You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September, 2008.
I had a professor in college who taught that burial was a testimony to the Christian’s hope of a future bodily resurrection. Because of this, he said, a Christian should not be cremated.
Tullian Tchividjian, the senior pastor of New City Church in Southern Florida, posts some reflections from a recent men’s retreat the church had. Mike Wittmer, professor of Systematic Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, was speaker for the retreat, and during the question and answer session someone asked the question:
“Given the fact that upon Christ’s return God will reunite our sinless souls with a sinless body, is it wrong to cremate your body when you die?”
Tullian relays Mike’s response:
Mike’s answer was stellar. He said that it depends on why you choose to do it. If it’s because you think that your physical body is of no value to God, then the answer would be yes, it is wrong to cremate your body. But there are other reasons why it would be fine to do so.
He also quotes a post by Michael Walker on the subject. Walker is the Theologian in Residence at Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas, TX. Here is some of what Walker has to say:
I think there are good “arguments” for and against the practice of cremation from a Christian perspective. I worry less about whether cremation poses any obstacles for God’s power to resurrect the dead, and more about how the practice can impact our attitude toward the physicality of life in the present. We do tend to treat our bodies as objects apart from ourselves, rather than part of our-selves. Pressing issues in bioethics offer plenty of good examples, and in the evangelical community it tends to be part and parcel of the larger world-denying rather than world-engaging spirituality. If ultimately, God’s plan is to redeem our bodies and indeed all creation, how should that impact the way we treat our own bodies and the creation now?
Do you think cremation is an acceptable practice for Christians? What reasons can you think of for or against it?
To see the question more clearly, consider the difference in capitalization between the ESV and NASB in Psalm 95:7:
(ESV)
“For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.”
(NASB)
“For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.”
I feel like the issue is not altogether unrelated to the style of clothes a person wears to church. The core of the issue is a tension between the transcendance and the immanence of God. Wearing a suit and tie on Sunday morning sends the message that God is “other than,” that he is high and exalted. T-shirts and jeans proclaim that God is near. He is involved in his creation and meets us where we are. Both emphases are necessary, and I think a lot of friction would be cooled if people could see this more.
The same is true with whether or not to capitalize the divine pronoun. When we sing Christmas carols, do we exhort one another to come and adore “Him” or “him”?
By capitalizing the pronoun we stress the transcendance of Jesus. He is the Him of hims, after all. But he is also near. A baby lying in a feed trough. He is most blessedly “him.”
All of this is to say I think the choice is a matter of preference. For what it’s worth, I incline toward a lower-case pronominalism. For example, I feel free to write, “Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many.” There was a day when my conscience would have been very jittery neglecting the shift key, but now I see that a lower-case “h” need not be disrespectful.
What do you think?
Things will be kicking off tonight at 7:00 with Sinclair Ferguson speaking on James 3:1-12. Tyler Kenney and I will be blogging the conference together for the DG Blog. I’m really looking forward to it.
Mike Anderson from the Resurgence blog will also be live-blogging the event. Here’s what he wrote:
I’ll be at the Desiring God Conference this Friday-Sunday, and will be live-blogging the whole thing. You can expect photos, video, updates, and my perspective on the event. You will be able to ask questions and I will be able to respond. This will all be on the front page of theResurgence.com. Keep coming back in the following days after the event—I’ll be posting interviews with the speakers.
I think this is going to be a great conference. Maybe I’ll see you there!
Terry Virgo announced today that Tim Keller will be addressing Newfrontiers leaders in February. He also includes an interview he did with Keller as a bonus. Here is Keller’s response to being asked about his approach to apologetics in his book The Reason for God:
Most apologetic books are really written for Christians, even the ones that purport to be written for non-believers. Almost always they are not careful and respectful enough of non-Christians’ concerns to be plausible at all. One of the most frequent responses I get from non-Christian readers is: ‘I’m not sure I agree with all this, but I must say this is the first book I’ve read by a Christian that didn’t treat me like I was an idiot.’ The book is nothing but a distillation of how we converse with non-believers in NYC. The fact that you consider it ‘unusual’ shows that we aren’t very adept at connecting with such folks.
Feel free to check out the whole interview. Keller talks about engaging culture, people who have influenced his ministry, how he came to New York City, his church, and evangelizing New Yorkers.
- Deadbolts
- Pesticide
- 911
- Counseling
- Open heart surgery
- Barbed wire fences
- Contact lenses
- Aspirin
- Security lights
- Caskets
Of course, I’m referring here to Adam and Even before they ate the fruit. The point here is to remember that the way things are now is not the way they always were, nor the way they always will be. After all, through the cross and resurrection of Jesus, God is bringing his people back to Eden.
The angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. (Revelation 22:1-3)
Are there any other things you would add to the list?
Denny Burk has some strong words for those who try play the “God’s will” card in winning a girl’s affection. He cites a post by S.M. Hutchens as a springboard:
A young woman whose family I have known for years called me for advice. She had just been told by a young man that after long and earnest prayer, after seeking the face of God for days, the Holy Spirit had informed him it was God’s will she form a romantic attachment with him. With little deliberation and equal gravity I informed her she could tell her swain and his Spirit to go jump in the lake, and add a boot in my name to their collective backside with her good riddance.
Then he adds his own frank counsel to the stew:
Since I am the Dean over a school of undergraduates, I would add my own specific application of this advice to Christian college students.
To the Gals: If a guy ever tells you that God has revealed to him that you are supposed to marry him, then you need to drop him like a hot potato. Head for the hills, and don’t look back.
To the Guys: If you ever feel the need to tell a gal that God has revealed to you that you are supposed to marry her, then you need to put your hand over your mouth and repent. It’s almost certain that your “revelation” is really just a baptized form of manipulation. Such talk reveals spiritual immaturity and is unbecoming of a man of God.
It’s very common for believers to pray before eating a meal. I think support for this practice comes from two places, at least:
Mark 8:6 — “And he directed the crowd to sit on the ground. And he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.”
Luke 22:19 — “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’”
What I find curious, though, is that we don’t usually pray before snacks. I don’t see any qualitative difference between mashed potatoes and an ice cream sandwich. We are indebted to God for both.
What do you think? Does our hesitancy to pray before snacking indicate some mistaken assumptions about dinnertime blessings? Or perhaps a false distinction between the sacred and the secular…or in this case, the meal and the munchies?
Jacqueline Salmon from the Washington Post writes about a study released yesterday by the Institute for Studies of Religion out of Baylor University:
Congregants find megachurches offer more personal worship and sense of community than smaller churches, according to a study released yesterday that challenges the conventional wisdom that some large churches are too big to offer a spiritual experience.
Researchers at the Institute for Studies of Religion, who defined megachurches as those with more than 1,000 worshipers, found that their members were twice as likely to have friends in the congregation than members of small churches. They also displayed a higher level of personal commitment to the church — attending services and tithing more often than small-church members.
Interestingly, one of the keys to achieving a more personal feel is small groups:
To achieve a less impersonal environment, researchers said, megachurches consciously break down the congregation into smaller groups that meet regularly.
Ebenezer AME Church in Fort Washington, which draws 5,500 people to its Sunday services, offers more than 100 types of small weekly groups — choirs, Bible study, sports teams and mentoring programs, the Rev. Grainger Browning said. “We are a large church during the weekend, but it becomes a small church during the week,” he said.
What do you think? Do you feel the size of a church affects the relational potential of its congregation?
That’s short for “Edwards on the Head”, my Thursday afternoon phenomena of feeling like a deflated cerebral whoopie cushion. I have class on Mondays and Thursdays, but Thursdays are the big days. We clock in at 7:45 and hang up our hats at 3:30. The whole day we belly-up to a smorgasbord of academic cuisine, beginning with Hebrew and ending with a class on Jonathan Edwards, who, by the way, has the uncanny ability to make me feel both amazed and dumb at the same time. That’s a good thing.
Right now we’re working through his dissertation “Concerning the End for Which God Created the World.” His point is that God didn’t create the world out of some deficiency or need in himself. Instead, the infinite self-knowledge and joy he has experienced in the fellowship of the Trinity is so full that it spills over. Like a fountain. God desires to communicate or display that fullness, and so he creates. Here’s how Edwards put it:
…[W]e may suppose, that a disposition in God, as an original property of his nature, to an emanation of his own infinite fulness, was what excited him to create the world; and so that the emanation itself was aimed at by him as a last end of the creation. (End of Creation, 23)
This approach may not be directly transferable to our day and context, but I think more men would do well to have Whitefield’s chutzpah:
He [Whitefield] had complete confidence in the authority of his message, and was determined that it should receive the respect it deserved as God’s Word. Once in a New Jersey meeting-house he “noticed an old man settling down for his accustomed, sermon-time nap”, writes John Pollock, one of his biographers. Whitefield began his sermon quietly, without disturbing the gentleman’s slumbers. But then “in measured, deliberate words” he said:
“If I had come to speak to you in my own name, you might rest your elbows upon your knees and your heads on your hands, and go to sleep!…But I have come to you in the name of the Lord God of hosts, and (he clapped his hands and stamped his foot) I must and I will be heard.” The old man woke up startled.
(John Stott, Between Two Worlds, 32-33)
When I was little, I dreamed that I would be a school bus driver. For me, it wasn’t a matter of wanting to serve the community or have an influence in children’s lives. I just thought the extendable stop sign was cool. Thankfully, that was a short-lived fantasy.
How about you? Any interesting ambitions?
The highway to hell is paved with morality as much as with decadence. Tim Keller writes about the deceptive evil of embracing Jesus merely as a model and not as a Savior:
That, ironically, is a rejection of the gospel of Jesus. It is a Christianized form of religion. It is possible to avoid Jesus as Savior as much by keeping all the Biblical rules as by breaking them. Both religion (in which you build your identity on your moral achievements) and irreligion (in which you build your identity on some other secular pursuit or relationship) are, ultimately, spiritually identical courses to take. Both are “sin.” Self-salvation through good works may produce a great deal of moral behavior in your life, but inside you are filled with self-righteousness, cruelty, and bigotry, and you are miserable. You are always comparing yourself to other people, and you are never sure you are being good enough. You cannot, therefore, deal with your hideousness and self-absorption through the moral law, by trying to be a good person through an act of the will. You need a complete transformation of the very motives of your heart. (”The Reason for God,” 177)
This question has nagged me for some time and I’ve never come to a satisfying conclusion. Thankfully, Russell Moore has taken up the issue in a recent post. He explains why he thinks a minister should not officiate at the wedding of two unbelievers. Here is the cream filling of his argument:
In the New Testament, the marriages of church members are the business of the church community. Throughout the Scripture, the marriages of the members of the believing community are addressed to entire congregations (for instance, 1 Cor 7; Eph 5). At the same time, Paul tells the church at Corinth: “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside” (1 Cor 5:12-13).
That’s precisely the issue. For unbelievers the church has no right to hold a couple to their vows through church discipline. They are not, after all, members of the church. A church that isn’t able to hold a couple to their vows (through discipleship and discipline) as witnesses to the covenant made (through discipleship and discipline) has no right to solemnize these vows in the first place. What would the church do if the unbelieving non-members were to break these vows?
In the case of unbelievers, a minister of the state (such as a Justice of the Peace) is perfectly appropriate to officiate because it is the state, not the church, that will hold the couple accountable for any breaking of the vows made.
Almost every pastor I’ve ever heard who performs weddings indiscriminately appeals to the evangelistic potential. Every community has the “wedding chaplain” pastor who will marry anyone. He is rarely the soul-winning firebrand of the community. As a matter of fact (though I’m sure there are exceptions), I’ve not once met an unbelieving couple who were won to Christ by a pastor who was willing to marry them regardless of their belief in Christ. I know of several couples, though, who came to Christ because a faithful pastor lovingly told them no, and told them why.
What do you think?
I remember I was just getting ready to begin my freshman year in college. We were on a quarter system then, so classes didn’t start until around mid-September. September 11 was a Tuesday and I was supposed to move in that Friday.
That morning I was sleeping in bed when my mom came into my room to wake me up and tell me that a plane had flown into one of the Twin Towers. I remember acknowledging it but I just went back to sleep. (I know…that was pretty lame of me.) Later I found out that a plane had hit the second tower.
I can remember riding in the car with my dad later that evening and seeing gas stations backed up with lines of cars because there were fears that prices were going to soar. It was a surreal feeling.
What about you?
Last night Crystal and I went on a date to Chipotle. It’s one of our favorite haunts. Chipotle typically provides some sort of biographical sketch of notable people on their drink cups. They call the series “People We’re Pleased to Know.” I had the privilege of vacuuming Mr. Pibb out of Part 7 this time, which highlighted a man named Dr. Bernie Rollin. Here is an excerpt that proved to be an interesting conversation piece:
Long before PETA made splattering paint on fur-clad celebrities fashionable, Dr. Bernie Rollin was advocating for the ethical treatment of animals. This Harley-riding, weight-lifting philosophy professor believed humans had a moral obligation to reduce animal suffering.
What do you think? Aside from the excesses of certain animal rights groups, do you think Rollin is on to something? Do humans have a moral obligation to reduce animal suffering? How would we frame the issue biblically?
Crystal and I were reading “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” last night and I found the following quote rather humorous in light of our recent discussion about the impropriety of “proper” grammar:
(Mr. Beaver is talking)
“It’s all right,” he was shouting. “Come out, Mrs. Beaver. Come out, Sons and Daughters of Adam. It’s all right! It isn’t Her!” This was bad grammar of course, but that is how beavers talk when they are excited; I mean, in Narnia — in our world they usually don’t talk at all. (pg. 115)
Hey, I may be wrong about my linguistic sentiments, but at least I’m in good company.
I had the opportunity to speak with a Muslim and a Jehovah’s Witness this past week. Though there are sweeping differences between the two religious frameworks, there is one striking bond.
Both reject Jesus.
The tricky part, though, is that neither would say they do. For the Muslim, Jesus is a prophet who is to be honored. For the Jehovah’s Witness, Jesus is the Son of God who offered his life to make atonement for sin.
However, both balk at the idea of Jesus being God. Therefore, both reject Jesus.
The Muslim arrives at this conclusion by disregarding the Biblical witness to Jesus’ divinity. The Jehovah’s Witness arrives at this conclusion by distorting the Biblical witness.
The response to both approaches is the same: show them Jesus.
Point them to texts like John 8:58 — “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’”
Or John 10:31-33 — “The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.’”
Or John 20:27-28 — “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.’ Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”
Show them Jesus, correct them gently, and then trust that “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:25-26).
Some friends of ours shared this video with us last night. Enjoy.
The BBC News online magazine carries the following user-contributed list of 20 common grammatical errors. At some points BBC either corrects or adds further clarification to the suggestions. I will list those suggestions in bold type so you can look them up at your leisure. Here they are:
- Confusing “have” and “of”, as in “I could of learnt how to write properly.”
- Using the phrase “for free” instead of “for nothing”.
- Writing “12pm” when “am” means “ante-meridiem” (before noon) and “pm” means “post-meridiem” (after noon). One should use either “midday” or “noon”.
- “Effect” versus “Affect”.
- Haphazard applications of apostrophes, as in “CD’s” (I’m assuming “CDs” would be the proper use).
- Using “I” where “me” is correct, as in “She said some very kind things about George and I.” (Crystal has corrected I — I mean me — a number of times on this one.)
- Incorrectly using reflexives, such as “yourself” or “myself” when “you” or “me” is correct. (I just did this recently. I said something like “Myself and another guy are being mentored by one of the pastors.” Ack! Away with the pomp and frillery!)
- Saying “none of them are” instead of “none of them is”.
- Avoiding varied prepositions such as “similar to“, “different from“, and “compared with” by slapping “to” on every phrase.
- Saying “Then they opened fire on us” when it should really be “Then they open-fired on us”.
- Using “literally” incorrectly, as in “I literally went blue with anger.” People don’t literally turn blue.
- Confusing “its” and “it’s”, the former being the possessive form, and the latter being the contraction of “it is”. (I still remember getting this wrong on a test I took when I was a young chap. It’s plagued me ever since.)
- Employing the phrase “due to” when “owing to” is meant.
- “They’re”, “their”, and “there”. Oh, and “to”, “two”, and “too”, too.
- Confusing “lend” and “borrow”, as in school children asking “to lend your pencil” when they really mean “to borrow your pencil”.
- Saying “amount of people” instead of “number of people”.
- Telling someone you went to a place “by foot” rather than “on foot”.
- Using a singular noun with a plural verb, as in “The team are happy with their victory.”
- Trying to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition when you’re using a verb that includes a preposition, such as “set up”. For example, trying to say “…I am using a new computer up with which my manager recently set me” instead of “At work I am using a new computer with which my manager recently set me up.”
- Saying “stadiums” rather than “stadia” as the plural of “stadium”.
One I would add is saying “The car needs washed” rather than “The car needs washing” or “The car needs to be washed.” I grew up thinking nothing of the first construction. When I came to college, however, a friend told me that was incorrect. I was aghast.
Are there any you would add?
The winner of the September 2008 Fool’s Gold Book Giveaway is:
Wink Rush
Wink operates a blog called “Rushes to Jesus“, where he posts observations about day-to-day life and how God is preparing he and his wife for a missions trip to Seoul, South Korea in October.
Here’s what Wink has to say about himself:
I am an analyst by day for a major wholesaler in Memphis, TN. I work with our church’s men’s ministry, and I teach discipleship classes, and sing in the choir. I also direct dramas as well as act in some of them. I keep busy :)
My wife and I love missions work. We work both locally and internationally. My wife is the senior and associate pastors’ secretary at our church, First Baptist Collierville, TN.
As far as the best or most unusual job he’s had, Wink has sold women’s and men’s shoes and has also worked as a surveyor.
Congratulations, Wink! Be sure to stay tuned, everyone, for next month’s giveaway. As always, feel free to suggest any books you would like to see on the auction block. The free auction block, that is.
Happy September, and Happy Labor Day! To encourage glad Septembral tidings and celebrate The Fool’s Gold’s five-month birthday, I will be giving away a free copy of “The Heavenly Man” by Brother Yun with Paul Hattaway.
Giveaway Details:
Between now and midnight on Tuesday, September 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, a book you’ve read recently, and the best or most unusual job you have ever had. 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 Wednesday, September 3.
About the Book:
Brother Yun is a Chinese Christian who has had an influence, under God, in the growth of the Chinese house church movement. He has been imprisoned and tortured for the sake of the gospel in his life, and has seen God work in miraculous ways to advance the gospel in China. “The Heavenly Man” is an autobiographical recounting of God’s providence in Yun’s life and the life of the Chinese church.
Here’s an excerpt from the introduction of the book to whet your appetite:
Brother Yun is known throughout China as “the Heavenly Man”. This nickname stemmed from an incident in 1984 when he refused to tell his real name to the authorities. Divulging his true identity would have endangered local Christians. In reply to the threats and beatings of the Public Security Bureau to reveal his name and home address, Yun shouted, “I am a heavenly man! My home is in heaven!” The local believers, who were still gathered in a nearby house, heard his shouting and knew he was warning them of danger. They all fled and avoided arrest.
As a mark of respect for his courage and love for the body of Christ, house church believers in China have called Yun “the Heavenly Man” to this day.
Yun is the first to admit that there are parts of him that are not heavenly! Like all of us, he struggles against temptation and weakness, and deeply realizes that, apart from the grace of Jesus Christ in his life, he amounts to nothing. He once told his wife Deling, “We are absolutely nothing. We have nothing to be proud about. We have no abilities and nothing to offer God. The fact that he chooses to use us is only due to his grace. It has nothing to do with us. If God should choose to raise up others for his purpose and never use us again we would have nothing to complain about.” (pg. 13)
Currently Yun is involved in promoting the Back to Jerusalem movement, an effort of Chinese house churches to take the gospel from China through the hard places of Central Asia all the way back to Jerusalem.
I was really challenged by reading about Yun’s life and the suffering he has experienced for the gospel. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to revel in God’s passion to gather worshipers from all nations.
