Ok, I tried to post this and one other sermon by Rich Nathan (Vineyard Columbus) a week ago and had a problem doing it. I'm trying it again. I was just going to post one, "the thoroughly converted church", but after Jon's post below I thought "the Biblical church" was very applicable as well. Hope you can take some time to listen to both sermons. Biblical church was preached before thoroughly converted church and they are both based on book of Acts.
http://vineyardcolumbus.org/watch-and-listen/the-irresistible-church/the-biblical-church/
http://vineyardcolumbus.org/watch-and-listen/the-irresistible-church/a-thoroughly-converted-church/
Enjoy!!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Why the Bible? Ravi Zacharias at the University of Illinois
I appreciate Ravi Zacharias brief explanation here about the Bible and the person of Christ. Gotta love the power of the prophecies. Thought you all might appreciate this too.
Slippery Slopes
I am really wanting to move from this science/theology discussion (one-sided as it is). This is especially because of Bjorn's post where he asked the question "are we asking the right questions". I was challenged (convicted) by this question as I know that there are more important issues to focus on...like giving to the poor, caring for the widows (we have one down the street), sharing Christ's love. So I promise, I will be moving on after this post.
One thing that has come up in many of our conversations of late have had to do with how we read the old testament and make applications to today's world. I know there are applications to be made - good ones at that - I just like to argue it isn't as easy as "whatever the old testament says, it has to be good for us now" (or something like that). I like to argue, as many of you know, that the old testament was written by people (even inspired by the God), but their ancient, "flat-earth", unmovable-earth perspective would have clearly influenced their view of God and how the Earth worked. The response I tend to get when I share this view is that it is a "slippery slope" or "dangerous". I can understand that response - really I can. My response back has been, the Bible is dangerous (look at all the people who have died because of the man's use of the Bible throughout history). But that's not the argument I want to actually use to disagree with the slippery slope argument.
A former student of mine, now at Lehigh University, is studying environmental science. I had her in my ES class last year and she has emailed me a couple of times this year to share what she is doing in her classes. She emailed me a link to an article about Illinois Rep. John Shimkus. Mr. Shimkus is running to be the head of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a key role in climate policy for the US. The video below is from 2009 where he was addressing a panel dealing with climate change policy. His comments to me are scary, and I would argue, very dangerous both for humanity (especially if you take what the majority of scientists - Christian and non-christian say about climate change) and for skeptics/seekers who would clearly be put off by such an ignorant stance. It bothers me that Daniella is seeing this and thinking this is what "Christians" think about climate change. (I think I will be emailing her to let her know my "Christian" views of the issue - I suppose I can do that know that she is graduated.)
According to Shimkus, it is a theological issue that the Earth is carbon starved. What? When dinosaurs were alive CO2 was at 4000 ppm (we are at 385ish today). Yes, but that was 65 million years ago! Not to be trite, but his Biblical literalism is probably telling him that 4000 ppm was only 7,000 years ago and dinosaurs walked the Earth with man. This is just not true. These views are dangerous and I would argue a bigger slippery slope than when we debate over the factual nature of events of the old testament or the allegorical nature of them. This is a guy who could very well be influencing very important policy for not only our country but also for poverty stricken, water starved and island-based nations who will likely be hard hit by climate change. His whole basis for quoting scripture is ultimately to argue for protecting economic development in the US. Ugg...I need to stop.
I leave you with this quote from St. Augustine (taken from The Language of God by Francis Collins, p. 156-157) as I think it sums up my position very well with regard to Mr. Shimkus. (And I promise to take a break from the science-theology conversation - unless of course someone brings it back up)
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?"
(Ok, this has to get some comments. Talk to me. Peace.)
One thing that has come up in many of our conversations of late have had to do with how we read the old testament and make applications to today's world. I know there are applications to be made - good ones at that - I just like to argue it isn't as easy as "whatever the old testament says, it has to be good for us now" (or something like that). I like to argue, as many of you know, that the old testament was written by people (even inspired by the God), but their ancient, "flat-earth", unmovable-earth perspective would have clearly influenced their view of God and how the Earth worked. The response I tend to get when I share this view is that it is a "slippery slope" or "dangerous". I can understand that response - really I can. My response back has been, the Bible is dangerous (look at all the people who have died because of the man's use of the Bible throughout history). But that's not the argument I want to actually use to disagree with the slippery slope argument.
A former student of mine, now at Lehigh University, is studying environmental science. I had her in my ES class last year and she has emailed me a couple of times this year to share what she is doing in her classes. She emailed me a link to an article about Illinois Rep. John Shimkus. Mr. Shimkus is running to be the head of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a key role in climate policy for the US. The video below is from 2009 where he was addressing a panel dealing with climate change policy. His comments to me are scary, and I would argue, very dangerous both for humanity (especially if you take what the majority of scientists - Christian and non-christian say about climate change) and for skeptics/seekers who would clearly be put off by such an ignorant stance. It bothers me that Daniella is seeing this and thinking this is what "Christians" think about climate change. (I think I will be emailing her to let her know my "Christian" views of the issue - I suppose I can do that know that she is graduated.)
According to Shimkus, it is a theological issue that the Earth is carbon starved. What? When dinosaurs were alive CO2 was at 4000 ppm (we are at 385ish today). Yes, but that was 65 million years ago! Not to be trite, but his Biblical literalism is probably telling him that 4000 ppm was only 7,000 years ago and dinosaurs walked the Earth with man. This is just not true. These views are dangerous and I would argue a bigger slippery slope than when we debate over the factual nature of events of the old testament or the allegorical nature of them. This is a guy who could very well be influencing very important policy for not only our country but also for poverty stricken, water starved and island-based nations who will likely be hard hit by climate change. His whole basis for quoting scripture is ultimately to argue for protecting economic development in the US. Ugg...I need to stop.
I leave you with this quote from St. Augustine (taken from The Language of God by Francis Collins, p. 156-157) as I think it sums up my position very well with regard to Mr. Shimkus. (And I promise to take a break from the science-theology conversation - unless of course someone brings it back up)
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?"
(Ok, this has to get some comments. Talk to me. Peace.)
Friday, November 26, 2010
Do We Ask the Wrong Questions
Below is a blog post on Desiring God's website (the ministry of John Piper.) I'm not sure who wrote it, but he raises some very interesting points surrounding God's sovereignty and giving thanks for our circumstances. I know that many of our SG discussions inevitably come back to God's sovereignty and how it plays out in terms of evolution, cancer, world events, etc. For better or worse this author assumes God's sovereignty and then talks about the implications of being born in our circumstances and the logical response to them.
I know I'm convicted by this thought: "We are surrounded by clear, tangible, practical blessings from God that should be so easily recognized and enjoyed. But our eyes and hearts are too often and too easily diverted toward what we don't have by the power and persuasion of advertising and social pressure. Lord, forgive us for our lack of thanksgiving!"
I know I often tend to use the "why are certain people born here..." argument to condemn God rather than to thank him for the circumstances I was born into and pray for and work for God's kingdom being built in areas where people are not so fortunate.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-grace-of-god-in-our-circumstances-why-you-werent-born-as-an-impoverished-child-in-an-unreached-nation?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DGBlog+%28DG+Blog%29
I know I'm convicted by this thought: "We are surrounded by clear, tangible, practical blessings from God that should be so easily recognized and enjoyed. But our eyes and hearts are too often and too easily diverted toward what we don't have by the power and persuasion of advertising and social pressure. Lord, forgive us for our lack of thanksgiving!"
I know I often tend to use the "why are certain people born here..." argument to condemn God rather than to thank him for the circumstances I was born into and pray for and work for God's kingdom being built in areas where people are not so fortunate.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-grace-of-god-in-our-circumstances-why-you-werent-born-as-an-impoverished-child-in-an-unreached-nation?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DGBlog+%28DG+Blog%29
Monday, November 22, 2010
Biologos
So my thoughts of late have really been focused on a few things: completing the Love Dare book with some of the "others" from Bethany (Sam Tombarelli, Jason Kindstedt, et al.) and continuing my "obsession" as Lorie puts it with science and religion. Truly, ever since the Bell Sermon, which is discussed below, and some of our Sovereignty of God discussion (Jonah, Obadiah), I have been looking for confirmation/clarification of my thoughts. (In part, that is what this blog is about - a response to my desire for confirmation/clarification with your continued dialogue and critical thought). And so this Saturday, while taking care of the kids I came across what I view to be an amazing website called Biologos (biologos.org). Biologos is a term coined by Francis Collins in his book The Language of God. He and others (including Darrel Falk from Point Loma Nazarene University and Karl Giberson from ENC - a former professor of mine - are leaders within this group) are involved with continuing and enhancing discussions surrounding scientific and theological issues. If you have time you should definitely check this site out. I have posted a couple of clips below to get the juices flowing. Again, there is so much in this site for us all to ponder.
This is Peter Enns (another Biologos member) - Biblical scholar commenting on Biblical literalism
Peter Enns with Rev. N.T. Wright on the theology of Adam.
This is Peter Enns (another Biologos member) - Biblical scholar commenting on Biblical literalism
Peter Enns with Rev. N.T. Wright on the theology of Adam.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Marker Trick
Since my Ezekiel 1 moment last weekend I have been looking at a lot of stuff from Rob Bell. As some of you have probably seen, there are a bunch of clips of his recent speaking tour on YouTube, including this one. Science or religion...yep.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Blind Salamanders
I came across this article in Scientific American the other week. I didn't share this one with my class, rather one that explained why women tend to live longer then men. That is another discussion for another time. This article caught my eye for a couple of reasons, however. First, it made a reference to Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything) and, second, because it referenced the Job quote, "the Lord gives and takes away".
Recently in small group we got all hot and bothered (or at least I did) over this phrase because of the apparent "contradiction" between this statement and James 1 where it discusses trials and temptations. (I use this word contradiction carefully because I would say that contradictions in the Bible are likely due to our mistaken reading and not fully understanding what is being laid out by the author of individual books of the Bible. I might argue, too, that some contradictions arise because of the Biblical authors "misinterpretation" of ancient events as God's will or the like.) I also discussed in S.G. how this phrase "the Lord gives and takes away" is used in a Matt Redman song and when we sang it the other day in Church (after the James 1 sermon that Bruce preached) I couldn't sing that line; I could sing everything else, because I believe it, but that line stung - and stings. So when I came across this line again, now in reference to the blind salamander, I couldn't help but cringe.
I definitely have more to say. I would be interested in hearing how some of you respond to this article or anything else. Here's to conversations on Faith and Life.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-skeptics-skeptic
Jon
Recently in small group we got all hot and bothered (or at least I did) over this phrase because of the apparent "contradiction" between this statement and James 1 where it discusses trials and temptations. (I use this word contradiction carefully because I would say that contradictions in the Bible are likely due to our mistaken reading and not fully understanding what is being laid out by the author of individual books of the Bible. I might argue, too, that some contradictions arise because of the Biblical authors "misinterpretation" of ancient events as God's will or the like.) I also discussed in S.G. how this phrase "the Lord gives and takes away" is used in a Matt Redman song and when we sang it the other day in Church (after the James 1 sermon that Bruce preached) I couldn't sing that line; I could sing everything else, because I believe it, but that line stung - and stings. So when I came across this line again, now in reference to the blind salamander, I couldn't help but cringe.
I definitely have more to say. I would be interested in hearing how some of you respond to this article or anything else. Here's to conversations on Faith and Life.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-skeptics-skeptic
Jon
Monday, November 15, 2010
Ezekiel 1
Don't do drugs might be another way to say it...
Yesterday Lorie and I skipped church. Sort of. The kids had several late nights last Friday/Saturday so we were feeling the need to let the kids sleep. It just so happened that it was a sunny Sunday morning with some good surf out there, too. So I got up semi-early and went to Long Sands in Maine. I did feel a bit guilty about skipping church so before I left I downloaded a couple of sermons from Rob Bell. I know there are varrying opinions on Mr. Bell. Without going into that, I just have to say that what he had to say was very timely for me and it spoke to me on so many levels. In particular (assuming you will take the time to listen to it) the part where he talks about how God will remain even after our religion, [worldview, belief systems] are blown apart; he will be there to meet us on the other side. Just like He was for Ezekiel.
If you find time, listen to the sermon (The Pain is Our Teacher). It has given me a sense of much needed peace. Maybe some of you will see why.
http://marshill.org/teaching/
Yesterday Lorie and I skipped church. Sort of. The kids had several late nights last Friday/Saturday so we were feeling the need to let the kids sleep. It just so happened that it was a sunny Sunday morning with some good surf out there, too. So I got up semi-early and went to Long Sands in Maine. I did feel a bit guilty about skipping church so before I left I downloaded a couple of sermons from Rob Bell. I know there are varrying opinions on Mr. Bell. Without going into that, I just have to say that what he had to say was very timely for me and it spoke to me on so many levels. In particular (assuming you will take the time to listen to it) the part where he talks about how God will remain even after our religion, [worldview, belief systems] are blown apart; he will be there to meet us on the other side. Just like He was for Ezekiel.
If you find time, listen to the sermon (The Pain is Our Teacher). It has given me a sense of much needed peace. Maybe some of you will see why.
http://marshill.org/teaching/
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Idea
This blog represents the beginning of something I have thought about doing for sometime. It may amount to nothing, but I would love to see it be a place to share ideas about our lives and faith. If nothing else I might be able to refine my own thoughts as I write them.
Here is what I envision for this blog:
1. a site with no real structure
2. a site for us to write thoughts, share videos/links to things we have come across
3. a site for us to follow up with small group discussions or any other discussion we might have
4. a site that might help us spark conversation in up coming small group discussions
5. not something we feel obligated to work on, but rather a site to use only when relevant
Here is what I envision for this blog:
1. a site with no real structure
2. a site for us to write thoughts, share videos/links to things we have come across
3. a site for us to follow up with small group discussions or any other discussion we might have
4. a site that might help us spark conversation in up coming small group discussions
5. not something we feel obligated to work on, but rather a site to use only when relevant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)