2009-02-04

Turk points out that when Paul uses the term, 'true child in a common faith', he is signaling that Titus is like him, that he shares in the same work and the same faith and the same hope. He points out that servants who work by the command of another don't have the right to think much of themselves, but rather a responsibility to a higher authority. If you are a "the true child of the faith" of a "servant" "by the command of God", you probably have an obligation to do God's work in the way God demands it be done. So too, the laity should allow pastors to obey the rules for them, and not demand more of them. Requires of Him

Hays has some interesting comments on the latest sex scandal in the Roman Catholic church, involving the late Marcial Maciel. Of note: 1) John-Paul II was very pious by Catholic standards. He wasn’t like the Borgia popes. He wasn’t worldly. He wasn’t a nominal believer. It appears he was complicit; acting as a shield. What does it say about Catholic spirituality when intense piety and moral blindness so easy cohabit? 2) Since accountability is a one way street, pope-down, there is no one to watch the watcher. It acts like a classic cult. 3) Catholic laymen are the enablers. They write the checks which their decadent clergymen cash. It’s a self-perpetuating scam. They go back to the same corrupt institution, like those who return to a fallen faith-healer to demonstrate their faith. 4) If the true sacraments are found in the Catholic church, shouldn't we expect a more saintly behaviour? The Boys Club

Summer White has an interesting post on an experience at college, where people were to shout out what came to mind for Democrat and Republican: "What we came up with for Republicans is, and I quote, “Truck-driving, confederate flag waving, racist, sexist backwoods hicks.” The cherry on top is that they are also homophobes who support the death penalty, but not abortion!" 1) Somehow these sort think there is hypocrisy in opposing abortion, while supporting the death penalty for certain crimes. 2) The myth that abortions increase during Republican administrations is constantly perpetuated, even when Planned Parenthood credits them with lowering abortion rates [I think this absurd myth is also employed by Christians who want to vote democrat while trying to appease their conscience regarding baby-murder, as I have seen it used this way]. And Then I Got Punched in the Worldview

Here's a parable from Phillips on presuppositions in assessing creation. Of note, he shows the folly of the 'why would God deceive us?' argument, by pointing out that God didn't deceive anyone if He created the world when He said He did, even if you think that it looks differently, since He told you when He did it. Science, the Bible, and Presuppositions- a parable

Turk: Apparently the women who spear-headed gay marriage in Massachusetts are getting a divorce. That's right: now they really do have a marriage exactly like heterosexual marriage. It's nice to know that they didn't really mean "'til death do us part", but only "until we get tired of all that other stuff." and that's a wrap

Obama has apparently capitulated on the "Buy American" thing after threats by the EU. Change we can believe in

Kauflin comments on the Memo to Worship Bands article, which advocates that worship bands turn down the volume, for various reasons. He offers some scenarios where it is better to have louder or quieter music from the band, and this point is worth noting: "the sound of the musicians shouldn’t consistently dominate or overpower the congregation. In the New Testament the predominant sound  when the church gathers is the singing of the congregation (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). They constitute the real worship team." How Loud the Worship Team-

Kurschner at aomin responds to a critic of White's debate - mind you, the critic admits up front that he hasn't even listened to the debate - based on KJVO presuppositions. 1) in the mind of KJVO advocates is the deep-seated rational conviction: "This is the way that God must have preserved his Word.” Notice that this is not a Biblical, historical, or textual argument—it is a rational argument. Ironically, they charge modern textual critics of using "rational principles" (as if this was bad, and as if they didn't hold a rational principle as a foundation!). 2) the critic would agree wholeheartedly with the agnostic, skeptic Bart Ehrman who both agree together that there cannot be any inspired, preserved text if there exists variants in a text. 3) White and Ehrman have the same textual facts in front of them (as does Brandenburg) but they explicitly argue differently to reach their respective conclusions. 4) White debated to show Ehrman's presuppositions, so the charge of a purist evidential approach is unfounded. 5) Brandenburg’s deep commitment to his King James Onlyism requires him to reject discourse on the historical and textual evidence of the manuscript tradition. Kent Brandenburg's Myopic King James Onlyism

Dever's third message on evangelism is available. Here's the outline: 1. Two things we pastors must teach on evangelism. a) We need to understand the congregation’s responsibility for evangelism; Pastors should teach the history of God’s displaying himself through a people; 2. Two things on evangelism we pastors must lead our congregations in. a) Pastors should lead in equipping a congregation in evangelism; b) You want to lead your church in evangelizing congregationally. One interesting comment: "We deliberately keep our church calendar stripped down so we don’t clog our people with responsibilities with the church. We want to encourage people to live the Christian life individually with their families, with their Christian friends, and with their non-Christian friends."  http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByConference/43/3574_The_Church_and_Evangelism/

Genderblog comments on an article by Kathryn Joyce on the True Women '08 Conference published by a generally hostile news service. Joyce calls complementarianism the 'patriarchy movement', saying that while "laughingly retrograde" it might seem, it isn't to be taken lightly, and it is quite countercultural. "Her argument, however, is not as accurate when understood in light of church history: feminism, relatively speaking, is a newly minted movement, with its roots reaching back to 1960s America. Biblical womanhood has a much older pedigree, with roots in holy Scripture and more than 2,000 years of church history. Considered in light of history and biblical truth, feminism is actually the counterculture or "contrarian" movement. Popularity makes an ideology neither normative nor true." Is Biblical Womanhood a Revolutionary Movement-

Genderblog responds to accusations against complementarianism by a self-identifying complementarian, Dr. Koessler. He says that complementarianism stifles the 'feminine perspective', and apparently indicates that they think the highest calling of a woman is to be wife and mother. This article responds, "a woman's highest calling is to glorify God in her womanhood by faithfully relying on all that He is for her in Jesus Christ and devoting herself to him in wise, strong, courageous, joyful, life-nurturing femininity." It also takes issue with a partitive view of the image of God in man: "if men and women each bore the image of God incompletely, then Jesus Christ as a man, would only bear a part of the image of God. But the Scriptures declare he bears the image of God, not in part, but fully (John 14:9, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:19)." Will the Real Complementarianism Please Stand Up

Challies endorses the book Get Outta My Face, which offers a realistic view of teens and solutions that work, where "the ultimate goal, of course, is to lead a teen to the cross, either for the first time or for a growing, deepening understanding of Christ's work." Get Outta My Face!