Merry Day After Christmas!

What's that?  Did I just hear a thousand splutters at reading the title of this post (okay, okay, after not posting for a little over 11 months, it's probably closer to 2 or 3 splutters, if that)?  Certainly, there must be some kind of mistake here.  After all, what kind of Christian wishes people a Merry DAY AFTER Christmas rather than a Merry Christmas?  I mean (and here I am speaking for my imaginary reader of this post rather than for myself), isn't Christmas the holy, special, and/or important day?  Thus, at the risk of alienating readers that still might be lurking, I present a few reasons why today shouldn't be any less merrier than yesterday:
1) Everybody, sing along:
This is the day this is the day...
That the Lord has made that the Lord has made...
We will rejoice we wil rejoice...
And be glad in it.   and be glad in it.
(Together) This is the day that the Lord has made....

Huh, wuzzat?  You say that's a verse in the bible?  Well, just who do those biblical writers think they are- taking a perfectly good song and trying to turn it into one of them there psalm thingies?  But anyway, this is the day that Lord hath made.  That's not to say that yesterday wasn't also the day that the Lord haddeth madeth, but that today is no less a day that He hath made than yesterday.  And therefore we should equally be glad and rejoice in it.  In a similar vein, we Christians are commanded to "rejoice evermore" and to "pray without ceasing" (as far as I know, neither of these phrases are featured in any current Christian songs, so I suppose I have no objections to the biblical writers using them), which would seem to include days other than just those that are holy, special, or otherwise important.
2) But, I can imagine some people complaining, how can I rejoice when I didn't receive [insert desired item(s) here] for Christmas?  To which I respond, I didn't receive even one gift due to financial difficulties (a situation for which a remedy might be found in the near future, but that's neither here nor there at the moment).  Let me restate that: I didn't receive any material presents, yet I did get (or at least continued to get) some far better ones.  Such as the gift of another day of life, without which any material gift that I might have received would be worthless to me.  Furthermore, I remained in God's grace, a gift to cherish long after I would any material gift.
3) Then there's that whole question about whether Jesus was really born on December 25.  Not that I'm going to go all legalistic over those who celebrate Christmas.  However, there is no biblical mandate to treat it as a more holy, special, or otherwise important day than any other.

So have yourself a Merry Little Day After Christmas [*spoiler alert*]... and a Happy New Year!

National "Adopt an Unvisited Post" Day

[Update: The greyed (or at least light-blued) out links have been visited already . But feel free to visit them anyway.  The more visits they get, the happier they'll be).
Alone they sit there: undesired, unwanted, unvisited. Hearest not thou their forlorn cries, dear reader? Havest not thou, in thine heart\ of hearts, a speck of compassion? Failest not, kind sir or kind ma'am, to spareth but a few seconds of thine time to makest one- or more!- of them feel loved. And what a fine selection we havest for thou to chooseth from:

 Deof Movestofca's Grand Web Tour #1: 20 links in 56 days No idea why this received no views when the Grand Web Tour #2 has received 7 when they're basically the only difference between the two is the links "toured". Why not check both out?

Apparel to avoid when teaching children about colors:This could confuse them (this is one of those jokes many people might not understand right away).

Man's problem: How the Bible answers our most important question- why we suffer, Theological problems with "God's Problems", Philosophical problems with "God's Problem", Bart Erhman's odd Job Let's just say I have a few disagreements with Mr. Ehrman

Six Signs that Your Depiction of Fundamentalists Relies More on Media Stereotypes than Historical Research That my response to "Ten Signs That You Might Be a Fundamentalist" has been removed seems to be one sign that some prefer to perpetuate the stereotypes to informing people what Fundamentalism originally stood for, Those who are confused about the two should check out this following link:

Who wants to be (able to identify) a Fundamentalist? It's like a game show you can play anywhere!

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary: "Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man -- who has no gills." Just think of all that extra space we would have to live if we got rid of all that excess water. We might not have plate tectonics, which could make the planet uninhabitable, but we'd have a lot more living room (or at least room to live).

Ministry success: it's not about "our" success, it's about God's (Pen & Parchment, Parts 1 + 2) I would say that any ministry that simply presents the Gospel faithfully and accurately is already a success.

Venom: Whiniest. Supervillain. EVER! Blaming someone for exposing your false accusation of murder against an innocent person only makes you sound petty. Speaking of which...

You see you don't have to live like a pharisee...* I'm trying not to be a pharisee here (or Petty, Tom)..

Greed and envy: two sides of the same coin Unfortunately, they both keep returning like a bad penny.

Ascension-uating the positive With a pun that bad, it's got to be good!

The art of Revelations It's quite a revelation.

Seeing a way off the ship of death All ashore that's going ashore.

Feeling list-less? Here's 10 ways pastors fail their people I highly recommend Joe McKeever's blog to anyone who hasn't read it yet (as well as to anyone who has, too).

Web of Trust and the new censorship If you don't like a particular website's views, simply hope enough people give it a low rating so that it'll scare people away from it.

Saying "bah, humbug" to those who claim there's a "war on Christmas" Honestly, don't we have more important things to worry about?

"Denial" isn't just a river in Egypt- it's part of a Christian's call If you're going to talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk (like an Egyptian?).

Shedding a little light with Christmas music... Sorry, I've used up my quota of witty and/or ironic comments after links for the month.

A couple that never lost that Loving feeling

Photos of the Loving Family from Grey Villet's 1965 Life Magazine Essay - NYTimes.com

In the spring of 1965, my husband, Grey Villet, was given a Life Magazine assignment to photograph the Lovings, an interracial married couple then embroiled in legal tangles after their arrest for miscegenation in Virginia. Grey did not concern himself with those entanglements. He chose, as he did in every essay we ever worked on together, to seek out the literal heart of the matter: a love story.

Tender Photos Unearthed from a Turbulent Time | Love + Sex - Yahoo! Shine

When Mildred and Richard Loving married in Washington, D.C. in 1958, they didn't think they were breaking the law. Both were from the small town of Central Point, Virginia. Mildred was of African-American and Native American decent and Richard was white. They did know it was illegal for them to marry in their state-as well as 15 others--which is why they left to tie the knot. Within a month of returning home, police burst into their bedroom in the middle of the night and arrested them under the state's anti-miscegenation law. They were sentenced to a one-year in prison term that could be suspended if they left Virginia.

The 100th post "Stats of the Blog" address

10 Ten posts
10 The linkage continues with Pastoral Musings (Dec 16, 2011)
7 Deof Movestofca's Grand Web Tour #2: 20 links in 2... (Jan 6, 2012)
7 Okay, I goofed- but it turned out to be even worse... (Nov 22, 2011)
7 Not crazy about theocracy (Sep 19, 2011)
6 An open letter to any rich Nigerians who may happe... (Sep 13, 2011)
6 Review: The History of the Higher Criticism (Sep 22, 2011)
6 Let's get this party started... (Sep 6, 2011)
6 An example of unnecesary criticism that isn't help... (Nov 26, 2011)
5 How sin sunk us into sickness (Dec 16, 2011)
5 Unreliable definitions of fundamentalism (Sep 11, 2011)
Other pages with 5 pageviews:

Of ancient texts and modern historiographical stan...

Who then is John Piper?: "Successful" preaching as...
 
Number of unvisited links:approximately 55-50
Number of comments: 7
Number of comments not authored by me: 5
Number of commented posts: 4

Top 5 Referring sites (not including those suspected of spam)
thepassivehabit.blogspot.com (24)
theologyweb.com (23)
thegospelcoalition.org (12)
pastoralmusings.com (9)
www.google.com (5)

Feeling list-less? Here's "10 Ways Churches Show That They Want You"

Joe McKeever: 10 Ways Churches Show That They Want You

You are given a warm, personal welcome.

1. They make everything clear in print, in sermon, and in announcements. (I Corinthians 14:8) The signage is clear and just right.
2. They have great rest rooms. (For some reason, I'm unable to find a good scripture for this!)
3. A few learn your name and call you by it. They show a genuine interest.
4. They invite you to other things. (Revelation 22:17).
5. They respect you, and do not push themselves on you. (Revelation 3:20)
6. They have greeters outside the front doors, not inside. (Psalm 84:10 You knew I was going to use that, didn't you?)
7. They give you an opportunity to respond, to ask questions, and to join. (Acts 8:36)
8. They contact you during the following week. (Acts 14 14:21-22 and 15:36).
9. They get back to you with the information you requested.

Nothing to add except my response:

Another problem (although probably covered by #'s 1 and/or 2, but not specifically mentioned) is churches that don't post the times of their worship services (or even a phone number so one can call to find out). I'm just wondering if they expect people who don't know this information should just hang around the church all morning until it opens.

The God that is not pursuing, nor in a journey, nor peradventure sleepeth and must be awakened

Stand to Reason Blog: One of These Gods Is Not Like the Others

Not all concepts of gods are equally likely (or unlikely), nor are they equally necessary. Is a rain god necessary to explain rainfall on any particular day? No. But is a creator God who, in a universe that had a beginning, brought everything (including the predictable laws of nature) into existence out of nothing necessary?  Now that is a completely different question.

This is one of those posts where my response is towards another comment rather than the post itself:

@ Josh: "If your religion is the correct one then your God is special because he is real."
You've got that backwards: If the God of the Bible is real, then our religion is the correct one. So you're just presenting a straw man here.
"But the idea that everything is one and everything is unified appeared in India before Christ, the whole concept of emptiness is a much better explanation of how things work."
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, what you mean by "the concept of emptiness", why you believe it is a "much better explanation of how things work" or how any of this connects with the origins of science or Christianity.
"Science is not as recent as some think."
Then feel free to, ahem, enlighten us.

Of debatable value?

The Great Debate: Does God Exist? | The Resurgence

In 1985 the University of California at Irvine hosted a public debate between philosopher Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein on the topic "Does God Exist?"....
Covenant Media Foundation has graciously given us permission to post the audio and transcript of the Great Debate. Take some time to listen to this audio or read the transcript for a great example of powerful Christian apologetics. It’s well worth it.

This debate somewhat helps illustrate why I'm not really a big admirer of the format: no matter how solid one side's arguments may seem to him or her, the other side often substitutes "I disagree" (although usually in more florid language) for refutation.  Often, both sides seem more interested in talking at each other than talking with each other.  Without an objective standard to weigh the strength of arguments, each side is free to consider himself or herself the winner.  Yet even though they rarely settle the matter decisively , I suppose they can still make interesting reading or listening.
I am curious to hear from anyone who has actually changed his or her beliefs, thoughts, opinions, or whatnot because of this or any  other similar debate, though.

Web of Trust and the new censorship

discovery.org | WOT Reputation Scorecard | WOT (Web of Trust)

discovery.org

Description:

Discovery Institute is a nonpartisan public policy think tank conducting research on technology, science and culture, economics and foreign affairs.

This is one of the many Christian sites that has received an "Unsatisfactory" or worse rating in at least one of the four categories- Trustworthiness, Vendor Reliability, Privacy, Child Safety- by Web of Trust (or WOT for short) users because they disagree with its views rather than  any alleged malicious material.  Since this means that anyone who has the add-on on their browser and tries to visit the site will be warned that it is a potentially dangerous site, such actions can best be described as attempted censorship and poisoning the well.  Evidently, there are those who prefer such tactics to an open exchange of ideas.
All this does in the long run, I would argue, is make the internet a less safe place by discouraging people from using an otherwise fine add-on or casting doubts about the integrity of its ratings in the minds of those who do use it.

A look at the dangers(?) of technology

your brain on technology « Don't Stop Believing

Over the last week I read some provocative books on digital technology.... Here are five things I’ve learned:

1. Texting has a proud and distinguished history....
2. The Internet is giving us Attention Deficit Disorder....
3. Google encourages distraction rather than reflection....
4. The Internet is destroying our memories.... 
5. The Internet never forgets.

 As I state in my reply, I'm not sure how much of this can be laid on technology and how much of it is the fault of the users (I also find it ironic that he's using technology to warn people of the dangers of technology):

1) The problem I have with the example here is that we don't have an alternate non-technological universe to make a comparison as to which is "better".  For all we know, it was the ability to hang up and text if the discussion became too emotional that lent her the courage to talk about whatever issue it was in the first place.
2-4) I think a bunch of this isn't the fault of technology per se, but how individuals choose to use technology.  Like you said, we could choose to read an entire book straight through.  I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that there are those people who still do so... and that many people who choose not to do so wouldn't regardless of the internet and other technologies.  On the contrary, one could argue that technology not only makes it easier to read a book (for those who choose to do so), but gives more options to more people as to how they do so (not just electronic book readers, but audio books as well).
5) I'm not quite sure what the point is here.  Our main reason for avoiding sin should be because it's wrong, not because other people might find out about it.  And we should be repentant whether they do or not anyway.

 His response:

One of the things that a lot of these books point out is that saying "its not the technology’s fault, its how you use it" is wrong. Technologies embody cultrual norms and values. The tools we use can change they world, yes, but they also change us. One example Dyer uses in his book is the shovel. We can move dirt with a shovel but in using a shovel everyday, we also develop stronger arms and calloused hands. The tool helps us change the world but the tool also changes us in the process. And this happens regardless of why you are digging the hole. In the same way, digital technologies can change our attention spans or our memory.

 And on it goes:

1) "Technologies embody cultrual norms and values."
Either I am completely misunderstanding what you mean here or this is completely false. Each individual is relatively free to use (or refuse to use) a particular technology as he or she deems fit.
2) "One example Dyer uses in his book is the shovel. We can move dirt with a shovel but in using a shovel everyday, we also develop stronger arms and calloused hands"
I have problems accepting the validity of this analogy. First, what is true about physical changes is not necessarily also true about mental and/or psychological changes. Second, the changes caused by the shovel are all (at least potentially) beneficial. Even the calluses, however painful they may be, may serve to toughen up the skin on the hand. Thus, it fails to show how a tool, when properly used, can lead to atrophy. Third, it ignores that there would likely be changes in the accomplishment of any task. I can just easily build muscle (and perhaps get calluses) walking instead of driving to the store as I can shoveling. And imagine attempting to dig the hole without using any tools. Fifth, even if mental and or psychological changes could be proven after the use of technology, this would not necessary show that technology caused the changes. It could be that those who are more susceptible to such changes are drawn to technology because of the ease it offers (or at least claims to offer). Therefore, it is impossible to say with any certainty whether they would have fallen victim to such changes whether technology existed or not. Finally, it fails to note that a jackhammer would cause even less physical changes, provided proper protection and precautions are observed Thus, one could argue that this illustrates that the problem isn’t technology itself, but technology that isn’t sufficiently advanced.
Note that my argument isn’t that technology is totally benign,
3) "One of the things that a lot of these books point out is that saying ‘its not the technology’s fault, its how you use it’ is wrong."
Unless the authors provide better proof of this in the books, this is just an argument from authority.
Note that I’m not I’m not claiming that technology is inherently safe, just that neither is it inherently dangerous,.. and that such dangers can be avoided by being properly prepared for them.

Is no Newts good Newts?

Don’t Be a Pastoral Newt | Ordinary Pastor

Well, sometimes we, well-meaning, burdened, conviction-having folks (particularly pastors) can begin to look and sound like a Pastoral Newt. We become defined by what and who we are against rather than who and what we are for. Instead of preaching Christ and Him Crucified it about us and then our opponents crucified.

Maybe it's just me, but that last sentence seems a bit awkward.  I'm guessing that Erik Raymond, the blog's author, meant to do one of two things:
1) put a comma after "Crucified" and a "becomes" after "it"; or,
2) put a comma after "Crucified" and change "it" (or even "it about", which would make the statement more parallel) to "we preach".
Either way, I suppose that failure to always achieve clarity is just one of the hazards of blog writing.

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to define one's self by what one is for without also defining one's self by what is against.  Case in point: the claim that one is for positiveness is at the same time a claim that one is against negativity.  Since truth, by its nature, is exclusive, then sometimes preaching for Christ and Him crucified will entail preaching against beliefs that deny this central teaching.  However, I agree that this should not be our focus. Furthermore, I think there a few other pitfalls we should avoid similar to this.  First, we need to differentiate between what scripture clearly teaches or condemns on one hand and those areas where biblical teaching is not quite as clear-cut and, therefore, Christians may legitimately disagree with one another.  Second, even where scripture is clear, I think that Christians can legitimately disagree on how biblical principles should be applied socially and legally.  Third, rather than demonizing the unrepentant, I believe our attitude towards them should reflect the hope that they do find salvation.

Israel, Palestine, and the old saying about how two wrongs don't make a right

Christians and Israel « Deeper

If you find yourself in disagreement with the author’s central claims, I urge you to still give the letter a read. Consider what they have to say. The majority of the letter is devoted to understanding 2 key ideas: first, God’s promise of the land to Abraham and his descendants, and who it applies to (here’s a hint: the Israelites were not Abraham’s only descendants); and second, the conditional nature of Israel’s possession of the land. They were to treat the people in the land, especially including aliens, the poor, and so on- with justice, or risk losing it altogether (which they did when God sent both kingdoms into exile- only hundreds of years later were they allowed to return and partially reoccupy the land).

Now if the equations were as simple as Israelis = bad guys and Palestinians = innocents (or, conversely, Palestinians = bead guys and Israelis = innocents).

You know what would be a refreshing change of pace in this discussion? If one side (or better, both) would actually stop the pointless finger-pointing and finally admit that its own side perhaps isn’t as completely innocent as it portrays itself to be. By omitting key facts, this open letter shows itself to be nothing more than another example of this trend. While I have no intention of whitewashing or excuse Israel’s numerous wrongdoings, it would be equally objectionable to ignore the many wrongs that have been committed against it.

Feeling List-less? 10 ways church people fail their pastors

Joe McKeever: 10 Ways Church People Fail Their Pastors

1. Church members fail their ministers when they do not pray for them.
2. Church members fail their pastors when they pray for them, then reject what God sends.
3. Church members fail their pastors when they apply standards of perfection to them.
4. Church members fail their ministers by sitting in judgment on how well they do their ministries.
5. Church members fail their ministers when they are quick to believe the worst about them.
6. Church members fail the pastors when they abandon him to deal with the baddies in the congregation. 
7. Church members fail the pastor when they major on minor issues.
8. Church members fail their leaders when they murmur.
9. Church members fail their pastors when they do not deal with their anger toward some minister.
10. Church members fail their ministers when they are not faithful to the Lord.

Nothing to add from me.  But an article well worth the time to read.

To bow or not Tebow? That is the question.

Skye Jethani: Is Tim Tebow a Hypocrite? (Part 1) | Out of Ur | Conversations for Ministry Leaders

But Tim Tebow’s behavior on the field does raise important questions about prayer and how Christians ought to practice it. Andrew Sullivan criticized Tim Tebow saying his public prayers violate Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) where he taught his followers to pray in private:

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)

NEWS FLASH    NEWS FLASH    NEWS FLASH    NEWS FLASH

This just in: in God's eyes, Tim Tebow is just another human being.  What he does isn't any more (or less) important to God than what any other person does.  So maybe instead of focusing on his actions, we should be paying a bit more attention to our own.  That is all.

I wonder how many worship services Mr. Sullivan has attended that didn't include at least one prayer. Need I say more to demonstrate how untenable I believe his position is?
However, I think there are a few dangers in picking anyone, especially a celebrity, as the standard-bearer for the Christian faith. First, too often they turn out to have feet of clay, which often leads to either rejecting Christianity when his or her trespasses become publicly known or excusing and/or defending his or her behavior. Second, some may engage in "vicarious Christianity"- a "the person I look up to is a Christian, so I must be a Christian too" mentality. Instead of questioning whether Tebow is sincere when he prays publicly, I think we would be better off asking whether we're sincere when we pray.

Bring back that loving feeling... don't let it be gone, gone, gone, woo oh oh

Don’t Treat the Gospel Like Your Wedding Pictures | Ordinary Pastor

Too often we function like comfortable married couples that have been together for decades. Older ‘mature’ couples get comfortable. They are not as immature and ‘green’ as those young couples that are smiling at one another, thinking about one another, and bragging about one another.
May God forbid that we get over the gospel! If maturity means indifference and distant then give me another word...!
If we are (and we are) forgetful, lethargic, unthankful, unmoved, unamazed Christians, then, by all means, pull out the gospel snapshots and sit and stare at the narrative. See the completed work of God in Christ for you. And, just like a good bride, don’t stop staring at the pictures until your heart is moved and you find yourself in love and happy in this marriage.

Sometimes I listen to love songs and think, this is what our love for God should be like- or, in such cases as "You've Lost that Loving Feeling", this is what we should avoid our love for God from becoming.

I remember wondering, 'What would happen if people did look at their wedding pictures every month?' Most certainly couples would be reminded of their love for one another, the beauty of their spouse, the changes over the years, and the love that they still have. It could be helpful. It could prevent 'issues'.

And while we're at it, perhaps we (for those of us who are married) should start looking at our wedding photos a bit more often as well. What a terrible thing it is to lose our first love.
Maybe I'm a bit slow sometimes, but I've always thought of the "first" in "first love" as meaning "of highest priority or importance". Thanks to your post, I'm now starting to wonder whether it should also be construed as "from the beginning". IOW, we should remember our love as it was when we were on fire for the Lord and not allow ourselves to become lukewarm.

So bring it on back (So bring it on back),
Bring it on back (so bring it on back).

Feeling list-less? Here's 10 ways pastors fail their people

Joe McKeever: 10 Ways Pastors Fail Their People

1. We have led our people to believe that when they are happy with our ministry, all is well in the church.
2. We have taught our people that giving to missions is more important than praying for missions.
3. We have allowed the congregation to delegate their mission to us the professionals
4. The congregation has adopted the football coach pattern of leadership--if things aren't going well, fire the old guy and bring in a new one--while we have stood by and cooperated with it.
5. We have told our people to pray and then not shown them how or kept it before them.
6. We have catered to their prejudices and ignored their idolatries.
7. We have smiled at their ignorance of the Word and done little to remedy it.
8. We have given lip service to the presence of the Lord in our midst and ignored Him....  We have raised a generation of practicing atheists.
9. We have put our continued employment above faithfulness to the living God.
10. We have exchanged pleasing the Savior for compliments from the people.

Don't ask me why, but my spellchecker is balking at "idolatries".  But on to my response (to which I added the link at the end):

Related to #'s 2 and 3: We think of mission work as something that happens overseas (or at least in foreign countries) and not something that ts needed right here at home as well.
Related to #6: the practice of "preaching" politics from the pulpit.
Related to a whole bunch of these: we have replaced worship with entertainment.
8) This reminds me of Religious Lives of Twentysomethings..

Seeing a way off the ship of death

What Do You See? – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Like Ezekiel, we step into the pain and death of humanity with eyes wide open, but we must not stop there. We believe that bones can live. Crazy as it sounds---indeed, "foolish," according to the apostle Paul---it is true. The most tentative and enfeebled preacher possesses power to speak life into dead bones. Why? Because Jesus Christ swallowed up death. The Savior who shed his blood and rose victoriously from the grave. He is the true ship to which Lawrence points.
The apple has already fallen, thunderously upon the earth, but the last Adam has fallen with it. Therefore, we need not cower naked in the last branches of the tree of life. We need not build little boats with oars, gathering little dishes and accoutrements fitting for a departing soul. We need not collect little cakes and wine for the dark flight to oblivion. We need not fear the flood, for the Savior has poured himself out as an atoning sacrifice. This is what we see, and, because it is so marvelous, we joyfully proclaim it to the world.

 Nothing much to add to my response:

Speaking of atheism (as this article does), I think one of the problems with the "problem of evil" argument is that it focus too narrowly on the temporary suffering of this life and ignores the eternal life in which "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" (Revelation 21:4). This is not to ignore the horribleness of death (especially of eternal spiritual death), but to remember that whatever pain we feel here and now will be replaced by a much greater joy- if only we repent of our wrongdoing and ask God to heal us.
And that is our way out.
And the way out for all that want to choose it.

Who then is John Piper?: "Successful" preaching as the work of the Holy Spirit, rather than of man

When Your Preacher Is Not John Piper – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Many who have had the privilege of hearing John Piper preach in person...  might leave wondering if they were just in the presence of a figure who will be talked about in future centuries.
Then they go back to their home church, where several things are different, including the preaching. Thankfully, the gospel is still proclaimed. In fact, the sermons are thoroughly biblical, but the ability of their regular preacher simply does not measure up to the phenomenal preaching they recently heard.

Ultimately, it is the messenger's job to deliver the message of the One who sent him or her.  Salvation isn't dependent on the oratory ability of the messenger, but on the power of the Holy Spirit to convict sinners of the need for repentance.  This isn't meant to disparage John Piper or any other "celebrity preacher", but rather focus the glory on the One to who it is due.

This reminds me of a passage in The Cross and the Switchblade where Stagecoach, the leader of the Chaplains gang, tells David Wilkerson that his message was "coming through" to which Wilkerson replies that it wasn't he "who was coming through but the Holy Spirit" (p. 70). And in the end, that's who should be "coming through" in any sermon, regardless of the popularity, charisma, speaking ability, or whatever (or lack thereof) of the person preaching it.

Deof Movestofca's Grand Web Tour #2: 20 links in 27 days

Note: the following first appeared on the "¤ Deof Movestofca's Web Tour ¤" static page, but were moved here to keep it from getting overloaded with links.

 N.B.:The author of the "Pastoral Musings" blog has written that he is moving to new hosting, so any links to that blog might not work at the moment.  I believe only the first link in the list is affected by this.  (Also, for those who are fastidious about such things, it might add a day or so to the "27" mentioned in the title).

A New Genre? In which it is éxplainéd that thosé who intérprét padding in resumés as lying don't undérstand thé resumé litérary génré (I figured if I was going to break out the character map anyway for "resumé", I might as well make the most of having to do so).  My recommendation for similarly-styled satire is James Thurber's essay "The Macbeth Murder Mystery".

U.S. lacks Christian heritage, billboard claims  Whéré I argué that ultimatély it doésnt mattér (in térms of whéthér thé Biblé is trué or not) whéthér the founding fathérs wéré Christians or not (I figured I'd add a few more "é"'s just for the fun of it).

Do All Religions Lead to God? 7 reasons why the parable of the six blind men and the elephant doesn't prove religious pluralism.

all in a good brew  In which I try, in my response, to link bad arguments against coffee (I would say "bad coffee", but in my opinion, that's redundant) and religion and somehow manage to wrongly wind up with what appears to be a female avatar.

from possibility to certainty in just 6 short pages an examination of the "argument" that Jesus and/or his parents were once Pharisees based on the flimsiest of evidence.  IOW, typical skepticism masquerading as scholarship (the book he quotes, not the post itself).

Of Xmas and Other X-things One would think that somewhere in this post there would be some mention of the X-Men.  But no, she has to discuss the Greek letter chi and chiasm.  Blatant bait and switch, if you ask me.

Basketball and Babylon An examination of the "court narratives" in Genesis (Joseph), Esther, Nehemiah, and Daniel, plus a suggestion from yours truly that their might be an "anti-court narrative" with Satan in Job (the Book of, that is, not the man himself).

Does Grace Produce Disobedience? An open letter to "Mr. Grace-Loving Antinomian".

Bad Art and the Tortured Beauty of the Cross "Bad art encourages escapism among Christians. Good art, epitomized by the Psalms, helps us long for the new creation even as we learn to love all God's creatures."  I couldn't have said it any better, although I would (and did) recommend Chris Koelle's digital graphic novel of The Book of Revelation as an example of good art.

Productive for the Glory of God, Good of Neighbors In which I argue that while scripture does mandate that workers should be productive, it also requires that those for whom they are productive should adequately recompense such productivity.

All (Animal) Guts, No Glory Why you shouldn't send a court magician to do a prophet's job

Hoarders Matthew 6: 19-21 seems like the perfect verse for this post.

Why Is Tebow Hated So Much? To paraphrase Alfred E. Newman, "What, me worry about what the world thinks about me?".

Alzheimer’s, Pat Robertson, and Human Nature Anti-biblical teaching is anti-biblical teaching regardless of how well-meaning it is or who's teaching it.

Who Will Be Greatest?  I couldn't leave a reply on the page because the comments seem to have been disabled for it.  However, it does make some of the same points I was trying to do in my "Ministry success: it's not about "our" success, it's about God's (Pen & Parchment, Parts 1 + 2)" post.

Snoopy & Theology I could be wrong about this, but I believe Charles M. Shulz wrote this strip (if you were thinking of George P. Shultz, has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?)

What Religion Should You Be? Even they agree I should follow Christianity.

Skye Jethani: The Wrong War on Christmas Response: "I think we, as Christians, would do better to focus on what Christmas means to us and stop worrying about what it means to non-Christians."  (Original post: Are Christians Fighting the Wrong “War on Christmas”?)

How Churches Can Save the U.S. Post Office Thinking outside the (mail)box.

5 Issues Your Members Will Talk About in 2012 A good example of how preaching can inform church members on political issues without endorsing a particular position or candidate.

Trends in losing their religion (Part 1: the unsurprising)

The Religious Views of 20-Somethings, Part 1 | Out of Ur | Conversations for Ministry Leaders

Last semester I assigned the students in the community college World Religions course I teach a series of writing exercises that (I hoped) would help them personalize and internalize the subject matter we were reading about and discussing in class....
First some trends I did not find surprising.
Spiritual but not religious.....

Happy to believe many things at once. ....
Religion irrelevant

While I'll agree with all three of these, I think there is at least two other factors involved (at least in Christianity):.  First, not only is doctrine taught in toto, but in a manner that brooks no questions.  Second, beliefs that are not expressly taught by scripture (although often not expressly rejected by scripture either) are being taught as doctrine.
(Note that a reply by "elegance" seems to have been removed between the time I read the replies and submitted my own).

Actually, I agree with sheerahkahn and if elegance wants, I can quote any number of passages from Blinded By Might (written by two men who held prominent positions in the Religious Right) that support his(?) statement chapter and verse. Or, if you still don't believe us, then explain why you think that the Betty Bowers website is so popular. If it wasn't close enough to the original for people to recognize what it was trying to parody, then it would fail to work as parody. For many Americans (both Christian and non-Christian), theological conservatism and sociopolitical conservatism are inseparable- IOW, they see no distinction between the fundamentals of the Christian faith and the attitudes mentioned by sheerahkahn. To them, being Christian (or at least orthodox and/or fundamentalist) necessarily entails being part of the Religious Right.
And I half-agree with Tim: a lot of it does have to do with presentation. However, I think another problem is that we have mixed in un-biblical (although not necessarily anti-biblical) concepts and presented them as doctrine.
(N.B.: the distinction I would make between un and anti biblical would be this: anti would include beliefs that are contrary to scripture, such as unitarianism, reincarnation, etc., while un would include things neither supported nor rejected by scripture such as capitalism, democracy, etc.)

The article is also available on the author's blog, where I left the following response:

Saw this article over at Leadership Journal, a.k.a. Our of Ur (who, BTW, have the audacity to have not updated the link to your blog, but I set them straight :) ). I left a somewhat different answer there, but to sum it up, I wonder if much of the problem is not only are they expected to "adopt an entire belief system in toto" but to do so without questions (theirs) or explanations (the church’s). Maybe it’s just me, but when I’m learning a new job, it helps if I know not only what I’m supposed to do, but why I’m supposed to do it as well. Similarly, I think it’s possible that some young people might get turned off if they’re simply being told what to believe without being given a sufficient reason why to believe it (and, no, "because that’s what the church has always believed" does not count as sufficient).
Just wondering if you’ve seen some of this in the responses as well and, if so, if this might contribute to the "buffet effect".

Cracked eisegesis: it's not just for biblical interpretation anymore!

8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape | Cracked.comN.B. I have reformatted and added links to some of the original material. Furthermore, my defense of these songs is limited to Ian Fortey's (possibly facetious) claim that these songs advocate rape and is not intended to imply agreement with the moral views presented by them.  IOW, just because I think a particular song isn't necessarily about rape doesn't mean that I don't find it morally offensive for other reasons, such as extolling lust and/or casual sex.

#8. "Baby It's Cold Outside" - Dean Martin & Doris Day

Offending Lyrics:

Her: but maybe just a half a drink more
Him: (put some records on while I pour)
Her: the neighbors might faint
Him: (baby it's bad out there)
Her: say what's in this drink
Him: (no cabs to be had out there)

A short list of things left unspecified in the song:

1. whether or not she actually stays
2. if she does, whether or not they engage in sexual activity
3. if they do, whether or not it is consensual
4. that he is preventing her from leaving.  It is possible that she's choosing to stay of her own volitiondespite her protestations that she "really must go",
5. that he drugged her drink or even whether it has alcohol in it (although I would agree that it's safe to assume that it does.  Furthermore, he didn't ply the drink on her- she requested "half a drink more".

Cracked eisegesis: Another reason I dislike this song: to me, it sounds more like listening to two different radio stations at once than a conversation.
And in the link to the lyrics, I'm assuming that "namonia" is supposed to be "pneumonia" (in case they haven't fixed it as I requested).

#7."Summer Nights" - Olivia Newton John & John Travolta

Offending Lyrics:

Girls: Tell me more, tell me more, was it love at first sight?

Guys: Tell me more, tell me more, did she put up a fight?

Cracked eisegesis: Forley chooses the definition of the word "fight" ("physical altercation") that best fits his premise and ignores other, equally plausible meanings.(such as "intense verbal dispute" or "strong resistance").  IOW, Kenickie (the character that sings "did she put up a fight?") instead may be asking "Was she 'easy' or did it take a lot of convincing to get her to go along?".
Just asking: if the two of them married in real life, would that have made her Olivia Newton John Travolta?

#3."My Sharona" - The Knack

Offending Lyrics:

Never gonna stop, give it up

Such a dirty mind, always get it up

For the touch of the younger kind

Cracked eisegesis: First, "young" is subjective, so "of the younger kind" and "above the age of consent aren't mutually exclusive.  Second, he never clarifies what he's "never gonna stop" or how far he's willing to go to achieve it.  Unless this includes force and as long as he waits until she's over the age of consent, then there's no rape.  Third, no matter how much the singer may want to have sex with her, various lines in the song indicate that they haven't engaged in sexual activity, such as  "Is it just a matter of time Sharona?" and his use of the future tense  in the question "when you gonna give it up...?".  No sexual activity = no rape.

#2."Young Girl" - Gary Puckett

Offending Lyrics:

Young girl, get out of my mind

My love for you is way out of line

Better run, girl,

You're much too young, girl

Cracked eisegesis: As in "My Sharona" above, it's clear that the singer is attracted to someone who is likely a minor.  However, it is just as equally clear that they haven't engaged in any sexual activity and, in this case, he's actively resisting such a temptation.  As long as he does so successfully (on which point the song is ambiguous), there's no rape.

In each of the above cases, the fault lies in adding more to the text than is actually written.  For example, in "Baby, It's Cold Outside" merely asks "what's in this drink?".  The cracked eisegesist reads this and assumes that this means not only must he have added something to the drink, but it must be some type of date-rape drug, even though the text itself does not state that he had.

From cracked eisegesis to

skepticism masquerading as scholarship

One way that some skeptics apply similar means in biblical interpretation is their treatment  of Numbers 31 as condoning rape.  Some read that the Isrealites took "women who had not known man by lying with him" as plunder (vs. 35 ESV) and jump to the conclusion that this somehow must have included rape.  Now, while such an action could lead to rape, it doesn't necessarily.  This, however, overlooks two very important facts: first, they took sheep, cattle, and donkeys as plunder as well, but I doubt anyone can persuasively argue that they used such animals for such a purpose as the Israelites are accused of using the women; second, while the plundering of women could involve rape, it does not necessarily do so.  There are other purposes to which the Israelites could have employed the women, such as for servants.