Pete's Blog

Piper has announced that he's starting another expository, verse-by-verse sermon series. This one is going to be on the Gospel of John. I'm really excited by this. From listening to him explain the tough texts there, such as what water means in 3:5 ("Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'") or what it means for John the Baptist to not be Elijah (1:21; cf. Mt. 11:12-14), to being exposed to his thoughts on the textual issue of 7:53-8:11 (for more information read Dan Wallace say it is not inspired Scripture and read [in the fourth to eighth paragraphs] Mac say that it is inspired Scripture [I'm with Wallace, as his argument, in my assessment, is far more compelling than what Mac provides]), or to be fed the Gospel and hear of the Saviour's life from a Johannine perspective (Paul was very much so a thinker, whereas the Apostle John was a feeler). I await this series with much anticipation.

--

I introduced a character here. I have great respect for Dan Wallace. He's a professor at DTS. The most amazing story that I've read (also read the sequels of the interview: parts 2, 3 and 4) about him was that he taught himself Greek from a textbook he'd written himself. In short, he suffered a form of amnesia, and forgot Greek, all the while, he was teaching a class on Greek. So he kept himself one lecture ahead of the students, teaching himself, essentially from scratch, from his own textbook. Neat. He's a great textual critic (the study/art of analyzing the manuscripts of the Scriptures that we have, trying to figure out what really is inspired), and he debated (the link is just a recap of the debate, not the audio) Bart Ehrman on the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts, being the uncontended victor of the match. Lastly, and this is almost completely irrelevant, Wallace believes that the Gospel of John was written before 70AD based on the structure mentioned in John 5:2 ("Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool ... which has five roofed colonnades" [emphasis added], it'll be interesting to see whether Piper comments on this), although it seems that he's in the minority on this view. The argument is over the implications of the tense of the word "is" in the passage.

--

I haven't thought about the issue of the dating of John's Gospel for a while now. I had no intention of writing much on it, but now that I'm reading back on it, I've aroused my interest. As a perambulatory note, before entering this discussion, my leaning was to agree with Wallace. I respect him a lot. On the other side though, is D.A. Carson, for example. From a basic reading of the passage, I would immediately agree with Wallace. But the fact that there is disagreement over the passage makes me think that the English might betray some nuances of the Greek.

Another note, for full disclosure, I've only read one article dissenting from Wallace's view. The basic premise is that the author of that article has other reasons, mainly theological, to suppose that the Gospel was written after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70AD. From there, he interprets John 5:2. (This is fair, not necessarily correct, but certainly fair. Evangelicals use Romans 5:1 to interpret Jm. 2:24 and 1P. 3:21, for example.) So, to interpret John 5:2, the author produces two other verses where he thinks that the Greek verb (eimi) is used similarly (in a parallel fashion), where it is used in one tense to refer to a different time. (E.g., if the author is right, he would mean that when John wrote, "the structure that is there...," the Evangelist actually meant, "when I put myself back in Jesus' days, the structure that is there...".) The two parallels are John 10:8, "All who came before me are [eimi] thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them" (emphasis added), and John 19:40, "So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is [eimi] the burial custom of the Jews" (emphasis added, again). I don't really agree with the dissenting author, as I don't find these alleged parallels compelling, but I can somewhat see what he is talking about in the former (i.e., Jn. 10:8), the current thieves were (past tense) not listened to, but I still think that it's a stretch. All that said, I haven't read Wallace's article yet.

I report on this, only because I think that it's really interesting.

Labels: Bible, Characters, Resources

In the news today, they reported that the FOTON-M3 Spacecraft returned with its test specimen Water Bears, tardigrades, survived under extreme conditions – high radiation and a vacuum. Radiation that would irreparably damage human DNA, had no noticeable results. In fact, the article reports that the radiation probably did impact the DNA of the creatures, but that they were able to repair the damage.

I think that this is so cool. God created a creature that could survive in the harshest of environments. Whether in extreme cold or extreme heat, or exposed to the sun's rays in amounts a thousand times harsher than experienced on earth, they survive. God is creative.

--

Also in the news, there was an article stating that researchers at UT found that women experienced more difficulties and challenges working under a woman than under a man. If you're interested in the details, read the article. One of the theories for why this was happening was, "women working under other women tend to have more conflict because they are expecting female bosses to be more supportive and co-operative but instead find some women 'manage more like men, which can be more conflictive or combative.'" Women want their female bosses to be different from men, but they aren't behaving as women, but as men.

With a biblical worldview, this theory seems viable. I wonder whether it will have any impact on business policy. Or maybe women will change their expectations of their female superiors.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Continuing right along, in the previous post I stated that I was going to say why a candidate being pro-life should be a big incentive for Christians to vote for a candidate. Piper calls himself a one issue voter on the matter of abortion. He can't imagine voting for someone who would authorize a doctor to kill a person. I agree with him on that. Russell Moore compares it to electing a president who wouldn't let blacks have the same rights as the rest of the American voters. He would never vote for that guy. I agree with that reasoning. Racism and infanticide are each evil attacks on the image of God in man. By that reasoning, I would never vote for the Democratic Party of America (as long as the pro-choice platform is one of their core convictions). Similarly, if I were American, I would be hard pressed to vote for McCain, knowing that he isn't as radically pro-life as I am. I would probably vote for an independent I could agree with.

Let me illustrate why I could never vote for the Democratic Party. Donald Miller (author of Blue Like Jazz) said that he was Republican for a while because of the pro-life issue, but then moved to being a Democrat when he saw that the Republicans weren't doing anything about the issue, and thought that they were only using the abortion issue to exploit the evangelical vote. (The claim that the Republicans have done nothing about abortion isn't entirely true. While Bill Clinton was president he made partial birth abortion, abortion that is performed on a baby that's in the process of being delivered, a baby that is minutes away from gaining personhood, legal, and President Bush undid that.) Even if Miller was right, voting Democrat would make abortion far more common and would make the tax payer pay for abortions (like we already do in Canada). Consider Barack Obama's stance on abortion: It's so extreme that he was one of the few to vote against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (most Democrats voted for the Act, as well as Republicans) which was to grant personhood to babies born in an abortion attempt. The Republicans might not undo any of the abortion legislation (which I don't agree with), but the Democrats will certainly try to make it worse. This is why I think it's important not to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Now let me explain why I wouldn't vote for the Republicans if they have a pro-choice candidate, even if he's the lesser of two evils (as many American Republicans, speaking to evangelicals, would have said of Mayor Giuliani compared with Senator Clinton). If the Republicans were to win under a pro-choice candidate, it would send the message that the Republican base does not actually care about the issue of abortion as much as it cares about national security and about the economy. That would possibly divorce the Republican Party from the pro-life stance, which would be very difficult to go back on later. Instead, I would like the Republicans to lose if they have a pro-choice candidate, sending them the message that they need the support of pro-lifers to win elections.

Now, while I find it very easy to say that no pro-lifer should vote for the Democrats, I find it more difficult to say that no one should vote for McCain. There are justices on the Supreme Court who are ready to retire. If Obama wins this election, they'll probably retire and he will be able to appoint liberal justices to the bench who will claim to find amazing things in the constitution, for example, they might claim to find that the constitution protects children from spanking. They might claim to find that the constitution allows polygamy. You might say that's ludicrous, but the same thing happened for abortion! And then, letting Obama get into office would pretty much guarantee that he would legitimize, once again, partial birth abortion. It might be worth it to vote for McCain to prevent those things. And you might be able to argue that the stem cell issue isn't a big enough step to change the direction of the party. It might be true. I don't think this issue is a matter of right and wrong, instead, I think it's an issue of beneficial and unwise.

Labels: Politics, Resources

I've been thinking about how Jer said that having a so-called pro-life Republican ticket doesn't make him a Republican supporter. Having said that he would deal with that later, I will talk about it in two days. Before talking about where to draw the line when a party advocates murder, I desire to quickly (or not so quickly) address more completely where I have observed Senator McCain standing on the issue. While he has consistently voted pro-life whenever abortion legislature has come before the senate, there are aspects of his stance that remain questionable.

First, he has consistently voted to federally fund stem cell research, which is not immediately bad. Stem cells are most abundantly available in dead foetuses. So researchers go to fertility clinics who practice in vitro fertilization (IVF, for short, where multiple eggs are fertilized and the embryo [i.e., fetus, i.e., baby] that is most likely to make it is implanted in the female carrier's womb and rest are scrapped) and buy the discarded embryos. The researchers extract the stem cells, thus terminating the embryo (i.e., killing the baby). I have a big problem with IVF, and McCain probably does, too. His reasoning for desiring to fund stem cell research, though, is out of the mindset that the embryos are already discarded anyway, so they may as well get used for the good of humanity. Some would say that position is encouraging IVF to continue. I tend not to focus on that part of stem cell research too much, right now, because there is a darker side to it. Stem cell researchers often don't have enough embryos to harvest the cells from, so they fertilize eggs with the intention of extracting their cells. So while McCain is probably opposed to that practice, his legislation is funding these baby killers. That is what makes supporting the funding of stem cell research bad.

The second concern I have with McCain's pro-life stance is much less significant, but needs to be drawn attention to for careful consideration, nevertheless. To put this point in perspective, I need to briefly refer to history. Abortion in the US was legalized in 1973. A referendum was not taken on the issue. The president didn't submit the legislation on it before the senate. No elected official was responsible for this legislation. Abortion was won by a one vote majority in the Supreme Court over the Roe vs. Wade case. Since then, social conservatives have been trying to get enough conservatives on the bench of the Supreme Court to overturn that unconstitutional ruling (judges exist to interpret the constitution and law, and the non-personhood of a baby was certainly not implied in there by the Founding Fathers).

In 2005, President Bush put forward three conservative nominees for the bench (two spots opened up and one of his nominees withdrew her application) and McCain was opposed to each of them. He claims that he did it because he didn't consider them qualified. I don't remember why. McCain had strong disagreements with the candidates' conservatism, so, he may have genuinely been worried that they would legislate conservatism from the bench. This would be a fair criticism if he were worried that these nominees would be deciding cases purely on their own values and not as an interpretation of the constitution. It raises the question of McCain's pro-life stance because there simply needs to be a conservative majority on the bench, with an appeal of Roe vs. Wade before them, for abortion rights to be overturned. (This is a bit overstated, but isn't much of an exaggeration. There would only be a few more details to sort out, I suspect.) But if McCain won't put the nominees forward for this to happen, what good is he for the pro-life cause?

Labels: Abbreviations, Friends, Politics

Labels: Bible, Politics, Resources

I was reading the Friendly Atheist today, when one of his posts was on abortion. He posted an image from an entry at a humour site. The poster's justification of abortion is that it prevents pregnancy out of marriage. I find it so difficult to believe that people can take this issue so callously, not recognizing that it's horrible that, if life begins at conception (which it does!), that a baby dies in every abortion.

The poster also draws attention to Canada; always a reliable country where you can go to get your babies killed.

Here's the poster:
Sorry it's not too high quality. Click on it to see the original. I don't know how to use Blogger well enough to get it at the quality that the source has it at.

Labels: Blogs, Politics

(This post is a response to a post on Lydia's blog about women serving in the church. The response is too long, in my mind, to justifiably be placed as a comment on her blog. Though the entry seems like a long one for my blog, follow the headings if you only want to read the essentials.)

Suppose that you have an isolated group of Christians, one well trained woman and some men who are unready for ministry. What is she to do knowing that God has ordained a separate role for women within the church than the men?

Maybe all that needs to be said is to listen to this talk given by Randy Stinson. The whole of the talk is him explaining what a husband and father's leadership in the family looks like. It should be very similar for an elder in a church. The talk is helpful for this discussion because in listening to what the man should be doing (i.e., leading), you get an idea of where a woman can justifiably step in (i.e., leading does not equate with doing everything so she can help when the leaders ask for that help, as long as it's within the bounds of Scripture [e.g., the leaders can't ask for her help to rob the bank when the church treasury is in the red]).

(The following paragraph is an encouragement to prepare for the long haul that does not contribute to the main thought of answering the question.)

Before saying anything, I think that it would take a lot of time to build a healthy church out of this. Church planting is tough. A woman, by herself, raising up unskilled men to plant a church: tougher. Furthermore, she might not even be getting them to plant a church. She might be going against their old paradigms, such as, possibly, Someone else will do it. When MacArthur went to shepherd Grace Community they had female elders there. It took quite some time to bring a biblical vision of church administration and leadership to his church. Dever, who also went to shepherd a church in need of a private reformation (when I use "reformation" in the context of a single local church, I mean one, where if you walked in, it might seem like they're playing church, they don't have a biblical structure for church leadership, the church doesn't deal with public sin, the preaching is unsystematic and possibly only loosely based on a text of Scripture, where they need to change a lot of the ways that they do ministry, thus, it needs a reformation), now pleads with pastors shepherding churches in need of reformation not to do it quickly, nor with a totalitarian style to it. So, if she's dealing with some men with baggage, it might take a long time. Fortunately, a church has that amount of time, five to ten years. A campus ministry, where your leaders are around for at most four years (i.e., a degree for five years minus the frosh year), is not a likely place for this reformation to be able to happen.

(Back to answering the issue.)

I was about to use the word "unqualified" where I wrote "unready" in the first sentence of the question paragraph, but I chose to use "unready" because I don't think that in every case it takes too much to be qualified. For example D.A. Carson said in a talk on elders that the churchmen in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch of Pisidia couldn't have been believers very long before Paul and Barnabas "had appointed elders for them in every church" (Ac. 14:23). This suggests to me that they were simply relatively spiritually mature (i.e., they were spiritually mature in comparison to some of their brothers within the church).

With this in mind, I think that the woman should select two or three of the men who she sees are the (relatively) stronger believers. Then she should (gently) encourage that they be appointed the elders of that church. (This is where I think that the Stinson talk would prove helpful.) These men obviously want the church to exist (otherwise they wouldn't be in the picture). After she suggests that they should be part of it they'll leave, desiring to remain in complacency, or they'll stay, and, with fear and trembling, accept the task of building the church. These men can resource the woman and ask her help in setting church direction, as long as the responsibility and outcome rests on the shoulders of the men. The individual men can ask her help when doing Bible study preparation, or even in their quiet times in finding out what the Bible means.

Hopefully with much prayer and patience, the Lord would bless this entreprise.

(That's it for my suggestions. All of the following is my attempt to explain why I'm thinking in this way, from the Bible.)

The reason this is difficult is because we need to apply 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in a God-honouring, people-building way. The first observation that I would make is that the passage in question is referring to the local church and corporate worship within the body (read Grudem for the argument behind this claim). More specifically, I think that it's saying that elders (or pastors; same thing [cf. 1P. 5:1, 2]) may not be women (read Piper for his argument behind this claim). Otherwise, it's not very specific. I think that Paul deliberately left lots of room to work within. The woman, then, would be balancing giving as much help as possible to build the church, while neither giving the church the appearance of being led by a woman, nor of giving the members the feeling of reliance on female leadership that would become systemic and difficult to heal later on. For example, I think that the woman could legitimately do a lot, but she needs to be concerned about what the future outcome of her current actions will be: With what I am doing right now, will the church in the future be more feminine (and thus, less healthy) than if I take a step back now, slowing down the progress of the church, but investing in the long term health of the church? That might be the case.

For this reason, if there were other churches around in the area, or even in the next city over, I think that the wisest choice for the woman (for the sake of clarity, from, say, church A) would be to discern from among them a healthy church (say, church B) that would be able to help church A. She could then ask the elders of church B to offer the men of church A some guidance and help in building up their body (i.e., church A). This would show the importance of relying on male leadership, but would also give her church real and valuable help.

As a note, Mohler, for example, would say that 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibits women from speaking at C4C functions. Since Paul was specifically referring to the local church, I don't entirely agree. Paul was not specific, so, in trusting that the Scriptures are sufficient in their restrictions, we must believe that God is not opposed to women speaking at C4C meetings. (If you disagree with this, then, essentially, you're saying that 1 Timothy has wider applications than just within the church. Are there to be deacons in every C4C group? Are there to be weddings? Lists of widows? All in all, I don't think Paul is referring to outside of the local church, and I don't think that C4C is a church.) So it comes down to a question of beneficial and unwise, as opposed to right and wrong. So, while I think that it's beneficial to have as many male speakers as possible at C4C, I don't think that it's wrong to fill in the gaps with female speakers. (That was my attempt as Weekly Meeting Coordinator at Carleton.)

--

I introduced three characters in this post. Randy Stinson is the president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Dean of the School of Leadership and Church Growth at Southern. Sometimes he reminds me of Driscoll, making fun of guys who don't fit the Wild At Heart paradigm for men (i.e., guys who might cry, or wear pink – though Stinson is more apologetic in this case than Driscoll typically is, or who drink decaf coffee). Other than that, I find him helpful. He must be brilliant to serve under Mohler at Southern, though.

D.A. Carson is a professor at TEDS (i.e., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, but I call it by the rhyme of "peds" for short, while most of its students, I think, call it Trinity for short). He was born in Quebec, shepherded a Baptist church in B.C. and now lives in Chicago. (Well, not quite, Deerfield, Illinois.) The biography of him that I linked to above was written by Andreas Köstenberger and is thoroughly enjoyable. It's short, descriptive and enlightening. Piper once said that he recommends choosing one author and devoting yourself to reading everything he's written. (Piper's chosen Jonathan Edwards.) I might choose Carson. Carson is so well renowned that he became the subject of a satire blog on the subject of him. (Of which, I particularly enjoyed, this entry involving Paige Patterson.) I could go on about Dr. Carson, but I'll stop here.

Labels: Abbreviations, Bible, Blogs, Characters, Friends, Humour, Long, Manhood, Ministry, Resources

Luke wrote in Acts 14:19, "having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul." I wasn't reading that part at first, but my eyes glanced at it and that's what I read. At first it sounds like Paul was trying to convince the crowds to stone him. Interesting. The beginning of the verse says, "Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds...". So it was not Paul convincing them to stone him.

Taking this verse out of context, one may come to the conclusion that Paul was a mad man. Imagine was other dangers and inaccuracies could arise from reading the Bible selectively and its parts out their contexts.

Be on your guard.

Labels: Bible, Humour

I was surprised to see that I hadn't even put a part 2 on this series yet, two and a half months following the original post. Hopefully I'll keep that in mind to put out a third part in short order.

--

This is short, but important. At some point while I was out west for the past three weeks, Desiring God posted a question and answer segment where Piper discussed how much the Christian mind should look to the Bible to direct what policies should be emphasized in the political realm. Let me quote the thrust of what he says:

[T]he Bible shows that we should not turn all of its commands into law. So [the] question boils down to, Well, which ones then? ... The way it works practically is that for the laws where we can get overwhelming consensus in the culture we're going to use coercion [(i.e., get the authorities to intervene)].

Labels: Politics, Resources

Labels: Bible, Blogs, Characters, Miscellaneous

Labels: Abbreviations, Miscellaneous, Resources

I read this article yesterday on an issue that's being put on the ballot in the American election in November.

A proposal to define a fertilized human egg as a person will land on Colorado's ballot this November, marking the first time that the question of when life begins will go before voters anywhere in the nation.

Labels: Politics, Prayer, Resources

(Unnecessary introduction.)
Mark Dever is probably the popular figure I relate most to right now. I agree with almost all of his theology (he's pushing for his church not to baptize people until they turn 18, where I only see the command in Scripture to make disciples and baptize them [Mt. 28:19], not, "Go and convert 'em and then wait a decade to dunk 'em" as pragmatic as that may sound). He and I are Calvinists, complimentarians, continualists weary of charismatics, and baptists. As baptists, we agree that "the local church is the hope of the world." We agree that the local church should be elder-led and congregationally-ruled. We agree that the normative pattern of the local church should be having one Sunday morning worship service where all of your members are in attendance. We agree that the Gospel should be presented in every sermon.

The guy jokes with paedo-baptists about baptism. He loves politics. He loves history. He sees the importance of evangelism. He graciously disagrees with people and doesn't turn polemics into feuds. The sort of conversations that he pursues in his 9Marks Interviews make me think that he and I would have a ton to talk about (consider especially his interview with Mac). I admire and respect the man so much. Certainly enough to praise him, in depth, in two different posts. I thank God that He has blessed the Church with Dr. Dever.

(Transition to body.)
This makes me think about how much I would love to have his job (I think; it's really easy to covet something while you are unaware of the downsides of the object of desire). He gets to preach the Bible. He gets to train leaders. He gets to interview the smartest men in evangelicalism. He went to seminary at Southern (the number one recommended seminary by Piper), not even to mention, at the same time as Mohler! (Although, that's of the past and I wouldn't get to relive it if I just took Dever's job.) He has politicians who go to his church and ask him for time up front to talk about elections. Of course, he says, "no," to them. But he's in a hot spot of activity having a church in Washington, D.C. That's the best of both worlds, ministry and politics. Kind of like the Christian Embassy, but better, since it has a focus on training pastors as well.

(The meat of the post.)
On the subject of politics, I wanted to make an observation. In the U.S., there have been forty two presidents (lists often say forty three, but I am not counting the multiplicity of Grover Cleveland), among whom, fifteen were at one point senators and seventeen were at one point governors. That said, if I had the prime minister's office as my ambition, the first thing I would try to do is become premier of one of the provinces. That just doesn't really happen in Canada, though. I wonder why. The closest thing in my lifetime that resembled it was Mike Harris. He had just resigned from being premier of Ontario (to try to work on his marriage) and my father kept telling me to watch, that he would someday run for prime minister. In fact, in my first year, I used to write under my name in all my emails either "Bush '04" or "Harris '05". Obviously, that never happened. I still wonder why. Anyway, that would be my advice to an aspiring politician in the making. Go become the premier of a province. If you fail, oh well, you've only destroyed a province, not the country. But if you succeed, especially in Ontario, you'll be remembered come the day you run for federal office.

(Epilogue.)
When I was in second year I said that I wanted to STINT in South America. (I hadn't told many people this, probably two. I wonder whether they remember.) From my third year to mid-fifth year, I wanted to plant a church in Muslim Africa. Though that still appeals to me, Tanz-STINT not happening this year coupled with me committing to four years in Quebec have left my vision for Africa waning these days. I may see a shift in my future plans year again. Maybe I'll plant a church in Gatineau (or take on a pastorate at a church in need of its own reformation, like what Dever, MacArthur and Piper have done at the churches they're now at) and see whether the Lord grants me a ministry to politicians.

In Christ there are so many blessed opportunities. One of the few (maybe many, e.g., God's glory [Rm. 9:22, 23]) good things about the world being so fallen is that there are endless directions you can go in order to help fulfill the Great Commission. Pray that I would go in the direction that I can have the greatest impact for Christ, be challenged most in my faith, and be most faithful.

Labels: Ministry, Politics, Resources

Al Mohler has been asked (question begins at 21:30 in the audio) before how he would argue the inerrancy of the Scriptures to an atheist. He came out and said that it will become a circular argument. The Bible says that it's perfect. That's how we know. The Westminster Confessions say, "And the heavenliness of the matter [the Word of God], the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." That's very circular to a non-Christian who doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit. But, Mohler says not to give up there. He says to remember that our existence is an unproven assumption.

The Bible is able to testify to itself. If someone asks why he should trust the Bible Al Mohler and Russell Moore, probably John MacArthur, would say to just read it and see for himself that it is perfect. I really believe this is true with all my heart. I believe that the Bible is amazingly harmonious (i.e., despite having more than forty authors written over more than a millenium and a half it has no contradictions and has one over-arching message). I think the way that the Bible reports on the fulfillment of prophecy are great for affirming its divineness. Especially as my testimony bears witness to, I believe that reading the Bible can bring faith (Rm. 10:17).

As an aside before moving on from this point, I am not saying that other outside evidence of the greatness of the Scriptures is to be avoided (e.g., the number of manuscripts, the perfect alignment with historical events and archaeology, etc.), I just don't think that they convert a person. God does through His Son's Gospel. We must, however, be ready to stand up for Truth (1P. 3:15).

Now, moving on, I was listening to a Mark Dever interview with Josh Harris (who Kissed Dating Goodbye) and Mohler on dating. Mohler was talking about how some men are called to celibacy, either short term while fulfilling a certain role such as military service in a foreign nation, or long term. As an example of someone called to long term celibacy he described how in 2002 he was called by a missionary organization and asked for the names of seven single men he would recommend from his seminary. I thought that was one of the most exciting things that I'd heard in a long time. He was talking about how these men would be sent off to one of the Stan countries (e.g., Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) and that they might not come back, so it would be irresponsible to send a married man.

First, I'm single, so I thought about how great it would be if I could be used in that capacity. But, more alluring was the idea of going to a place where the Bible's never been read before - not to mention, never had its reputation smeared before. What do you think the average person would say if you (a Christian) asked him to read it and see what he thought of it? He'd probably say (though, perhaps not in this language) that there's no point since 1) it's ancient and doesn't apply today, 2) it's not even accurate, 3) it was written by people not God, so it's not even Truth, and 4) that it's too boring, all that, without even having read it. It would be so great to go to a place and let them read the Word and hear God speak.

Upon writing this, I've now decided that along with my daily petitions for God to save my parents and brother, I am going to pray that He would get them reading His Word, before or after He saves them. I would love for my brother to read the book of Romans and talk with me about a Christian worldview of war and peace. I would love for my mother to read 1 Peter and ask me what it means to cast all her anxieties upon Him. I would love for my father to read Philippians and the Gospel of John and ask me how the most power being in existence could bow down and help someone less worthy than Himself. The Bible is so applicable today! Let me cut myself off before I start criticizing the seeker sensitive movement for their abadonment of the Word, to say that alongside what I said my family could find for themselves to read in their, they could also read about God's love and salvation, and be saved. The message of the Bible is their hope, but not only theirs, but that of the whole world.

Thanks for reading/skimming my rant on how great the Word is and how evil/ignorant the world is.

--

I mentioned a Dever interview with Harris and Mohler. I highly, highly, highly recommend it for singles and couples; for all Christians. There's one thought in there, put forward by Mohler, that I've never thought of before, nor heard of it before. He actually says that adulthood should be equated with marriage except in the special cases. That boys should not only be raised to be men, but to be husbands and fathers. If for no other reason, listen to it to hear Mohler laugh at the question of Christian online dating and give an unequivocating, "No."

Labels: Bible, Long, Ministry, Resources

(This post is the result of the comment thread of a post that Jer made on his blog.)

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:1-6)

Labels: Bible, Friends, Miscellaneous, Resources