- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostThe Top Ten Articles of 2010 (So Far)
- Next Post »Weeping Together
A La Carte (9/16)
- 09/16/10
- 13
I’m off to Toronto Pastors Fellowship (a ministry of my church) to hear Alistair Begg address a collection of local pastors. If you’re in the Toronto area, it’s not too late. Just head on over to the church; it’s a free event and promises to be worthwhile.
The Reason for God - Next month will mark the release of Tim Keller’s The Reason for God DVD. Based on this trailer, it looks like it will be very, very interesting. “The Reason For God promises to be unlike any Christian DVD series we've ever seen. It shows the presenter (Keller) in live, unscripted conversation with an articulate group of six people who passionately disagree with Christian views.”
How Apple Products Make You a Better Christian - Stephen Altrogge explains how using Apple products will make you a better Christian.
Secular Values - Nancy Pearcey gives her take on the mosque at Ground Zero. “”Islamization” is coming to America. That’s the meaning behind the controversial Islamic community center-slash-mosque near Ground Zero. The secularization of the public square has created a vacuum that Islamicists are finding ways to exploit.”
Thoughts on Sentencing - Yesterday I mentioned that the man who murdered Emily Stauffer had been sentenced. Terry Stauffer has posted a grace-filled article reacting to the sentencing.
Our belief in the infallibility of Scripture arises not from an ability to prove that Scripture is perfect from start to finish. Rather it rests on Jesus’ own witness to Scripture. He believed and taught that it was the Word of God and therefore inherently trustworthy. Our belief in Scripture is dependent on our belief in Jesus. —Peter C. Moore
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 (13)
I’ve not read Keller’s “The Reason for God”, but I’m curious why he needs a reason for God when he’s such a strong supporter of evolution?
http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Keller_w…
Agreed, Michael…as long as Keller is an evolutionist, he has no credibility in the field of apologetics. He may reason very well toward the god of Darwin; I’m not interested and I know where that will go.
“I’ve not read this, but…”
Super.
Couldn’t disagree more with Pearcy.
“The secularization of the public square has created a vacuum that Islamicists are finding ways to exploit.”
Exploit by what, building a mosque? Meaning what, if the public square weren’t secularized we’d just flat-out refuse to allow Muslims to build places of worship?
“America has always welcomed anyone willing to assimilate to its national character. But radical Islam rejects assimilation and is bent on the conquest of our national character.”
1. America has always welcomed (at least on paper) anyone regardless of whether they’re willing to assimilate. Assimilation is just the natural result of being in the culture over multiple generations. And it happens to the children of Muslims just like it has to the children of other immigrant groups.
2. Certain Muslim radicals may indeed want to change our national character. Rauf is by no means radical.
3. Certain Christian radicals also want to transform our national character in ways most people (Christian or no) find abhorrent. I bear no guilt by association, and neither should moderate Muslims.
“This is clear in the thinly veiled threat by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who said on “Larry King Live” that if the proposed Cordoba mosque is moved to a different location, “anger will explode in the Muslim world” causing danger to “our national security.”
Really? I don’t interpret that as a threat at all. I think he expects violence, yes, but he’s as unhappy about it as anyone else. If I say, “I don’t think you should stand on that hill and hold up that umbrella in the middle of a thunderstorm; you’ll probably get struck by lightning,” is that a threat?
Viva la LIBERTARIANISM, right JPH?
1. Welcoming people does not mean we should allow anyone to build a mosque on the spot where Muslims killed 3000 people, for the name of Mohammed. You’re passing political correctness off as libertarianism here.
2. Rauf thinks we should all be under shariah law. Radical? Live and let live right? That doesn’t go so well with shariah does it?
3. So Rauf isn’t radicial, but Christians who think the Ground Zero mosque is in bad taste and shouldn’t be built, they are certainly radical?
RobertK,One does not need to read the book to disagree with Keller on evolution.
Welcoming people does not mean we should allow anyone to build a mosque on the spot where Muslims killed 3000 people
Correct. The basis for why we should allow the mosque to be built does not derive from a need to be “welcoming”.
You’re passing political correctness off as libertarianism here.
Not true, at least to the extent that Reason magazine and CATO reflect mainstream libertarian thought. Both of them have supported Rauf’s right to build.
Rauf thinks we should all be under shariah law. Radical?
He also has a distinctly non-radical vision of Sharia law that sits in direct contrast to how various middle eastern countries implement sharia.
And so what if he does advocate shariah in the United States? Various reconstructionist Christians advocate Mosaic law, which is no less harsh. Should we forbid them building churches and/or kick them out of the country? Its his prerogative to advocate whatever wacky views he wants.
So Rauf isn’t radicial, but Christians who think the Ground Zero mosque is in bad taste and shouldn’t be built, they are certainly radical?
Did I say anything to suggest that? I think those who oppose the mosque on the basis of “bad taste” are misguided, but I don’t think they’re particularly radical.
non-radical vision of Sharia law
Now that’s an oxymoron.
Did I say anything to suggest that?
Yes, you said:
Rauf is by no means radical.
and
Certain Christian radicals also want to transform our national character
The fact there are Christian theonomists does not justify Muslim shariah.
“Bad taste” is a kind way of saying it’s immoral. It’s wrong. Vindictive. A kick in the head when you’re down. You may say “we can’t legislate morality”. Fine. But we can set up laws to protect people from immorality, hence certain cities vote not to allow adult entertainment, etc.
Alas we’ve been through this before on a previous “a la carte” here, so it’s not worth rehashing further as I see you assert libertarianism over all else.
Re: non-radical vision of Sharia lawNow that’s an oxymoron.
I agree. But there you have it. Rauf views much of what other Muslims consider “Shariah” to be so much cultural baggage. He’s like the poster boy for moderate Islam.
“Rauf is by no means radical.”“Certain Christian radicals also want to transform our national character”
Explain to me how those two statements, when taken together, imply that “Christians who think the Ground Zero mosque is in bad taste and shouldn’t be built” are “certainly radical”. Because I can’t figure it out.
The fact there are Christian theonomists does not justify Muslim shariah.
Correct, it does not. But that fact may imply we should be consistent in the way we treat those who advocate a penal code drastically at odds with what we have now.
“Bad taste” is a kind way of saying it’s immoral. It’s wrong. Vindictive. A kick in the head when you’re down. You may say “we can’t legislate morality”. Fine. But we can set up laws to protect people from immorality
Immorality, as an abstract concept, can’t harm me. I don’t need to be protected from “immorality”. Certain immoral actions most certainly do harm me, either directly or indirectly. In this case, the harm is extremely minimal. If anyone’s being “PC” on this issue its the side arguing for Park51’s property rights to be abridged in order to avoid some hurt feelings.
I see you assert libertarianism over all else.
I assert Jesus above all else. In this case, as in many others, I consider the Christ-like response to be one of principled deference. I respect others’ personal liberty because of my faith, not in spite of it.
I was very intrigued at the new ‘Reason for God’ DVD, but then I was reminded in this blog of Keller’s belief in evolution.
It might still be good, but if it is it will be good despite Keller’s views on evolution.I hope that subject is not brought up…
Just had another thought about the “Reason for God’ DVD that went right along with what I said before i.e. “It might still be good, but if it is it will be good despite Keller’s views on evolution”. I am reminded of the late great reformed theologian Benjamin Warfield. If memory serves me correctly he also believed in evolution. Yet, history proves that he was one of the giants of the faith. Just goes to show that we all have feet of clay.
Not comparing Keller to Warfield, but one never knows.
Regarding Warfield, this is a common misconception, especially used by BioLogos. See here:
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/35-2/b-b-warfield-on-crea…
Michael Thank you for that article on Warfield’s views on the subject.It does appear that what I had read before on him went too far. However, I believe a straight forward traditional reading of the Genesis one text, does not give any leeway for evolution.This is one of the reasons why other methods of translating the Genesis story were formulated. Many of them give accommodation to evolution and other theories out there.