Monday, December 18, 2006

Office 2007 Now Includes an Option to Directly Post to Your Blog…

For a WYSIWYG guy like me, this could be a boon! Perhaps I'll actually start blogging regularly.


 

This optimism, of course, ignores the following realities:

  1. I really don't have time to blog
  2. Others don't have the time or inclination to read my blog
  3. I don't want to put too much out there for The Man™ to read;I'd like Big Brother to learn about me the old fashioned way – you know, eavesdropping, reading my email, and the like.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Traveling Mercies

I'm about halfway through this book by Anne Lamott. It has been challenging. I find myself cringing a lot: cringing at some of the things Anne says, then cringing at my own reaction to it, if that make sense. Discerning truth from error while not judging someone is difficult - it takes wisdom, and lot more of it than I presently have.

Anyway, Anne's book has been good for me to read, despite our differing views on just about everything. She's a gifted writer and at certain points I believe she is being totally transparent and honest.

Still, much of it appears false and contrived, as if she's taken on the mantle of "Christian" only to drop an f-bomb so she can seem hip in comparison to stodgy-types who wouldn't use "such language". It has the vibe of someone who claims to be something so they can disavow it to impress others - like the Dixie Chicks lead singer "apologizing" for America's Texan president to an audience in England. "Yeah, I'm a Christian, but I'm not like *those* Christians....".

Again, I haven't finished the book and can't judge Anne's heart (nor should I). I'm just commenting on my impressions thus far.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Muslims express fury over Pope's remarks - Yahoo! News

Muslims express fury over pope's remarks - Yahoo! News

This is ridiculous. The guy was quoting something somebody said 6 hundred years ago.

And the question is never asked: "Does Islam condone spreading "the faith" by the sword?". No - the Pope, whom I disagree with on all sorts of theological issues (5 solas come to mind immediately) - is simply castigated for merely repeating a statement that is viewed as politically incorrect. The veracity, or truthfulness, of what he's saying is never brought into the discussion. Any question is simply squelched by the steamroller of Political Correctness.

The suppression of honest inquiry is the hallmark of tyranny, whether secular or religious in nature. If Islam doesn't teach what this 16th century emperor says it does, then Muslims should respond by simply saying "That's not the case". When they take to the streets in mobs they give credence to the very notion they so vehemently disagree with.

Jews believe one thing, Christians another, Buddhists another, and Muslims yet another. And in believing different things, they're bound to come into conflict. One test of the worth of a religion, then, is how it responds to those who disagree with it. Christ said to bless those who curse you, so we who are Christians have been given our marching orders and anyone who kills another human in Christ's name is doing something other than what Christ commanded.

So the question remains, when Muslims take to the streets in fits of rage to burn flags and scream threats and spew hatred are they acting in accordance with, or against the teachings of their faith?

Thursday, September 14, 2006

From the New Attitude Blog

Na: "This concept of humble orthodoxy grew out of our experience as believers in local church communities. It made such a difference in our own lives that we wanted to share it. Our hearts constantly tend to redefine truth to suit our own purposes or to remake them in our own image. But we don't think our role should be to show up and change truth, we should let truth change us. "

I think this is what the folks meandering through the emergent church movement are trying to get at. Yet instead of submitting to the truth, they wring their hands and say they're "not sure" what the truth is. Frustrating and sad.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Gene Veith Hits it on the Head

From his article in WORLD Magazine, Silent Witnesses:

"Some evangelicals stop referring to Jesus because they think they do not need Him anymore. Jesus was involved in their conversion, long ago, but now they have to concentrate on living the Christian life. They have forgotten that the gospel is for every day of the Christian's life. And that no one can live the Christian life without Christ, who says, 'apart from Me you can do nothing' (John 15:5). "

That's the hardest thing to remember, that it's all about the Gospel. Our fallen state as humans and our redemption; God's wrath and justice right right alongside his mercy and grace; God's holiness and love displayed to the ultimate degree: it's all wrapped up in the Gospel.

Oh, how we want to ram God's wrath down people's throat in an attempt to cause them to "fear the Lord" when it's his grace that leads to proper respect for (and repentance 'unto') him. And oh, how we want to camp on God's love without mentioning that in his love for mankind the Father had his only Son crucified as an atonement for our sins. We find it easy to gravitate to the left or right, to be "liberal" or "conservative" but find it hard to be "...perfect [whole, complete], lacking nothing...".

Why? Because: "...apart from me you can do nothing".

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

On Calvinism vs. Arminianism

From a post I made in a thread on John Piper's prostate cancer over at Christ and Culture. My thinking was a little muddled towards the beginning of the post, but I think I made my point by the end ( i.e. no one's got God and his decrees 'pinned down' or defined entirely):

"I may be hairsplitting and trying to draw middle ground where there is none, but...

The "hard-line' Calvinist view seems to be (or at least is interpreted to be): God directly acts to cause suffering. God directly forms the cancer in John Piper's prostate for some unknown purpose.

The "hard line' Arminian view (which I believe logically leads to open-theism) appears to be: God doesn't have anything to do with suffering, whatsoever, other than to attempt to comfort us in it. It's as if God says to the cancer patient "Gee, I wish I could help you, but...".

When I recall the stories of Job and of Joseph, I see a different picture. One where God is not the agent of sin or suffering, but who is the Almighty God who *allows* sin to occur and uses even that which is intended to disgrace him (sin) for his glory. Now of course, God does smite sinful humanity at times. It's his prerogative.

Why do I include suffering along with sin? Because both are subsequent to the Fall, both are harmful to man, and yet both are used by God for his glory.

Another comment: I see a tendency on the part of Calvinists (I'd consider myself to be one, as long as one doesn't equate it with being "mean") to overthink things to the dishonor of God and a tendency on the part of Arminians to underthink things to the dishonor of God.

Many Calvinists seem to think they actually have the doctrines of grace (DOG) pinned down and thoroughly defined, and as a result can speak with a frightening degree of certainty about incredibly complex, doctrines. We can NEVER completely grasp the reality of the DOG anymore than we can fully understand the Hypostatic Union or the Trinity. To think we can is to sully the glory of Christ.

As for the Arminian postion, I think many simply reject Biblical truth because it is initially difficult to accept - it often doesn't appeal to our emotions, but instead requires thoughtful and prayerful consideration. So rather than "thinking biblically", they rely on philosophy or raw emotion to reach the theological conclusion that suits their tastes.

God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, and without sin. And he created a universe into which sin and suffering entered. And he did it with the full knowledge (omniscience) that they would enter in. He wasn't taken aback by the Fall ("Oh my, what do I do now!!"), his plan and purpose have remained the same from before the foundation of the world, and "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will". "

Friday, February 24, 2006