I think this is one of the best articles I’ve read on the idea of having to be ‘relevant’ as it is currently being promoted by ungodly men in the pulpit:

If you want to be relevant, say, for prostitutes, don’t watch a movie with a lot of tumbles in a brothel. Immerse yourself in the gospel, which is tailor-made for prostitutes; then watch Jesus deal with them in the Bible; then go find a prostitute and talk to her. Listen to her, not the movie. Being entertained by sin does not increase compassion for sinners.

Piper nails it here: what we’re hearing as ‘relevancy’ nowadays is cultural capitulation, whereas true relevancy is an issue of the heart.

Those who know my family know that of my six brothers and sisters, only one could be considered as ‘white’ as me. The others are from ‘minority’ groups (Hispanic, Vietnamese, Native American). I’ve always grown up being pretty blind to race (which is not to say I’m blind to the cultural differences that tend to fall down along racial lines). So I find the political correctness of racial politics to be truly nauseating. But, as the following link (and its comments) point out, part of this might be because I grew up in the West where race is not as big an issue as it is in other parts of this country. Interesting food for thought.

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/seattle.php

A rare tear came to my eye as I read this.

The church needs many more like this couple.

First, we read this:

Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

Then, in a series featuring these ‘New Calvinists’, we see this about a cessationistic pastor, who also wrote this.

Huh?

…call names, redefine your opponent, and make yourself look good, but no matter what you do, do not actually treat your opponent fairly.

http://theresurgence.com/new_calvinism

This is sad:

http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/03/12955n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

I recently saw an advertisement for The Undercover Revolution by Iain H. Murray, published by the Banner of Truth. Like many other Christians, I’ve benefited over the years from BoT publications, and especially from Mr Murray’s writings. The topic of this book was one that I found particularly interesting, not because it was something I’d never thought of before, but because of the forcefulness with which it seemed to be being put forth. As the text on the BoT page claims, “How Fiction Changed Britain!” (which is also the subtitle of the book). The quote from John Macarthur on that page also paints a strong picture: “Iain Murray has put his finger on the turning point that sent western culture down the path to immorality. It is a persuasive explanation that we need to hear.”

This was most definitely an interesting premise, and one that I have most assuredly thought about over the years. But the marketing of this book seemed to be making the case more strongly than I had ever seen it. It seems to me to be claiming a role for fiction that might be a bit stronger than reality, so I quickly purchased the book to see what the actual claim is.

To put it simply, I was disappointed, not because Mr Murray doesn’t have a point, but because the book is not quite enough to make that point. As Mr Murray points out in his introduction, “My theme — the influence of fiction on society — is worthy of much more expansion than I have given to it here. I hope I have said enough to alert others to the importance of what is too commonly overlooked.” Alas, I have to wholeheartedly concur with him about that. This is something that needs some more analysis, especially after Mr Murray’s book.

The book is quite short, clocking in at 110 pages. It is divided into two parts: part one is really the ‘meat’ of the argument with part two an extended essay about how Christianity is not fictional but based in fact. Part one runs for the first 76 pages, which are divided into five short chapters. Chapter one is a six-page introduction to the book. Chapter two, 18 pages long, is a brief overview of Robert Louis Stevenson’s life, focusing on how he was hostile to Christianity and its teachings. Almost entirely absent from this chapter is any discussion of how this affected RLS’s writings. How much was his godlessness reflected in his writing? A lot? A little? Not at all?

Chapter three is 22 pages devoted to Thomas Hardy (a favorite author of mine and MrsBlue’s, by the way). Again, very little discussion on the writings of Hardy himself, although a bit more than in the chapter on RLS (and what is there focuses on Hardy’s poems, which is not a surprise, since the anti-Christian hostility is much more readily expressed in the poems). Chapter four is 10 pages long and with a title of ‘The Novelists Multiply’ you can readily guess that there’s not much deep analysis going on.

The final chapter of this section is ‘General Lessons’ which is where some of the analysis starts to happen, but at 20 pages, there’s not much analysis that can happen. In the end, very little actual analysis of the literary works of the various authors happens. Instead, what the reader is presented with is the fact that many of the late Victorian/early Edwardian authors were godless and God-hating, but how did that change Britain as the subtitle claims? We’re not given that answer, but only given the beginnings of what could be a strong thesis.

I’m not against this book — there’s a lot here that Mr Murray is starting to hint at that I think will stand up to a rigorous analysis — but the book doesn’t deliver what its subtitle promises. In the end, we must either make some broad assumptions (which do no one any good) or we are left wondering, “How did fiction change Britain?”

“Rodney Trotter” of the Ref21 blog gives us the following great quote:

Like middle aged men with paunches, Coldplay teeshirts, reversed baseball caps, and conversation littered with references to `the latest cool bands,’ trendy Christianity is not only an oxymoron, it’s a real embarrassment as well — even for those of us who profess to be Christians.

The context is a discussion of churches that have ‘U2-charist’ services where the music is all U2 songs. For the record, I enjoy the music of U2 and MrsBlue is a huge fan, but neither of us can see having a service wherein we are singing U2 songs. The only U2 song I can see being worthy of being sung in a worship service is ‘40′ which is Psalm 40 set to music. Even the other ’spiritual’ songs of U2 (of which there are many) are not what Paul had in mind in Ephesians 5. But I guess we have to be ‘relevant’, which is really code for ‘do whatever our carnal flesh likes.’

No, not me. That’s still about a year and a half away. It’s my bride who has turned 40 today. I remember her 20th birthday when we were both in Bible School in England. Now she’s 40. We’re both at that point where we’ve known each other a little more than half our lives. I can tell you this: it is by far the better half of my life. Sure, I have lots of good memories about high school and growing up and those first couple decades were by far the easier half of my life, but ‘easy’ does not mean ‘better.’ This past year and a half have been very hard, having to find another church at a time when we most needed a good church body (because of MrsBlue’s health problems). But I would rather spend the rest of my life struggling as much as I have these past 20 months with my wife alongside me than I would living an easy life without her.

I could write pages on how wonderful she is. Those who know MrsBlue know just how amazing she is. God is a God Who gives us many riches and blessings and my wife is the greatest blessing I could ever have (aside, of course, from the blessing of the cross).

Here’s to the next two score….

I recently sent an email to two female colleagues to ask them a question. I addressed the email to ‘Ladies’, which for me is a term of courtesy when addressing women. I got an email back from one stating I should never again use that term when addressing her:

I have been here many years and never been referred to as lady! Let’s not ever have it happen again. Thank you!

I was flabbergasted. I have never heard of using a term of respect as being an insult. Is this some form of PC gone wild? I didn’t grow up in some culturally backward backwater (well, it was the Phoenix area, but…), but for me this has always been a term of respect. Have we gone so far as to have terms of respect be considered an insult, or is this an isolated incident?

Next Page »