments

Beijing’s Bad Faith Olympics:

To win the right to host these Games, China promised to honor the Olympic ideals of nonviolence, openness to the world and individual expression. Those promises were systematically broken, starting with this spring’s brutal repression in Tibet and continuing on to the ugly farce of inviting its citizens to apply for legal protest permits and then arresting them if they actually tried to do so.

Along the way, government critics were pre-emptively rounded up and jailed, domestic news outlets tightly controlled, foreign journalists denied full access to the Internet and thousands of Beijing’s least telegenic residents were evicted from their homes and out of camera range. On Friday, the Chinese police confirmed that six Americans protesting China’s rule in Tibet had been sentenced to 10 days of detention.

Surely one of the signature events of these Games was the sentencing of two women in their late 70s to “re-education through labor.” Their crime? Applying for permission to protest the inadequate compensation they felt they had received when the government seized their homes years ago for urban redevelopment.

A year ago, the I.O.C. predicted that these Games would be “a force for good” and a spur to human-rights progress. Instead, as Human Rights Watch has reported, they became a catalyst for intensified human-rights abuse.

McCain picks Sarah Palin for VP. More on why I think the pick is gold on Monday.

Nancy Pelosi is an idiot.

The ReDistricting Game

N Korea ‘develops special noodle’

“Health-care workers should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience.”

Russia is claiming that the US was involved in Georgia to benefit a presidential candidate

The Basic Economics of Grace

Published by Colin August 28, 2008 in Religion. 6 Comments

In church in Sunday, we went through this passage in Luke:

Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple (Luke 14: 25-33).

The speaker made an excellent point about the nature of grace. While Grace is a free gift, it is most certainly not cheap or without value. Before we accept the free gift of grace, we should also be willing to count the cost of following Jesus - which includes submitting our possessions, relationships and even our very life.

This point meant a lot to me, especially being versed in economic principles. Indeed, grace can be thought of in basic economic terms.

In a free market, the price of something (which is how we assess it’s value) is determined by the subjective preference orders of both buyers and sellers. The price of a quart of milk, for example, is not “set” by the grocery store. Rather the price is a meeting place somewhere within a relative spectrum between the minimum value the seller can bear to let it go and the maximum cost that the buyer will pay for it. The price, or value, is finally determined by where those two opposing forces can come to an agreement.

But the value of grace has been set objectively by God because, unlike milk at a grocery store, there is no exchange taking place. Since grace is unmerited - we do not give anything to obtain it - then God actually can “set” the price.

While it cost God a great deal, he has chosen to set the price at zero. But since we are hardwired to determine value subjectively, a free gift to us is likely to be undervalued. It really should not surprise us that grace has a propensity to be trampled and abused as though it was a worthless thing - we believe that the price was free - therefore, grace seems cheap.

Moreover, while the gift itself is free - accepting the gift will lead to opportunity cost. This makes following Christ even more difficult, as we can see the costs immediately (possessions, relationships, life) but the profit is still to come in the eternal.

In other words, while we need not give anything in exchange for grace - accepting it is going to bring about changes and costs. If someone were given a free house, they will still have to deal with consequences to owning that house - even though it cost them nothing to obtain it.

This is why we must not present the gospel in a manner that cheapens grace. We must not be like scam-artist salesmen and fraudulently disguise following Jesus as a life-enhancement opportunity. We need to accurately explain where the profit is, and what the costs are upfront. It is no surprise that so many who claim to accept grace soon fall away after confronting the costs - they thought they were getting something cheap.

Donald Miller’s Prayer at the DNC

Published by Kenneth Martens August 26, 2008 in Religion, Politics and Current Events. 15 Comments

Yesterday (August 25, 2008) Christian writer Donald Miller (author of Blue Like Jazz) said a prayer at the Democratic National Convention. His website has the transcript:

Father God,

This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.

We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.

We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.

Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.

Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.

Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.

Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.

Hep us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.

Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.

We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.

Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world.

A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.

Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world.

Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.

Lastly, father, unify us.

Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.

And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.

God we know that you are good.

Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.

I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.

Let Him be our example.

Amen.

“Heart of the average American”
Now, I disagree with a lot of what Miller said in that prayer (e.g., the presumption that teachers are underpaid, and the idea that government is responsible for providing healthcare to all) but those are political disagreements. Setting aside my political principles, the first statement in Miller’s prayer that bothers me is this: “Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world. A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.”

The heart of the average American is wicked and sinful, just like the heart of the average Indian or the average German or the average human being. I don’t know much about Miller’s theological convictions, but if America’s moral standing in this world is based upon the “heart of the average American” then the whole world is in trouble.

“Against the forces of injustice”
The second statement that bothers me almost escaped my attention. It is this: “I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice. Let Him be our example.” Actually, Jesus gave his life not to combat injustice, but to satisfy justice. It is Jesus Christ who sacrificed his life to pay the penalty for my sins and yours, in order that God’s wrath might be satisfied and a pardon extended.

A Brief Post on Giving

Published by Colin August 25, 2008 in Religion. 15 Comments

In any church one of the important areas where leadership and members need agreement is giving and financial management. My wife and I have recently started attending a new church, and in conversing on this subject with one of the pastors, I thought it might be nice to summarize my own views on giving (if just for my own personal organisation).

First of all, I do not believe in a tithe requirement for Christians. There is really no correlation between Old Testament (even pre-law) tithing and modern Christians giving 10% of their gross income to a local church establishment. Even without getting into the more complicated arguments for and against, it should be blatantly obvious that there really is not a cut and dried comparison here.

What I would argue, is that Christians are to give in the exact and literal way that the bible ordains:

without compulsion at all - either form a rule, expectation or judgement
from an open-heart - that is by free-will (2 Cor 9:5)
based on cost, not value (2 Cor 8:2)
without causing financial burden or incurring debt (2 Cor 8:12)
So as not to become a burden to others (Gal 6:5)

Two Examples of Methods
The church we are now attending passes a basket around. The church we formerly attending kept a box at the side of the church. I can see advantages and disadvantages in both methods.

In passing a basket around, giving is encouraged as a corporate act of worship unto God. It provides an opportunity for teaching the assembly about giving and then providing an opportunity to practice this essential element of Christianity. However, it could also be considered a more “compulsory” method, as the giving is done a little more publicly. I also think there is a temptation for both sinful pride and recognition by those who give and sinful judgement and pride towards those who do not give in this manner.

With the box off to the side, then the giving is removed from the public eye. The feelings of compulsion are removed and temptations of judgement and pride are reduced. However, the worship element is also minimized - and giving can become like just another bill. Moreover, there is also the possibly that such a minimal attitude towards giving forsakes discipling the members towards a healthy attitude of giving.

Who Should Know?
Christians should realize that there is no gift that is anonymous from God. But who in the church should know the giving? Again, I am quite torn on this issue.

On the one hand, there is a strong message in Matthew 6 that giving should be done in anonymity towards men. At the same time, giving is an area where pastors should be able to disciple the flock.Thirdly, modern tax codes and exemptions for both churches and individuals greatly incentivise keeping records of who gave what and for what purpose. I believe that I favour the anonymity approach, but I can see how it might be a pragmatic compromise to keep records.

Links: Election, Religion and Rosie

Published by Colin August 22, 2008 in General. 56 Comments

The Matthew 25 Network endorses Obama. (Video)

Rick Warren hosts McCain and Obama.

Who will rid us of this meddlesome priest?

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power

Dallas lowers grading standards - & responsibility

Al-Qa’eda in Iraq alienated by cucumber laws and brutality

Will this finally placate Rosie?

Putting The Church First

Published by Bryan August 20, 2008 in Religion, Philosophy and Theology. 12 Comments

The Archbishop of Canterbury is in a very odd situation.

To briefly explain for those who will not read the linked to article, before Rowan Williams was the Archbishop of Canterbury he held to the position that it is wrong to condemn homosexual relationships. In fact, in personal letters that have come to light he says that a consensual loving homosexual relationship may not be against scripture. This is in opposition to official Anglican Church teaching, and is at odds with the public position he has taken recently as Archbishop (As has been pointed out by his defenders). This therefore puts the Archbishop in a position where he is publicly defending the churches teaching, yet in all likelihood, privately disagrees with it. The liberals believe he has betrayed their cause, the conservatives don’t believe he can be trusted. Both of those positions opposing him seem to be quite clear, but what of those bishops who are defending him?

Is there anyway that the Archbishop positions in this matter can be reconciled? I think they can, if it is recognized that he is putting the churches understanding of scripture above his own understanding of scripture. I do not doubt that Rowan Williams understands scripture not to condemn loving homosexual relationship, but he recognizes that this understanding is out of sync with the historic Christian understanding. Taking his position as Archbishop seriously he has recognized that he must protect the churches understanding above his own. Rowan Williams has separated what he believes as a theologian from what he practises as a church leader. Is this however valid?

I must first applaud Rowan Williams’ commitment to the church and his office. Putting weight in how the church understands scripture is something that needs to be encouraged among Christians today. Today’s Christians are individualistic. They have no time for traditional understandings, or abiding by decisions made outside of their control. The Archbishop’s willingness to abide by the churches understanding is refreshing. Scripture is the book of the church, not of the lone wolf.

I of course disagree with the Archbishop’s personal understanding of the topic of homosexuality, yet I would rather have him admit what he does believe then cover it up.

I have often asked myself what I would do if I was put in a similar situation as the Archbishop; one where I come to, after much study, an understanding of scripture that is different then what the church teaches. I have faced this decision on a local church level, having reached conclusions on the sacraments that were incompatible with the church I was a member of, but a question such as homosexuality is a bigger question. What if I was to, no matter how much I wanted to agree, disagree with the historic church on a question such as the Trinity, the nature of Christ, or justification?

I have said many times before to friends that a person cannot go against what they believe is right. That is, I cannot simply stop believing something if I am convinced it is true. I can however subject myself to follow an authority that I disagree with if I believe following that authority is more important then my personal beliefs. This may sound strange in a modern world where freedom is placed as the most important goal, but in a world view where community and tradition is put above freedom holding to such a position would not be unnatural.

In the perfect world my understanding of scripture (as well as everyone else’s including the Archbishop’s) would match up with what the church has historically taught. It doesn’t. I therefore have to decide on each individual issue if I think my understanding is so much more important then my commitment to the church, and if the issue in question is worth going against the churches teaching over. I also have to decide what the church has historically understood (which is a huge task in and of itself). This, or something similar is the position the Archbishop is in, and it seems that he has chosen the church on this particular issue..

Now I would much prefer the Archbishop to actually be convinced homosexuality is sinful, and by the Spirit’s working I hope that one day to happen. I also think it is important for the leader of the church to actually believe what the church teaches. However, with the situation being what it is, I am happy that the liberal who is Archbishop does take the church seriously since there are many liberals and conservatives who do not.

On Lowering the Drinking Age

Published by Colin August 19, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 26 Comments

CNN just published a story on how around 100 college presidents have signed on to a new organization that seeks to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. The Amethyst Initiative is arguing that drinking on college campuses has become unsafe and irresponsible due, at least in part, to the higher drinking age. They specifically believe that problems associated with binge drinking will diminish if the age is reduced.

Personally, I have gone my whole life without drinking any alcoholic drink ever. But I can see the point made by these presidents. Prohibiting drinking under the age of 21 is going to create the same problem with this group that other groups have with prohibitions on other non-criminal personal behaviour. For example, if you are 22, and get alcohol poisoning - you can go to the hospital, get treatment and survive without facing any consequences than those natural to the choice you’ve made. But if you are 19, you are less likely to get help, because rather than get treatment, you are more likely to get fined and possibly jailed. The legal structure is actually incentivising bad behaviour in young people.

In Europe, where drinking ages are lower, and even those laws in place are generally not enforced, there is a comparably smaller problem with drinking. Parents are allowed to teach their kids responsible drinking habits. Young people who develop problems are treated without fear of prosecution. Those voluntary systems such as churches, families and community programs are allowed to flourish and help people who have problems.

As Christians we should view things like alcoholism, underage drinking and drug use as diseases and sicknessess which occur when people make poor choices. The most effective way to prevent poor choices is by education - teaching wisdom and good judgement so that freedom is used responsibly.

Attempting to shelter youths from drinking by laws, fines, prosecution and jail is only causing social problems and real crime (aggression against persons and property) to flourish.

Paganism in Mainstream Christianity: Divination of Feelings

Published by Colin August 18, 2008 in General and Religion. 16 Comments

Until I read Decision Making and the Will of God, I would have never considered a significant aspect of my faith to be rooted in paganism. Yet, upon understanding the nature of God’s will and how it applies to my life, I can see how grave an error I was making, and that my walk was significantly neutered.

Divination is a major problem in Christianity among fundamentalist, bible-believing Christians. It is the practice of using normal and explainable objects, phenomena, circumstances and occurrences to understand and interpret the will of the gods (or in Christianity’s case - God).

Take, for example, this “method” for determining “God’s will in your life:”

…listen to that still small voice inside of you. The burden of the call upon your life will outweigh your ambitions which you have established. If the Lord wants you to do a specific work for Him, He will give you a burden for that work. Your heart will keep drawing you to that specific task or work. As the day draws closer for you to accomplish and know God’s will for your life, your burden will become heavier to accomplish it. If you run away from God’s will, you will always go back because the burden will not go away. The burden also has love attached. And, of course, when we pray for His will to be made known in our lives, He will tell us. As Psalm 143:10 says, “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground.”

In other words, we are to use our feelings and impression to divine the will of God. But scripture warns us against this:

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9 NKJ)

With a pagan world-view, it is much easier to see this error. If someone said that they believed the trees were speaking to them to not cut them down - they just felt a burden for the trees so strongly - we would accurately determine that such a person was insane. But if Christians substitute “God” (and that adds a lot of weight) then they can say something similar, such as, “I just feel led to be a pastor - I think God is telling me this is His will for my life.”

This problem has been minimized in individuals who actually read their bibles, and can see that there are clear biblical guidelines to determine these things. Again, using the example, if their “calling” to be a pastor is realized after meeting qualifications for that position in the Word, then the error is harmless (though it is still wrong). But an immature Christian, who might have less knowledge and wisdom regarding the Word, might very well miss the fact that he does not biblically qualified for his “calling” and just run on what his “burden of the call” is saying.

I personally, do not believe that God “calls” Christian in this way. I view things much more plainly - God has provided men with a very clear set of principles for living in the bible which must be taken literally and at face value. He has also given men the freedom to make godly choices within those parameters, including how to chose whether a ministry role is correct.

If I would like to go to Kenya to share the gospel, I need not wait until I have a “burden” overwhelming me, gradually getting stronger and stronger to go. Rather, I need to check my desires against what the bible commands, and if it is correct, to go with it. It is never wrong for a mature Christian to preach the gospel. God is not ever going to disprove of his commands being obeyed. In fact, I would argue that the “sacrifice” of waiting on one’s feelings of a calling, is a much more likely offence to God. Instead, we should be quick to obey.

Christians should beware the kind of cavalier mysticism that is currently being embraced as determining God’s will.

Links: Obama, War, and Giant Chicken Eggs

Published by Jasen Tracy August 15, 2008 in Current Events. 10 Comments

Obama:

Obama, the postmodernist. “In the Illinois senator’s world, words have no fixed meaning, and truth is often just a matter of perspective.”

The 2004 “God Factor” interview transcript with Barack Obama. [link]

OBAMA: I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

OBAMA: I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

OBAMA: When I’m talking to a group and I’m saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I’m just being glib or clever.

GG: What’s that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?

OBAMA: Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.

GG: Who’s Jesus to you?

OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

OBAMA: There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell. … I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

GG: What is sin?

OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

GG: What happens if you have sin in your life?

OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

GG: What are you doing when you feel the most centered, the most aligned spiritually?

OBAMA: I think I already described it. It’s when I’m being true to myself.

More Politics:

G.O.P. Drops in Voting Rolls in Many States

Over the same period, the share of the electorate that registers as independent has grown at a faster rate than Republicans or Democrats in 12 states. The rise has been so significant that in states like Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina, nonpartisan voters essentially constitute a third party.

…

In the 26 states and the District of Columbia where registration data were available, the total number of registered Democrats increased by 214,656, while the number of Republicans fell by 1,407,971.

Why The Georgian Conflict Should Go Down In History

Other:

A Cuban chicken lays a giant egg. Yes, this is newsworthy.

Archbishop of Canterbury compares gay relationships to marriage

Study Debunks Web Predator Myths

Travelers’ laptops may be detained at border

Ask ZFT: Sermon-stealing

Published by Kenneth Martens August 13, 2008 in Religion. 11 Comments

Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds recently pointed me to Andy Naselli’s blog entry about Using and Abusing Sermons. I’m going to quote the relevant post, and then open it up to the Zeal for Truth readers to respond to the question: is it appropriate for a preacher to reuse another person’s sermon?

At the annual pastor’s colloquium for The Gospel Coalition last May, the pastors discussed future enhancements on TGC website. When discussing the new database of resources, John Piper strongly suggested that a note be added against sermon-stealing, something he “abominates.” Everyone seemed to agree. Here’s the note that is currently on the bottom of the resources page:

A NOTE ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF SERMONS

The instant availability of thousands of expository sermons and addresses prompts us to reflect a little on how they should not be used, and how they should be used.

To take the latter first: many of our Council members avidly read the sermons of others, or, increasingly commonly, listen to them while they are driving or walking or jogging. Good preaching not only opens up texts, but helps us learn how others tackle the challenge of structure, apply Scripture to their particular congregations, relate their texts to the central themes of God and the gospel, and much more. We soon sense their urgency and God-given unction. We are sent back to the study and to our knees to become better workers who do not need to be ashamed of the way we handle the word of truth.

The bad way to listen to the sermons of others is to select one such sermon on the topic or passage you have chosen and then simply steal it, passing it off as if it is your own work. This is, quite frankly, theft, and thieves, Paul tells us, will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:10). Yet in some ways that is not the most serious aspect of this form of plagiarism. Rather, it is the deep damage you are doing to yourself and others by not studying the Bible for yourself. Ministers of the gospel are supported by their congregations so they will give themselves to the ministry of the Word and prayer. That demands rigorous study. A faithful minister of the gospel is never merely a biological tape recorder or CD, thoughtlessly parroting what someone else learned, thought through, prayed over, and recorded. Indulge in this exercise and before long you will starve your own soul—and, no matter how good the sermons you steal, your ministry will sooner or later, and deservedly, become sterile, for the stamp of inauthenticity will be all over you.

One helpful suggestion: Listen to many sermons, not just one or two. You will be far less likely to steal, and far more likely to be stimulated and helped, if you listen to five or ten sermons than if you listen to one.

So what do you think? Is “sermon-stealing” an abomination that preachers should avoid?

Zeal For Truth