Why Christians Should Read Fiction

Do you think reading fiction is a waste of time? Read this article, and think harder.

http://www.russellmoore.com/2013/03/25/why-christians-should-read-fiction/

Do You Still Want to be Like Mike?

Matt Smethurst writes a tragic but gospel-centered piece about Michael Jordan over at the Gospel Coalition.

Thanks to my pastor Donny for forwarding this article to me.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/02/21/when-greatness-meets-emptiness-michael-jordan-at-50/

Cussing, Crassness, and Lack of Love

With all the hubbub in the past decade over the crassness of some popular preachers, C.S. Lewis's counsel can provide a balanced corrective for young Christians.

“Some of the language which chaste women in Shakespeare’s day would have been used in the 19th century only by a woman completely abandoned. When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable.”

--C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

I would, however, add one qualification to Lewis's statement (a qualification I think he would agree with): it is not always unloving to make people uncomfortable. When people are 'at ease in Zion,' comfortable in their idolatry or their legalism, sometimes the most loving thing we can do is to shock them out of their stupor. But our goal must always be for them to be saved, not for us to look cool. When Isaiah informed the Israelites that their righteous deeds were like a filthy menstrual cloth ("a bloody tampon," as one preacher aptly paraphrased it), I doubt he was trying to contextualize to the younger generation.

The best sermon I have ever heard that deals with this issue is Ryan Fullerton's sermon on Galatians 5:12, a text in which the Apostle Paul wishes aloud that false teachers would emasculate themselves. Fullerton is pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Louisville, KY, and was formerly Chris and Tiffany Davis's pastor. The sermon, titled "Harsh, Sarcastic, and Crass for the Sake of the Gospel," can be heard or downloaded here: http://www.ibclouisville.org/old/sermon/06-27-2009/harsh-sarcastic-and-crass-sake-gospel

Why Evangelicals Should Care Who Becomes Pope

In a sermon a couple of weeks ago, I made two comments about the Roman Catholic Church's search for the next pope (who at the time was not yet chosen): (1) ecclesiastically speaking, we Protestants have no dog in this fight (2) culturally speaking, we Protestants should still hope and pray for a conservative pope to be chosen.

In the link below, Justin Taylor gives some helpful excepts from Carl Trueman, church historian at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. Trueman is hardly an ecumenical fan of the Roman Catholic Church (see his fascinating article here, http://www.reformation21.org/articles/pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain-roman-catholic-history-and-the-e.php, yet he is always full of good sense. And his comments in the link below do a better job at making clear what I was trying to say two weeks ago.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/03/14/why-protestants-should-be-interested-in-rome/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Should a Christian Dentist Fire His Too-Hot Hygienist?

Russell Moore discusses a thorny ethical question that was in the news recently.

http://www.russellmoore.com/2013/03/11/should-a-christian-dentist-fire-his-too-hot-hygienist/

Jesus Has Imperium

Imperium: Noun: absolute power or authority; the right to command.

"Most people in Western societies lump churches into the same category as soccer clubs or charity organizations. Churches are one more kind of voluntary organization, we say. Alternatively, we regard churches as a service provider, like a mechanic who services your soul or a gas station that fills up your spiritual tank.

But are local churches clubs or service providers that exist by the permission of the state, one more supplicant who depends on the mercy of the lord of the land? 

It's true that you as an individual Christian should submit to the authority of the state. But remember that the state is God's 'servant' and God's 'agent' for bringing judgment (Rom. 13:4). Yes, the state possesses the 'sword,' but it does so only at God's behest. It's also true that churches should abide by the laws of the land when it comes to regulations such as adhering to building codes (if it has a building) or paying taxes on staff salaries (if it has a paid staff). In that sense, churches are like every other business or organization.  

At the same time, there is one thing that should be utterly clear in the Christian's mind: the local church does not exist by the permission of the state. It exists by the express authorization of Jesus. After all, Jesus has imperium, not the state. 

To be a Christian is to know this: Jesus is where the buck ultimately stops. Jesus is the authority to which all other authorities must answer. Jesus will judge the nations and their governments. He is the one with final power over life and death. The state exists by Jesus' permission, not the other way around. States typically don't acknowledge this fact, of course. But churches know it's true (John 19:11, Rev. 1:5, 6:15-17).

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus, and he gave his church the authority to march on the nations. His church will therefore advance like an army that cannot be stopped. The boundary lines of the nations won't stop it. The executive orders of presidents and prime ministers won't stop it. Not even the gates of hell will slow it down.

Jesus has imperium."

-Jonathan Leeman, Church Membership: How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus

http://www.amazon.com/Church-Membership-Represents-Building-Churches/dp/1433532379

 

 

Health Care Laws and the Failure of Minimal Toleration

Yuval Levin writes about the HHS mandate and the meaning of religious freedom

So basically, the religious institutions are required by the government to give their workers an insurer and that insurer is required by the government to give those workers abortive and contraceptive coverage, but somehow these religious employers are supposed to imagine that they’re not giving their workers access to abortive and contraceptive coverage. If religious people thought about their religious obligations the way HHS lawyers think about the law, this might just work. But they don’t.

And that’s just the point here. This document, like the versions that have preceded it, betrays a complete lack of understanding of both religious liberty and religious conscience. Religious liberty is an older and more profound kind of liberty than we are used to thinking about in our politics now. It’s not freedom from constraint, but recognition of a constraint higher than even the law. It’s not “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” but the right to answer to what you are persuaded is the evident and inflexible reality of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. It’s not the right to do what you want; it is the right to do what you must.

Governments have to recognize that by restricting people’s freedom to live by the strictures of their faith they are forcing them to choose between the truth and the law. It is therefore incumbent upon the government of a free society to seek for ways to allow people to live within the strictures of their consciences, because it is not possible for people to live otherwise.

There are times, of course, when the government, in pursuit of an essential public interest, simply cannot make way for conscience, and in those times religious believers must be willing to pay a heavy price for standing witness to what they understand to be the truth. But such moments are rare, and our system of government is designed to make them especially so. Both the government and religious believers should strive to make them as rare as possible by not forcing needless confrontations over conscience. And in this case, I think it is just perfectly clear that the government has forced a needless and completely avoidable confrontation and has knowingly put many religious believers in an impossible situation. It is no secret that most of America’s largest religious denominations are opposed to abortion, and that some are opposed to contraception as well. And there are many alternative means by which the government can (and does) make abortive and contraceptive drugs and procedures available to people. The purpose of refusing to provide a religious exemption from this rule would therefore appear to be to force religious employers themselves to make those drugs and procedures available—to bend a moral minority to the will of the state. It is not only a failure of statesmanship and prudence, it is a failure of even the most minimal toleration.

--Yuval Levin, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339566/new-round-intolerance-yuval-levin

Atheism, Humor, and Richard Dawkins

This is good satire. 

Richard Dawkins, of course, is a famous British atheist, and author of The God Delusion. 

Because It's Cool, or Because It's True?

If you have a few minutes, you would profit from listening to Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt's discussion about Calvinism and coolness.

http://info.alliancenet.org/mos/podcast/birth-cool

'Obedience' is an Awkward Word

"Obedience is an awkward word for sinners. By nature we do not like it. We immediately think of abuses of authority. Abuse is widespread and at times terrible in its consequences, but such abuses do not delegitimize authority itself. Satan's attack on God from the beginning has been to tell humans that authority and love cannot go together. And Satan's proof of this dichotomy is God's call for us to deny ourselves when our own desires contradict His commands (e.g., in the garden of Eden). And yet God has shown Himself unbelievably loving as Christ sacrificed His comfort for our good (e.g., in the garden of Gethsemane). God is worthy of trust. Throughout creation, authority is to be an expression of God's own character (see Eph 3: 14– 15). David's final words are a beautiful reflection of authority's divine nature: "When one rules justly over men, ruling in the fear of God, he dawns on them like the morning light, like the sun shining forth on a cloudless morning, like rain that makes grass to sprout from the earth" (2 Sam 23: 3– 4 ESV). Authority exercised well blesses those under it. This is as true in the home as it is in the nation and as true in church as it is in marriage."

-Mark Dever, from the article "The Practical Aspects of Church Membership," in the book Those Who Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline, ed. by John S. Hammett, and Benjamin Merkle, 

The True Jonah

The now former Pope Benedict XVI writes about the baptism of Jesus. I would certainly have major differences with the Pope on both baptism and the atonement, but this excerpt is insightful.

"The act of descending into the waters of this Baptism implies a confession of guilt and a plea for forgiveness in order to make a new beginning. In a world marked by sin, then, this Yes to the entire will of God also expresses solidarity with men, who have incurred guilt...The significance of this event could not fully emerge until it was seen in light of the Cross and Resurrection...Looking at the events (of Christ’s baptism) in light of the Cross and Resurrection, the Christian people realized what happened: Jesus loaded the burden of all mankind’s guilt upon his shoulders; he bore it down into the depths of the Jordan. He inaugurated his public activity by stepping into the place of sinners. His inaugural gesture is an anticipation of the Cross. He is, as it were, the true Jonah who said to the crew of the ship, ‘Take me and throw me into the sea’ (Jon. 1:12)…The baptism is an acceptance of death for the sins of humanity, and the voice that calls out “This is my beloved Son” over the baptismal waters is an anticipatory reference to the Resurrection. This also explains why, in his own discourses, Jesus uses the word ‘baptism’ to refer to his death."

-Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth 

Fornication is Blasphemy

Great article from a great author excerpted from a great magazine.

"Fornication, quite simply, isn't merely "premarital sex." It isn't only a matter of impatience. It is not simply the marital act misfired at the wrong time, a kind of, as it were, premature ejaculation. Yes, it is true that the sexual act in fornication is, or at least can be, the same sort of physical activity as wedded sexuality. And it's true that, in fornication, the couple involved may be doing that which they would be qualified to do if they were a married couple (which would distinguish fornication from, say, sodomy or incest). But fornication is, both spiritually and typologically, a different sort of act from the marital act, and is indeed a parody of it.

Sexual union is not an arbitrary expression of the will of God (much less of random Darwinian processes). It is instead an icon of God's purposes for the universe in the gospel of Christ. Paul's classic text on the one-flesh union of marriage from Ephesians 5 makes no sense if it is presented as it is too often preached: as a set of tips for a healthier, "hotter" marriage. Instead, this passage is part of an ongoing argument about the cosmic mystery of Christ, a mystery "which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph. 3:5).

The Genesis 2 mandate to leave father and mother, to cleave to one another, and to become one flesh is a "mystery" and "refers to Christ and the Church" (Eph. 5:31–32). The husband/wife union is a visible representation of the Christ/Church union—a covenantal bond in which, as a head with a body, Jesus is inseparable from his bride, a bride he protects, provides for, leads, disciples, and sanctifies. He is as inseparable from his Body as a human head is from a human body—a truth the apostle heard from the voice of the Galilean himself, when Jesus asked the persecutor of the Church on the Road to Damascus, "Why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4).

Fornication pictures a different reality than that of the mystery of Christ. It represents instead a Christ who uses the Church without joining her, covenantally, to himself. It is not just "naughtiness." To use another word Christians find awkward and antiquated, it's blasphemy.

This is why the consequences for fornication in Scripture are so severe. The man who leads a woman into sexual union without a covenantal bond is preaching to her, to the world, and to himself a different gospel. He is forming a real spiritual union, the apostle warns, but one that is of a different spirit than the sanctifying Spirit of God in Christ (1 Cor. 6:15–19)."

 -Russell Moore, "Sexual Iconoclasm," Touchstone Magazine, January/February 2013, 

 - See more at: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=26-01-020-v#sthash.lSiJDh2N.dpuf