You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July, 2008.
- You can get married at the church where you first met each other ten years before.
- You can honeymoon in the same town your families visited together when you were a freshman.
- She doesn’t have to tell you what she was like in high school. You already know.
- She knew you when you were a nerd.
- You’ve seen her make foolish choices.
- She’s seen you do the same.
- Your in-laws live twenty minutes away from your parents.
- You’ve seen God purify her faith in the crucible of deep tragedy.
- You’ve gotten on each others nerves way before your first date. That’s a good thing.
- You get to marry a girl who has already had a decade of experience being way out of your league.
Happy anniversary, sweetheart. I’m so glad you’re mine.
Johnathon
From Voice of the Martyrs:
The eyes of the world will soon be on the Olympics. But the eyes of God remain on His children and especially those who suffer for their faith.
Despite what you may hear in the news, Chinese Christians who refuse to register with the government controlled church are being persecuted. Many have undergone horrific suffering.
Recently a prominent representative of a group of house churches in China asked Christians throughout the free world to pray for China during the Olympics. The Voice of the Martyrs, in partnership with China Aid Associates, has accepted that call and has produced the Olympic Prayer Band. We would like to invite you to request one for free to wear during the Olympics. Similar prayer bands will also be distributed to house church Christians in China and they will be praying for you as well.
Use the form below to request your free Olympic Prayer Band. You may also order them in multiple quantities to share with your friends or even your entire church. Please also feel free to share this offer with others who will want to pray for our persecuted brothers and sisters in Communist China.
I originally found this through a pop-up ad at Christianity Today.
There once was a man who owned an apple orchard (which he loved very much). Every morning he would walk through the orchard, pluck the apples that were ready, and place them in a red bucket (which matched his apples nicely). After filling the bucket, he would carry the apples to his barn and dump them in a bin to sell. Then he would set the red pail on a three-legged stool by his workbench and return to the house.
In the evening, the man’s young son would ramble out to the barn, pull the empty red bucket from the three-legged stool, fill it with water from the outdoor pump, and slosh it all the way back to his mother in the kitchen so she could boil it for cooking. When the bucket was drained, the young son would return it to the barn and heave it up onto the three-legged stool where it remained until the next morning.
One bucket. Two very different types of content (apples and water).
Words are a lot like that. They are empty and versatile until someone invests them with meaning.
This is E.D. Hirsch’s point in Validity in Interpretation:
…[M]eaning is an affair of consciousness not of words. Almost any word sequence can, under the conventions of language, legitimately represent more than one complex of meaning. A word sequence means nothing in particular until somebody either means something by it or understands something from it. There is no magic land of meanings outside human consciousness. Whenever meaning is connected to words, a person is making the connection, and the particular meanings he lends to them are never the only legitimate ones under the norms and conventions of his language. (pg. 4)
Spoonbridge and Cherry, 1985-1988. Sculpture by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen. Minneapolis Sculpture Garden:
Spoonbridge and Cherry: Ingested, 2008. Interactive installation by Johnathon Bowers. Minneapolis Sculpture Garden:
Before I begin I want to mention two things by way of clarification:
1) I believe the question of whether or not to get a tattoo is largely a matter of personal conviction. There may be strategic and Christ-centered reasons for decorating your appendages, and there may be strategic and Christ-centered reasons for keeping them clean. This is not a cop-out. It is a call for Biblical discernment.
2) Though I will point out some concerns I have with body art, I want to equally stress that there are dangers inherent in abstaining. For example, a person may be tempted to assign greater moral significance to a tattoo than to a besetting sin such as greed, covetousness, or gossip. In other words, the tattoo parlor becomes a greater menace to the souls of men than the Mall of America. This is dangerous.
With that established, here are my reasons for abstaining from artificial pigment:
- We ought to wrestle seriously with the reality that we are not our own (1 Cor. 6:19-20). I realize that the issues are complex and deal as much with body piercing and plastic surgery, but I feel like the culture of tattooing simply assumes that we are free to do with our bodies as we please.
- Tattoos can (not must) breed an infatuation with novelty. One is usually not enough. This is just as true of purses and neckties, but tattoos are so…well…permanent.
- Crash the Christian tattoo artist (from yesterday’s post) said that the primary reason for the popularity of tattoos and body piercings is a desire to express individuality. This seems to distort the purpose for which our bodies are designed, namely, to display the worth of God (1 Cor. 6:20, which is admittedly addressing sexual immorality; however, I think the general principle of glorifying God with our bodies can be applied here).
- Personally speaking, I feel like I run a greater risk of causing offense by having a tattoo than by not having one. Since I don’t have a compelling reason to sport a tat, why needlessly assume a potential liability?
- Practically speaking, tattoos look impressive now, but if all predictions are accurate, my skin will sag and that ink will fade. I really don’t want to be stuck with a fuzzy patch of green tissue at age 70. I have enough freckles and scars to keep me occupied.
As I close, let me express my sincere love for my brothers and sisters who are persuaded that body art is a good thing. My only encouragement would be to view tattoos in relation to the centrality of Jesus and let that govern your motives and decor.
Anything you would add or challenge?
Thank you to those who have commented on yesterday’s post. Keep ‘em coming. I’m eager to see what you think about this issue.
I hope to suggest some thoughts about Christians and tattoos tomorrow. Before I do, I would like to bring another voice into the discussion to press toward a fuller perspective.
In his book “The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out without Selling Out,” Mark Driscoll interviews a man named Crash on the subject of tattoing. I’ll include an excerpt for us to chew on together:
1. What is your name?
Crash
2. Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
Yes
3. What is your age?
33
4. What is your vocation?
I own several tattoo studios and a new tattoo magazine, and I write for several international tattoo publications.
5. What services does your business provide?
Tattoos and piercings
6. What is your ministry?
Revealing the truth of the gospel to everyone I come in contact with, primarily people between eighteen and thirty-five, and many who are very unlikely to set foot in a traditional church setting.
7. Why is the popularity of tattoos and piercings growing?
Nothing more than a growing and changing culture. The primary purpose is to express individuality. Much less common is the attempt to stand in defiance of conventional belief systems, but over the last ten years, this motivation has diminished drastically as society has become more and more accepting of these expressions.
8. Do you consider yourself a missionary to your culture?
I feel that I was put in this particular profession for the purpose of reaching this postmodern generation with the truth of the gospel in the arena of a desperate, lost, and angry culture. My goal every day is not to target and convert anyone but to look for opportunities when I might be able to show Christ’s love to people who have never once been shown what the real message of the gospel is. What they have been told, and what they’ve seen themselves, are the lies of legalism masquerading as the gospel, and “quick to judge and condemn” Christians pointing their fingers at them. (pp. 112-113)
Here’s a couple more questions for your cogitation:
1) Do you think tattoos could be an effective means of contextualizing the gospel in our culture?
2) If so, what should that look like? Does that mean only “Jesus” tattoos, or could such an approach make room for more obscure symbols?
When I was in high school, a friend of mine (who claimed to be a Christian) told me he was considering getting a tattoo. I was mortified. In a last-ditch attempt to dissuade him from what I thought would be certain catastrophe, I rushed to my exegetical armory and pulled out my trusty saber:
“You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD” (Lev. 19:28).
I couldn’t site chapter and verse at the time, but I knew the Bible condemned tattooery and I wanted my friend to know it.
Never mind the fact that nine verses earlier Moses forbade wearing a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material. I was oblivious to the possibility that Leviticus 19 might require a bit more hermeneutical rigor than proof-texting.
How should we think about tattoos today, particularly in light of Leviticus 19:28? Back in September ‘07 Denny Burk linked to an audio clip from John Piper answering the question, “What do you think of tattoos and body piercing?” Here is part of Piper’s answer:
On the verse itself [Lev. 19:28], there were probably circumstances that made that absolutely warranted there. Whether that should be applied with the same absoluteness today without other factors being taken into consideration, I’m not ready to go there yet. I think there are other questions to ask that are more heart and motive and Christ-exalting questions than simply “Is there a verse?”
What do you think? Is it ever appropriate for a Christian to get a tattoo? What questions should we ask ourselves when contemplating the choice?
More to come…
Terry Virgo pays a tribute to Mark Driscoll today following his deliveries at the recent Together on a Mission conference in Brighton, UK. Here is an excerpt:
Well, he came and he’s gone – but we certainly know he was here!
Mark Driscoll packs a punch.
What did I especially appreciate about him?
His straightforwardness. Nothing hidden and no hiding, so, like the Apostle Paul, his forthrightness commended himself to our consciences. Because of his transparency it’s not difficult to feel that you know him personally, though you may have been lost in the vast crowd and never had the privilege of any one-to-one time.
He loves the truth and he loves Jesus and wants to make him known to 21st century people.
Pettiness and small-mindedness don’t stand a chance when he cuts loose with his burning desire to see Christ glorified in our generation. His radical priorities and decision-making are deeply rooted in a passion to confront our contemporaries with gospel truth.
I had the opportunity to sit in on an ordination council this morning at church. It was very profitable, to cop a term from Monday’s post. One of the topics that surfaced during a discussion on the doctrine of the Church was the possibility that a person could be gifted in a particular area (administration, teaching, etc.) and yet be spiritually immature.
I think we could apply this to the blogosphere.
It is tempting to judge a post’s worth by its rhetorical flair and linguistic acumen. These are great attributes, but they can easily become a substitute for the Spirit’s power if we are not careful.
In light of this, here are nine questions to ask when crafting a post. They are patterned after Galatians 5:22-23. I’m sure others have taken this approach before me. I would like to join their tribe.
Nine Questions to Ask When Blogging
- Is my writing governed by a deep love for my readers and for those I may mention in my posts, or am I simply using my readers to get what I really want (recognition, links, more hits)?
- Is the tone of my blog one of deep (not cheesy) joy in Jesus, or am I biting and negative?
- Is there a settledness to my writing, or am I frantic and using a lot of exclamation points and words in all-caps?
- When I disagree with someone on my blog, do I rant about their bad ideas, or do I bear with that person in the hope that God will grant him repentance?
- When people leave hurtful comments, do I respond with piercing vitriol, or do I extend kindness and give them the benefit of the doubt?
- Do I tend to blog about subjects that are edifying, or do I dwell on material that will corrupt the minds of my readers?
- Do I labor to produce content that is well-done and thoughtful, or am I content with sloppy shortcuts?
- Is my writing style heavy-handed, or am I gentle in the way I express myself (even when I have to say very hard things)?
- Am I disciplined in what I allow myself to post about, or do I have itchy typing fingers that gravitate toward the sensational?
What others would you add?
I think one other list would be appropriate, because there is another common use of “good” that begs for revision.
When we experience an event that is underwhelming in its quality, we will say that it was good when we really mean that it was mediocre. This usage is a subtle beast, because it can only be detected by voice inflection. When we are really impressed with something, we say “good” with a deep, melting voice, like it’s warm butter rolling over corn on the cob. However, when we want to be diplomatic and staid in our commentary, we say “good,” but we elongate it, and the tone sounds more like a roller coaster.
Example #1:
“How was the vacation in the Swiss Alps?”
“It was goooooood.” Warm butter.
Example #2:
“How was the conference on Hungarian tax law?”
“It….was….guuhhhooooouuuhhhd.” Tentative. Furrowed brow. Up, down, up.
To resolve the confusion, here are ten other words to put in your quiver for those times when you want to say a thing was mediocre (or worse) and you are tempted to say it was good:
- Vapid
- Middling
- Adequate
- Tolerable
- Prosaic
- Acceptable
- Pedestrian
- Humdrum
- Insipid
- Passable
Any other suggestions?
I say “good” too much. “I’m good.” “Our trip was good.” “Class was good.” “That was really good.” Sometimes I even say “pretty good” to express measured ambivalence. “Good” is my drip-pan descriptor. As a result, all of its meaning leaks out and I’m left with a hollow verbal shell. Good is no longer good. It’s filler.
The answer, of course, is not to pick some other term to wear out. The answer is to vary my responses.
Here are ten substitutes for the word “good.” Try to throw them into a conversation. That way, when you do use “good,” it will not be a synonym for fluff:
- Profitable
- Pleasant
- Glorious
- Delectable
- Phenomenal
- Prodigious
- Gratifying
- Mirthful
- Worthwhile
- Delightful
May you find the exercise to be a prodigious experience of phenomenality.
Seth Godin waxes perceptive on Apple’s recent release of the new iPhone 3G, which was fraught with technological difficulty. According to Godin, Apple mishandled the use of market scarcity. He offers the following advice:
- Use the internet instead of forcing people to wait in line.
- Reward early patrons.
- Vary your treatment of customers depending on how much they have spent or used your product in the past.
- Orchestrate your release so you can catch mistakes early (i.e., use the internet).
- Give your early patrons a venue for reveling in their purchase.
Robert Velarde offers some suggestions for discernment in our choices of technology (HT: Challies).
Also, the Resurgence blog highlights YouVersion, a free online Bible application for the iPhone with some pretty helpful features (it even includes three Spanish translations!).
If a church truly welcomes everyone, does it really need a sign that says so?
I saw WALL-E in the theater last night and really enjoyed it. I found Pixar’s creative muscle to be delightfully flexed. It’s not every day you can pitch a robotic love story and have it rake in $62.5 million during it’s opening weekend.
My brother, ever the political pundit, suggested an environmentalist agenda behind the movie. He may be onto something. After all, Josh Harris said the movie made him want to recycle everything.
However, in an interview with World Magazine’s Megan Basham, WALL-E screenwriter and director Andrew Stanton set the record straight:
“People made this connection that I never saw coming with the environmental movement, and that’s not what I was trying to do. I was just using the circumstances of people abandoning the Earth because it’s filled with garbage as a way to tell my story.
I always knew that I wanted WALL•E to be digging through trash for two reasons: One, I wanted him to be the lowest on the totem pole. It’s a janitorial job; it’s the saddest, lowest status amongst his kind; and it just makes him that much more of a lonely guy. Two, trash is really visual. Even the littlest kid understands when there’s stuff in the way and it needs to be picked up, so I didn’t need to spend time explaining his job. And then I just reverse-engineered from there, ‘OK, if there’s trash everywhere, how did it get there?’”
Seth Godin praised the film as a brave move on Pixar’s part.
Have you seen the movie? What did you think?
BBC News carries a story about a beggar from Calcutta who has recently opened a bank account with the coins (weighing 200 pounds) she has amassed over 40+ years. She began begging as a child on account of an attack of polio.
This raises the interesting issue of how to deal with people who ask for money.
How do you think we should respond? Do you have any advice for how to approach the situation?
Do you think begging in America — or any first-world country — is different than begging in Calcutta?
For example, I like grilled cheese sandwiches. My wife can eat them, but wouldn’t request them on a menu. I think my persuasive powers would be at least quadrupled if, instead of saying I would really like grilled cheese sandwiches for dinner, I said, “Fifty percent of our family would like to eat grilled cheese tonight.”
Thankfully, God gave me a wife who doesn’t require me to employ statistical manipulation when lobbying for cuisine. Thank you, honey.
I’ve come to the conclusion that at least 80% of our social blunders are caused, not by forgetting things, but by remembering them at the wrong time:
You approach that guy you met at that New Year’s get-together, and you totally blank on his name. Someone tells you afterward. “Of course!” you say. Case in point.
Your uncle was born November 12. You remember on November 14. Hello Belated Birthday Card aisle.
That presentation you were supposed to give? It all comes back in living color when your boss calls you from the conference room wondering why he and ten other executives are staring at a blank screen.
The moral of the story: Don’t just learn information (names, birthdays, appointments). Incorporate triggers into your life that will help you access that information when you need to. That way, you won’t just remember…you’ll remember at the right time.
This was a fun little exercise I did the other day. The following is a list of 5 terms which are, by their written nature, self-defining:
1. Polysyllabic
2. Word
3. Legible
4. Noun
5. Visible
On the other hand, consider the contradiction found in their antonyms:
1. Monosyllabic
2. Number
3. Illegible
4. Verb
5. Invisible
Can you think of others?
In a Christianity Today article posted back in February 1999, Mark Noll responded to the following question:
“Considering the biblical injunction to submit to civil government (Rom. 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14), were Christian colonists justified in participating in the Revolutionary War?”
Noll tips his hand from the beginning when he writes:
Only one population in the colonies clearly was justified by classical Christian reasoning in taking up arms to defend itself—the half-million or so enslaved African Americans who were held in bondage as the result of armed attacks upon peaceful noncombatants.
He clarifies his sentiments later:
To the extent that colonists really thought that Britain intended systematic despotism, their going to war could perhaps be justified in classical Christian terms. Armed action to preempt an enemy’s destructive intentions had long been considered moral. But if the problem in Britain was not primarily a malicious conspiracy but insensitive bungling, war would not have been justified.
His conclusion? Here it is:
As a result, Americans fought a war to gain the kind of freedom that Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were simply given after not too many decades. An evil precedent was also established in America for later times of national crisis by employing the Bible eccentrically (instead of theologically) and by worrying about classical Christian justifications for warfare hardly at all. The lesson here is not that America had a uniquely evil history, for the Founding Fathers were morally exemplary on many other matters. It is that using the Scriptures for public disputes requires a full measure of reasoned calm as well as passionate engagement.
What are your thoughts?
The winner of the July 2008 Fool’s Gold Book Giveaway is:
Anna Augustin
Anna blogs (or will be starting soon!) at http://annaaugustin.blogspot.com.
Here are her responses to the giveaway questions:
1. What do you do during the day?
Well, I am in transition. I recently finished a year long church discipleship program and am currently job searching. In the meantime, I’m busy working as a nanny.
2. What interesting event has happened to you this summer?
Most recently I finished reading the Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. It was a great and easy read, spurring on much thought!
Many thanks to those of you who submitted entries. Keep your browsers peeled for next month’s giveaway.
If you have any suggestions for books you would like to see in future giveaways, feel free to leave a comment and I will see what I can do.
To usher in the month of July I’m giving away a free copy of “The Gospel and Personal Evangelism” by Mark Dever, senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., and executive director of 9Marks.
Here’s the shake-down. Between now and midnight tomorrow (Wednesday, July 2 Central Standard Time), send an e-mail to thefoolsgoldblog@gmail.com. In the e-mail, include your name, the name and address of your blog (if you have one), what you do during the day, and any interesting event that has happened to you this summer. It could be somewhere you’ve visited, someone you’ve talked to, a book you’ve read, a strange talent you’ve mastered, etc. I will then randomly select an entry, and e-mail the winner to ask for his or her mailing address. The winner will be announced sometime on Thursday, July 3.
“The Gospel and Personal Evangelism” is a quick read, and provides a very sound treatment of various issues surrounding evangelism. Dever’s approach is to structure his book around seven questions:
- Why Don’t We Evangelize?
- What Is the Gospel?
- Who Should Evangelize?
- How Should We Evangelize?
- What Isn’t Evangelism?
- What Should We Do After We Evangelize?
- Why Should We Evangelize?
One of the reasons I love the book is that not only is Dever an evangelist, but he operates out of a deep embrace of the sovereignty of God. Here is a good quote from the book:
Somehow, Paul found the doctrine of God’s sovereignty an encouragement in his evangelism. Do we need to recover this confidence in a day of increasing opposition to the public preaching of the gospel? I think that we do. I fear that much of today’s evangelism will soon end. As evangelism becomes more and more unpopular, I fear that some Christians will simply dilute it, water it down, alter it, or even stop sharing the good news altogether. I think a better understanding of the Bible’s teaching on God’s election would help them. I think it would give them confidence and joy in their evangelism. (pg. 105)
So, shoot me an e-mail and we will see who wins this month’s giveaway!
