- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA Morning Prayer
- Next Post »A Parody of Ourselves
A La Carte (6/14)
- 06/14/10
- 16
Mark Driscoll Interviews the Grudems - I enjoyed this interview between Mark Driscoll and Wayne and Margaret Grudem. Mark asks them questions related to their marriage.
Technology’s Negative Impact on Missions - This is worth thinking about in terms of the impact of technology on missions.
Geek Dad - Has anyone checked out this book? It looks like The Dangerous Book for Boys…for Dads. It claims to offer “Awesomely Geeky Projects and Activities for Dads and Kids to Share.” That sounds like a fun book for summer.
Firefighters Are for Weak People - Dave Dorr: “Recently a firefighter in our church was told by one of his colleagues that belief in Jesus was for weak people. I found that ironic coming from a firefighter.” Read why…
Embodying What They Hate - This article makes a good and valid point about the New Atheists. “Atheists remain a tiny minority, but they’re far more vocal and combative than they used to be, an approach advocated by Dawkins and others. They have every right to state their views. The irony is that this current brand of aggressive atheism is just another form of fundamentalism. These particular atheists are zealots on the subject of faith who see no shadings of gray, only black and white. They’re dead-set against religion but weirdly obsessed with it.”
Scenes from the Gulf - Sooner or later Boston.com was going to put together this photo essay.
Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible - Monergism Books is offering a 52% discount on the 5-volume Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible.
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 (16)
Tim: I’ve been thinking about social media and its relationship to the church / missions / culture etc. lately. So thanks for linking to the article on the possible negative impact on missions that technology can have. It is certainly food for thought and an angle I hadn’t looked at before. Real reflections from someone really out there on the front-line.
Sweet interview with the Grudems and their 40 year marriage. They are obvious fans of each other. She makes him seem real. Love how ordinany friends have been important to them.
Sweet interview of the Grudems. They are obvious fans of each other. She makes him seem real. Love how ordinary friends have been important to them.
“Technology’s Negative Impact on Missions” is a great reminder.To have a true gospel influence on people of Third world and developing countries, there needs to be a sensitivity to their less Western ways as they know what it means to live closer to the earth. In 1 Cor. 10:23, Paul said, “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. And in1 Cor. 9:22-23, he said, “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
There’s something to be said for truly “going native.” Jesus did.
The New Atheist - My home Church had an adult Sunday school elective featuring Dr.Stephen Meyer , using the DVD series called Does God Exist. Excellent video series and Meyer has a way of making complex arguments meet the pavement. It truly strengthened my faith and confidence in the truth of God’s creative signature all around us to see.This is what makes trying to dialog with many “zealots” , blind followers of Dawkins ,Harris,Dennet or Hitchens . They accuse Christians of blind faith but at least I answer back I have read what Dawkins has said . Watched Hitchens in debates and in fact I was on there side of the pond at one time. If I get in a conversation with an atheist now , I will try to present some basic evidences but ultimately I tell them they know God exist but are suppressing the truth . If they will not listen or don’t want further dialog I remind myself of what Jesus said .Matthew 10:14”And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.”I will continue to pray the Holy Spirit will convict them of sin and bring them to repentance but I will not engage if they become belligerent. Usually if that happens they are the only ones talking and what dialog is that.I just find it funny how they can hate something they don’t even think exist . Protesting too much perhaps. I think so.
Man, those photos of the oil spill are incredible. What a tragedy. I suppose the Gulf will never be the same. But the worse part of it all are the 11 lives that were lost on April 20th. The picture of one of the widows is telling.
I pray for the people who live by, and make a living from, the Gulf, that the Lord would have mercy on them, and help them, especially those of the household of faith. Amen.
I recently spoke on New Atheism on this site: http://121youth.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/the-dilemma-of-new-atheism/
The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible is cheaper by over ten dollars, even after shipping, at CBD
The response to the non-believing firefighter was a little weak. It gives short shrift to his overall point, which has some context beyond the simple, “Jesus is for the weak,” comment.
Consider the analogy in the response about a person whose house is on fire rejecting a firefighter’s aid. The non-believing firefighter would reject this analogy. His analogy would be that of a person whose house is not on fire, but who is so paranoid about the possibility of it catching fire that he can’t sleep at night without a fire engine parked in his driveway.
If I agreed with the non-believing firefighter about the spiritual reality in which we find ourselves, then I would also have to agree with him when he says, “Jesus is for the weak”. It follows logically from the set of facts he’s working with. The statement “Jesus is for the weak,” isn’t logically deficient, its just based on an incorrect view of reality.
There was a very interesting debate on the topic: “atheism is the new fundamentalism” in November of last year. Richard Harries and Charles Moore argued for the case, and A.C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins opposed. Very much worth watching, the first part can be found here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVppTZxFn3Qlook in the related links for the other parts.
Great interview with Mark Driscoll really enjoyed it. Check out Mark Driscoll video of “Why I Hate Religion” http://121youth.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/why-i-hate-religion/
Actually, the best analogy for the firefighter would have been to ask him if oxygen tanks, boots, protective coats, and masks are “for the weak firefighters.” It’s a pretty juvenile point to make, although a common one, to imply that only weak people need certain kinds of help. Two seconds’ thought will cause the most self-reliant person to realize that either it’s not so bad to be “weak” and depend on external things for help, or else it’s not “weak” to depend on the things we depend on every day, in the right ways.
Although, I don’t share JPH’s criticism of the post as it stands. The analogy used was pretty good. There’s no reason to concede “the spiritual reality in which the non-believing firefighter believes” — that’s the whole point, that people might be in denial that their houses might burn down, but that doesn’t mean they don’t ACTUALLY need firefighters around.
Eh. The critic of the non-believing firefighter seems to be implying that his guy saying “Jesus is for the weak” is somehow logically deficient. Given what that guy thinks about reality, I don’t think it is.
Most likely he believes Jesus was another man who lived and died, just like everybody else. There’s no God or gods. When you die, that’s it. He views himself as able to “handle” that reality without the use of a crutch like Christianity. From his perspective, given his assumptions about spiritual reality, it really does logically follow that Christians are a bunch of deluded neurotics.
Of course I think he’s mistaken. But, I don’t think its illogical of him to hold a somewhat dim view of Christians.
No, it’s not illogical at all, given his assumptions. But there’s no point to evangelism that doesn’t attack those assumptions. What’s the point of trying to persuade someone to believe in the benefit of a reality if you’re not going to establish the reality itself?
There are three false realities that the man believes in: the first is that it’s a sign of weakness to need something other than the self to survive. That’s self-evidently false from natural revelation. Attacking that one is the purpose of the analogy. The second false reality is that he’s not currently in any specific danger, and the third is that Jesus is not someone who can rescue Him, because he’s just a guy who lived and died long ago. You can’t get anyone any closer to the gospel if you don’t address all those false assumptions — they all have to be given over. So while the analogy doesn’t address all three, it’s not fallacious for addressing the first one in the way it does, while (correctly) assuming the other two.
For the following, I’ll refer to the post’s author as “DD” (David Dorr) and the non-believing firefighter as “NBF”.
I don’t take issue with DD addressing NBF’s spiritual assumptions, since I agree with DD that they’re faulty. I also agree with you when you point out that addressing those assumptions is at the heart of evangelism. What I take issue with is DD describing it as “ironic” that NBF should hold his view as a firefighter, or to subtly imply that NBF is “insane” for holding it.
First DD constructs his “house on fire” analogy and bases it on a Christian understanding of spiritual reality. Then he projects NBF’s statement into that analogy, despite the fact that NBF doesn’t accept the analogy’s underlying premise. DD then (accurately) calls it “insane” for the NBF character in the analogy to hold his view, given the way the analogy was constructed.
But it’s not “insane”, because NBF in fact rejects the analogy’s entire premise. To put it in terms of logic, NBF is basically saying, “X implies Y. X is true. Therefore, Y” where:
X = “100% materialistic world view.”Y = “Christians are weak for needing Jesus.”
If pressed, NBF would probably agree that not(X) implies not(Y). That is to say, if Christianity is true then it is not the case that Christians are weak for needing Jesus. DD’s post is basically this:
“Imagine a world where not(X). You’d have to be insane to argue Y!”
Personally, when I think of someone saying “Jesus is for the weak”, I think of the martyrs down through the centuries starting with Stephen.The way these Christians died speaks volumes against this accusation.