- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostTwo Prayers
- Next Post »More Truth About Wikipedia
A La Carte (10/4)
- 10/04/10
- 29
Thanks for all who prayed about my talk at the Eighth Letter Conference. I’ll try to get the audio of that message and post it for you a little later in the week. In general things went well, I thought. It was quite an interesting event and one of the rare ones I get invited to where I feel a little bit like the outsider.
The Reformer - The Christianity Today cover story about Al Mohler is now available online. From a rather negative perspective it tells “How Al Mohler transformed a seminary, helped change a denomination, and challenges a secular culture.”
Between the Boy and the Bridge - And speaking of Dr. Mohler, his article from this morning is well worth reading. He writes about the Rutgers student who commited suicide recently. “By all accounts Tyler Clementi was an 18-year-old young man who was excited to be a freshman in college, gifted as a violinist, and looking forward to the future. All that changed last week when he walked out onto the massive George Washington Bridge that connects New York with New Jersey and jumped 200 feet to his death.”
Children’s Bible Reading Plan - David Murray has put together an interesting reading plan to guide his children in their personal devotions. If you’re currently in the midst of parenting kids, you may want to give it a look.
Desiring God Conference Audio - All of the audio from this weekend’s Desiring God conference is now available for you.
Teaching Biblical Truth to Children - My brother-in-law has been writing about teaching biblical truth to children, writing as one who is right in the midst of it and who is learning as he goes. Here is part 1 and here is part 2.
Octavius Winslow Archive - This page is “The most comprehensive online collection of writings, quotes, and biography of Octavius Winslow” who was one of the foremost evangelical preachers of the 19th century. Every day it offers a new devotional written by Winslow.
My Name is John Daker - A friend reminded me of this video while he was over this weekend. It’s a classic. Watch the first and then watch the annotated, cartoon version. You’ve got to love local television programming.
Let not anyone who thinks that fear of hell should be put out of the mind of unregenerate men ever suppose that he has the slightest understanding of what Jesus came into the world to say and do. —J. Gresham Machen
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (29)
Thank you for posting Al Mohler’s article, Between the Boy and the Bridge. It struck a particular nerve in me, as I’ve been personally touched by a suicidal death in my own family, and I understand the horrific gravity of such an event.
It’s a chilling but far too accurate account of what is happening to our youth across the land. Tragically, it’s the fallout of a generation(s) that has largely been found fatherless, whether that abandonment be physical or emotional—but understanding, foremost, that it is always spiritual.
And if that were my opinion, it would be fair game to the gay agenda, but Malachi 4:5-6 attests to this as truth. Only when there are cries going up to heaven in repentance will there be a reversal, when “the hearts of the fathers turn to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.”
They, like us, desperately need to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to know the grace of God toward sinners. They, like us, need to know the mercy of God extended to sinners through Christ Jesus. They, like us, need to repent of their sins and learn by grace how to grow into faithfulness.
Generally speaking, good on Mohler. But, a few thoughts. First, he assumes that these kids weren’t believers because they were struggling with sexual identity. I’m not sure that’s an assumption we can reasonably make.
Also, in addition to the struggling kids needing to understand the gospel, mercy and grace, allow me to suggest that the ones who bullied them need to understand these things equally as much if not more so.
Re: CT article on A. Mohler: The “negative perspective” really only comes out in a handful of sentences. When quoting those who disagree with Dr Mohler, the main thing is to get the quote accurate and in the correct context. It’s only when the writer starts offering what appears to be opinion that her editors should have reigned her in. Or, perhaps, her editors were the folks who added the negative perspective.
I read the Mohler piece this weekend. There were several times where I felt the journalist needed to add more to make the point. (Especially the statement concerning how the conservatives “used the system” to get people elected. This to me was written as if they did something dishonest, but we were never told how ).
Also the idea of Mohler not be an original thinker because he just uses the same old arguments, in my view, was overstated. First, I have heard Mohler make some comments and write articles that would definitely be considered “original” thinking. Second, what if the “old” answers are right. Why give them up?
Finally, I’m not understanding the reason to use a large portion of the article to basically say Mohler is insecure about his upbringing so he creates an intellectual identity to overcome insecurities. I think more proof is needed than the writers interpretation of his library and a random Patterson quote to prove that point.
Just my two sense.
www.studyyourbibleonline.com
“First, he assumes that these kids weren’t believers because they were struggling with sexual identity. I’m not sure that’s an assumption we can reasonably make.”
Why would we assume they were believers? Since we are all born unbelievers, the assumption is that we still are unless we present evidence (fruit) to the contrary. Only in America do we assume someone is a Christian first.
John Daker videos. I haven’t laughed this hard since I don’t know when.
An interesting article on Mohler, though I was very saddened by his recent editorial in which he traced his journey away from gender egalitarianism and towards hierarchalism.
“First, he assumes that these kids weren’t believers because they were struggling with sexual identity. ”
I may have missed it, but I didn’t see any clear assumption they were unbelievers. He said they need hear the gospel that they might know the grace and mercy of God, and that they needed to repent of their sins. So do we all.
It’s not unlikely that he was assuming that, but it’s not clear from the article.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to post the above anonymously.
@Michael: “Why would we assume they were believers?”
We shouldn’t. Neither should we assume the opposite, which is what Mohler seemed to be doing and what I questioned.
@Pentamom: “I may have missed it, but I didn’t see any clear assumption they were unbelievers.”
Point taken. There were a few cues that I thought suggested he viewed them as nonbelievers, but they’re not conclusive.
Re: Al Mohler
Wrong question!
Why was that guy doing what he was doing in HIS DORM room? Where his roommate LIVES! It doesn’t matter whether the object of his desire was male or female. Technology and FaceBook and whatever don’t matter. It’s just plain disgusting. That young mans life was totally out of control long before this incident.
All of the yelling and hand waving about gay stuff and technology (FaceBook, etc) is just a smoke screen. They don’t want people looking at the real problem, which is what Rutgers University (and just about every other institution of “higher learning” in this country) is teaching, preaching, supporting, and selling.
On the one hand, I think it’s far from incontrovertible that the activity being homosexual is a critical factor here. Is it really so unlikely that some stupid kids would tape another stupid kid having sex with a girl, post it, and humiliate the kid, just for the sake of doing a stupid kid thing?
On the other hand, it would be turning a blind eye to reality to pretend that college kids aren’t more likely to try to humiliate a homosexual compatriot than a straight one. In any case, I’m pretty sure no one was trying to drive Tyler to suicide. People who pull pranks like that, whether out of stupidity or hate, rarely believe the worst consequences will come to pass, if they’ve even considered them at all.
So it seems to me a sane approach is somewhere between “This is OBVIOUSLY a hate crime and is ALL ABOUT the kid being gay” and “Oh, pish posh, it’s just kids embarrassing each other.” Both approaches serve certain agendas, but an agnostic approach seems best and “What a horrible tragedy involving the sin of multiple people” is probably the only thing that can be said with certainty.
Mohler: Yet, when gay activists accuse conservative Christians of homophobia, they are also right. Much of our response to homosexuality is rooted in ignorance and fear. We speak of homosexuals as a particular class of especially depraved sinners and we lie about how homosexuals experience their own struggle. Far too many evangelical pastors talk about sexual orientation with a crude dismissal or with glib assurances that gay persons simply choose to be gay. While most evangelicals know that the Bible condemns homosexuality, far too many find comfort in their own moralism, consigning homosexuals to a theological or moral category all their own.
The tide may be turning toward a real Christian response to homosexuality! I really hope so!
While I was growing up, no one would have stood in the gap. How do I know? I could tell all too clearly from their response to the burgeoning AIDS epidemic. Then, instead of taking the reins to show love to a devastated group of people, Christians stood in as judge.
I think Mohler is saying the same thing — we need to take the reins and show a group of people love & grace, leaving our own bad judgments at the door.
Is Mohler saying that a Christian response needs to be more than simply telling homosexuals a thing or two?
Jordan Interesting, though the title of the editorial made me think the very opposite; I was actually quite pleased that he changed his view.
By the way if you mean that “towards hierarchalism” means that women are relegated to the level of inferior humanity. I must say that you a sadly mistaken, though I like the term “complimentarianism” better. Complementarianism holds that God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood, but different and complementary in function with male headship in the home and in the Church.
God is a God of order and even within the Trinity itself each member of the Trinity has a different role to play. But this in no way speaks of unusualness.In the economy of redemption, the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son. This does not mean that the Son is inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to both Father and Son. Our understanding of the Trinity is that the three persons of the Godhead are equal in being, worth, and glory. They are co-eternal and co-substantial.
Concerning the Desiring God conference, I probably should not comment before I listen to him, but I see Rick Warren spoke at this conference. But I have to say that having people like Rick Warren speak at Reformed conferences such as this one, actually takes away from their credibility. Unless of course Rick Warren has publicly repented of his previous watered down Gospel messages and embraced the unadulterated Gospel message.
J.P.H. said “We shouldn’t. Neither should we assume the opposite, which is what Mohler seemed to be doing and what I questioned.”
Actually, if there is no evidence of being a believer, we should assume the person is unbeliever. An unbeliever is the norm in the world, since we all come into the world as one. If person gets caught in a dorm room having sex with a person of the same sex (or even the opposite sex), that person needs to hear the gospel. Based on their “bad fruit”, they are likely not saved.
Assuming everyone is a Christian in America just waters down the gospel and gives people a false sense of assurance.
Hi Tom,
Thank you for the explanation, though as a sociologist I am familiar with the debate and with the subtler points of each side.
The problem is that the terms “complementary” and “complementarianism” have been claimed by both sides. And the soft patriarchy you describe still, in practicality, makes women inferior: in church. I take a more fully egalitarian view, and that’s why I was saddened by Mohler’s editorial last. I think the Trinity argument is weak, though I will not go into it here, a comments section just isn’t the place. Besides, the whole topic I brought up is peripheral to the CT article about Mohler.
But I appreciate your civil tone, thank you for the polite response.
On a lighter note:http://jordantheredherring.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/10-reasons-why-men-s…
Jordan, it is clear in 1 Tim 2 and Titus that elders (overseers, bishops, pastors) are to be men. To be egalitarian is simply to conform to the world’s ideas of political correctness.
What is your opinion of gays serving as pastors?
Hi Michael,
The issue of homosexuals serving as pastors is a red herring because sexual orientation (biological) and gender (cultural) are two different things. They are not analogous. With all due respect, I suspect your asking of it may also be an attempt at guilt by association (though I do not know you personally so it is hard to tell and I don’t want to be judgmental).
The reality is that you can find proof-texts for any view in the Bible. For a passage like Titus, for example, I could counter with Gal. 3:28. It could go on and on in circular fashion. Also, I do not believe I am “conforming to the world’s ideas of political correctness.” I believe I am an orthodox evangelical Christian, and to me, careful hermeneutics points to egalitarianism. I simply do not see that the Bible promotes patriarchy of any sort, and I believe that hermeneutics and knowledge of the culture in which the Bible was composed are very helpful in understanding what Scripture says about gender roles. As a student of sociology, I also do not think theology is the only discipline that should inform a Christian’s opinion on gender. Other disciplines have valuable contributions to add.
For those honestly interested in learning more about the debate, and open to re-examining some of evangelical subculture’s assumptions about gender and the church, check out the volume “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy,” 2nd ed., edited by Groothuis, Fee and Pierce. I especially recommend William J. Webb’s chapter on redemptive-movement hermeneutics.
Farewell, I really must work on a paper that’s due soon and can’t chat here any longer. Thank you for your time, God bless.
Jordan, thank you for your response. You are correct, gays as pastors and women as pastors are not the same thing. Nor did I imply they were. However I did not catch your answers as to whether you supported gays as pastors or not?
@Jordan: “…sexual orientation (biological) and gender (cultural) are two different things.”
I’m glad I wasn’t sipping anything that I’d have ended up cleaning off my monitor when I read that! Gender isn’t biological? *chuckles* Thank you, Jordan, for this memorable quote. Every so often the egals let their unisex view of creation slip out, but this just lets it all hang out.
I almost can’t watch this John Daker video without feeling complete and utter embarrassment for the guy!
But, I have to be honest and say, that the cartoon rendition was gut-busting hilarious.
LOL. You’ve got to see the American Idol remix of John Daker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD1cXWZXVkI&feature=related
well worth a watch.
@Michael: “Actually, if there is no evidence of being a believer, we should assume the person is unbeliever.”
Sure. If we have a fairly informed knowledge of a person’s life. I don’t know this guy from Adam. Really the only thing I know about him is that he was caught having sex with another man. That is obviously a sin. So it tells me he’s a sinner. Guess what: so am I. Without knowing anything else about him I can’t say whether or not he’s a believer. The only way I could make such a judgment is if I considered “homosexual sex” to constitute prima facie evidence of non-belief. And I don’t consider that it does.
“Based on their “bad fruit”, they are likely not saved.”
What about someone who denies Christ? Three times, no less!
“What about someone who denies Christ? Three times, no less!”
If that “someone” had walked with Christ personally for 3 years, denied Christ 3 times when He was crucified, and then walked with Christ the rest of his life and died in a like manner for the sake of Christ’s name — I think the fruit speaks for itself.
But if you came up to me and said “John Smith over there has denied Christ 3 times”, and that’s all we knew of John Smith, it is completely acceptable to assume he is not a believer. It would simply defy logic to assume he was a believer based on what he just said.
When I think about the subject of whether or not someone who is producing bad fruit, rather than producing good fruit can be a genuine Christian or not; two passages come to mind. Matt. 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. NKJV
While this passage speaks specifically about “false prophets”, I believe that it is also applicable to the issue at hand. Luke 6:39-45 also shows this truth. One thing I want to mention about Matt. 7:15-20 is that we don’t want to read too much into the passage. For example, on the surface it would appear that the verses are telling us that true Christians can lose their salvation; which I certainly do not believe. Instead I would say that these passages show us that someone who is either “a false prophet” or a false believer (that bear bad fruit) will be thrown into the fire like all non-believers will.It should also give all Christians pause to reflect on our own walk with the Lord, as to whether or not we are genuinely saved, or whether or not we are fooling ourselves.
The other passage that comes to mind is 2 Cor.13:5, I believe this goes right along with my last thought.5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.” NKJV
While it is true that no one except the Lord really knows the spiritual condition of someone else, I believe these passages should show us that when a supposed Christian is producing bad fruit, they certainly are not are not producing good fruit like a Christian should. Saying that, I also know that at points in my walk as a believer, I was actually acting in rebellion to my Lord. At those times I can honestly say that my fruit looked more like the fruit of a bad tree than a good tree. However, the Lord would not let me stay in that condition. I was absolutely miserable until I repented and turned back to my Lord.What I can say, is that if someone is producing bad fruit and they are truly a believer, then they are miserable and God will bring them to their knees.
@Michael: “If that “someone” had walked with Christ personally for 3 years, denied Christ 3 times when He was crucified, and then walked with Christ the rest of his life and died in a like manner for the sake of Christ’s name — I think the fruit speaks for itself.”
Sure. Do we know this isn’t the case for this kid? No, we don’t. So why are we assuming he’s not a believer?
@Michael: “But if you came up to me and said “John Smith over there has denied Christ 3 times”, and that’s all we knew of John Smith, it is completely acceptable to assume he is not a believer.”
Actually that would be pretty foolish. Is it likely that the person who denies Christ is not a believer? Sure. Is that something you can assume? Certainly not, as the example of Peter exemplifies. If all you know about “some guy named Peter” is that he personally denied Christ three times, you would assume he is not a believer. And you would be wrong. Doesn’t that suggest to you that this might be an assumption you shouldn’t make?
@Michael: “It would simply defy logic to assume he was a believer based on what he just said.”
Agreed. You act as if those are the only two options: assume he’s a believer or assume he’s not. They aren’t. How about, “don’t assume either in the absence of more information”?
“Sure. Do we know this isn’t the case for this kid? No, we don’t. So why are we assuming he’s not a believer?”
Because everyone is an unbeliever until they profess differently and show themselves to be otherwise. The default mode for the human race is “unbeliever”, not vice versa.
Tom, I would agree with that you said. I would also add that 1 John speaks to the issue as well, although not using the “good fruit, bad fruit” analogy.
These videos you’ve been posting of people making fools of themselves are beginning to seem a little mean. Should we really take so much pleasure in others’ embarassment?