Maybe with some new blood in the group (that is the Egan's) it is time to try to rejuvenate the blog. It will probably end up just me and Bjorn venting back and forth...no need to kid myself. Anyways, some nice stuff below from our President and a guy name Richard Wilkinson, who I heard of from none other than Rob Bell. Some very thought provoking stuff.
For anyone who still thinks Obama isn't a Christian it is time to think again. A far cry I would say from Gingrich's statement of how he would treat his enemies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50WYM-1SjQQ). And the data presented by Wilkinson causes me to really question the policies that many in our country are so adamant about.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Our puzzle piece
I was struck today by a chapter in Hole in the Gospel that talked about the feeding of the 5000. In this chapter, Stearns talks about the perspective of the little boy in the story who offers up his food to the disciples.
"As the little boy, who had given his lunch, looked on, can you imagine the joy he must have felt, seeing his gift multiplied by God to feed thousands of hungry people, many of whom he probably knew? It was his lone "puzzle piece" that completed this miracle of God. When we, as Christians, are willing to lay our pieces down on the table, we, too, can take part in God's "multiplication." But, if we are unwilling, we will assuredly, miss out on every opportunity to be used by God in a powerful and amazing way."
I am thankful for this today. I never read this passage thinking of the boy's perspective on this miracle. I'm left wonder what are my "pieces" that I am holding onto...what do I need to lay on the table before the Lord to be given the chance to take part in God's multiplication!
May I not be overwhelmed by the enormity of the task that God has given us, but be able to focus on what my part is in this great story...
"As the little boy, who had given his lunch, looked on, can you imagine the joy he must have felt, seeing his gift multiplied by God to feed thousands of hungry people, many of whom he probably knew? It was his lone "puzzle piece" that completed this miracle of God. When we, as Christians, are willing to lay our pieces down on the table, we, too, can take part in God's "multiplication." But, if we are unwilling, we will assuredly, miss out on every opportunity to be used by God in a powerful and amazing way."
I am thankful for this today. I never read this passage thinking of the boy's perspective on this miracle. I'm left wonder what are my "pieces" that I am holding onto...what do I need to lay on the table before the Lord to be given the chance to take part in God's multiplication!
May I not be overwhelmed by the enormity of the task that God has given us, but be able to focus on what my part is in this great story...
Thursday, March 10, 2011
"New England recently surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least churched, least religious section of the United States."
I read this piece and thought it might be appropriate to share with a few of the New England dwellers I am so fond of...
10 Reasons New England Suffers For Mission
Friday, February 11, 2011
Blind Salamanders Revisitied
A few months ago I provided a link to an article from Scientific American that discussed the blind salamander and Christopher Hitchen’s musings about the follies of faith. The thing that I was really reacting to, and the reason I posted anything in response to this article, was because of Hitchen’s reference to Job 1. Interestingly, Bjorn continued this focus in his recent post “…Because He is Love”. What follows is not meant to argue with Bjorn but provide my thoughts on this Biblical reference. More than anything, this is for me and I am sure not everyone will agree with my thoughts. I do hope that my thoughts below will not appear argumentative or condescending but rather serve as an opportunity to flesh out my thoughts more thoroughly than I have previously.
The image of God “giving and taking away” is one I have a hard time reconciling with the love, grace, and compassion of the Christ I see in the New Testament. I know the line appears in scripture (and in a popular song), but does that mean that Job’s interpretation of God giving and taking is appropriate given what we know about what God wants to do for all of humanity (John 3:16)? The reality is that Job is much deeper and more complicated than one verse found in Job 1. In my view, the focus of Job is on the fact that hardship in life is not easily explained and that God can do whatever He wants (Job 42 in particular). In fact, there are at least two places early on in the reading of Job where one can see incompatibilities between Job’s image of God and what we know about God because of Christ (Job 7: 20-21; Job 9: 22-24). I would argue that Job’s view of God might have been appropriate in that day when the “fire of God fell from the sky” (Job1: 16) and people didn’t know the natural explanations for storms or lightning. Ultimately, what apparently makes Job’s response appropriate, is that his heart remained in the right place as he grappled with his “earthly-situation” and God’s role in his circumstances (Job 1: 22). God did not hold it against Job for questioning or, I would argue misunderstanding, His role in the process.
I truly believe there is a better way to look at the “giving-and-taking-God”. I believe that this alternative view - a view that I see supported by a number of other Christians – could be referred to as the “allowing-God”. This is clearly just a semantic twist that relates back to the all important question of God’s sovereignty. But I believe it is an important twist that is discussed well by Philip Yancey (in the clip below from Biologos). I don’t see it as necessary for Christians in general to take this view. What is more, I don’t think it is particularly helpful for those going through some deep, profound tragedy to be told God is “giving and taking”. Rather I see it as potentially destructive, not necessarily for the Christian whose view of the world is already revolving around a sovereign and loving God, but for the seeker who is longing to know that love. Moreover, my problem with the “giving-and-taking-God” is that it doesn’t align with what I have learned from God’s Word or Works (to use Collin’s term for Creation). What I have learned from Scripture is that Christ is going through Life, the good and the bad, with us. He has bled for us, He has cried for us, He has prayed for us and I believe he continues that today as well.
So what is God’s role in the process? Several years ago I came across this quote from a Buechner devotional that sums up well how I view God working and interacting in our lives. This view of God and his interaction with our lives is extremely compatible with the way I see the world working (and it harkens back to Bell’s “Marker Trick” below) and God’s desire to speak to us; it is compatible with God’s desire to be glorified in the “everydayness” and “crises” of our lives. It goes like this:
The question is not whether the things that happen to you are chance things or God's things because, of course, they are both at once. There is no chance thing through which God cannot speak - even the walk from the house to the garage that you have walked ten thousand times before, even the moments when you cannot believe there is a God who speaks at all anywhere. He speaks, I believe, and the words he speaks are incarnate in the flesh and blood of ourselves and of our own footsore and sacred journeys.
Chance things are God’s things. I do not see God as a tinkerer where He manipulates events but allows them to unfold and emerge. I see God as speaking to us at all times, not just when something great happens or when something not so great happens. What he does want, and I believe this is clear from Scripture (unlike God’s role in the tragedy of life –Job provides few answers anyways), is to be glorified by our responses to our circumstances. I also believe God is continually trying to speak through the unfolding of life. As Buechner said in another place, “I choose to believe that he speaks [and the words are]… fleshed out in the everydayness no less than in the crises of our own experience.” I am beginning to see that our circumstances in this world are all pointing to God (both His presence and, dare I say, even His absence). And despite the fact that our earthly circumstances are in large part influenced by the emergent nature of Creation and our freewill as humans, God is working to get our attention by allowing. I do agree, that we see only dimly now and that some day we will see clearly (1 Corinthians 13:12) so I am in no way claiming to have it all figured out – obviously. But for me, this perspective is one that offers me hope, is consistent with the emergent properties of Creation that I have come to understand, and beckons me to find God more in the seemingly mundane (1 Corinthians 10:13) and significant portions of life.
The image of God “giving and taking away” is one I have a hard time reconciling with the love, grace, and compassion of the Christ I see in the New Testament. I know the line appears in scripture (and in a popular song), but does that mean that Job’s interpretation of God giving and taking is appropriate given what we know about what God wants to do for all of humanity (John 3:16)? The reality is that Job is much deeper and more complicated than one verse found in Job 1. In my view, the focus of Job is on the fact that hardship in life is not easily explained and that God can do whatever He wants (Job 42 in particular). In fact, there are at least two places early on in the reading of Job where one can see incompatibilities between Job’s image of God and what we know about God because of Christ (Job 7: 20-21; Job 9: 22-24). I would argue that Job’s view of God might have been appropriate in that day when the “fire of God fell from the sky” (Job1: 16) and people didn’t know the natural explanations for storms or lightning. Ultimately, what apparently makes Job’s response appropriate, is that his heart remained in the right place as he grappled with his “earthly-situation” and God’s role in his circumstances (Job 1: 22). God did not hold it against Job for questioning or, I would argue misunderstanding, His role in the process.
I truly believe there is a better way to look at the “giving-and-taking-God”. I believe that this alternative view - a view that I see supported by a number of other Christians – could be referred to as the “allowing-God”. This is clearly just a semantic twist that relates back to the all important question of God’s sovereignty. But I believe it is an important twist that is discussed well by Philip Yancey (in the clip below from Biologos). I don’t see it as necessary for Christians in general to take this view. What is more, I don’t think it is particularly helpful for those going through some deep, profound tragedy to be told God is “giving and taking”. Rather I see it as potentially destructive, not necessarily for the Christian whose view of the world is already revolving around a sovereign and loving God, but for the seeker who is longing to know that love. Moreover, my problem with the “giving-and-taking-God” is that it doesn’t align with what I have learned from God’s Word or Works (to use Collin’s term for Creation). What I have learned from Scripture is that Christ is going through Life, the good and the bad, with us. He has bled for us, He has cried for us, He has prayed for us and I believe he continues that today as well.
So what is God’s role in the process? Several years ago I came across this quote from a Buechner devotional that sums up well how I view God working and interacting in our lives. This view of God and his interaction with our lives is extremely compatible with the way I see the world working (and it harkens back to Bell’s “Marker Trick” below) and God’s desire to speak to us; it is compatible with God’s desire to be glorified in the “everydayness” and “crises” of our lives. It goes like this:
The question is not whether the things that happen to you are chance things or God's things because, of course, they are both at once. There is no chance thing through which God cannot speak - even the walk from the house to the garage that you have walked ten thousand times before, even the moments when you cannot believe there is a God who speaks at all anywhere. He speaks, I believe, and the words he speaks are incarnate in the flesh and blood of ourselves and of our own footsore and sacred journeys.
Chance things are God’s things. I do not see God as a tinkerer where He manipulates events but allows them to unfold and emerge. I see God as speaking to us at all times, not just when something great happens or when something not so great happens. What he does want, and I believe this is clear from Scripture (unlike God’s role in the tragedy of life –Job provides few answers anyways), is to be glorified by our responses to our circumstances. I also believe God is continually trying to speak through the unfolding of life. As Buechner said in another place, “I choose to believe that he speaks [and the words are]… fleshed out in the everydayness no less than in the crises of our own experience.” I am beginning to see that our circumstances in this world are all pointing to God (both His presence and, dare I say, even His absence). And despite the fact that our earthly circumstances are in large part influenced by the emergent nature of Creation and our freewill as humans, God is working to get our attention by allowing. I do agree, that we see only dimly now and that some day we will see clearly (1 Corinthians 13:12) so I am in no way claiming to have it all figured out – obviously. But for me, this perspective is one that offers me hope, is consistent with the emergent properties of Creation that I have come to understand, and beckons me to find God more in the seemingly mundane (1 Corinthians 10:13) and significant portions of life.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Philippians 3: 7-11
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ - the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Let's pray
Friends, please join me in praying for this country that is so full of darkness.
Feeling deeply called to pray today.
Feeling deeply called to pray today.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
...Because He is Love
"The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." -Job 1:21
This verse from Job, prompting the line from a famous worship song, has been the topic of much discussion in our little community. It does seem that people seem to particularly love this line as I often see hands raised and eyes closed for that portion of the song. While this may be due to the building music or the ease of the chorus, I suspect it could be something deeper that provokes this emotive response.
Our lives are cycles of receiving and losing things; everything we have is a gift from God ("What do you have that you did not receive?" -1 Cor. 4:7, "Every good and perfect gift is from above..." -James 1:17) and ultimately everything in this world, including our lives will be lost ("What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes" -James 4:14.) Is this depressing? Fatalistic? Perhaps. Does God take things away because he is jealous? Can't make up his mind? I can think of two explanations for the perplexity of the verse from Job.
First, God gives and takes away for our own good. Just as Nils cannot understand why I take a computer cord away from him or Soren gets bent out of shape when I don't let him play with a knife, we don't always understand why God takes away. I take things away from my kids not because I am unloving-preciesly the opposite. I take things away because I love them and do not want them to get hurt. I believe that the same thing is true of God.
While this metaphor helps me understand the "taking away" piece better, I think this explanation can sound a bit trite. Sometimes things are taken away from us that simply do not seem to make any sense from a Christ-centered worldview or otherwise. Although it may be small comfort, I find the words of 1 Corinthians 13 to be somewhat helpful: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."
The second explanation for God giving and taking away provides me with much more comfort. Whatever is taken away from us, we believe in a God who gave his very self to us in the flesh and blood of Jesus and then humbly allowed that life to be taken away. We serve a God who knows what it is like to have things taken away. His power was taken away when he came as a helpless baby in Bethlehem. His innocence was taken away when he was falsely accused before Pilate. His dignity was taken away when he was stripped naked and beaten. His life was taken away on the cross. (Of course, it was not really taken away-he willingly laid it down.) To me, this is the great comfort in the line that he gives and takes away. He does it because He is love-and he gave us himself. I pray that gift is enough to sustain us in Him through the times of abundance and the times of pain.
If you've made it through this long-a** blog, I'll reward you with another blog entry from one of Abby's college friends. She and her husband struggled with infertility for years before adopting 2 beautiful kids from Ethiopias last year. This is a thanksgiving blog of hers touching on the gift of Christ's presence and touching on some of the same thoughts I just shared-enjoy.
http://everybitterthingissweet.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/how-can-i-ever-thank-you/
This verse from Job, prompting the line from a famous worship song, has been the topic of much discussion in our little community. It does seem that people seem to particularly love this line as I often see hands raised and eyes closed for that portion of the song. While this may be due to the building music or the ease of the chorus, I suspect it could be something deeper that provokes this emotive response.
Our lives are cycles of receiving and losing things; everything we have is a gift from God ("What do you have that you did not receive?" -1 Cor. 4:7, "Every good and perfect gift is from above..." -James 1:17) and ultimately everything in this world, including our lives will be lost ("What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes" -James 4:14.) Is this depressing? Fatalistic? Perhaps. Does God take things away because he is jealous? Can't make up his mind? I can think of two explanations for the perplexity of the verse from Job.
First, God gives and takes away for our own good. Just as Nils cannot understand why I take a computer cord away from him or Soren gets bent out of shape when I don't let him play with a knife, we don't always understand why God takes away. I take things away from my kids not because I am unloving-preciesly the opposite. I take things away because I love them and do not want them to get hurt. I believe that the same thing is true of God.
While this metaphor helps me understand the "taking away" piece better, I think this explanation can sound a bit trite. Sometimes things are taken away from us that simply do not seem to make any sense from a Christ-centered worldview or otherwise. Although it may be small comfort, I find the words of 1 Corinthians 13 to be somewhat helpful: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."
The second explanation for God giving and taking away provides me with much more comfort. Whatever is taken away from us, we believe in a God who gave his very self to us in the flesh and blood of Jesus and then humbly allowed that life to be taken away. We serve a God who knows what it is like to have things taken away. His power was taken away when he came as a helpless baby in Bethlehem. His innocence was taken away when he was falsely accused before Pilate. His dignity was taken away when he was stripped naked and beaten. His life was taken away on the cross. (Of course, it was not really taken away-he willingly laid it down.) To me, this is the great comfort in the line that he gives and takes away. He does it because He is love-and he gave us himself. I pray that gift is enough to sustain us in Him through the times of abundance and the times of pain.
If you've made it through this long-a** blog, I'll reward you with another blog entry from one of Abby's college friends. She and her husband struggled with infertility for years before adopting 2 beautiful kids from Ethiopias last year. This is a thanksgiving blog of hers touching on the gift of Christ's presence and touching on some of the same thoughts I just shared-enjoy.
http://everybitterthingissweet.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/how-can-i-ever-thank-you/
Friday, December 3, 2010
Ravi Zacharias "Postures of the Mind, Affections of the...
The undeniable work, power and presence of God in our lives personally and in His creation globally!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Biblical Church
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!!
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!!
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)