This post from Tim Keller, Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC, was an encouragement to my heart this morning because of its fresh insights from an old favorite--Proverbs 3.
Posted using ShareThis
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall - Yahoo! News
This story (link from title or below) has been out for a few days, but I waited to post on it because I wanted to see if anyone came out contradicting it. I didn't expect so, since Eilat Mazar, the archaeologist heading this work, is very well respected.
Of course, we who believe the Bible aren't surprised to find evidence that Solomon really lived, built up and expanded city walls in Jerusalem, and did so in the time frame of Scripture. But it's nice for those who have less faith to be reminded of this history.
There is, as the article notes, a "minimalist" school in Israeli archaeology that late dates all Hebrew history and thinks anything before the divided kingdom period is pretty much myth. This group has spent years arguing against the reliability of the biblical record for the first half of Jewish history, but this is another significant argument against their view.
Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall - Yahoo! News
Of course, we who believe the Bible aren't surprised to find evidence that Solomon really lived, built up and expanded city walls in Jerusalem, and did so in the time frame of Scripture. But it's nice for those who have less faith to be reminded of this history.
There is, as the article notes, a "minimalist" school in Israeli archaeology that late dates all Hebrew history and thinks anything before the divided kingdom period is pretty much myth. This group has spent years arguing against the reliability of the biblical record for the first half of Jewish history, but this is another significant argument against their view.
Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall - Yahoo! News
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Some thoughts on "Deep Church"
Deep Church is Jim Belcher's engaging contribution to the seemingly endless attempt to understand what emergent and emerging churches are about, the differences and conflicts that exist between that stream and "traditional" churches, and the quest to find a middle way that takes the best of the two. I listened to the audiobook, and now will get the written version so that I can mark it more carefully, but I was impressed by a number of points that I would share.
- Belcher writes out of experience and personal quest. His own frustrations with some of the limitations experienced in his traditional church experience led to rethinking of the nature and ministry of the church, and in the process he was able to engage key thinkers in what was then a new, emerging movement. He also had opportunity to dialog with key leaders and observers in evangelicalism who helped him along the way. Thus the book flows well out of his own journey.
- He also writes out of personal concern as a church planting pastor to get it right. As a former church planter, I know firsthand the joys and challenges of trying to make sure that that church becomes what God wants it to be, not what I've experienced in the past--sometimes those are very different birds!
- He gives some of the best insights into the nature of what he identifies as three streams of "emerging" churches, values their thinking, and takes seriously their concerns. He also presents traditional counter-arguments to emerging thinking. At a few points I felt that there were better spokesmen and thinking for "traditionalists" than were cited, but overall his portrayal was fair.
- His idea of the "deep church" as a middle way was intriguing and inviting. I think all of us pastors believe we are doing "deep church," but his concept was different than most--a scripturally anchored fellowship that also draws on the "great tradition" of the ecumenical councils as a helpful (though not equally authoritative) source for keeping the church focused on the most important elements of faith.
- I appreciated his emphasis on the need for a thorough going ecclesiology--a doctrine of the church that is robust and has confessional, community, and missional elements in balance. His praise of denominations as a means of accountability and support for churches may be surprising to some, but not to those of us who have experienced good denominational support in the past.
- I'm not sure that his middle way is truly "middle." He clearly presents the questions of the emerging church movement, but the postmodern strength of questioning does not possess an equal basis for answering. His own position seems to be a blend of traditional theology and thinking with the most conservative stream of emerging church "retooling." It would be hard to be "non-traditional" in the larger sense when you are in a confessional denomination, value ecumenical creeds, practice church discipline, and so on, as Belcher does. So, while I greatly appreciate the book and the concept, it isn't in the middle, but still closer to one side than the other of the spectrum.
Read, or listen, to Deep Church, and you will hear a good story, receive an excellent primer on emergent vs. traditional thinking, and gain a well-reasoned vision for what the church can and should strive to be.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Security Questions, Strange Answers
As I read this article on responses to the recent attempted terror attack on the flight to Detroit, I find myself bothered by a few matters.
One, this attacker had been turned away from Britain, reported to our embassy in Nigeria, and highlighted as a threat for nearly 2 years before this. So, we had warning about the person that was credible, but no action was taken.
Two, he had the same explosive on his body that the "shoe bomber," Richard Reid, used. That means either we have not found a way of finding such explosives when on the body short of a vigorous body search, or our system failed in Nigeria and Amsterdam, where he went through security.
Three, while it was alert passengers who subdued the would-be bomber (same as what happened with the shoe bomber), our proposed solution is to make all passengers remain seated with nothing on their laps for the last hour of flying. How would this have made the bomber's flight safer? The bomb was strapped on his body--his carry-on was cleared. I have a flight coming up in a few weeks. If security is tighter while getting on the plane, fine. But unless we are supposed to sit for an hour before landing staring at our flying companions to see if there is anything suspicious they do, I cannot imagine that taking away our pillows or laptops will make us safer. It will only prompt discomfort and the occasional subduing of a passenger with an itchy chest who is mistaken by someone in his row for a threat.
Interestingly enough, since 9/11, passengers have been alert enough to stop the only two attackers who have made it on the plane. Screening may need to be improved, and the questions of more stringent "no fly" lists and the use of profiling to increase security (let's not go through the whole "we have to treat grannies in wheelchairs just like young men from Yemen" argument again)must be addressed. But creating a flying environment that is even more uncomfortable seems like we're trying to tell people that "everything is under control" when it's not, and we all know it.
Finally, I'm bothered by the articles that quote FBI and other law enforcement saying that they are operating on the assumption he was "acting alone." The man was trained in Yemen, on a watch list, and said he was operating in conjunction with Al Qaeda. How in the world can this be "acting alone?" The same was said about the shoe bomber and the Ft. Hood shooter. Then we find out that each has been in touch with Al Qaeda types, have been encouraged or assisted by them, etc. This is not a criminal activity. It is terrorists waging war with individual agents. If we treat this phenomena as if it is crazed individuals alone, and not a larger attempt to attack the nation, we will face another 9/11 and then wonder how it could have happened. Get the military involved; increase the presence of armed sky marshals. And call it "war," not "crime fighting."
One, this attacker had been turned away from Britain, reported to our embassy in Nigeria, and highlighted as a threat for nearly 2 years before this. So, we had warning about the person that was credible, but no action was taken.
Two, he had the same explosive on his body that the "shoe bomber," Richard Reid, used. That means either we have not found a way of finding such explosives when on the body short of a vigorous body search, or our system failed in Nigeria and Amsterdam, where he went through security.
Three, while it was alert passengers who subdued the would-be bomber (same as what happened with the shoe bomber), our proposed solution is to make all passengers remain seated with nothing on their laps for the last hour of flying. How would this have made the bomber's flight safer? The bomb was strapped on his body--his carry-on was cleared. I have a flight coming up in a few weeks. If security is tighter while getting on the plane, fine. But unless we are supposed to sit for an hour before landing staring at our flying companions to see if there is anything suspicious they do, I cannot imagine that taking away our pillows or laptops will make us safer. It will only prompt discomfort and the occasional subduing of a passenger with an itchy chest who is mistaken by someone in his row for a threat.
Interestingly enough, since 9/11, passengers have been alert enough to stop the only two attackers who have made it on the plane. Screening may need to be improved, and the questions of more stringent "no fly" lists and the use of profiling to increase security (let's not go through the whole "we have to treat grannies in wheelchairs just like young men from Yemen" argument again)must be addressed. But creating a flying environment that is even more uncomfortable seems like we're trying to tell people that "everything is under control" when it's not, and we all know it.
Finally, I'm bothered by the articles that quote FBI and other law enforcement saying that they are operating on the assumption he was "acting alone." The man was trained in Yemen, on a watch list, and said he was operating in conjunction with Al Qaeda. How in the world can this be "acting alone?" The same was said about the shoe bomber and the Ft. Hood shooter. Then we find out that each has been in touch with Al Qaeda types, have been encouraged or assisted by them, etc. This is not a criminal activity. It is terrorists waging war with individual agents. If we treat this phenomena as if it is crazed individuals alone, and not a larger attempt to attack the nation, we will face another 9/11 and then wonder how it could have happened. Get the military involved; increase the presence of armed sky marshals. And call it "war," not "crime fighting."
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Ten Stupid Things That Keep Churches from Growing.
This article is from a site I've discovered and like a lot--it's called Stuff Christians Like and offers an insightful look at our subculture. When I say "insightful" I sometimes mean "painful," because much that we have developed looks pretty lame when looked at more closely.
Anyway, you can take a look and see what you think. The article is an introduction to a book by church planter Geoff Surratt, and had some good insights that aren't even from the book. And once there, you can scan some of the other articles that are there, too.
Posted using ShareThis
Anyway, you can take a look and see what you think. The article is an introduction to a book by church planter Geoff Surratt, and had some good insights that aren't even from the book. And once there, you can scan some of the other articles that are there, too.
Posted using ShareThis
"Tiger Woods, meet A.C. Green" (from LATimes.com)
I really appreciated this article, by LA Times columnist Chris Erskine, for a number of reasons. First, I was, and am, a Lakers' fan, and remember the "Showtime" years with A.C. Green so clearly. Second, I'm a big A.C. Green fan--his talent was overshadowed by that of his teammates, but he made them better and was really good himself. Finally, he was and continues to be a consistent testimony, to the point that he continues to get a hearing from those who might not be prone to listen to his message from others.
Posted using ShareThis
Posted using ShareThis
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A Brief Review: "Just Courage" Just Misses
I decided to listen to the audiobook of Gary Haugen's Just Courage after hearing his message at The Master's College on a podcast--it was very good. I've followed the work of International Justice Mission, and have read many positive reports on their work. [Full disclosure: I actually met Gary when he was still a student at Harvard--his brother was living with me at the time--but we've had no contact since.]
As I listened, I recognized that Haugen is a good storyteller; his illustrations were engaging and certainly helped make his points. He is a thoughtful Christian who has seen an evil in this world that has become his passion, and he has lived out his concern through directing IJM in its work around the world. His thrust in this book was straightforward--just as the calling of Christians down through the ages has been to act with courage in overcoming the cultural evils of the day (African slavery, poverty, etc.), the call today is to seek justice, and specifically in the freeing of those sold into slavery (most often as laborers in factories or into the sex trade)and protection of the oppressed. This calling requires facing fear and danger, but this is why faith-inspired courage is necessary.
His passion and commitment to his cause his clear, and he believes that it's neglect cannot go on. He acknowledges that not everyone is called to this ministry, but presses a strong case that it must be embraced by all.
I applaud this concern and am thankful for the ministry of IJM. I praise God that our church is actively involved in a similar ministry that rescues and helps those enslaved in sex trafficking. A number of our members have traveled to Thailand to participate firsthand, and we will continue to increase our involvement in fighting this evil and bringing hope with the Gospel. It is the right thing for us to do in the name of Jesus.
That is the point at which the book left me with a question. I didn't hear much about the tie between the activity of setting captives free and an equal concern for seeing them set free from spiritual bondage. It may happen, and IJM may in fact be passionate about this, but it didn't come through clearly as I was listening to the book. There were appeals to the gospels concerning how believers were to live, and appropriate applications of that to seeking justice. But I didn't catch a direct link between seeking justice and freedom for slaves and bringing the gospel to recently freed but spiritually enslaved people. This has been the hallmark of Christian endeavors around the world throughout history. While Christians have often had their failures come back to haunt them, the successes of bringing the gospel and cultural change are most significant.
A related concern was a passage where Haugen argued that some are called to medical mission, some to alleviating poverty, some to evangelism and discipleship, and some to seeking justice (there may have been others in that list, but it was that kind of list, with those kind of elements). What bothered me a bit was the separation of evangelism and discipleship from the other activities. I don't think that evangelism is special activity that servants of Jesus can choose to do in the world, or choose instead to do justice ministry or poverty relief. And the servant of Jesus who chooses the others and leaves evangelism out of the picture because it isn't his calling is not acting faithfully in such a context, either. I'm not referring to preaching services, and there is plenty of need for culturally sensitive witnesses who may "go slow" to gain a hearing. But my resistance goes up when I see a dichotomy created where there should not be one.
Finally, I had the thought as I went through the book that if it were a person with a passion to feed the hungry, or end poverty, or provide medical care to those without, it would sound the same. Change the illustrations slightly and any "cause" could use this script. Again, that is not to say it isn't well written or a good cause; these causes, though, are ancillary to the great cause, however, of bringing God glory by leading the nations to worship Him. We bring good because we also bring the gospel. A story about a reunited family that gives no indication that they have even been exposed to the good news about Jesus doesn't inspire me. I'm guessing that they have been, but it's only a guess at this point.
Just Courage presents the argument for Christians to engage in the fight against the evils sin has brought into our world--in this case the injustices of slavery and oppression. It is a valid argument, but one that would resonate more strongly if it were more clearly anchored in a holistic approach that brings the opportunity for spiritual as well as physical freedom.
As I listened, I recognized that Haugen is a good storyteller; his illustrations were engaging and certainly helped make his points. He is a thoughtful Christian who has seen an evil in this world that has become his passion, and he has lived out his concern through directing IJM in its work around the world. His thrust in this book was straightforward--just as the calling of Christians down through the ages has been to act with courage in overcoming the cultural evils of the day (African slavery, poverty, etc.), the call today is to seek justice, and specifically in the freeing of those sold into slavery (most often as laborers in factories or into the sex trade)and protection of the oppressed. This calling requires facing fear and danger, but this is why faith-inspired courage is necessary.
His passion and commitment to his cause his clear, and he believes that it's neglect cannot go on. He acknowledges that not everyone is called to this ministry, but presses a strong case that it must be embraced by all.
I applaud this concern and am thankful for the ministry of IJM. I praise God that our church is actively involved in a similar ministry that rescues and helps those enslaved in sex trafficking. A number of our members have traveled to Thailand to participate firsthand, and we will continue to increase our involvement in fighting this evil and bringing hope with the Gospel. It is the right thing for us to do in the name of Jesus.
That is the point at which the book left me with a question. I didn't hear much about the tie between the activity of setting captives free and an equal concern for seeing them set free from spiritual bondage. It may happen, and IJM may in fact be passionate about this, but it didn't come through clearly as I was listening to the book. There were appeals to the gospels concerning how believers were to live, and appropriate applications of that to seeking justice. But I didn't catch a direct link between seeking justice and freedom for slaves and bringing the gospel to recently freed but spiritually enslaved people. This has been the hallmark of Christian endeavors around the world throughout history. While Christians have often had their failures come back to haunt them, the successes of bringing the gospel and cultural change are most significant.
A related concern was a passage where Haugen argued that some are called to medical mission, some to alleviating poverty, some to evangelism and discipleship, and some to seeking justice (there may have been others in that list, but it was that kind of list, with those kind of elements). What bothered me a bit was the separation of evangelism and discipleship from the other activities. I don't think that evangelism is special activity that servants of Jesus can choose to do in the world, or choose instead to do justice ministry or poverty relief. And the servant of Jesus who chooses the others and leaves evangelism out of the picture because it isn't his calling is not acting faithfully in such a context, either. I'm not referring to preaching services, and there is plenty of need for culturally sensitive witnesses who may "go slow" to gain a hearing. But my resistance goes up when I see a dichotomy created where there should not be one.
Finally, I had the thought as I went through the book that if it were a person with a passion to feed the hungry, or end poverty, or provide medical care to those without, it would sound the same. Change the illustrations slightly and any "cause" could use this script. Again, that is not to say it isn't well written or a good cause; these causes, though, are ancillary to the great cause, however, of bringing God glory by leading the nations to worship Him. We bring good because we also bring the gospel. A story about a reunited family that gives no indication that they have even been exposed to the good news about Jesus doesn't inspire me. I'm guessing that they have been, but it's only a guess at this point.
Just Courage presents the argument for Christians to engage in the fight against the evils sin has brought into our world--in this case the injustices of slavery and oppression. It is a valid argument, but one that would resonate more strongly if it were more clearly anchored in a holistic approach that brings the opportunity for spiritual as well as physical freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
