Accountability

Farewell, NBA

2011-11-15T14:48:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/farewell-nba/#comment-75223

Hey, Paul,

You touch on an idea that we were disussing here once before. Our discussion centered around this. If profit sharing is demanded to be part of the equation, how is risk sharing also going to be factored in? Taking the idea that players get people into the seats concept, if a player doesn't pan out and doesn't bring "wow", can he be docked pay? Or would it be a pure profit sharing where all the players would get a cut of the generic sharing?

I think both sides make me roll my eyes, personally. And given the detracting aspect of professional sports (surrounding sports), I've watched NBA less and less. But it does make for good conversational fodder!

Doug Wilson on the Occupy Wall Street Protest

2011-10-15T13:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/is-your-doctor-a-believer/
Some thoughts from the comments that I found interesting as well....
....
Reading your posting, I couldn't help but think of the danger of mobs, such as the one currently outside wall street. An aimless mob without a unifying ideal is a mob quick to devolve as it percieves all to be an enemy and has no ethic to constrain. You quickly have the makings of Compton after Rodney King, or Paris with the Jacobins cutting of the heads of kings, clergy, and anyone with more than their fair share.

.....

Hopelessness. Perpetual long term unemploymnet. the appearance that Mexican get all the jobs because the employers don't have to pay taxes on illegal wages, this really has the feel of the Bonus March of 1932. On Steroids.

It doesn't matter how many ipods the crowd has. The spirit of economic despair is real. When people feel hopeless, they will do ANYTHING, no matter how illegal to not feel hopeless. I really think that these protests are going to turn violent, soon.

....

Maybe. But there is a world of difference between hopelessness on the one hand, and plain old laziness and greed on the other. The fact that a lazy greedy person feels a high degree of angst and frustration over not being able to easily steal the other guy's stuff, and sells that angst as "hopelessness," does not mean that he is actually hopeless. It only means he is lazy, greedy, and immature.

These are crybabies throwing a temper tantrum, and there is little sympathy to be had for any of them. In the grand scheme of things, the very last thing any of us really want is "our fair share." We are incredibly blessed by God's providence and mercy, and the only appropriate response to this fact is constant thanksgiving. What we see here instead is a kid looking at his brother's bowl of ice cream.

My Plan for Reading the Bible This Year

2010-12-28T06:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/my-plan-for-reading-the-bible-this-year/

Yes, very well said, Dr. Burk. Thanks also for the resource/plan. I believe that I am going to do a chronological in 2011. Some other plans for those that might be interested (if it’s alright, Dr. Burk):

Discipleship Journal: http://www.navpress.com/images/pdfs/9781576839744.pdf

One Year Bible Online: http://www.oneyearbibleonline.com/index.html (several plans)

The bible straight through: http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/reading.cgi?plan=straight&ver=NAS

Chronological: http://www.ewordtoday.com/year/49/cjan01.htm (several other plans)

Biblegateway: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/ (several plans)

ESV reading plans: http://www.esv.org/biblereadingplans (several plans)

Microsoft even has a one note template for Bible in a year! http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/TC011487731033.aspx

Is Your Doctor a Believer?

2010-08-28T19:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/is-your-doctor-a-believer/
Just a point of clarification, the highlighted finding about end of life is not "taking all steps to preserve the life", but is (from the report) "non-religious were more likely than others to report having given continuous deep sedation until death, having taken decisions they expected or partly intended to end life,". I am too cheap to buy the report, so the findings may flesh out a little more along the former for all I know.

And, RD, you touch on something that occurred to me as I read the report. What is driving the decision? I don't know, but I wonder if expenses are a driving factor. Some of the difficulty does lie with the idea of "terminally ill" and where a line is/should be (for treatment). I would venture that those holding to an expense-based viewpoint would err on the wrong side of life versus money. But that is total speculation and isn't from the report (though it is interesting that the abstract's conclusion does state "Greater acknowledgement of the relationship of doctors' values with clinical decision-making is advocated.").

New Comment
Correction, I read the (very brief) abstract, not the report.

Giberson Shows His Hand

2010-08-27T14:35:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/giberson-shows-his-hand/
I do hesitate to chime into a very well worn debate, but.....
I’ve heard the God deceiving part a few times (not just here, natch). I don’t get that conclusion. In a nutshell, our view of life here is based on a fantastically incomplete set of knowledge and that conclusion (deception) leans towards a reduction of the incredible power of God and an elevation of what we see as well. Dr. Mohler did specifically address this (one of his first points). In a fantastically crude analogy, if I send my sister flowers on her anniversary, she would say that, judging from evidence, her husband sent them (her husband always sends her flowers on their anniversary, he always uses a particular florist, he always sends her favorites). I haven’t deceived her, she made assumptions (well thought out, but still faulty). Furthermore, I sent her a note that said it was I who sent them. She wouldn’t protest saying no, they must be from her husband, nor would she call me a deceiver. Furthermore, what you say tends towards the idea (to me, overtly says) that if science says something should be, then it must always have been that way and always should in all circumstances. This brings a Jeffersonian view to the bible, since miracles would be deceptive (science says people can’t raise from the dead, water doesn’t turn into wine, the sick don’t have demons, water-soaked meat cannot combust, etc.). The view of aging the earth is rife with assumptions on our part. We have an incomplete knowledge. The great liar is there, prodding and saying did indeed he say... Now, all of that said, I’m not saying that this is a proof of YEC, I just think the deception bit is at best a shaky argument.

Another Complementarian Caricature

2010-08-04T10:42:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/another-complementarian-caricature/
Another fun one was the Bruce Ware page: http://www.dennyburk.com/bruce-ware%E2%80%99s-complementarian-reading-of-genesis/

but I think the # of comments (or Dr. Burk) killed the comments section.

BTW, does it seem odd that the piece cited as a caricature is addressed with a caricature (again)?

New Comment
Sue (#56):

I consider being a neighbor to my pastor and elders, my police officers, my supervisor, my mayor, my church elders, etc., I would hope you do as well. Yet to each of those I submit. Again, I think that (submission = subjection) is a poor caricature.

Just for fun, I searched Dr. Burk’s site for "love one another":
http://www.dennyburk.com/brothers-let-us-love-with-our-words/

This is not to say that Dr. Burk’s blog isn’t proportionally given to a subject, mind you, I just thought it was interesting. And, in fairness, this is only one aspect of Dr. Burk’s writing/thinking. See also his book (the best book about Greek infinitives upon which I've ever taken a nap. OK, I don't own the book, but once I did try to buy it and the shop clerk said I wasn't smart enough. Or something like that.).

And, I think the central teaching of scripture is not love one another. That is part of the summation of the law. The central teaching of scripture is God-centered, not me or us-centered. Perhaps that splitting hairs or looking too far into what you wrote, though. I just wanted to point it out because too often we see Christianity as a liberation mechanism (liberation from poverty, law, rules, rough lives, etc.) or an empowering mechanism (you can be happy, healthy, your own boss, rich, etc.) rather than a worship of our Creator. Again, perhaps I misread there.

Also, an interesting read about the 2000 Κεφαλή(s) by (have a seat, Sue ;-)) Dr. Grudem:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf

New Comment
I added a comment, but it's likely on hold. I mentioned that this blog is only one aspect of Dr. Burk's thinking. I also mentioned his book but meant to also include the Boyce College Blog and his sermons as well (I think there's a link to his podcasts up at the top). I'm sure that there is a wide cross section of topics there.

New Comment
Don's right that the commands are subordinate (to verse 21), but I don't think parents are called to submit to their children (not offspring, mind you, children) or masters to slaves. It's submitting one to another, not submitting to each other. You are right that Christ is our example, that we should serve (to quote from that portion of scripture, He came to serve, not be served), but I would stay far away from saying Christ submits to me.

Also, 1 Peter 3 does not direct the text to be about non-believing husbands, but is saying that wives should submit. Believers or not. Actually, I believe the "so that" text points more towards being disobedient to the word in all manners (believers or not, and perhaps this is what you meant also). Even taking that narrow of a view, it does not merely mean to be submissive to an unbelieving husband. Verse 7 wouldn't go back to the beginning of 3 but goes back to the start of the "reasoning" which is stated at the end of chapter 2, which is about being called for a purpose. So, just as Christ may have (in flesh) wanted to revile or call out, He didn't. I see that as following Christ's example of not wanting to do what the flesh wants to do, but to be sinless (obedience to the Father). That's not a great explanation, but I am more interested in brevity here.

New Post
Thomas:

When Dr. Grudem visited our church, I had the (very short) opportunity to interact with him. I commented on his book Evangelical Feminism and the resistance to the meaning of "head" by many. He nodded and quickly said how daunting the command to love our wives as Christ loved the church was and that considering that passage is such a heavy passage for him. Am I loving my wife as Christ loved His bride?

New Comment
Don:

First, just wanted to say that as much as I disagree with your exegesis, I definitely appreciate your tone. As difficult as that is in comment format.

I think that the chiastic breakdown rips only a portion of it away and disturbs the natural flow. Here is a look at that passage that I thought was well done by a wonderful erudite of the scriptures (I’m paraphrasing to conserve space).

Be careful how you walk:

making the most of your time

understanding the will of the Lord

being filled with the spirit (truly, not getting drunk ;-))

speaking psalms

singing to the Lord

giving thanks

submitting one to another
- Wives to your own husbands (as opposed to all women to all men)
  - But husbands, sacrifice for your wives
- Children to parents
  - But do not discourage/provoke your children
- Slaves to masters
  - But masters, be gentle with your slaves, knowing you both have a common master

There are other minor variations on that, I know, and I may be misplacing some of the subordinates, but I do believe that is a structure supported by the verb tenses and writing.

I don’t doubt anyone’s conviction and don’t think that anyone makes whimsical decisions (well, about this). Based on the 400+ comments, though, to reason out what the text says appears to first have a frame of what it should mean, then read the biblical text and interpret.

Teachers may expound and parse out the passage, explaining what it means, but should also be quick to say be concerned with what you are commanded. As Thomas pointed out (and Grudem and Ware point out), that is to love my wife as Christ loved the church.

Desktop Extinction

2010-07-28T13:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/desktop-extinction/
I also wonder how much of a factor the Vista, er, problem has stagnated PC sales.

I enjoy having the freedom of a laptop, but goodness the drawbacks are utterly frustrating (which, for me, keeps me festooned with a desktop).

New Comment
I meant to add on to the first sentence.

And conversely, how much will 7 pick up sales (in what might be a temporary manner).

Who is the Bible for?

2010-07-28T13:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/who-is-the-bible-for/
In a nutshell, I think that we can import our culture too much, but to say that we must understand the bible only if we understand exactly what was in the mind of Paul, Peter, Amos, etc. is dangerous at best. We do use culture, but the bible was authored by God to all, not (to take the example above) authored by Paul to Timothy (highlighting the difference between author and scribe, essentially). To me, to view the bible through our culture first or through (whatever century) Jewish culture first is a gross importation of culture.

In a slightly related link:
Justin Taylor

New Comment
@Donald:

I disagree that you must understand Shammai and Hillel. Christ gives His context (He is the author, after all) to understanding. The fact that Christ says "except" tells us that He is speaking not on the absolute of whether or not, but in a nod toward the "when is it legal". Knowing the culture certainly sheds light on what the Pharisees’ motivations were, but the real question Christ is answering is, well, shown in what He answers.

New Comment
Derek:

Well said (and James K., too!).

I might not categorize dispensationalism as quite in the category as open theism, egalitarianism and the acceptance of homosexuality, though (taking a plain text and obscuring it or expanding it as Donald does above). But I am not adroit enough to defend either side (not that I am in other categories, either, mind you).

New Comment
I suppose I see act as a Berean means study the scriptures, not culture first, then the scriptures. I see the view of the adding information not originally in the bible as a contradiction of the idea of being a Berean (i.e. eagerly studying the scriptures). And, I suppose, saying culture is what ultimately defines the meaning is flawed since we don’t a) know Christ’s thoughts (to speak specifically to this) and b) we still only have a good idea of Jewish culture. You have to assume what pieces of culture dictate meaning (and, in this case, attempt to peer into the mind of Christ). Over and over God states that we let the scriptures inform us. I guess I just see that God did write them to us to be understood plainly. I don’t think that it means that all scripture is easy, it’s not, but that’s a fractional exception (ha ha, punny), not a rule.

New Comment
The challenge is teleporting what the scribes (Paul, Peter, David, etc.) thought. Not only is that not something we can do, I don't think it's wise to try to discern reading between the lines. If we were to apply that thinking, then, as an example, Matthew would be incorrect in citing Isaiah as a prophetic writing about the messiah, Christ would have been wrong to correct the Jewish culture from Moses’ time, etc. In the end, I think that Christ went out of His way to make a grand example and say stop injecting our (self reasoned) ideals and culture (whether 1st Cen AD, BC or 20th cen AD) into His words. Stop making law say what He didn’t say. We do run the risk of teleporting God’s word into a relativistic cultural setting one way or the other. It seems a plain reading would be preferred over an inferential reading if at all possible. Or so go my thoughts.

And, just to make sure it isn’t lost, I think that both of us would pray fervently that we understand and apply what we are reading. Problems can arise in both camps (if this issue is taken as an either or, that is). I certainly don’t claim perfect understanding (as you would avoid as well, I think, well, I sure hope ;-)).

Bauer Reviews “In the Land of Believers”

2010-07-16T15:05:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/susan-wise-bauer/
Interesting quote:

...we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction.

From Dr. Kenneth Howell who is involved in an interesting imbroglio. I do disagree with his final statements about how we make moral conclusions, though.

Matt Kaufman wrote on this story:

And finally, there's something affirming even about the tactics of Howell's assailants. Their eagerness not to refute him, but to silence him, is a reminder of how much the darkness hates the light. Is that how people secure in their convictions act?

New Comment
Nathan:

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. But the crux was not that there is emotion involved, but too many times it is used to establish one's position (that’s the main point). While this does go on both sides, the first place to start in a morality discussion is God’s word. On this issue, it does speak clearly. Just because those homosexuals I know are really nice people doesn’t change what He says on it. More importantly, just because more people accept it as OK doesn’t make it OK, either (I think, you know that).

Coupled with that, though, we do have to realize that our model is still Christ. Which means we really do call sin sin, yet we don’t avoid contact, simply pointing fingers and yelling (that is one thing that Kelly and others rightly identify).

Golf vs. Motherhood

2010-07-08T13:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2010/07/golf-vs-motherhood.html
1) Just to counter Zusanne’s post, my experience in training and dealing with youth is quite the opposite of Zusanne's (by and large, I don't think either she or I would say one or the other as a blanket statement for all homeschool kiddos), particularly in the area of respect for authority. Perhaps I live in an area that (for some reason) has a strong homeschooling (I am not personally homeschooled, mind you) community. The admonition is well worth keeping in mind, though*!
2) Dr. Mohler had an article this morning about this subject (more or less). His ending quote:

And when it comes to happiness, we must aim for something higher. Christians are called to joy and satisfaction in Christ, and to find joy in the duties and privileges of this earthly life. Every parent will know moments of honest unhappiness, but the Christian parent settles for nothing less than joy.

Why Are Parents So Unhappy? And Who Would Settle for Happiness, Anyway?

* - And our homeschooled brothers and sisters might see post 12 as a tacit condemnation of homeschoolers in general.

10th Wedding Anniversary

2010-07-08T12:59:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/10th-wedding-anniversary/
Happy Anniversary, Dr. Burk. I pray for you to be prophetic in your poem.

Russell Moore on NPR

2010-06-28T08:42:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/russell-moore-on-npr/
John:

I don’t speak for Dr. Burk, but there is (in my opinion) a massive difference between regulation and ownership/management. I haven’t been able to listen to the NPR, but it sounds like (on the surface) the former is what is championed here versus the latter for government run health care (and many who oppose Obamacare proposed regulations to address costs). It also seems there is an aspect of the latter that involves forcing the rich to pay more and while I’m not in that category (of footing the lion’s share of the bill), I think that is unbiblical (we don’t sin to get others to not sin). There’s more than that, too including much of government run health care not addressing the root problem, just throwing money at it, taking debt in a manner that is unwise, etc. Thoughts, or am I off base?

Aaron also makes a good point, too. I’m interested in reading Anderson’s piece (along with listening to Dr. Moore. I so enjoy him when he speaks!).

Are We Making Men the "Bad Guys"?

2010-06-24T13:22:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2010/06/are-we-making-men-the-bad-guys.html
This is one of those things that simultaneously drives me crazy and (as a daddy) makes me feel a tad safer for the kiddo. I coached a little girls soccer team. One thing that those little sweeties loved was hugs. I couldn't help but be a tad aloof (essentially) at times. The parents were great and I worked hard up front to gain their trust first and foremost. I put lots of precautions in place (never alone with any of the girls ever, etc.), too. It’s sad, but, I think, necessary. There are plenty of stories to say why we are as paranoid as we are, though. As fathers, this is where we work hard to model biblical lives and, when possible, be around other biblical men as well for kids to see (I am so blest that my daughter has been around some wonderful men in my church).

Russ Douthat on Feminism

2010-06-21T11:45:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/ross-douthat-on-feminism/
Just a general smattering of comments.

I don’t think there are many Christian folks who claim divorce (or adultery) to be good and God-pleasing (or, rather, the number is exceedingly small that sees things like no-fault as God-honoring). That is not the same for homosexuality. But maybe that tide is changing as well. Regardless, if there were, you would see vehement outcry, I would think.

I think that complementarianism (don’t know precisely what non-egal is as that could be, technically, anything…also, don’t know what egalism is ;-)) is shown in the garden, pre-fall.
- Order of creation
- Commands going to man
- Naming responsibility, etc., given to man from the beginning.
- Responsibility of fall going to man indicates the responsibility was there prefall.
- Pre-fall complementarianism (order) is subsequently affirmed in NT. More of a point of affirmation.
- The dreaded idea of God making a "helper suitable"
- Woman created "from man".
Dr. Ware does a good job of explaining it, if you're willing to listen.

That’s why it is so odd to so many of us that women should not be considered worthy....

It is a decree from scripture that is not based on worth, value or dignity or ability. Though some do see authority as an amount of worth, sadly.

I agree with MW about Dr. Mohler's assessment. Also, I think Dr. Mohler had grave reservations about Palin because of her familial responsibilities. But I may be mixing my podcasts.

New Comment

Nathan,

Just to make sure I understand correctly, in your sampling ;-), your parents uplift your siblings’ divorce as God-honoring?

Part of the issue is that it isn’t necessarily an apples-to-apples. A divorce is not an on-going thing (necessarily). Many churches do deny marrying unbiblically-divorced people. I know that churches deny membership (often the only potential impact a church body can have) based on someone denying a sinful divorce. The same goes for discipline and turning away by a church. Also, biblically, practicing homosexuality is categorically called sinful. Divorce is something that has “except” attached to it. Additionally, in many cases, homosexuality is something that externalizes itself. Divorce…not so much.

All that doesn’t mean that we don’t improperly take a laisser faire attitude toward divorce. We should be involved in others’ lives and strengthening, sharpening, etc. Too often we do avoid the hard questions. We also may not react properly to those dealing with homosexuality. But it doesn’t mean that the bible is suddenly wrong on either of those.

Liberal Dependence on Abortion

2010-05-12T09:18:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/liberal-dependence-on-abortion/
I probably should have left this well alone, but killing the innocent to assuage guilt is simply abhorrent. My heart just breaks when I read that. So much of scripture is written to protect the innocent and to make our bellies fat we destroy the most innocent of us all. Goodness. Beware those who call darkness light.

Limbaugh vs. Moore

2010-05-03T12:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/limbaugh-vs-moore/
Doc B:

I agree that it is a naturally occurring substance and is somehow processed by our lands/oceans (though I am lacking in scientific education in such), I would say this is outside the realm of natural occurrences. While just as much may be seeping from the earth, isn’t that kind of like saying swallowing 1 quart of water all at once is fine since our bodies produce that much every day. Again, I’m coming from a non-educated (in geography/ecology) viewpoint, so I could be completely misunderstanding.

While I think Rush is very often merely being inflammatory (as opposed to inflammatory with a good point ;-) ), I do wonder if he had more to say about it (well, other than to accuse the left of purposefully doing it). I’m willing to bet the statement can be taken at face value as it sounds like something Rush would say.

What about Derek?

2010-05-03T09:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/what-about-derek/
Amanda:

And, to follow that, Christ also said if you love me you will follow my commandments. That is why this issue is such a touchstone as scripture is direct on this issue (as opposed to inferential, e.g. consuming alcohol, how to provide for the poor, etc.) and if scripture is from God, that is His command. It’s not a diminutive issue at all.

Cain:

While I assume you simply happened by, to which statement are you referring? I assume you mean implication in that if someone who claims to know him yet does not keep His commandments, he is then a liar, then I would say I am without defense there.

I forget who it is, but there is a quote that we are more troubled by what is plain in scripture than by what is vague.

NFL Draft

2010-04-23T13:09:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/nfl-draft/
I agree with the talk I've heard lately around the water cooler. Most NFL picks are a crap shoot (see Ki-Jana Carter, Ryan Leaf, Byron Leftwich, etc. and Keenan McCardell (sic), Shannone Sharpe, Tom Brady, etc.).

I do slightly disagree about the guts comment. I think that we see the field littered with incredibly talented guys who were a bust (I have a whole theory about that) as well as guys who had "OK" talent but had the tenacity to pursue. Of course, talent will go further since in a lot of cases those guys have physical discipline instilled in them to a certain level.

Given that, I believe that Tebow will excel. But I may eat those words as well.

Judd: No changies! No changies!

Jennifer Knapp is NOT worthless

2010-04-19T11:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/jennifer-knapp-is-not-worthless/
To his credit, I think Don meant focusing, not correction as a whole. And, to that extent, I think that is Nathan’s point as well (though I am interested to hear what church says that being prideful, etc. is OK and it is loving to embrace being prideful).
I think we should be cautious when discussing such a deep, impactful (sic) sin. But it’s still that. And calling sin good and calling darkness light is something that is (imho WELL) beyond disobedience. A difference between embracing and celebrating versus committing and turning back again.

McLaren Doesn’t Want To Hurt Anybody?

2010-04-09T14:12:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/mclaren-doesn%e2%80%99t-want-to-hurt-anybody/
Also, all the groups mentioned would agree on the same foundational beliefs (we are separated from God by our sinfulness, Christ was offered in our place, He rose. Scriptures are God’s word, etc.). This is where McLaren is so far gone. Darius and I may disagree on divorce allowed, but not on what is the tenet of salvation. Don and I may disagree on women in the church, but not on what Christ did for us. See Mohler on theological triage.

And yes, even with that in mind, we still do quarrel because of the passions within us (God did foresee our fallen nature, see James).

I agree, too, that, as a very good friend of mine put it, sometimes you just have to get downwind of yourself. Especially in a web-forum, harshness can come across easily. But also, disagreements on the 2nd tiers doesn’t mean relegating to eternal punishment.

A Make-believe Christian Infiltrates Thomas Road Baptist Church

2010-03-05T08:57:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/a-make-believe-christian-infiltrates-thomas-road-baptist-church/
Scott/Mark:

Yah, that brings an interesting question to mind. A while back, there was a girl championed for going into a clinic posing as a pregnant 15 year old, exposing the atrocities of PP, etc. (I don’t think any here did, mind you). I do have a pause with these. On the one hand, I have to say that I applaud exposing frauds for what they are (PP or professing but non believing/living-it-out Christians). But the deception is something that churns me. It’s like so much else that we do. We try to rely on our own strength, wisdom and savvy and try to leave God out of it. I.e. in the end, I, too find it sinful as it is.

I can understand if a Christian brother or sister sees a problem with this, but why anyone outside of the church? That’s completely subjective.

New Comment
Actually, David, while we will disagree on it, I would say it unfathomable to hide from someone what would destroy them. In a physical sense, I tell my children that if you don’t learn how to tread water, you will die. In a spiritual sense, it should be no different.

As far as the homeless example, it might be. Living among a group can be done without active deception, I suppose. But yes, you’re right, it could be the same.

Did I get married too young?

2010-02-19T07:59:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/did-i-get-married-too-young/
Well said, Charlie! The man I would consider my spiritual father always said “get yourself together so you can give yourself away”.

In my view, I think that we’ve put too much emphasis on man-based marriages. Today, it seems all about “finding the right one”. There is too much of a reliance on personality, predilection, and, well, feelings. While those things impact a marriage, marriages should be rooted in God first. Getting that right can overcome anything else. NOTE: Neither am I saying that we should ignore all personality traits and/or perceived compatibility. But as your marriage grows, even some of those original signs of compatibility will likely wane or disappear.

And Larry, if you are pointing to the replacement of biblical counseling with pop psychology and personality tests, I have to say what a dangerous proposition that is (at best). I agree that one or two sessions with a pastor or a day seminar isn’t it. Get a good mentoring couple. Seek out the greybeards in your church. Find godly people to pour into you, don’t go and drink the sewage of current culture and what’s currently fashionable. Psychologists can often get the symptoms right, but a solution divorced from God is doomed to failure*. And that, I think, is where the church has often failed. From the replacing of biblical counsel with current psych trends to a jettisoning of discipleship and any semblance of church authority, the church has fostered the undermining of marriage (and, in turn, family).

* - i.e. there are godly psychologists who marry the tools of analysis available with God’s word, but they are few, at least based on my experience and anecdotally speaking.

He Loves Jesus but Hates God

2010-02-17T07:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/he-loves-jesus-but-hates-god/
Don:

I agree that we read in light of the at-the-time culture, but must also maintain a healthy dose of the fact that God authored the words to be transcendent (in one way or another). Taking the at-the-time culturally relative-izing approach to reading scripture (particularly when it comes to prescriptive versus descriptive) is equally damaging as porting every concept to 20th century America without regard to the original culture. The culturally static approach you seem to posit is dangerous at best. But I could also be completely misunderstanding how you mean to apply it.

CBMW disagrees with the founding basis of Intervarsity

2010-01-27T10:50:00.001-08:00

http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2010/01/cbmw-disagrees-with-founding-basis-of.html
Sue:

To be fair, you did mix two articles there. Robinson is pointing out that complementarian thought is singled out as counter IV (by those in IV) while open theism is being allowed in (and embraced by some there). Stiles is saying that IV is leaving it’s fundamental gospel-centric roots. As a matter of fact, with the sole exception of the following line:

An egalitarian stand on women in ministry is so sacrosanct that complementarians are unwelcome in IV.

Stiles’ article is devoid of egalitarian/complentarian comparison and focuses solely on IV’s (beginning of a) departure from "follow[ing] the outline of God, Man, Christ, Response."

I have to say that it’s disappointing to see such a miscommunication on your part. It seems that you are trying to discredit someone fallaciously.

New Comment
Sue:

I said nothing about you focusing on one sole issue. I don’t find it offensive even though you might (although at that point, you might ask yourself your own question from a couple of comments ago). What I was trying to point out is that you state in your ending paragraph:

Stiles appears to forget that the roots of InterVarsity in North America were always egalitarian.

But nowhere does Stiles argue that the roots of IV are not egalitarian. His whole essay was that the roots of IV are rooted in the gospel and that they have tracked away from that. You took the “roots” information from the CBMW article and then erringly attached the CMBW article (and, I suppose, argument) to Stiles. You indicate with the connecting line that Stile’s article is saying that IV is leaning egalitarian now, leaving its roots. The thing is that nowhere in his essay does Stiles argue that IV’s roots are not egalitarian. His whole argument is that IV’s roots are in the Gospel and given their inclusion of Roman Catholics, a mantra of “deeds not creeds” and embracing McClaren, Bell, Chalke, etc.

You make a fallacious claim because you set up with an article by a different author who argues that IV should allow complentarian views to be represented and end with Stiles’ ending paragraph about IV’s abandoning its gospel-centric roots, but saying that Stiles denies IV’s egalitarian roots. Stiles’ argument had nothing to do with the CBMW article or its argument.

New Comment
Mabel:

I agree mostly, actually (‘cept I’m on the other side of the egal/comp line). But many to most would argue that since it is a non-salvific issue, it is a “tier 2” issue that should be dealt with in the church (sorry for the dangling prep), not in a parachurch ministry. I think that is Robinson’s argument. Plus, if one stakes a claim on comp/egal being a delineation that IV holds as not salvation-oriented, but just a tick below and would therefore be dangerous, it would stand to reason that open theism (Pinnock and Boyd) and trajectory hermeneutics (Webb) would fall in that same category, given they are at odds with a biblical view of God and the claims of the bible itself (or so I would see it).

Of course, that is a tad at odds with IVP’s publisher Bob Fryling:
"A great step forward on this would be to not vilify the opposing position as being unbiblical but in humility to recognize that different, very mature believers come to different convictions that should be discussed in an atmosphere of mutual respect for each other and the Word of God."

In the end, I do agree with Robinson in that a parachurch organization should be less inclined to elevate any tier two church issue to tier one (which, in the end, it sounds like IV does…..though I have very little experience with IV at all outside of anecdotal).

Compared with Stiles’ argument that there is confusion over the gospel, a “deeds not creeds” mentality (social gospel), that ”all the while IVP cranks out books that promote the same theology loved by my old religion department and chip away at the very foundation on which IV's mission stands…. books on open theism and postmodern contextualization.

New Comment
Mabel:

You said:

…in that one gender can prevent another gender from using their God given talents to preach, lead, teach, to expand the Kingdom of God.

I would say that isn’t true (I know, you’re shocked ;-). Just to cut to the chase, women aren’t barred from preaching, teaching or expanding the Kingdom of God in a complentarian view. Within the church? Yes, there are limitations God placed. And I know you don’t agree, but just because one doesn’t get to use her (or his) gifts the way she (or he) desires doesn’t mean it is a prevention of the expansion of the Kingdom of God nor does it mean that it is an offensive prohibition.

I know you see it as a human-derived……nay, a man-derived (ha ha) argument, but complentarity is biblically-based, i.e. God can prevent. As in God can prevent me from being an elder, God can prevent the Israelites from choosing a priest from any clan, God can prevent me from marrying a non-believer, etc.

New Comment

Sue:

I appreciate the surrejoinder in the post after this one. Just to make sure that I didn't draw attention from the point of my rejoinder (though, I suppose, I cannot technically make a rejoinder), I thought I would revisit it here. You accuse Stiles of being ignorant of the founding egalitarian climate of IV and is somehow tying his argument to CBMW and/or complementarianism. Given your language (I find it astonishing that he could have worked for.....), it appears you are trying to simply discredit Stiles' in an attempt to then render his argument invalid. That is what I would say is a fallacious evaluation on your part given he makes no argument whatsoever that denies an egalitarian root.

If you hold to Open Theism or Traj. Herm., that's fine, state so and engage those points. In fact, you began to engage his argument in your recent post (though you are still trying to combine the two arguments). Your claim against him here (that he is claiming the roots of IV are not egal) is simply false.

New Comment
Blake:

Yes, it is an extremely important issue (I agree with Robinson that it reflects one’s view of Christ to us). And the parachurch must allow or not allow women in ministry (thus thrusting their core view to the center). As a parachurch, though, IV is, in essence, calling themselves a denominational ministry (i.e. taking a sacrosanct view of egalitarianism to the exclusion of other bible-based views…….all the while affirming, in a way, open theism). That seems at odds with IV (the way I understand it wants to function) as a parachurch organization that doesn’t espouse one view and demonizing another. I agree on a level with Sue’s connection (though tenuous) between allowing women in leadership positions and complementarian teaching. Meaning allowing complementarian teaching would strain IV’s egalitarian stance (and possibly cause confusion). Or that’s how I understand it. Great stuff, Blake!

John Piper and Inter Varsity

2010-01-26T12:51:00.000-08:00

http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2010/01/john-piper-and-inter-varsity.html
Perhaps I am missing something (I often am), but where does Piper condemn women leadership outside the church (parachurch)?

New Comment
Interesting, that would be an interesting read. Suzanne, do you have a reference?

Lesson on Repentance from The Tragedy in Haiti (Luke 13)

2010-01-25T10:28:00.000-08:00

http://ebcblog.premierwebware.com/?p=82
Great charge at the end! J.D. Greear (don't know who that is) had a great quote many probably saw on Twitter (not that I even have a Twitter account, mind you).
"'Preach the gospel; if necessary use words' is like saying 'Tell me your phone number; if necessary use digits'"

Roe v. Wade is 37 Today

2010-01-25T09:38:00.000-08:00

http://ebcblog.premierwebware.com/?p=90
Dr. Denny Burk had a couple of great posts, too.
Support Abortion Alternatives
Very Sad Picture from March for Life

The second really highlights the convoluted (or lack of) thinking on the part of those supporting abortion. Also, if you have a chance, go and check out the story from American Idol on Maddy Curtis. BTW, I don't watch Idol, just caught the link from boundless.

A La Carte (1/22)

2010-01-23T17:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.challies.com/sideblog/archives/2010/01/a_la_carte_122_5.php
Expected and yet still startling stuff from Osteen........

"I don’t believe it’s just money — money is a part of it — but prosper is to give you a good life, meaning good relationships, and give you health," Osteen said, explaining the "prosper" phrase comes from the Book of Jeremiah. It’s to "give you a good job and money to pay your bills and do other things, but you know I encourage people to have a prosperous mindset." Osteen said......."It starts...with the vision that you have to believe that God can help you to get out of debt to fulfill your dreams," Osteen said. "I don’t think anything is going to happen if you don’t believe, so I think that’s where you start."

Children in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage

2010-01-23T17:02:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/children-in-favor-of-same-sex-marriage/
Interesting, Dawn. While being on opposite ends of the spectrum on God would make a discussion of homosexuality an impasse, a comparison of the vitriol on your linked site (presumably yours) demonstrates hate to be clearly falling in your camp (insult masquerading as being “painfully honest”).

While I also vehemently disagree with Nathan (one of them, anyway), he has a modicum of decency.

New Comment
So, just curious, but speaking out against (or praying for repentance of a sin) is hateful? I guess I don’t quite make the leap of logic from "let us pray that gay marriage won’t be legalized" to "hate". I love my uncle who abuses alcohol yet I pray fervently for him to repent. I love my buddy who think it’s OK to pilfer product from his deliveries, but I pray for him to repent. I love my family members who are gay very dearly, but I also pray fervently for their repentance. In every single case, I love each one of those but I vehemently disagree with (and pray for repentance of) their sin. In fact, I hate the sin and love the sinner.

Saying Dr. Burk or Christians "hate" because they disagree seems more of a canard to invoke the emotional card than a logical connection.

New Comment
Well, as far as harm to society, the health and vitality of society seems impacted given the lack of procreation. Studies have also shown marked increases in suicide and lower educational scores among children of homosexual parents and actively homosexual people are less mentally healthy. Additionally, disease-wise, children of homosexual are more sexually active and at an earlier age. There is also the reduction of gender recognition in children of homosexual homes. Something that also has little investigation but seems that we’ve seen associated with mental and social instability. The other interesting thing was the concept of committed and monogamous relationships in the gay community. It seems to be an open relationship, seen as long, but still temporary not a committed relationship. The problem is that I think that is simply the outworking of the destruction of families. Increasingly, most see relationships that way. Very sad. And very deleterious.

One challenge is (to both sides of this argument) that there isn’t a glut of information on it. Only a handful of studies (many studies cited to support traditional family values point to studies on fatherless homes) are completed. To ask the question, if there was a broad, long-range study (both sides wag fingers at the other’s studies right now…..rightly in many cases) that showed instability, increased violence, etc., in or against children of homosexual homes, would that suddenly be an argument for traditional marriage advocates in the political sphere or otherwise (in your opinion)?

Also, since rules can be put in place for polygamy, could there simply be laws drafted to allow survivor/health benefits, etc.? Is it about the legal benefits of marriage? Or is it more than that?

New Comment
promiscuity – Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

Education – Sotirios Sarantakos, “Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development,” Children Australia, Vol. 21, No. 3, (1996), 23.

mental illness and suicide rates: Archives of General Psychiatry, Oct. 1999, Vol. 56, No. 10

Gender confusion: That was one from the news that homosexual activists were championing, I didn’t catch the citation.

I’ve never been accused of using $5 words (I typically limit my word spending to the dollar store). If you want a .02 ridden post of vitriol, check out Dawn.

What is Pat Robertson talking about?

2010-01-18T10:20:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/what-is-pat-robertson-talking-about/
Thabiti Anyabwile had a great post on death.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2010/01/16/if-god-is-a-god-of-love/

California’s Same-Sex-Marriage Trial

2010-01-17T16:33:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/california%e2%80%99s-same-sex-marriage-trial/
Darius is right that within a biblical framework, homosexual acts are perverse. Outside of a biblical framework, the definition gets more slippery, but currently it still would fall under “perverse”:
Obstinate in opposing what is right, reasonable or accepted

Right and reasonable are utterly arbitrary and wind up collapsing into accepted anyway. So, for now, given the public speaking on homosexual marriage, it is not seen as accepted (or right or reasonable). Hence, calling it “perverse” would, currently, be correct.

Now, with time, I think that will change. But that’s the catch. It’s just time, it’s just the winds of public. Without an absolute standard, everything falls to whatever and whoever can “OK” what they want. Or, might makes right. From a non-Christian stance, it’s just a changing time that will, I think (to the detriment of the culture) succumb to the immorality and sin of homosexuality. I find that heartbreaking, but men love the darkness.

From a Christian perspective, we can speak on what is asked of us from a biblical construct. Our true reasoning should always fall upon what gives God glory. In this case, we can’t support something that is expressly condemned in the bible. Even using medical reasoning against one sin or another will eventually fail (e.g. STD’s may be an argument to remain chaste in your marriage, but eventually medical science may come up with treatments or cures). Using statistics will fail as time has shown that statistics can be had to support nearly anything (eventually).

New Comment
Sue, your approach seems to be to drink deeply of the cistern of culture and go with our feelings, our heart, our emotions and reason based on anecdotal experience/evidence. That’s very counter to what the bible teaches.

New Comment
Interesting Sue. Very enlightening, too. So, then, with your second line, you are saying that you stereotype anyone who doesn’t fit your existential there is no truth construct. Fair enough.

I don’t know how the manhood question came into play on this. We were discussing homosexuality and the very specific condemnation in the bible. Just so that I’m not returning talking past you, I was referring to your apparent rejection of biblical condemnation of homosexuality (which has nothing to do with manhood or sports, but that’s a different story):

I live in a place where there is same sex marriage. This has been a huge shift in thinking for me.

Also based on your comments in previous notes, I made the (perhaps incorrect) connection that you support homosexuality (just to be inclusive here, man or woman) as an act/lifestyle/etc. that lines up with God’s word. If I am mistaken, let me know.

Regarding culture, TV, sports and twitter, that’s not the only aspects of culture (BTW, I don’t twitter, rarely watch TV/movies, but do play sports….when my knee is healthy, that is…). Culture is what informs you. So, as an example, your view on homosexuality is shaped by the environment (culture) around you: I actually know couples who are more stable, and happier than the married couples I know. That has nothing to do with Hollywood, etc. (though, indirectly, the way those around us are informed and swayed by the winds of culture wind up swaying and informing us when we are drifting along aimlessly without a bible-centric view).

New Comment
I am very saddened by the low view of marriage (and apparent abandoning of gender) but it truly breaks my heart to think of what caused such bitterness and resentment. My prayers go out for you and for those who hurt you. Not that these black and white words on a digital screen offer anything remotely leaning towards solace, mind you, I know. Only Christ gives that kind of peace. But my heart weeps with and for you.

The White Messiah Fable

2010-01-17T16:31:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/the-white-messiah-fable/
Nate:

I have thought it paralleled Pocohantas as well (not to say DWW isn’t there as well).

I agree with one comment made in the myriad of maelstrom over this and that is that the CG in the movie was really cool, but after a few minutes of “WOW!” the movie just didn’t have anything to sustain it at all. All plots are reused nowadays (hey, we’re even coming out with a film version of The A Team…….without Mr. T!), but at least many of those films make a narrow attempt at changing concepts or complications or….something. For me, I had immediate trouble getting over the laughability (sic) of using “unobtainum” as a serious part of the plot (seriously, come up with at least a tiny crack at a serious science term, not the butt of a plethora of engineering jokes) and the tree falling in the wrong direction, etc.. I also don’t often enjoy the pure evil you must hate him bad guy or really cheesy lines. But that’s all personal stuff. There are folks who enjoy that kind of a movie and so be it. But even outside of that, there seems to be some line of over-politicalization and religiousization that was crossed that really made me wince. And that’s why I wish I had read reviews prior and won’t be going again (and believe me, the movie studios are now cringing!). Again, so be it. Cameron has every right to make what I think is a poor movie with fantastic effects a less than stale plot overly politically correct film. He can even name the tribe leader Sal Jore, the General Jorge Whoosh and call the giant bombs Grapalm. He can even not care one wit that I have this opinion (I have a sneaky suspicion that is the case ;-) ). Oh, well. But it seems there is a add backlash against not liking this film that seems puzzling. To that, too, I suppose, I should say “oh, well.” So, Oh, well.

Howling about Hume not Hitchens

2010-01-17T16:29:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/howling-about-hume-not-hitchens/
Christianity is first and foremost a faith of humility (Christ was lower than the angels for a time). What Hume spoke was not a conjuring of man, for to claim an elevated position over another’s words without anything outside of one’s self would be prideful. But this is God’s characterizing of himself. Hume was elevating not himself, but God. As Paul said, my boast is in the Lord. As far as Hume recovering as a person, I would say that being persecuted for the sake of righteousness might be what happens.

Proverbs:
The fear of the LORD is the instruction for wisdom, and before honor comes humility.

Acts:
serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials

Ephesians:
with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,

Job:
When you are cast down, you will speak with confidence and the humble person He will save.

Philippians:
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

Colossians:
So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;

1 Peter
GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.

Fleeing the Abortionist’s Probe

2009-11-09T08:42:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5734
To pull a quote from Jessi’s blog that demonstrates the lunacy of pro-abortion mentality:

Authorities say a 37-year-old Los Angeles man has been arrested on suspicion of murder for the death of an unborn child believed to be his.
Police said in a press release that Joshua Woodward was arrested Sunday in Los Angeles and is being held on $2 million bail in a county jail.
Police say the arrest came after an investigation on Monday revealed "suspicious circumstances of a miscarriage." Investigators estimate the fetus was in its 13th week.

Also from the same article:
Police released no information on the mother or the circumstances of the child's death.

Fascinating and yet contradictory to the mentality.

The Myth of Monogamy

2009-11-06T07:01:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5650
Christians are going to appear more and more out-of-step with the culture in this kind of atmosphere.

I also think this is why we have been such a non-impact on the abortion (and a slew of others) debate. We, too often, haven’t been out of step. You’re spot on, Erik! What a tremendous opportunity. I pray for a renewal of courage among believers to stand in the face of cultural dictates and norms (when in oppostion to God’s word, of course). Frigteningly, though, I also think the answer to Erik’s question might be that it’s just a matter of time for society at large to view committed marriage as out of date and backwards (actually, for many that has already happened).

The State of the American Woman

2009-11-06T07:00:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5593

If you were a soldier in Joshua’s army and were commanded to butcher the Canaanite women and children, would you obey the order to plunge your sword into the belly of a pregnant woman?

No, but I would have followed the commands of God given through Joshua (which was to slay the city, yes). Don’t recall a command to “your sword into the belly of a pregnant woman”. I’m not sure how the spirit moved back then to know, but marching around a city that then spontaneously crashes to the ground might have been a clue, I suppose.

And EP, no, you would have followed the orders. It was the consensus of all of those people. That’s how reasoned atheist-based tendencies go. Atheistic reason would have been an arbitrary group consensus (actually, arbitrary isn’t fair. It would have been a man-based set of criteria to better that group). While I don’t understand why or really even how it was enacted, God worked to demonstrate it was He giving the command (the walls falling) that was to be followed. I don’t necessarily enjoy the thought of it, and, to be 100% honest, I can’t explain how or why it worked out the way it did.

And I’m with Lucas. I wasted a lot of time catching up on this. Shame on me.

New Comment
I just don’t see Christians as moral agents any more.

Very telling. As is the thought that somehow no-fault divorce is good. It may have some beneficial side effects (such as the ability to more easily get out of an abusive situation), but hey, pagan sacrifices also fed many people.

I think it’s also interesting that you levee an accusation against someone who likely can’t defend themselves.

I do second (or, at this point third/fourth) Darius and Ryan in that any abuse against you was unbiblical and sinful as was anyone who tried to explain it away. My heart and my prayers go out to you. I’m sure a little too late, you might say, but, still, they are extended.

New Comment
Sue:

I am interested to listen to the interview with Packer where he says he doesn’t remember the statement against the TNIV, didn’t read “The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy” and conceded that (in essence) Grudem hadn’t studied Koine Greek.

Thanks!

New Comment
Hmm. Odd question and an odd quote by Packer given that Wallace was on the ESV translation team (who, I believe, is schooled in such) and Packer wasn’t (I believe). I’m very interested in hearing what else he said. Post a link to the interview, I’d be interested in hearing it.

BK

New Comment
That should be Packer wasn’t on the translation team (I don’t believe he was, anyway). D’oh!

BK

New Comment

Re: The Packer interview, not that it matters, but I must say I’m quite skeptical still. My observations (which could be misguided):

The quote about not having read Polythress and Grudem is lumped into a block that simply says it wasn’t recorded and there isn’t a quotation.

There are other he-said-a-bunch-of-stuff-here blocks.

I believe the classical Greek comment is in context of the general editors (oversight?), not the translation team (given there are other prominent classical greek students on the translation team).

Packer specifically commented on the statement against the TNIV. He said he didn’t remember who drafted the statement.

It is set against the backdrop that you have an admitted axe to grind with the interview (which, btw provides a bit of amusement given the questioning method that sounds similar to how the Pharisees asked questions.) .

All this compounded by the mysteriousness of "well, I don’t really know where the recording is."

While I stop well short of fabrication, I am still quite dubious. But, like I said, not that it matters.

I did enjoy the quote from Packer, when asked if the ESV translation may be upsetting to some pointed out that with translating the bible:

"...we are not talking about cultural expectations, are we?"

Episode 88: Biblical Divorce and Remarriage

2009-09-29T11:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/09/episode-88-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage.html
Louise:
I’m sorry to go a tad off topic, but I’ve “heard” you make the comment similar to:
“In my opinion, the situation isn't really any of your business.”
Writing about an issue is just not as easy as speaking in person, so I’m trying very hard not to write anything that could be taken as bombastic. In a nutshell, you don’t feel this comment demonstrates a negligence of the body of believers? I completely understand a desire to stay away from a nanny state (and, as we all know, you never badger anyone to Godly deeds, then they are not of the heart), but we are to encourage one another, to go to your brother, to restore one caught in a trespass with a spirit of gentleness. I take the bible as promoting proactive ministry rather than reactive or a ministry of ignoring.
I know in our westernized societies we have this great tendency to favor individualism* above all other things (often at the expense of our own spiritual health), so I guess to me it seems that is precisely what that comment exhibits. Maybe I’m off base or completely misunderstanding you.
* - and, in the church, anonymity as that better breeds the ability to hide ones sin.

New Comment
Leah:

The way that I’ve seen it treated is that the church treats it in a church discipline manner. Approach (as indicated by the bible) the offending spouse. If they refuse, then they are being recalcitrant. An unrepentant Christian is not truly one of God’s (doesn’t actually exist, actually). Thus, Paul’s words would be applicable (if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave, let them). The key that you state is that the injured spouse follows a biblical course of trying to reconcile (as opposed to encouragement to go, etc.).

But others may see that differently.

New Comment
Louise:

I missed a crucial word. It should have been I’ve heard you make similar comments before. Sorry for the lack of clarity (I know I was using a line from your comment.).

I suppose my question is do you think that such a lack of accountability is biblical (or even warranted)?

New Comment
Louise:

Thanks for the response. Contrary, perhaps, to what you might expect, I have no whispers of thinking I can change your mind. As you have read here, I may be used as a tool for God’s purpose in that, but I, alone, by what I say, cannot change your heart. You are right, though, in that many of the folks around me who read this blog are beneficiaries of mutual accountability. We do see the rich reward from the “wounds” of a friend (Prov 27).

Those might be things that point in our direction, but I don’t see that they would ever convince.

Thanks again for the answer, I appreciate it!

Abortion and the Sexual Revolution

2009-09-21T09:29:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5317
Kelly:

Even from your secular position, I think that abortion merely fuels the fire of the sexual liberation. If there was actually an acceptance of responsibility and consequences, I imagine we would likely see a drop in that sexual liberality.

From a Christian perspective, I would also say that overwhelmingly Christians (even if taken at the face value of someone claiming the name while living a life devoid of evidence) at most see destroying a fetus as only in dire circumstances as opposed to the at-will option championed now.

I agree with Clay that the transforming of lives by the power of God is the only way. But we work and finish the race. We don’t throw up our hands and say, “wow, this is tough, oh, well, just go with the flow.” Taking that attitude (as many in the church have) and we find ourselves in the mish-mash of Corinth.

New Comment
ep/Kelly:

(In a huge paraphrase) You state that conservative Christians still sin. I’m sorry, but Paul beat you to that argument.

Regardless of what happens, we are called to a standard of righteousness that is unmovable. We strive to affirm what God affirms and decry what God has decried. We do not call evil good or dark light.

And, to answer the other question by Larry, no, we don’t vie for a theocratic state. But we should uphold what God upholds in any way we possibly can. With abortion, we uphold the dignity of human life, the highest of God’s creation, in His own image. That is why it is so important to those who are of Christ.

I read this earlier this morning and thought of the discussion going on here (and the other ice cream one and tree thing as well). Hebrews 4:

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

New Comment
Actually, Kelly, you are saying exactly what Paul says. We are not perfected in the flesh. Far from it. Even Paul had his "thorns". We are all fallen. Because we sin simply means that we sin, not that God’s word isn’t true. We are measured by God, not in relation to one another (which should strike deep reverential fear in each and every one of us).

I was listening to Begg today. He spoke of expectations. The struggle for a Christian is just what you highlight, Kelly. We cannot expect those outside of Christ to live a life as though they are in Christ. For instance, I think you have a couple of letters wrong. It’s not that abortion is necessary, but it is necessarily a result of the sexually immoral. Destroying a human life is (as unpopular as this will be), at its heart, self serving. It’s not necessary, it’s necessarily a product of turning away from God. For some, it’s a rebellious action. For others it’s a life of rebellion. So, as Christians, we strive to uphold God’s word. Sometimes we have the ability to politically affect this. But as some have rightly pointed out here, we don’t trust in horses and chariots. We should strive to preach the message of Christ crucified above all other things to help liberate those who are in a life of theft. To free those in sexual sin of the chains of their own sinful choices. To bring the forgiveness bought on Calvary to those who daily deny God’s grace. In response to much of what you (and ep) have said, I, for one, am severely deficient in that I don’t weep enough for those who are perishing. I am too often happy to be where I am and never give it a thought. I appreciate the stoke.

Unbelievable Providence

2009-09-21T09:26:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5340
Ep: I don’t share your atheistic view. Just as the Lord tells us that the rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous, God’s providence is represented in a tree spearing a young woman who lives and a wheelchair cutting a young man who died*. You know, our pastor asked a question one day. “Why do good things happen to bad people?’ A: “There are no good people.” Our finite brains like to try to place ourselves in judgment of God (how could a God be so loving….etc.). I was brought to Christ in painful circumstances. I place myself in judgment of God to have said “wow, that was random” or shaking my fist at God and saying that I was a good person and this shouldn’t be happening. I suppose it makes me sound weak and pitiful, but, honestly, that’s what I am. That’s the reflection of the power that each and everyone of us has. And, for me (and for the vast majority), it took a moment of pain (or moments) to realize how helpless and in need of something larger than this bag of bones I am. And, while I’ll assume you disagree, it’s depressing to think of a world as total random with no purpose and no being. That God is as helpless as I am at doing anything or that there are these surprises that God “wakes up” and says “whoa, didn’t see that one coming. I better do something.” I suppose a total divergence of world views there.

* – a local man got cut on a wheel chair which imparted a flesh eating virus and was dead within a few days.

New Comment
Matthew:

I think I disagree with you (sort of). I may be taking this in a completely wrong manner, so sorry if I misunderstood. I would say that if you hold to the sovereignty of God, you hold that His hand was in the 30 minute response time that saved the life of Pastor Tom Nelson and also the lack of response time for my aunt who died of the same ailment (heart attack, home alone). What we do, however, is to have a tendency to focus on the here and now. When we survive (or have someone survive), we're here to say "how great is the sovereignty of God". My aunt wasn't around afterward to say "God has called me home, how great is the sovereignty of God, I no longer suffer in that bag of bones!" I think you are spot in that this (and something like my aunt's death) should serve as a reminder of a life dedicated to God (see Piper's messages around his dad's death....and another recent post that caused much consternation....).

As a person who holds to the sovereignty of God (Psalm 139, Prov 16, Isa 37, Psalm 65, Matthew 10, Col 1, etc.), a God who isn't all knowing or without plan is scary (to note, I'm sure the feeling the other direction might be mutual). If there is not plan by God, then He is a reactionary God, who essentially lives by the seat of His pants. He doesn't know the end from the beginning, thus, where is all of this really going? I also hold that we don't get to question God (as Christ said to Peter, what is that to you?). So we mourn, we may rhetorically ask "why", but when it comes to God's motives, we are not to question. Doubts, fears, yes. But His plan is perfect. His will is perfect. His reasons are unflinchingly for good. I suppose mostly, knowing something in advance doesn't imply enjoyment in the individual pieces of the plan. God knows when the wicked prosper, the righteous suffer and when seemingly nothing happens in our lives as we go to work, play with the kids, eat dinner and go to bed, then wake up and do exactly the same thing again.

Ferg: Good to hear from you again. I'm glad your visit didn't cause you to stop talking to us :-).

New Comment
Matthew:

You were spot on about how I read your comment. Excellent clarification. I agree and well said. I love the picture you paint of putting real people in the place of my pictures of Job or David, etc. Lewis mentions the mental picture that we often have of "togas and sandals and armour and bare legs". These were real men and women, fearing just as we do.

I am moved by God’s hand protecting this lady, stopping the branch and letting it rest on her [jugular].

Very well said! And I always crack up at the string literal post stuck between aging and child marriage.

Ferg:

I, too, understand the struggle you mention. I wouldn’t say anything different from those a few months ago when this came ‘round back then, so I suppose we disagree at that point (as a reasoning for going against sovereignty....if I understand you correctly, that is). Good to hear from you again.

New Comment
Ep:
For me, sovereignty does not negate the responsibility. You can do all of the things you state. If you did, I could, with all confirmation, state that it was in God’s plan. Any millisecond after right now (in the future), though, is entirely in God’s hand. So to flatly answer you question, no, you cannot avoid the “bullet (or branch) with your name on it”, but neither should you live your life pretending you know which branch is the one for you or pretending there isn’t a branch with your name on it. It’s the consequences of your decision (ordained and fully known from the beginning).

Take a personal example. God called me through a very painful divorce. I learned through that pain. I could have sulked and wallowed in the "why God?" questions (I was blessed to not fall into that trap). But a greater good came out of what, individually, was evil. We sometimes get a glimpse of the sure outworking of God’s plan. It’s beautiful. The danger comes when we demand the view of the outworking of that plan as a right.

New Comment
ep:

Yes, without question for me. He used evil to work for good.

Actually, that’s something that strikes me when I think about it. One of the questions could be why I wasn’t angry about “having” to go through that. Or why, if God hates divorce, did He allow it. The answer is that I don’t know. But one thing I do know. I am glad that God is so longsuffering in patience that I, even I, now call His name.

No Right To Homeschool

2009-09-16T06:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5309
This story has me really torn in a way. Ep and BRM are right, that this was born out of a custodial duty dispute (I think fathers too often get a very short end of the court system there, hence the "torn" part), but that is not the reasoning for the decision rendered by the judge. This isn’t a mediation case. The judge alluded that harm was being done in the home due to the child being unlikely to "seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view.". A couple of paper quotes:

The court found Amanda to be "generally likable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level." Nonetheless, reasoned the court, "it would be remarkable if a ten-year-old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view."

The judge ignored New Hampshire state law, which requires evidence of harm to a child before removing her from the home-school situation, and interposed an arbitrary basis for removal — that the child "appeared to reflect the mother's rigidity on questions of faith," and "would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior."

This isn't a decision based in "the father has rights, too" (which, btw is what gives me such great pause when initially reading about this). That would be understood. This is a decision based on a tenet of the judge feeling that the 10-year old needed to be forcibly exposed to other points of view.

Also, as an aside, I understand it to be the court (not chosen by the mother) who appointed the overseer in the home after the father failed in '06 to force the girl into public school.

BTW, a funny line from WSJ: In a state whose motto is "Live Free or Die," this is an extraordinary line of reasoning.

McLaren: A Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing

2009-08-28T14:18:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5139
I agree with much of the flowery language hides cutting remarks, though I’m not sure that McLaren often falls into that category. Which, to me, is more of a point that identifying McLaren’s views/beliefs are sometimes more difficult to ascertain than nailing jello to the wall. I agree with Dr. Burk that he is a wolf. Most notably because he is a teacher (woe to you who desire to teach…) and consistently refuses to give a reason for the hope that he has. And continues to see Christ as more of an add-on to your current religion. Or so it would seem. I think there are a great number of things we can learn from how he converses. And I (or we or whatever), as a conservative, should certainly learn from the shortcomings McLaren identifies (the Church often falls too far out of society) in the same manner that David learned from his enemy’s rebuke. That’s the thing, I think that he leads his flock away from Christ as the center and makes me the center or makes other people the center. It seems to show that he puts relationships with others and our own beliefs before God, thus I think he is not preaching biblical Christianity but (I liked the line) syncretistic gobbledy-goop that is no longer recognizably Christian.

I think that, for this specific context, I think Charlie said it best.

And, after saying all of that, Hitler.

New Comment
Lindsey:

You raise, in my mind, two questions. First, what are your thoughts of Mr. McLaren’s observance, essentially, of Ramadan? I know you disagree with one of the commenters here, but the blog itself didn’t state that. Or were you sweeping the author in with your generalization, too?
Second (and this is more of a general question to anyone), is there a difference between the example you cite* versus the Qur’an’s teachings on (violent) Jihad (which seem to be interpretations, not outright statements of killing infidels)? From my very limited knowledge set (stress limited), I would say so, but....?

* - old testament governances on theocratic law (homosexuals condemned to death) and New Testament condemnation (of homosexual sin) but no longer bound by theocratic law

New Comment
Lindsey:

Thanks for the response. Just a point of clarification, the commenter is DennyReader, not the author of the blog that made the comment to which you referred. Dr. Burk would post as Denny Burk, I doubt he broke form here.

WRT the second part, I know that you were referring to the (incorrect) broad sweeping notions that every muslim is a terrorist. My question was more along the lines of the fact that violent Christians (or even violent speaking folks like Phelps) are fringe Christ followers (at best). Christian doctrine promotes peace (but zealous faith to Christ). That’s complicated, though, in that theocratic Israel had capital punishment for adultery, beastiality, homosexuality (and a host of other sins), but people will use those fringe folks to broad-brush all of Christianity. Whereas the Qur’an specifically calls its followers to wage war. Thus moving from a fringe sect to a larger movement (I’ll let Darius and ep sort out those details). My question is whether or not letting 1-in-6 or nearly 1/2 determine your view is different than a fringe (orders of magnitude less) determine your view. I suppose it’s that, while I don’t agree with McLaren that we should help the ~~Corinthians~~ Muslims stay in their stew, I don’t agree that all muslims promote violence, I do think that we zealously defend Christ, I do think that there are very large numbers of muslims who do want to commit violence to all non-muslims. That number of potentials is simply to point out that the war on non-muslims is written in their book. It’s not an interpretation (how far to take that is, however!). So while all muslims don’t learn violence from the Qur’an, a significant portion indicate that one of the teaching points is war (and, thus, we get terrorism).

And after saying all of that, I have to say that it does seem like there is a much more peace-seeking wave beginning to take root in the muslim community. Unfortuantely, it also seems that the movement seems to be in non-middle-east locations. But I don’t much care for peace. I care for Christ to be preached and His word to be sown. Which is why I am so dismayed when something like this (with McLaren) happens.

New Comment
A commenter (on Wilson's site) named Michael Hutton had a good word:
I do agree that not eating in front of Muslims during Ramadan is respectful, and I would support and encourage those who rub shoulders with Muslims to do so. But as for keeping Ramadan in order to build a bridge, How can you do works for merit in order to help free people from the slavery of working for merit? How can you observe the religion Christ died to set them free from?

Too Complementarian?

2009-08-14T12:26:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=5007
Sue:

In this dialog, Pastor John was answering a specific question. “Do you think complementarianism is so important to some people that they deny women more opportunities than the Bible denies them?” It wasn’t a defense of biblical complementarianism.

Your emotional response is well noted, I hope, with all complementarians. We should uphold the truth as Piper indicated. However, to shy away from the truth because some may pervert it is foolish. Saying What did Piper do to give back to that woman her lost years is akin to saying what have I given back to [insert people] who were harmed or put into hiding during the Inquisition. Piper stands for the truth, not what that husband did. I would stand for the truth, not justifying violence because someone is not Christian. Taking biblical complementarianism and adding falsehoods to it as the man to whom Piper was referring simply means that we can take any of God’s truth and turn it on its head.

Why is it so important to choose the one thing that is spoken against? Why not champion the areas where Paul speaks clearly about what women can do? It’s our nature to focus on what we don’t get. Why focus on the one tree in the garden from which we cannot eat rather than the entirety of the rest of the garden?

Cheryl:

I would say the command is repeated and reflected. 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Tim 2, 1 Tim 3 (and 5 indicating teaching) and Titus 1. All of which is also reflective of Ephesians 5, Colossians 3 and 1 Peter 3.

Keeping the Courts out of the Marriage Debate

2009-08-04T09:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4885
I think what Matt S was indicating was that the LGBT who proclaim Christ are calling dark light and evil good. The bible is very clear about this sin. The bible is very clear that we are all rebellious. Meaning I sin and fall short of the glory of God. It is another thing, however, to say that my sin is OK and acceptable in God’s eyes. No one will arrive at judgment without sin, we all stand condemned. What is in question is standing on the word of God or saying that God was a liar when He condemns homosexuality. And, perhaps I should restrain, but Paul said that the Athenians were deeply religious people, too, spiritual, religiosity and Christianity are not one in the same.

As far as the equal rights part, we live in a country where we have a say in the laws. As bible-believing Christians, we’ll continue to fight for biblical commands, but, in the end, we will obey authority in the absence of disobeying God. However, just to quickly address the rights question and reiterate a question asked often, what is the difference between the right of two men (or women) marrying versus three men or three women and one man? In the sliding scale of "equal rights", do you have an eternal measuring stick for those?

Didn’t this conversation
already happen in a way?

New Comment
Wow, Matt. I think that, in order to prevent a straw man argument, I would say that….

Standing by a biblical condemnation of homosexuality does not mean standing by a continuation of Levitical law (Christ fulfilled the law).

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I never said anything about not having LGBT people around my family. I also don’t avoid adulterers, the promiscuous, thieves and gossips. I don’t avoid them and I reach out to the lost in my community. I also try not to shy away from fellow believers who revel in their sin.

I believe in obedience to God’s commands. Just because I have an innate urge, a chromosomal tendency for pornography, for stepping out on my wife, for gossiping, etc., it does not invalidate my command to obedience. Unlike many of my brethren, I don’t discount genetic links (I see them as products of the fall). I don’t believe they hold the water that is desired, though, as a tendency is not an absolute (i.e. those who are blind are those who truly don’t have a choice).

As far as society goes, any argument made will eventually break down. Society is a fleeting wind that passes and changes with time. The word of the Lord stands forever. The arguments you linked there are mostly emotional. The other are simply rehashes of how to introduce something into the text that’s not actually written.

In the end, I support God’s biblical command. Legally, I’ll support it. When the law diverges, I’ll still obey it provided it doesn’t violate God’s commands.

Just out of curiosity, would you support legalized unions and civil rights with a legal definition of marriage as man and woman?

How Should Christians Feel About Healthcare Reform?

2009-08-04T07:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4855
Interesting link:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649#_edn9

Paul:

You’re kidding if you think that the manufacturing demise in the US is due to healthcare. It’s due to a lot of things, but they were in place long before health care became problematic. Maybe a final straw so to speak.

New Comment
My personal feeling about Government health care is that it’s thieving, debt-producing and (as Lindsay pointed out), results in a continued reliance on someone else to do my caring for me. But as for the socialized health care versus fee for service, an interesting note that I hear. In one country, it’s weeks for an MRI but for pets, you can pay to have it done the next day. Funny and very sad (more that there is actually a high enough demand for the latter).

New Comment
Well, I was trying mostly to avoid appearing as one of the many that decry the great health care plan to the north, but since you query, the source was the 20/20 report. It cited Canadian vets giving a 24-hour turn around on MRI’s for pets.

I didn’t cite anything about dying, but if you wanted stats on death, here are a few (related to healthcare):
* - Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany, 9% higher in Canada than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway, 184% higher in Canada. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher. (Concord Working Group, U.S. Cancer Statistics, National Program of Cancer Registries, U.S. Centers for Disease Control; Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada)

Or preventative (June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."):
Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

The MRI wait time is a microcosm of the challenges with socialized medicine. When someone is diagnosed with cancer, they don’t have time to wait for 6 months to get an MRI to confirm it.

I agree that many church goers failed (you definitely have that pegged). I would say, though, that is not a failure of the Church. Most churches here have a very strong benevolence ministry (or several). The couple of Christians I know who are doctors do the free clinic work (my sampling is 2 and both do, so in my study, 100% of Christian doctors give of their time ;-). We send medical mission trips as well (though those are abroad, not local in the absence of a Katrina). The challenge is people to actually put in the effort for it (and, as a sidebar, the fact that many don’t want anything to do with “church” at all). The culture has saturated the church in that manner. Why should I go and help, there’s welfare and assistance programs and childcare available…….etc. Why go help when we can throw money (especially when most of it is someone else’s money). Socialized healthcare just reinforces the idea that it’s OK, someone else will take care of this problem for me. It is not a dichotomy to be against the currently proposed socialized healthcare and continue helping the less fortunate.

Concerns about New Hate Crimes Bill

2009-07-18T09:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4743
I'm sure I'm not the first one to think this, but doesn't this create a caste system? As in some humans are worth more than others. Many crimes are based on hate of one form or another. Why is it that a mother killed by her ex (jealous hate) would be seen as somehow less (i.e. punishment worse for the ex) than, say if a killing were motivated by race/sexual orientation? Or if someone killed me because they hate the fact that I am perhaps wealthier than they are would be seen a lesser crime than if someone hated for some other reason. And, to follow, should those who bomb churches have a greater crime? I don't think I recall ever seeing that. Or, isn't that a contradiction of sorts? For example, if a homosexual group accosted parishioners of a church for biblically teaching that homosexuality is wrong (verbal assault is still assault in many locations), then isn't that verbal assault based on sexual orientation? Or is it only if you're for, but assault the other direction would be less of a crime?

GF, you're right, it is coming. I think it will also come a littler quicker than I ever thought. Of course, we could somehow all be completely wrong about the direction of things to come, who knows?

Tom Wright on ECUSA Declaration of Independence

2009-07-18T09:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4740
Mohler also wrote on this (just today, though). It’s worth the read, but he quoted the ECUSA presiding bishop from TIME magazine some time back after her (the bishop’s) election:
"We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box."
I agree, Derek, it’s great to hear Wright speak up on the topic!

Healthy Economies Rely on Healthy Marriages

2009-07-16T10:25:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4720
Barry:

I was going to say the emporer from Star Wars. Yes, not the best picture for him.

New Comment
Kelly:

I find this odd. After writing a 500 or so word diatribe (while throwing in an occasional phrase such as “how…other people will read it”, it was quite the attack), you receive one short response and then state “seems I hit a nerve”. Huh…..I suppose I wouldn’t characterize it that way. You are correct, though, in that many on this site are passionate about submitting to the authority of scripture (and defending how). And my guess is that this will elicit response worthy of that statement (hitting a nerve), so maybe oddly premature.

New Comment
MatthewS:

I, too, get uncomfortable when folks immediately go after the dividing the household thing. However, I think it is appropriate here. While the letters (and Christ) speak peace, they are all speak very forcefully against false teaching. We are all sinners. A difference comes, however, when we teach that dark is light or that error is truth. Similarly, we don’t back away (as is so en vogue now) from calling sin, sin. Christ befriended sinners, but he said they were sinners. Likewise throughout the NT. Just a thought.

New Comment
Kelly:

Just out of curiosity, would you elaborate on:
Comparing most of the gay people I know to prostitutes or drunks is ridiculous and insulting.

I think I know the answer, but I’m just curious.

New Comment
Kelly:

That’s what I assumed (your view on homosexual activity), but I thought I would ask first. Just a few thoughts.
1) “Most [blank] people in society accept [blank] now” or “In time (generations) the society will change so overwhelmingly on this issue ” are a foolish reasons to do anything. It’s even worse to indicate that we should accept something that is unbiblical simply because someone else does (blown about by winds….). But expected. You’re inaccurate that this will be something the church will “just accept” (unless the church, as a whole, abandons biblical inerrancy and authority). I think you are accurate in a sense in that trying to maintain a hold on the word “marriage” is futile.
2) I find it interesting that you hold a view of (this is just a codifying statement) “how are you going to witness to someone who thinks you are a jerk?” yet at the same time bark bigot.
3) The drunk/prostitute part. I’ll kind of cut to the chase. In some ways, the only thing that differentiates me from a prostitute and a drunkard is the type of sin in which I revel. Because I know Christ (and if the drunkard/prostitute doesn’t), then we would be set apart. Saints are not sinless. They sin less and feel worse about it. God’s sons and daughters aren’t always nice either, while I know many wonderfully nice and friendly atheists who soundly reject Christ. So while I understand your physical concerns about the safety of a child, it has nothing to do with the spiritual equivalence of my gossiping and someone else’s adultery or my lust versus some other’s homosexual acts (or a drunkard, or a prostitute, etc.). A difference might come in each of these in that I do not say that my (or Darius’ or my mom’s) gossip or lust is OK because I’m (or they are) a nice person or that I just don’t like that or that society has just accepted it.
4) “down the stree to the Episcopalians, the UCC or just become one of the ever growing number of ‘spiritual’ people….” OK. Sorry to say it, but “they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,”
5) Darius isn’t spreading his message (a reference to your earlier post). It’s not something he made up or I made up. People put too much emphasis on how it’s up to me to get the message. I’m going to convince them. The holy spirit might. We are to preach the message with gentleness and reverence. But it’s the message, not just part of it. And we should respect.
6) Personally, I’m torn on the original remark. On the one hand, I understand respect, we don’t insult, etc. On the other hand, it’s a hijacking of language. Meaning if the goal was really “we just want to live in peace”, then “unions” would be perfectly fine. However, it seems to me that it’s more about forced acceptance. I.e. get someone to call me married and thus they must accept that marriage as norm. Subtle, but it’s what’s happening.

New Comment
Kelly:

Just to note, nice != moral != Godly

You have a very elitist hierarchical view of sin (that even seems incompatible with your own statements). Sin is sin.

And, again, I think I know the answer, but which part of what Darius said was “full of hate”?

BK

New Comment
Scott:
Spot on about divorce. We need a strong reformation of marriage as a whole. Acceptance of homosexual marriage is simply the breaking of the dam, so to speak. A quick search on Mohler (this year) returned about a 2 – 1 split (8 to about 4). Of course, much of what he writes on is what is in the news, too. I had written out a response to Kelly prior and I am sad that I didn’t include it:
• Re: marriage, you are spot on. Christians need to be the ones with the lowest divorce rate (by a landslide). And we’re not. We won’t call adultery “good” either, I hope you see the consistency.

New Comment
Kelly:

Just to ask, what is the difference between a "committed monogomous and loving gay relationship" and a "committed, polygamist loving relationship" (you can insert several types in that statement)?

New Comment
"Iron clad"
Interesting.

So, then, Kelly, since we are the unwashed who don’t understand, you have insulted me and you have no chance of reaching my evangelical brethren by referring to homosexual couples as marriage. You just need to figure out how to talk to evangelicals

New Comment

Interesting Sue.

You seem to fall in the same lines (though perhaps not same theological framework) as Kelly. Sort of summed up in "most [blank] people in society accept (or are offended by) [blank] now, ergo, we as the church should, too". I think that part of Dr. Burk’s interest in this was the simple fact that a Christian leader (all those who disagree, just hang on to that thought) is making a "public access" argument. It seems like the arguments brought forth most often fall into that trap. I know you are simply keying off of statements in the pope’s letter (or so I assume, I still haven’t read it *blush*), but you’ve written similar posts before as well.

In a completely related yet off topic part, I get a piece of mail every once in a while from an address that is on Powerscourt drive. I always giggle. Can a grown man giggle? I’ll have to check with Piper on that.....

New Comment
Kelly:

I’ll say it. Insulting someone to their face is not the best way to start a conversation. Did someone do that here? Even Dr. Burke’s discussion (which was a commentary, not a conversation with someone) didn’t start of with that (it was well into the comment.).

"Have you heard me say that anything goes?"
Yes:
"In time (generations) the society will change so overwhelmingly on this issue that the church will follow suit anyway..."

It was said we should not be like children "carried about by every wind of doctrine."

Do you see a discrepancy between descriptive reasoning based in the bible and prescriptive?

New Comment

I’ll take another view yet. OK, not another, actually a different subject. So, Sue, what you seemed to write was essentially "I baited you and you didn’t take it. C’mon, I want to argue!" Which, I suppose, is fine. It just seems a bit like the pointless arguments Paul mentions. To which I am certainly not immune unfortunately for me.

New Comment

Kelly:

A few thoughts...
● The two of us have a fundamental difference, I believe. Mostly in what exactly the inspired, inerrant word of God is. Interpretations can be flawed, but in their original text they are inerrant. It is final and does not point to some hidden meaning (you didn't say that, just how I've seen it argued). It seems you believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that parts of the bible were inspired, parts are merely human writings that are subject to human prejudice and error?
● While it seems a big jumble to you, the discussion flowed to the topic of acceptance of homosexuality. Polygamy was not part of an argument per se, it was part of a series of questions. There was only equating it in your mind.
● You specifically stated that "In time (generations) the society will change so overwhelmingly on this issue that the church will follow suit anyway..." You have put your finger in the wind to see where society goes. So goes society, so goes your church. It's not saying anything goes as in complete anarchy. But my question is, as a believing church, what is your defense against something like polygamy? Is it simply well, no major church has accepted it, so we're not either. OK, but you have simply relegated your church to whatever is popular opinion (see your statement above). I think it's appropriate.
● So, then, since it hasn't been asked, how do you deal with Romans 1, 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1? Again, I think I know the myriad answers, but it's always interesting to hear a take on it.
● No, I am not a seminarian or a minister. I can tell by your earlier post what your thoughts are of seminary students (ghetto). Again, a fascinating part of an argument denouncing someone's insult.
● Back to where this all started, if he had been really wordy and wrote "homosexual unions (I do not agree that they are married)" or something similar, would it have been appropriate? Or is it merely the fact that it's a contrary stance or....? Again, I was still in the air over this, though the longer it goes, the more I have a tendency to agree with Mohler about the hijacking of language.

New Comment

I think it's a foolish redirect, but since I've never heard of him, some quick info I read (online) about Giordano Bruno (a compilation of several sites.....none of them wikipedia ;-):

He could not conceive that God and nature could be separate and distinct entities as taught by Genesis, as taught by the Church and as even taught by Aristotle.
He had written of an infinite universe which had left no room for that greater infinite conception which is called God.
He is one martyr whose name should lead all the rest. He was not a mere religious sectarian who was caught up in the psychology of some mob hysteria. He was a sensitive, imaginative poet, fired with the enthusiasm of a larger vision of a larger universe ... and he fell into the error of heretical belief.
Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

New Comment
Should he preach traditional marriage or should he talk about social policies that have been known to boost the fertility rate?

You're right, Sue, sticking to biblical values including the traditional definition of marriage might be a better idea. Lay the cards on the table and work to help (witness, feed, care) fellow man. Making a secular-based argument (whether or not you agree with him) is a trap that we all fall into at one point or another. Regarding statistics and such, I believe it was the Psalter who asked why do the wicked prosper (I was thinking that it also mentions his generations, but that may just be me crossing these two topics). Hope everyone has a superb weekend!

Feel My Pain

2009-07-09T07:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4688
Matthew:

I understand what you are saying, though I took it a bit different. To me, he aims it rightly at much of current day church thinking. And, specifically, how offensive it is for anyone to claim having truth over someone else (see the Scottish agnostic bishop or the Dutch atheist pastor or Shelby Spong or...), thus (to paraphrase Carl), your statement of a position is not a position but merely a veiled attempt to insult me. We glory in pluralism and shun any absolute. I read:

Thin-skins, absurd senses of entitlement and a bizarre conviction that all criticism of ideas is really a personally intended affront to those who hold them are not the exclusive preserve of any one theological party.

And it reminded me of R. Kent Hughes' book Disciplines of a Godly Man. Hughes says something to the effect of "leaders better be able to digest depression because they will eat a lot of it".

New Comment
BTW, I enjoy reading Trueman if for the simple fact that he makes me go and look up words like salubrious. A word I'm sure everyone else here knew, but I didn't.

At the End of the Day...

2009-07-08T11:35:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/07/at-the-end-of-the-day.html
Coinciding with the cessation of the sun's light rays directly impacting our part of the earth......no?

How about "When the lion lays down with the lamb...." Or "When the streaker finally jettisons his last shred of dignity and steps onto the field..." or even "when the tea kettle whistles....."

The Living-Together Lie

2009-07-08T11:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/07/the-livingtogether-lie.html
Adam:

There is the emotional attachment that isn't proper for someone who isn't your wife or husband. I know boundless has had more about it than this, but here are a couple of links:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001505.cfm
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0000302.cfm
and related, but not explicitly:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0000277.cfm

New Comment
I find this to be a telling statement:

I'm not bothered at all by which view is correct since it won't change my personal actions one bit.

I don't care what the truth is, I'm going to do what I want anyway. The fact that one person (or which particular one) said it is irrelevant. It's a recurring mindset that has permeated the Church from culture.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth....

New Comment
I thought it important to include the preceding comment (to the above comment) to which my comment was related.

Really, I'm not invested in this issue at all, but I'm just not 100% sure that there's a clear distinction between sex and marriage in spiritual terms. in the passage you quoted there is - but you could argue that that's a cultural distinction, ie in that woman's culture marriage existed but she was not married - does Jesus condemn this behaviour, or is His mentioning it simply a sign to the woman that He knows all about her?

Again, I'm totally open to persuasion and I'm not bothered at all by which view is correct since it won't change my personal actions one bit. It's just something I wonder about.

To which I responded above. I then received the following constructive feedback:
Brian K, 52:
It was me who posted the 'telling statement' that you quoted, and you totally misunderstood what I meant. You summarised my view as:
"I don't care what the truth is, I'm going to do what I want anyway."

In fact if you'd read my earlier post, you'd know that I fully intend to remain a virgin 'til I'm married. The answer to this particular question of mine (whether having unmarried sex and staying together is sin or not) will not affect my actions whatsoever because that isn't something I plan to do anyway, not because I don't care about following God.
.
.
.
Brian,
Actually to be honest I'm quite offended by your characterisation of me. Please don't assume motives like that without even reading what someone has written before. I would like to think that my posts across all topics demonstrate that I do in fact care what God thinks and aim to align my actions with His will.

Thus I respond:

Comment:
Jo:

First, I just wanted to say that I had read your comment, I was really trying to chew on what you said (I know, you were waiting on pins and needles ;-). I apologize for offending. I don’t purposefully write to offend. I should have stated your position on premarital sex as a construct.

I do, however, still stand by what I said (perhaps I should simply have broadened it to state that you do not believe in premarital sex….yes, I did read what you wrote prior). I purposefully didn’t include you stating it for that reason, and also that’s why I said it’s irrelevant who wrote it. It’s a mindset that you specifically state and it does define the culture in which we live. It’s stated often even on this blog (there was another statement similar to it on another post shortly after). After reading your clarification, I suppose I more or less see your line of reason, though, what I quoted makes a very absolute statement. I guess I think of it this way. Assuming that you are or eventually will be discipling/teaching/counseling someone (hey, counseling!). Someone says “I had sex with my boyfriend” or thinking about it. Now it matters what is correct and not. Truth is truth never mind what your personal motives may be. I think what you are saying, though, is that you will remain a virgin and won’t sleep with anyone prior to marriage, so it doesn’t matter about what is viewed as “marriage”. I guess I would just say that you should consider what the biblical construct (what is correct) for it may be prior to that discipling relationship (something to which we are commanded). Personal motives don’t cut it if they are divorced from God.

New Comment
Lola:

1) I see dating (in a form) in Ruth and again in Song of Solomon.
2) as a general rule, people who date--Christian or not, cohabiting or not--are going to be having sex. This wasn’t (and isn’t) always the case (of course it also With cohabitating (not missionary/transient housing) have, as a general rule, always been. Dating can be a wonderful tool to get to know someone’s character given the culture we are in currently (since people move out of their parents home quickly and tend to resist getting rooted in a church), but can easily lead to sexual immorality. Mostly that’s due to the fact that we have a tendency to be fiercely independent and don’t want to admit that there should be boundaries on behavior, then act surprised when it happens (“golly, we just kind of fell into it!”). To me, when dating is seen as a tool to glorify God that leads to determine marriage (but not getting there), it’s great. It goes awry when we let our heart go unrestrained. There’s a lot on this site especially that codifies Godly dating, I’m just trying to be brief.
3) Just to be clear, the Bible is my authority for arranged marriages and not your family heritage. Just as I wouldn’t (nor did the author) make an absolute prohibition against men and women living under the same roof, be careful about making a statement of the bible being your authority for arranged marriages. Arranged marriages are not prescriptive, they’re descriptive. And dating (getting to know your partner) is seen in the bible also (see SoS and Ruth).
4) I think there is a great case for the concept of arranged marriages (especially in the modified version mentioned here, but I scanned and didn’t see it). I think this can get just as problematic in a different way, too (parents arranging based on monetary reasons).
5) Also, regarding Can you say for a fact that a couple that lives together are more likely to engage in premarital sex than those who don’t…”, if people approach dating the way FotF/Boundless does, then yes, I can say that.

New Comment
Jo:

It makes sense.

Amir:

I agree, especially with #1.

Grateful For Meat

2009-06-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/06/grateful-for-meat.html
I really enjoyed the article (actually, I didn’t like since it convicted me ;-). It brought a great sense of conviction in just an overall idea of why don’t I just eat less? But for me, it was an overall consumption, not relegated to just meat. I get very caught up in God’s bounty that I forget it is just that. A bounty from God. And just because I don’t vomit just so I can eat some more doesn’t mean I’m not being a glutton or, as she highlights, not giving thanks to God when it is due.

I do have one minor disagreement. In the article, she says

…animals would live longer, more productive lives when they were given plenty of grazing room and time to rest.

I just am not sure how you would measure a productive life for a cow or a chicken. It smack of the elevation of nature, which sounds just beneath the surface. Definitely not to the stereotypical PETA extremes (stereotypical, not necessarily typical), mind you. From that she states, in essence, that we should think about eating more veggies. That is also fraught with peril, just different application (how are farms treating their land, etc.).

I am grateful for the reminder of how I should be thankful to God for what He provides. Which is another extremely small point in that a) all good things come through God and b) there is no conscious act the animal does for which (a point simply to contrast thankfulness towards a person), hence thanks to the chicken sounds absurd. Regardless, though, giving thanks for God’s blessing is very often lost in the middle of reaching for that second….third…..OK, fourth helping of potatoes or brats.

New Comment:

BDB:

I had read something interesting about eating Crickets. If I understand it correctly, it’s based in the days of the Killing Fields. People ate whatever they could to survive. That meant crickets, too. The crickets wound up being a carryover from a horrible time period for them. Very sad.

five things I learned about God from the life and death of a baby

2009-06-18T12:42:00.000-07:00

http://jessibridges.blogspot.com/2009/05/five-things-i-learned-about-god-from.html
Jessi:

I linked here from Burk. My wife and I are waiting to try again after a blighted ovum. I think you have such a wonderful, spot-on view. After experiencing something similar first hand (not personally as that was my wife, not me), it’s a great testament to read how God has worked in your life despite the difficulties. My wife has been a source of amazement to me during this time for the same reasons! I just thought I would drop in to say what a great list this is.

Also, I liked the foundation for the name. And I couldn’t help but giggle at the occupation.

Blessings!

Scot McKnight’s Question about Headship

2009-06-15T10:10:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4516
Well, we did get to 1700 on the Ware post. I think that did everyone in (then again, IBC brought it on again....). I'm not a betting man, but I think I'd take the under.

The responses are pretty much exactly what you would expect (although not many complementarians on beliefnet apparently), but I did get a (slightly guilt-ridden) giggle at one post:

It has been great reading the comments. As a Christian man, I have never really liked all the religious stuff very much. After reading most of the comments here, I am so glad I don't have to worry about leading my family in that area. I have always felt that playing golf with my buddies on Sunday mornings was a better spiritual activity for me than going to church with my wife and kids. Now I know that my previous feelings of responsibility were just due to a misreading of Ephesians 5:25ff. My wife will be a better spiritual leader than I will anyway. She will be delighted at her new opportunity to lead. And now I won't feel as much of a disconnect with the dominant culture in America and all the other men who don't really like all that religious stuff.

Thanks!

New Comment
Ryan:
Yes, but you can only bet against another man.......

PS: I think yours is the first site I’ve ever seen with a comment from mom.

New Comment
Ferg:

Do I think anyone will change their mind? No. Just as I also don't think that I can change an atheist's mind to come to Christ. I can’t do that work. But I can witness to him. I can continue to proclaim the truth of Christ.

In a similar, yet very different way (in that egalitarianism shouldn’t be a question of a persons salvation.), biblical manhood and womanhood is discussed here. I can’t convince you, perhaps, but I don’t stop speaking against what I view as a damaging error. I do so with gentleness (1 Peter), but I don’t stop because I just don’t feel like it. That is how a lot of doctrinal error propagates. We just get too tired of speaking against error. That said, no one has a perfect theology, I do understand that. But this is one area that appears to me very clear. And biblical complementarity has a deeper reaching impact than does, say wine vs. juice or instruments, etc. I think that Piper and Grudem’s answer the root question of “why would I keep making the argument for biblical complementarity?”

We are concerned not merely with the behavioral roles of men and women but also with the underlying nature of manhood and womanhood themselves. Biblical truth and clarity in this matter are important because error and confusion over sexual identity leads to:
1. marriage patterns that do not portray the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32);
2. parenting practices that do not train boys to be masculine or girls to be feminine;
3. homosexual tendencies and increasing attempts to justify homosexual alliances (see question 41);
4. patterns of unbiblical female leadership in the church that reflect and promote the confusion over the true meaning of manhood and womanhood.

God's gift of complementary manhood and womanhood was exhilarating from the beginning (Genesis 2:23). It is precious beyond estimation. But today it is esteemed lightly and is vanishing like the rain forests we need but don't love. We believe that what is at stake in human sexuality is the very fabric of life as God wills it to be for the holiness of His people and for their saving mission to the world. (See the Rationale section of the Danvers Statement.)

Emphasis mine.

New Comment
Just out of curiosity, Sue, where else is the second phrase used (comment 33) in the NT? Also, sorry to show my ignorance, but I’m not familiar with your reference to phoebe being the prostratis of Paul (perhaps you are referring to the Greek there, sorry, I don’t understand the reference), perhaps that Phoebe served to the needs of Paul or helper or…?

New Comment
Stickler,

First and foremost, remember that rooting 1 Tim 2:12 in Genesis is Paul’s establishment, not Dr. Burk or anyone else’s.

Second, I would see Dr. Burk’s, et. al argument not as 1 Tim 2 proves 1 Tim 3. I would say that 1 Tim 2, Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Peter 3 and 1 cor 14, God prescribes the order to His creation and church (and is reflective of His essence, the trinity). Titus 1 and 1 Tim 3 reflect that as well.

New Comment
She was a servant leader, I suppose
I giggled (I took that as a little [friendly] jab correctly, right?).

I’m not as familiar with prostatis, I’ll have to take time to study that (and see below, too), however along that lines, does an example of something contrary to what is biblically prescribed mean that the prescription is nullified?

The Despot reference as I was familiar, was a reference to the business aspects (in a sense) of running a household (such as the two verses you cite) and not in conflict with a husband leading his family. I’ll have to take a greater look at the references of oikodespotein elsewhere. Of course, words, as has been mentioned many times over here and similar places, can have a broader sense of the root meaning.

BK

New Comment
Stickler,

You’re right, it’s impossible for me to prove it. But there’s an entire line of thinking there that I don’t think you really mean but you indicate. If you mean do I speak Greek? No, you will have to leave that to the folks who write books like Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament.

That said, Tim was Paul’s instructions for the church (God’s word breathed to the church). If it were toward a single woman (presumably disrupting church services), he would have singled out like Hym. And Alex, don’t you think? It speaks in general terms in the verses leading up and then following, so while I can’t prove it, it would seem odd to stop and single out an unnamed woman here. He roots it in Adam and Eve (the reason I mentioned it was the comment that seemed to indicated it was Dr. Burk’s concoction of sorts). He had established a similar church command in his letter to the Corinthians. 1 Peter 3, Col 3 (and Titus as well) sets forth order to the creation within the home (the two subjects the original letter writer above was connecting). It is an overall theme and order that runs throughout. Later in his letter to Timothy and then again to Titus, he mentions qualifications for elders and deacons. I mention them all in conjunction as it is the flowing unity and, especially with reference to Eph 5, is reflective of His nature.

Can I prove any of this? Not until I am face to face kneeling before my maker. Until then, well, I suppose nothing more.

PS: There is proof. The fact that you don’t accept it doesn’t make it false (for a similar argument, see if Jesus is God.). Based on the style of your comments and the (very difficult to tell over electronic media) tone, it seems you are being more quarrelsome for the sake of stirring up than a true question.

New Comment
I still think there’s no way 150 is going to get here.

New Comment
Well, to be fair, I never said nor indicated that the complementarian reading was the only possible reading. I defended my position. And yes, I understand that my theology and doctrine is not perfect. But contary to what you state, I would say a complementarian reading is more simplistic, taking the words written as they were written rather than trying to invent or assume a situation that is not mentioned or described (again, as is the case with the other two fellows as well as the unnamed, but singled out, teachers trying to take over Paul’s ministry while he was in prison).

So, only since this conversation went a little different that the letter asks, does everyone agree that the letter above describes and incongruous situation? As in if your egalitarian, it’s both church and home (must be applied the same), right?

New Comment
The problem with male leadership is that it makes your head spin. Better a woman apply to do her moral best using her own conscience which was put there by God.
Agreed that there are varied opinions. I agree with Kostenberger’s external evidence (given there isn’t a direct lexical, uh, proof). But you and I have argued that before (see the DBC threads). You mention something that, to me, is just as much at the heart of the matter as your view that men want to maintain dominance (is to the heart of your matter). It’s the idea that if I must use my gifts in the way I see fit. Conscience is a fickle thing sometimes. Many homosexuals would tell you that they are celebrating a moral thing that God has put on their hearts, but scripture would say otherwise (and the arguments against that scripture are nearly as nuanced and plentiful as teaching.). A woman may say that she left her husband for a God-fearing man and did so using her moral best judgment while again, scripture speaks against divorce (again, arguments are just as plentiful).

New Comment
What about single women who provide for their families and manage them well? Allowed to lead?

What about the celibate women of old who were abesses and in charge of estates, churches and priests, – allowed to lead?

I know you’ve stated this before, but I don’t understand why. A husband leads his family. Complementarians don’t say a woman is always to have some man in her life to lead her spiritually in her household.

And David, yes, I believe that Paul does want them to get married (he states it in his other letters as well, if memory serves me correctly). A desire, contrasted with not permitting.

OK, Darius, I have faith. We’re to 60 and we haven’t even gotten to the read scripture through the lens of Aristotle yet.

New Comment
Just to tack on something else that’s related, we tend to get focused on one or two things (along the lines of what Ferg said earlier). The unspoken part that goes hand in hand with our discussion came in what I thought was a great quote:

And then [God] goes over to the man and says, "You're going to love your wife like Christ loved the church." And so you start running through it: how does Christ love the church? He rescues her, He saves her, He becomes sin for her, He has His body ripped apart for her, and here's the kicker and here's where I want to spend my time tonight, He does it all, not because the bride asked for it, but He initiates on His own. And that's what I think is so big about this text.

OK, I'll be quiet now.

New Comment
Don:

The word servanthood is not in the bible either yet we use it to describe Christian doctrine. Yes, it does describe the order placed before us by God. Is it your interpretation? No.

New Comment
David:

Re: Widows, no, Paul specifically says he doesn’t have a deceiving spirit at the end of that passage. One could be for younger widows, the other for older widows (the likely case given the identification of younger in 1 Tim). To tack on to what I had said earlier, not only do I not have a perfect theology, I also cannot answer every question about the bible (A. I’m simply not smart enough B. I cannot know all the things of God).

New Comment
Stickler:

I grieve that I brought up the Jesus as God claim. I really don’t even like reiterating it. Just go and look up JW’s doctrine and commentaries on it.

Again, I’ll go back to your original thought. Can I prove anything I believe? No, I can’t. And I have a sneaky suspicion that it will continue to give me tired-head, but, I still hold that this topic holds such an important foundation…. In the Timothy passage, this section of the letter starts by describing guidelines for proper attire and ends with preservation. Looking out further than that little section, it starts with guidelines for prayer, going further past, it takes on guidelines for teachers, overseers and deacons. Hence why I said it speaks in general terms leading up and coming out. To stop in the middle and speak to an individual, unnamed, unidentified situation would not flow with that whole portion of the letter. Hence, I In 1 Cor, I wasn’t saying 1 Tim proves it, I’m saying it’s a similar command. It then flows with the other commands given by multiple authors and can further be compared against the

Can I prove it? No, but there are very few things in the bible I can prove (either to exist or even to be commands). Can you call it theory? Sure. Then, I suppose, that settles that. I accept them as statements by faith. I accept them as true and part of the truth. I would assume you view egalitarian doctrine the same way. I certainly pray you do. I pray your desire is truly to find God’s spirit driven word, not seeking to salve my personal views as I so often find myself.

New Comment
David,

You asked why I thought, so I told you. It does have warrant (as before, if you don’t hold to it, OK, but that can’t be used as a proof of falsehood). You are correct in saying that we don’t go the route of hyper-literalism.

I say he didn’t have a deceiving spirit as all scripture is God-breathed (and profitable, etc.). If you hold to God deceiving him (which I don’t think is what you are implying, correct?), then we are on very different ends of the spectrum. I think what you mean to indicate is that because Paul’s letters are written to churches, they are prescriptive only to that particular church or situation (some or all of the letter, anyway). If that’s the case, I think we’re still far apart as all scripture is profitable for training, etc.

New Comment
BTW, (as you would agree, I think)any hermeneutic leads to real problems. One can argue "what if" or "prove it" with any hermeneutic. I think the scriptures do transcend time. Piper and Grudem say it well:

"In contrast, to show that the specific forms of some commands are limited to one kind of situation or culture, (1) we seek for clues in the context that this is so; (2) we compare other Scriptures relating to the same subject to see if we are dealing with limited application or with an abiding requirement; and (3) we try to show that the cultural specificity of the command is not rooted in the nature of God, the gospel, or the created order."

New CommentI have found that my own views have been shaped by exposure to contrary perspectives that I had been previously unaware of. I have then proceeded to examine the issue anew and eventually have developed, hopefully, a more mature perspective which has been tempered by dealing with awareness of more details.

Amen for me, too!

New Comment
We who have the benefit of having a more complete canon of Scripture must be careful about imposing that fuller insight upon understanding those passages which could not be interpreted without that benefit.

The danger I see creeping up often (this isn’t towards you specifically or meant to be rebarbative) is that we get sunk into the idea that Paul authored the letter. God was the author. How He handled those 150 or so years worth of hearts and churches is up to Him. When taking a letter that Paul (or Peter, etc.) wrote, it must be held in the full insight we have. God didn’t make a mistake with His word. To tiresomely say again, it doesn’t mean I have full understanding (or perfect theology). I hold that the complementarian view does hold up to the full insight, taking into account a cultural aspect (if necessary) along with a historical view. This isn’t to say that there aren’t opposing views now or through history that see this issue as a cultural aspect or lone case (in the case of 1 Tim), just saying what and why I hold to it.

No way we make 150.

BTW (didn’t think it fair to put this in a different post….that would be cheating ;-), Sue, given your passion in other posts, I thought you would see that passion in this essay.

New Comment
Oh, and Ferg, I’ve completely changed my mind. After listening to it, I think that people just need to lay off of David Letterman.

Hope you enjoyed or are enjoying your tour through the US. And I like the beard though I’m not manly enough to be able to grow something that full.

I hope this isn’t seen as a cheater’s post.

New Comment
Sue:
I am distressed that many men preach violence to violent men.
Who teaches this?

To take the rabbit trail, Sue, I mentioned this to you during that 1700 comment thread (or one close by), but it is awful that some man abused his Godly-authorized headship and turned a gift from God into his perverted concept. It truly pains my heart to even read that (much less hear it). And these are likely very hallow empty words for you mostly because I didn’t live them. The pain that is felt is yours. The only one (as you know by now) who can take it away is God. No amount of what I say or what you tell youself (or anyone else, for that matters) can do that. It’s a work that transcends all understanding.

New Comment
When a wife submits to an abusive husband, the abuse is not ameliorated, but it is reinforced. This is a fact.

Among other specific suggestions, Mrs. Hunt says:

Church members should be taught that injustice is sin and that submission does not mean that a woman must submit to the sin of abuse. Women should understand that it is wrong for a wife to enable a husband to continue sinful practices. She has a responsibility to him to take this to her pastor and to the elders of her church.

And from thus flows her thought of men failing to protect women (see the earlier examples in her article).

New Comment
Ferg:

Can I come to Ireland and have some tasty breakfast? I promise not to talk egal/comp.

Darius,

I guess the cop was abusive when she gave me that ticket. Oh, and I suppose that the IRS was abusive when they sued me for tax evasion. Oh, and my boss is abusive when he tells me to get to work rather than comment on…..uh……gotta go.

Don,
Perhaps I shouldn’t have been that snarky, but part of our departure is that you see authority as sinful. I see it as a reflection of the trinity. Perhaps another area we depart.

New Comment
Yes, Sue, Susan Hunt said:
Church members should be taught that injustice is sin and that submission does not mean that a woman must submit to the sin of abuse. Women should understand that it is wrong for a wife to enable a husband to continue sinful practices. She has a responsibility to him to take this to her pastor and to the elders of her church.

I think you put two words together that don't belong "biblical battery".

Stickler: The author starts off exactly correct. She is definitely writing to tickle one’s ears. I suppose I disagree that complementarians put such emphasis on 1 Tim 3:4 as the foundation of complementarianism. Kind of renders the rest of it pointless.

New Comment
Sue:

Not sure why you opted not to use my name in the comment, but I’m even more baffled how you got to your conclusion. I think anything given to me by God is wonderful. It’s good to have a car, but I don’t take it, yet I think having a car is wonderful. I’ll affirm it again, God gives authority, no one else. It cannot be taken. I am granted only that which is in God’s will. He states that will over and again to us.

Stickler:

Word games? How offensivley disgusting.
Uh....wow....

New Comment
I stand corrected, Darius. Only 11 to go and someone just referred to another commenter's words as disgusting. Oh, wait.....10 more, this one counts =)!

New Comment
David:

Dangit! Nearly 30 to go still (did you really count ‘em ;-))? Does the disgusting comment count as well since it didn’t really say anything? What about combined responses? I put some together even though they were to different folks (ha ha).

I agree with you about hyper-emphasis (comment 124). I suppose for me, it then goes back to the generic references in the Timothy letter and that God ordained order and (dread the word) authority is a recurring command. I would also posit that historical interpretation was that way as well (which is not a proof, mind you, simply another, uh, checkoff?). But, I suppose, that is just me.

Again, just to state it, I don’t have an answer to every question (especially, as we see here, any acceptable answer). I would uphold your idea of commitment to inerrancy. I pray you do well in your research. Thanks for the interaction as well!

New Comment
Sue:

I wasn’t offended, I was perplexed. I thought it was maybe a joke I didn’t understand (that happens often). No need to apologize, but if so, I would forgive you!

Something I want to be clear on (sorry, I hate danging preps, too!). I don’t believe that a woman is only to do something if she receives instruction from her husband (or as you erroneously expand, some man). I agree with Ann in comment 74. I would venture a guess that actions and working out aren’t tremendously different in many ways between complementarian and egalitarian households.

Y’all have fun getting the 150 mark.

New Comment
Oh, and I guess I lost the bet, too. What a disappointing comment for #150, huh?

New Comment

I may regret this, but Mr./Ms. Crow, it seems your view of Christ's work was temporal-centric. I believe that is liberation theology at it's heart.

Also, I thought Jeff Breeding summed up well a point I tried to make earlier.

New Comment
While I suppose I should resist.

So what is stated is that “could mean”= “does mean”

I suppose I could fold my hands across my chest and cry "you can't prove it", but that would be silly, I suppose. Instead, I’ll say that I understand the argument, but neither of the response comments address the idea that of the 200+ uses of aner in the NT none are neutral (as the Plato selection is). It would seem that the consistency of the word should shine through. Of course, I hold no degree in Greek, so, there’s that.

New Comment
As far as calling someone or something satanic, I think that purposeful use of abrasive language in order to offend is wrong. I believe a good way of thinking of this is theological triage. This is something that can’t be both “yes” and would necessarily split believers (disunity) and deeply impacts other beliefs (see next), hence a 2nd level issue. It doesn’t affect salvation, but I do think it is a vicious attack on the authority of scripture (through putting what we want above what is said simply because we don’t like it), thus, I see egalitarianism as a spiritually dangerous teaching. I wouldn’t be so cavalier or irresolute as to say “you need to know the truth….”. I hold that we do know the truth. I do specifically reject egalitarian teaching. I do hold that there is a truth to this. I also hold that I will have to answer for that, too. I would hope that you hold the same. If not, you are purposefully undermining authority of scripture as well (there is no truth, thus we need not be held to much of anything).

I do think this is serious and not trivial. I would hope you feel the same.

Seek to Be Known

2009-06-10T13:39:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/06/seek-to-be-known.html
Louise said:
Comment 11, if Mr. Brown wants to help his friend, that is a good thing.

I guess I just don't recognize that level of accountability in one's private life.

I think that is a perfect illustration of the mentality of hiding. We often sin and hide it citing "that's personal" or private. Not to say that everything we do is discussed in detail out in the open (I think my wife would rather me not). I have trouble sharing those things in my “private” life that others can and should call out. I too often value my comfort and whatever veneer I can over serving God. Integrity is doing what is right when no one is looking. Hiding gives us a false sense of integrity.

New Comment
Louise (#19):

I don’t mean to sound rebarbative, but yes, I know, and that is exactly my point. We want to do what we want and we don’t want anyone telling us any different. Sin (perhaps just for me, who knows?) is easier to justify when no one sees it or when we have no fear of being noticed. Again, that doesn’t mean that I share every graphic detail of my life and those around me are free to push for that level of detail. But with outworking actions in particular, we must remember to sharpen one another (Pr 27:17), we don’t get to hide our sin (Pr 28:13) and gently restore (Gal 6:1). And I think that is where we depart. My prayer is that I have men like Motte in my life (I believe I do). Otherwise, I would be a fool who spurned discipline.

A Civil Rights Decision in New Hampshire?

2009-06-04T08:11:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4441
That is an interesting question, BDW and an excellent point about Las Vegas, uh, "marriages". I just finished Marriage Under Fire… and Dr. Dobson does touch on this subject. The crux (of his argument) is that family is the foundational unit of society. We've been having a major breakdown of society because of the breakdown of the family. While gay marriage is not the cause, it is a massive erosion of the family. Government relies on society, society on the family. As you just did, he also poignantly highlights that we are in this state because of our own erosion of marriage. While gay marriage is seen as further crushing the family concept, it was we who got the big ball rolling through no-fault divorce, the sexual revolution, legitimization of living together (which has subsequently legitimized the hookup generation as well). And on and on.

We can’t dictate what should be God’s intention for marriage, but, given the government we live in (i.e. we get a say in our government) combined with the societal ramifications of the destruction of marriage, it is something that I think we should take whatever legal action possible.

BTW, congrats, dude! Are you @ T-school down there? I have a friend down there about ready to graduate with his MDiv.

Animals Are People Too?

2009-05-28T07:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4350
Given that the evolutionary view has soup->bacteria->monkeys->humans, shouldn't the slogan be "People are animals, too"? Or "Amphibians are bacteria, too"? Or.....

And I think you're spot on, Nathan.

Sotomayor: “Court is where policy is made.”

2009-05-28T07:17:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4343
Scott:

The greater context does shed better light on the quote. I’m not comforted by the greater context, though. It’s still simply swinging the pendulum completely in the other direction. The view she (properly) derides is based on one thinking they were superior over the other. Her view is based on exactly the same thing, only the opposite side. Judge Sotomayor’s words:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases... I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

I agree with the viewpoint with which it sounded like she started. That being that diversity brings balanced decision making (or so it seemed to me). But then goes wrong, I think, by individualizing it and asserting superiority. I would also agree that there is not a universally agreed “wise decision”, but there is a universal “wise decision”.

I’m also not quite sure if I agree with the resignation to experiential, physiological or cultural bias or the resignation to judges making policy. Isn’t that at the root of what she is speaking against? The white male justices were resigned to a certain viewpoint, thus, just go with it. But, as with the above quote, I can see the angle she is taking. I think.

Again, though, all of that simply to come back to the fact that time will flesh out more information. And in the end, we pray, regardless of it being someone who is perfectly in line with our views or not.

Sotomayor: “Court is where policy is made.”

2009-05-27T07:40:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4343
I can't watch the video, so maybe there was a tone or some other mitigating factor, but it seems that the statement is saying that empathy should drive ruling and interpretation? I don't think I fully get the second way.

That said, it's one quote pulled from an interview (right?). Maybe time will reveal that other side of things.

Talking about Talking about Abortion

2009-05-22T09:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4322
I can handle the protestors being called, “Anti-abortion” protestors, but not Pro-life, because they are not. They are pro some lives, but not all.

I believe that was George Carlin, wasn't it ;-)?

I understand what that person is saying, however, to be consistent with that mentality, wouldn’t that necessarily preclude opposing all abortion? Given that some pregnancies that continue have a risk of death of the mother? They have also identified all war as unjust (think being attacked), etc. That’s a very difficult blanket statement to make, I think. And perhaps that falls in line with their thinking, I don't know.

Obama’s Hypocritical Strategy on Abortion

2009-05-19T10:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4291
Kevin J:

I had just read Justin Taylor quoting Yuval Levin:

Although it was certainly not his intention, the president’s remarks point to the profound and growing weakness of the case for America’s radical abortion laws.

John Knight (from Bethlehem Baptist) had a good response to the abortion rhetoric as well. His quote:

So, is that the point, Mr. President - we get to talk, but the underlying positions get to remain the same? The only thing that actually changes is we think a little more charitably about each other?

And he rightly points to a corollary issue:

When do we get to talk about how the behavior of men on virtually every measurable level has gotten worse since abortion was made legal across the United States?

And yes, I’m sure we all understand presence isn’t a proof of causation. Perhaps almost a chicken and egg thing.

New Comment
Kevin J:

Oh, yes, I agree. I was seconding your comment! At least I think so. I think that it could be we are seeing God's working to make evil actions turn out for good (combine the idea with the pollster's uptick in pro-life self-designation and it seems that way). So evil-to-good irony.

David:

I think Dr. Burk has developed a new Kentucky bias against his new southern neighbor (ha ha).

Obama Fails To Transcend Abortion Debate

2009-05-18T08:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4307
Yikes, Chris. I think Darius illustrates the fallacy well (that you sum up with your #11: We can correspondingly conclude that abortion saves an unborn baby from the risk of hell., as if we have some bearing on salvation of others…role, yes, possibly, bearing, no.). And I agree, are you simply speaking in hyperbole or is that really your stance?

I suppose, though, those who want to provide some salve to their wounds of sin do so with whatever means they can. Just reminds me that you don’t throw a frog in a boiling pot. Or something like that.

New Comment

Chris,

I suppose all I can say is wow. I believe in holding the judgment for God alone. You are attempting to usurp that (though you will fail at it).

I believe that your statement is a logical fallacy. I believe those precious humans have a right to live. My desire is that they would live a life devoted to Christ and kneel with me on judgment day to hear Him say well done good and faithful servant. The fact that someone may choose to be disobedient and deny Christ does not have any bearing on what I desire (nor even the desires of God, but that’s a much bigger subject). It’s a foolish equivocation and conclusion that you make.

New Comment
Zachary, Chris T and Chris Carter (I enjoyed watching you play for the Vikings….I’m sure you’ve NEVER heard that one before):

I think the difference in our views boils down to viewing these precious ones as humans. I am unwilling to call these humans 2/3rd’s human or anything less than just what they are. I would say that is a fundamental difference for us. One which makes me very narrow minded, I suppose. I think we have the tendency to find great comfort in not having to think about them as lives (and that is me being guilty as much as anyone). They are silent, so we don’t have to listen to any “real” arguments. It’s easier to view those lives as commodities that either enrich or lessen our quality of life, not as people that have any life at all. It’s easier to think of a ball of tissue than a potential life (that, to use CT’s argument, could turn out to bring someone to Christ….again, a bigger discussion). The more we stew in the juices of that darkened view, the deeper that sin goes.

BTW, comment 29 was supposed to be addressed to Chris Thompson.

What's Your Line?

2009-05-15T15:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/05/whats-your-line.html
that he was in fact married.

Yikes! is right. IMVHO, I would say that the "pickup line" (which is a competitor to boundlessline, I think) foisted upon some random anonymous girl is foolish. I am a huge believer in observation and conversation. The crux, to me, about the fly-by pickup line is that it embodies the values that are so wrong for a relationship. In essence, that guy is saying "hey, you’re cute enough to date". So, in my mind, that would be a red flag to begin with (for a woman).

That being said, almost anything that a man says to a woman can, in fact, somehow be construed as a "pickup line". Innocent as a statement may be, sometimes a frame of mind on one party doesn’t match the other. When you’re in a group of friends and, as a man, you try to strike up that conversation, that may be considered a pickup line. But at that point, one would hope you have watched this woman (in a very non-stalkerish manner) demonstrate her love for the Lord, gentleness, etc. as opposed to the "she’s got a hot bod" mentality (which is seemingly the reson of the fly-by pickup line).

BTW, Lisa, you have the most beautiful black and white eyes I’ve ever seen, too.....oh, wait...

Rob Bell Twittering the Gospel, Sort of

2009-05-05T13:39:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/05/rob-bell-twittering-the-gospel-sort-of.html
Bell is really good at talking (or twitting/writing) long enough to a) sound like he said something and b) say it in a nice way even if it was empty. I think Bell sums up his philosophy with this:

If there is a God, some sort of Divine Being, Mind, Spirit, and all of this is not just some random chance thing, and history has some sort of movement to it, and you have a connection with Whatever—that is awesome.

The splinter for me seems to be that many refer to relegating to an emotion and a feeling rather than the power of Christ and His message (e.g. we feel bad about things we do, not that it’s sin).

Several others had already said it on other sites (and, by the time this comment gets posted, probably here), but a slightly modified version of 1 Cor 15:3 – 4:

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

And why didn’t they call them twits ;-)?

New Comment
Texas Craig:

I’ll stick with two things. First, in a nutshell, we don’t rely on something like twitter, but it can certainly be utilized. Twitter (and facebook and e-mail and blog comments) can and should be used as tools, but the Gospel is not about how we state it or where. It’s not about us but about Hiim. Erik Raymond has a great post about making Christ appealing that is not exactly that subject, but that same thought and is spot on.

Second, I think that being concerned about the definition of “sin” and “spirit”, etc. is right. But if someone needs help with sin, salvation, etc., listening to Bell would be far more confusing (although, you would never hear Bell mention those words) since the answer to those questions aren’t in his statements. Bell has a doctrine, and holds to a theology, but never speaks of it or rather, speaks in hidden terms and unending questions (it seems Paul mentioned this to Timothy), is there really a doctrine there? And, while I am not the expert in Bell’s writings and sermons as you are, (in what I’ve read) his aversion to answering questions about beliefs seems to lean more towards shame of stating an absolute as opposed to questioning that, I would hope, is supposed to stimulate defense of the truth.

New Comment

Erik Raymond had a great post today about the message of the gospel. I modified for twitter format:

Not a call for us to get busy doing the best we can to please God but a call to realize our sinfulness, to trust one who truly pleases God

I just thought it was a good punch in the arm for me and possibly for others, too.

New Comment
My daughter sings a song and it’s a tweet (ha ha):

1 My God is savior
2 His name is Jesus
3 I’m gonna praise him 4 more more more…
1 My God is savior…..etc.

Anyone who knows that song and just sang it will now have it stuck in their heads hopefully :-).

I saw these at 9Marks and found them to be good:

Gospel Haiku

Pure God, sinful man.
Jesus took the penalty.
Trust him or face wrath.

Jesus never sinned, was punished for sin, came to life, and is returning to judge. Eternal life with him is given to all who repent.

By the substitutionary, atoning death of Jesus, God has begun the new creation by forgiving and regenerating all those who through faith repent and submit to Jesus.

I told God: go to Hell.
He did. And brought me out of it.
Knowing Jesus changes everything.

God is the maker, Sin be the plight
The creature is nothing, The Cross be sight
Fly to Christ, Believe and be contrite.

Because you have violated God's law(Rom3:23)you must repent of your sin(Luke13:5)and believe and trust in Jesus Christ alone(Rom10:9).

And, in the spirit of Mr. Bell, the tail end of one of the posts ended this way (note Christ is still woven into the generated conversation):

Also, I find that Twittering a question, about the Gospel, is more effective.
For example, "Do you think that that there is really only one way to heaven, through Jesus Christ?
This would invite a conversation.

A Clarification about Plan B

2009-05-01T12:23:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4128
Janey:

I would submit that is akin to saying that we should legalize poisoning someone since, after all, it’s better than a violent death using a gun or a knife. That’s a very sad justification of sin.

You state it correctly that we (OK, well, I would say I hold the same view as Dr. Burk) don’t see human life beginnings equally. To hear your story is sad. I imagine it was extremely frustrating. But it saddens me to equivocate specific intent to destroy with God’s natural process.

Additionally, hasn’t Plan B had no impact on abortions where it has been used? I was thinking that was in the Times article. I’ll have to go look it up.

New Comment
Does this present an interesting juxtaposition of viewpoints:

Dr. Mohler:
No, the main issue in the FDA policy is this -- safe from parental supervision. The morning after pill is now a potent symbol of the end of parenthood as we know it.

Plan B proponent:
Myth: You need a parent’s permission to get Plan B®.

FALSE!

Fact: You don’t need your parent’s permission to get Plan B®. In fact, teens in every state have the right to obtain Emergency Contraception without parental consent or notification. However, if you are a young woman under age 18, you will need a prescription.

Just interesting, I suppose (or prophetic….).

Another Outrage from Planned Parenthood

2009-04-30T12:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4153
This was discussed a while back at Boundless. The end of Ted Slater’s blog posits:

”This situation brings up some interesting issues. First, is it acceptable for someone to use deception in order to expose a greater evil. I think Jesus shows us that in some cases it is acceptable. Second, now that it's irrefutable that Planned Parenthood is all about seeing more mothers kill their babies, what are you going to do about it?”

If I remember correctly, California has a law about videotaping without permission (which is why the video was initially removed from YouTube). I didn’t keep up with the story after that, though (and I can’t watch the YouTube here…..sigh….). That causes a great pause in my mind.

The responses by PP (and those defending them) were comical and utter foolishness. To paraphrase, a double minded man’s arguments are always unstable.

Rob Bell Can’t Tweet the Gospel

2009-04-24T07:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=4125
Chris, you said it right (and points for the 3 syllable word ;-). Bell is really good at talking (or twitting/writing) long enough to a) sound like he said something and b) say it in a nice way even if it was empty.
Tom:
I disagree that Bell's cynicism comment is a recognition of sin and brokenness. To me, it seems avoidance at best and ignorance at worst*. I think it has to do with the “pet” words to which you referred. People don’t like to be called sinners. Or, to personalize it, I don’t like to say I sin. I like to say it was an oversight or that I’m just in a bad mood or that I’m just naturally cynical. All of which subtly work together to allow me to overlook sin. It’s justification if I use words other than what God calls it. Sin is a very powerful and polarizing word. You must be here or there with it. It’s not a bad mood or cynicism or pick the euphemism. We sin and we’re sinners and we HATE to say that outside of admitting it to a supreme and sovereign God.
That, I think, is a great challenge to Bell’s presentation (or lack there)of the Gospel. From what I’ve read (and I’ve read a lot of what he has online and only extended excerpts of his other writings), he sees no need to polarize. It’s almost as if he wants to trick people into the Gospel. Cajole them (different from doing so with gentleness). I suppose with Bell, if this was one interview, then great. The, um, oddity for a pastor is that it seems every interview is like this. Just kind of wander around, throw in the random “empty tomb” remarks and leave the audience with meringue.

New Comment:
Just to continue to tack on, I agree with Jessica, et. al. The Gospel can be twitted. More or less (as it should never be relied upon or a replacement for personal conversation). Perhaps what seems to be missing is that it seems too many people have a message focused on here, now, earthly, me and you (twitter and facebook are all about me with few exceptions). But that’s not it at all. It’s Christ and His power, God and his love and grace and the Holy spirit and his moving and guidance. It’s not about us. It’s about Him. Here, in a tweet (OK, almost), is what seems to be today’s current shot at a Gospel message:

If there is a God, some sort of Divine Being, Mind, Spirit, and all of this is not just some random chance thing, and history has some sort of movement to it, and you have a connection with Whatever—that is awesome.

I like the tweets (hey, why didn’t they call it twits…oh, wait….) about the Gospel y’all mentioned. To borrow from Erik Raymond and expound upon the gospel (though this wasn’t a tweet) in perhaps two tweets:

The truth is that too many of us do not smile large enough upon the realities of sovereign grace because our pride is not appropriately smashed by the reality of human inability.

Or, in one tweet:

In other words, we think highly of our own merit and think lowly of diving grace.

(from Irish Calvinist)

New Comment:
I’m kind of reluctant to interject in the conversation, but not overwhelmingly. To offer a thought, I would say that the issue isn’t that Bell is verbose. It’s that Bell spends hours on questions, but never answers them. There doesn’t ever seem to be the Gospel message, just hints of it at best (above he does say there is an empty tomb). Be verbose. Talk for hours, great. But if you’re preaching in particular, make sure Christ is there and not hidden.

Again, the Gospel is polarizing (shouldn’t it be? It’s foolishness to those perishing, etc.) and it seems like folks like Bell want more to be like be someone and in someone’s life and never cause a ripple. Maybe an occasionally provocation of thought, but even then, just make the thought and never give the answer.

New Comment:
Sorry for the lack of an editor. That should have been “folks like Bell want more to be liked by someone”.

Just a question that may be a bit bombastic, but I would say that any message that Bell lays out is drastically different (in content) to one that Driscoll, Piper, Nelson would lay out. Would anyone agree? If so, that difference is trumpeted as Bell being seeker-sensitive. Should messages from Christian pastors be that drastically different? It seems like calling something seeker sensitive (or the dreaded and feared Emergent) somehow allows a lack of concentration on Christ and the triune God (Bell in particular is very into “hey, man, if you believe in God or a God-like thing, that’s great, keep it up”). That’s a generalization, so I suppose, then in general does [insert remainder of question].

To Be Full of God

2009-03-30T14:58:00.000-07:00

http://www.challies.com/archives/christian-living/to-be-full-of-god.php
When we went through the Don't Waste Your Life study, the following paragraph completely shifted my paradigm about retirement (and, actually, work and saving in a general way):
I will tell you what a tragedy is. I will show you how to waste your life. Consider this story from the February 1998 Reader's Digest: A couple took early retirement from their jobs in the Northeast five years ago when he was 59 and she was 51. Now they live in Punta Gorda, Florida, where they cruise on their 30-foot trawler, play softball and collect shells. . . . Picture them before Christ at the great day of judgment: ‘Look, Lord. See my shells.’ THAT is a tragedy. And people today are spending billions of dollars to persuade you to embrace that tragic dream.

It just hit me square in the face.

See my shells.

Thanks as always, Tim, for the great pointer!

Classicly Convicted: Episode 62

2009-03-27T13:40:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/03/classicly-convicted-episode-62.html
Yesterday afternoon I saw three guys ski down my street.
Stupid global warming ;-)!

I'm looking forward to the Challies interview since I've joined on the last couple (Real Christianity is a tough read for me. Both convicting and just solid writing!). I would recommend anyone who ventures here to check out his work and join in (and in the memorizing scripture, too!).

Infanticide for Unrighteous Mammon

2009-03-26T12:51:00.001-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3968
Sadly, I know many Christians who would see this as "unfortunate" but "maybe a necessary consequence". Stacey, I'm curious, as a counselor, how do you approach those that come to you like this? Well, I suppose they wouldn't first go to you, though, would they?

Breaks my heart, too.

BTW, Stacey, are you related to Joey by some fluke of nature (I'm a fellow Dentonian)? He was going to the Men of Valor study with us. More of a rhetorical question, I think, come to think of it......

Reading the Classics - Real Christianity (IV)

2009-03-26T11:07:00.000-07:00

http://www.challies.com/archives/reading-classics-together/reading-the-classics---real-christianity-iv.php
Jude:

I agree. For me, the chunk of this chapter you mentioned was very convicting. I have always been in a, uh, conservative (in the emotional sense here) church. The outward focus of joy is a bit out of my comfort zone. So this was a very striking set of reading for me.

And to ditto everyone else, I was astounded as I read at the similarities (though to a degree this is heightened by the editorial nature of the chosen publisher).

I am struggling to keep pace so I was a bit down to see that we're going through chapter 4 (Similar to Martin Short who is "not that strong of a swimmer", I'm not that strong of a reader.....but this is what challenges like this are all about!).

As usual, thanks for the great stuff to read!

Obama on Leno

2009-03-21T20:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3909
I agree, Daniel. And what a great, articulate non-answer.

"They made a decision that was legally correct...but morally and ethically....not."

But it's OK morally (and ethically) to selectively tax (at 90%) a group that is legally correct, but you (the federal government) just don't like. Interesting, I suppose. Doesn't this just support the idea of flauntin the constitution that is bantered about so much these days? BTW, where is the moral standard, here? I know where mine is, but is it mass rule? The interesting thing (and great thing, actually) is the plethora of conversations that have spawned from this (as in, if someone says this is "wrong", it's a good lead into a "why?" and go with the conversation from there!).

Brian McLaren Comes to Louisville

2009-03-18T07:17:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3891
It is not a faith that takes sides…
Actually, isn’t it? We are either for God or against. And there is only one God, one way to Salvation.
Rick:
I’ve read a bit of McLaren’s stuff. And you’re exactly right, McLaren doesn’t state the words “Christ isn’t the only way to salvation”*. But McLaren certainly falls short of always giving a reason for the hope that we have. There is no “defense and confirmation of the gospel”. He certainly ignores the preponderance of scripture saying that Christ is the way to eternal life with God. When we refuse to see others as outside of Christ’s flock, we cease to weep “that they are enemies of Christ” (Phil 3:18). That is what McLaren misses. We weep for them. He wants to be nice to, not love his neighbor. If my neighbor were in the lake and carrying an anchor while trying to stay afloat, if I were nice to him, I might tell him that that’s some nice water and a very pretty anchor indeed and chat about the wonderful boating weather. If I love him, I might tell him the same, but will tell him to drop the anchor and take this life preserver, it’s the only means that can save him.

Which actually goes into McLaren’s statement of You bring more credibility to Christian faith…. Both of these two give far too much on what we do. What I say doesn’t convert anyone (and on that note, I think that McLaren and others similar have it right). The Holy Spirit does. My duty is to tell them who Christ is, what he did and why. It makes my heart ache to read things like this.

On another note, Denny, I was looking for you and Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament at the Christian Book Expo here and Dallas and it seems both are glaringly missing. I’ll have to complain to the organizers.

* - Although one of the essays on his site says that Christ’s words in John 14:6 is not that Christ is the only way (he attempts to debunk Christ as the way saying instead that we are trying to attain something here on earth).

New Comment
You know what, I can’t let this go. This is too sorrowful for me to read. McLaren sidelines the gospel. He may not outright deny it, but it’s secondary. The message of the gospel to him (based on what he writes and says in public) is to be good and to do good things. That’s not the gospel. That is being ashamed of Christ’s work on the cross. That’s being ashamed that God has spoken to us. That’s thumping your chest and saying “I know better”. That is glorifying man and reducing the power of the cross (denying the power of). Piper got it right today, not McLaren.

New Comment
Rick:

What about my accusations is false?

New Comment
Also, just to muddy the waters, Dr. Burk did not say that McLaren’s words “set him against”, but rather “chafe”. He rubs against, irritates. To extrapolate, he wears down the idea of exclusivity to nothingness. They both contend against evangelism that relies on an exclusive redeeming of the world through Christ alone.

And if saying that we should rely solely on the Gospel or that “Christ is the only way otherwise you face the consequences of sin on your own merit which is none” or point out that never preaching Christ alone is counter to what we are called to do emboldens supporters, then I suppose I’ll have to take that and claim Christ as superior. God and man are separated. God loves us, but we have all sinned. And we cannot “will” our way over or work our way to God. We have transgressed Him and we will be judged and our rightful sentence would be eternal life without Him. But God sent his son to die in our place. He that knew no sin was found guilty of our crimes and served the sentence for us. And by faith in that atoning work we are able to cross over (that’s a pun) to God to spend eternity with Him. And if anyone is too ashamed to boldly proclaim that, then that brings great sorrow to my heart.

Calvinism Changing the World

2009-03-13T10:24:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3872
I read the following in the paper recently:
Texas Faith this week is pegged to the financial bailouts and asks: What does our faith teach us about this moment? Does our inner Calvinist say we have no obligation to bail out those who failed to act responsibility?

For those who castigate Calvinism or have faced this before, from what does this stem? Without having read Institutes, is this a part of Calvinism (there’s a joke about which part of the hand it would be ;-) or is it just someone painting an uninformed caricature?

Nudity in Art

2009-03-12T13:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/03/nudity-in-art.html
Brian:

Great name and comment. I agree that, as William Wilberforce said, we need to cease to be deceived by superficial appearances, and to confound the Gospel of Christ with the systems of philosophers.* I’m sure this comment will be rife with men claiming the opposite of what you say, but life, interactions and just plain statistics concur with what you state. And there will be many counters to Ted’s post (well, they may have tired-head now, but on previous ones) and a lot of "yea, but’s" and "well what about’s". Overall, though, I find it sad that we (and, as with you, Brian, I’ve been down that path so I find myself in that “we”) too often work more diligently at how we can call dark light than finding what is truly light. Unfortunately, that last line of thinking is just not progressive enough.

Dr. Mohler had an article recently with the quote "...contemporary Americans increasingly see religious faith as ‘more like a fashion statement, not a deep personal commitment.’". I think that is exactly what we all do at times (esp. with media) is to take faith, what should be that which defines our life and we let everything else in our life define our faith.

Just a question for anyone, when justifying various films, shouldn’t we ask if we’d watch the movie knowing that Christ was sitting next to us (in a physical sense)? I know we strive for being able to converse, but haven’t we lost some great part of our witness when an aspect of our lives as front-and-center as media plays these days looks like everyone else’s?

* - for anyone who isn’t familiar, Tim Challies and anyone willing is going through Real Christianity which has started out as a great book.

Reading the Classics - Real Christianity (II)

2009-03-12T09:14:00.000-07:00

http://www.challies.com/archives/reading-classics-together/reading-the-classics---real-christianity-ii.php
I failed to bring my book in, but from the link passed last comment section, I copied a quote I thought impactful (especially considering the time frame):

The diligent perusal of the Holy Scriptures would discover to us our past ignorance. We should cease to be deceived by superficial appearances, and to confound the Gospel of Christ with the systems of philosophers; we should become impressed with that weighty truth, so much forgotten, and never to be too strongly insisted on, that Christianity calls on us, as we value our immortal souls, not merely in general, to be religious and moral, but specially to believe the doctrines, and imbibe the principles, and practise the precepts of Christ.

Slightly different from what I read (different editor), but still… And, to second a second (ooo, just now a third), yes, the instruction of children is definitely one that is close to home for me, too.

I did raise an eyebrow at what initially struck me as an anachronism. He used the word “concrete”. Of course, it’s a mid-centuries word, but it still seemed out of place to me (time-wise) and was perhaps inserted by the editor (actually, I assume). I didn’t comment on the introduction, but the full title also gave me a giggle of sorts.

I’m looking forward to the rest of this book.

A Worn Wiper

2009-03-11T13:51:00.001-07:00

http://www.challies.com/archives/general-news/personal/a-worn-wiper.php
Tim:

I laughed out loud. Great humor a-la Dave Barry (I hope you don't mind the comparison....). Thanks for the pick-me-up.

And if you've never heard it, the prank call with the guy telling the poor little girl her windshield wiper fluid is low is pure genius and all-too-true for some of us.

Destroying Human Life at Tax-payers’ Expense

2009-03-10T11:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3828
How can he so casually exclude from the human community a whole class of persons?
The way so many of us do as well (and there’s a big finger pointed at me) and that is silence. Embryos (those in and out of the womb) don’t speak and can’t scream. In the same manner, I am often more callous towards those in need because they do not live right next door to me.

You know, when I saw this yesterday, my thought (as was Matt’s) was to the president’s "that’s above my pay grade" comment. Obviously, identifying that is not above his pay grade. He just didn’t want to say what he really thought (neither escr or abortion involve human life). Or, more frighteningly, maybe he does and these "balls of tissue" are an inconvenience....yikes! When he got elected, I thought that the FOCA “promise” was a typical political, um, truth stretching (as in it wouldn’t be the first bill he signed and it perhaps wouldn’t even come to table). Now, though, it seems as thought that is on a very clear agenda. As he stated about his daughter having an abortion, carrying that child may be too much of a burden. I think we’ll eventually see how much and who is an inconvenience (again, contrary to the "above my pay grade" comment).

New Comment:
Nathan:

That's a question that loomed in my mind back when they (were forced to?) began using adult stem cells (more aggressively?). But I suppose part of the rebuttal is that the scientific community was forced to research adult cells (though, in my logic, it makes more sense to learn to adapt adult cells as they are far more readily available….but what do I know, I’m just a begonia.).

You know, even in this extremely short amount of a presidency, there are some cool things that have just been wiped out by (and I suppose I’m just too stodgy) a complete moral failure on the actions against the innocent unborn.

Michah:

That’s an interesting question. I think that there could be a time. We are to obey princes and principalities and give to Caesar, etc. But it seems that it could eventually come to that kind of a question (though I stress could as I just don’t think it will ever get there). Mostly, for example, I think it would have to be a situation akin to people collecting money that they tell you will specifically be used to euthanize the elderly, force abortions, etc. I think there is (just?) enough people between my taxes and the final disbursement that it doesn’t fall to me (I suppose I think of paying taxes as in Matthew 17). What do you think, Michah?

New Comment:
Yeah, if I remember correctly, there was an article on CNN or in Time that indicated a paradigm shift in a large block of the scientific community wrt adult stem cells. I seem to recall the word “amazed” being used in the scientist’s comments.

And you’re right. He is far from stupid. That man is shaaaa-arp.

Wow! She Can Dunk!

2009-02-27T07:55:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3764
And she can get out on the break (unless she was cherry pickin’ the whole time….sure centers don’t ever do that ;-).

Willful Ignorance, Uninformed Opinions

2009-02-26T14:29:00.000-08:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/02/willful-ignorance-uninformed-opinions.html
Solomon answered this one:

Wise men store up knowledge,
But with the mouth of the foolish, ruin is at hand.
…
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But a wise man is he who listens to counsel.
…
A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil,
But a fool is arrogant and careless.
…
The wise of heart will receive commands,
But a babbling fool will be ruined.

And, to second (/third/fourth/wherever) the Farmer (in a way), I am sometimes the fool speaking.

If anyone didn’t read it, Tim Challies’ a-la-carte had a blip on the possible harm stemming from facebook/twitter/myspace obsessed youth.

Eating Less Equals Losing Weight

2009-02-26T12:32:00.000-08:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/02/eating-less-equals-losing-weight.html
Ironically, I was listening to an infomercial the other day (not a normal habit of mine). The setup was interview-style. The guy hocking the product said “with today’s go-go-go attitude, it’s not your fault you’re fat”. That intrigued me. I listened further and the “interviewer” finally said “yeh, yeh, you know, you’re right. It’s not our fault. I mean the larger portions, the high fat meals, the fast food and lack of exercise, I mean we can’t help that. It’s not our fault we’re getting fat.”

As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up. Apparently eating out, too many calories and no exercise is definitely not my fault. Phew, I’m glad I got that off my back*.

My daughter asked me why I was laughing. The commercial was for a “carb and fat blocker” with a slogan “eat whatever you want and never gain weight”. Symptomatic of our current times of wanting what we want right now without any responsibility or consequences (to tie in to that with which you started, Motte, a product of the McDonalds mentality…..no slight intended).

* - This is not to say everyone is overweight for these reasons, everyone has plenty of time to exercise 2 hours per day, etc.

New Comment
To further the mild nerdiness here, if I remember correctly from my Thermo days, we are actually speaking of kilocalories (1,000's).

See, Dr. Holman, I was really listening!

Gospel Living in an Oscar Culture

2009-02-25T11:47:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3723
Ted Slater had an interesting viewpoint. His quote:

And so when I interact with guys whose affections are toward other guys, I can get uncomfortable. What can I say? How can I even relate?
Well, you know what, I absolutely can relate. Though I've never had a homosexual thought in my life, like those who feel the draw of same-sex attraction (SSA), I have experienced my heart drawn toward things that Scripture says are unacceptable.

It’s an important point for me to remember. I may not relate in specific experience (with SSA), but I can certainly empathize (I struggle with sin as well, but, following the bible, I certainly don’t call dark light or evil good).

And I am curious, too, what is unbiblical about the comments here (assuming that as the reference in John’s remark in #20).

New Comment
with a bug that must have started last night!
--Blame it on MacAfee, oh, wait.....

Thanks, John, it was nice of you to shoot back the comment!

Shock: Bill Clinton says, “I’m a Calvinist”

2009-02-19T07:18:00.000-08:00

http://www.irishcalvinist.com/?p=2431
I think Phil Gons might have hit it. Driscoll has been in the news lately and is labeled a Calvinist. The reporting done (on Driscoll), however, invariably turns to his views of biblical marriage and that includes men working hard for their families, etc.

Regardless, that is fuh-nee. So is Gons’ quote: …I don’t think I’ve ever before been so tempted to consider becoming an Arminian. :)

Retreat!

2009-02-18T14:47:00.000-08:00

http://www.challies.com/archives/christian-living/retreat.php
This hit me square in the face recently as I am meeting/discipling a teen. As David H pointed out, it's a new method, but not necessarily a new phenomenon (it's like there's nothing new under.......uh.........the airwaves or something). But man it seems more difficult to detach now than even compared to just a few years ago. I know I will get to face it even more with a soon-to-be teen daughter (wince).

One question, though. If we unplug from the internet and turn off our phones, how will google know where we're at?!?!

A La Carte (2/17)

2009-02-17T07:56:00.000-08:00

http://www.challies.com/sideblog/archives/2009/02/a_la_carte_217.php
Man, what a packed A La Carte!

I had the same question, JP (only I would not have been nearly so articulate to make it).

A very intriguing thought from (Wittmer’s piece on) Olasky:

“So why have the laws in the first place? Olasky argues that anti-abortion laws educated the people. They ‘did send a message of right and wrong. They forced abortionists to advertise in code, bribe policemen and politicians, and hire lawyers. Laws could not end abortion but it could reduce the butcher’s bill, just as laws against drunken driving today cannot end the practice but can save lives. Today, it’s still worthwhile to pass laws restricting abortion, but time and money spent on providing and promoting compassionate alternatives saves more lives.’”

The Truth

2009-02-11T09:45:00.000-08:00

http://cgrabe.blogspot.com/2009/02/truth.html
CIG:

Hey! I really just “happened” (Calvinist at heart ;-) to read your blog this morning, then I "happened" to read an article that resonated with what you wrote here:

http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Eternity-and-the-Inconvenciences-of-Motherhood

Also, though, a comment (more of a thread) popped in my noggin as well. I keep rewriting it in my mind, I couldn’t get through without it ballooning too much, so I’ll just stick with this. Having kids is work. Especially as a newlywed (don’t know where you are on that “scale” of things), especially as a couple spending chunks of time without one another (read your latest post). Being married is work, too. You know both of these, but I think it’s always good to be reminded that when stuff like this strikes, you’re not alone (or absurd or abnormal....thinking otherwise is a trap I fall into sometimes!). I suppose, mostly, is to stay (be) encouraged. As stated, it does pass, and (as also stated) can turn into a marriage-wrecking monster if we try to act as though we can tame it/change it/deal with it ourselves (more of a general application, not pregnancy-restricted!). That takes strength that doesn't come from yourself. Like you say, rely on God.

Wright’ New Book: This Is Irenic?

2009-02-11T06:32:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3644
I’m not sure if I am qualified to comment here since I had to look up the word paronomasia, but just to throw in a thought anyway…..
Dr. Burk said that the reviews of the book touted it as having an irenic tone. The tone of the book as far as Dr. Burk had read is quite the opposite and has started off more bombastic and insulting. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t confirm, but what is written appears to be what is written in the book. Far from holding a peacemaking tone, it sounds like Dr. Wright is condescending (patronizing) toward those who disagree with him.

All that said, this was a comment on merely the preface and chapter one and Dr. Burk states that from the beginning (Having now read through the preface and chapter one, I have to say that Wright is getting off on the wrong foot if he’s trying to be irenic.).

And we should take what anyone says with a grain of salt, however, there is a vast difference between that and an “incapabilit[y] to review books”. One is a biblical admonition to weigh carefully what we hear (compared with scripture) and the other is simply an attack meant to be injurious. At least it would appear to me, anyway.

I can understand the vitriol if Dr. Burk had said that Dr. Wright’s book was awful because Dr. Burk disagreed. That isn’t the case. The post was aimed at how the book was championed as a source of a peaceable tone and, thus far (again, only a chapter and preface into it) does much damage to that view. So for the folks who just shredded the original post, what about the book was misquoted or wrong?*

* - John, the statement was that Wright invented “new perspective”. Not the new perspective. He mimicked Dr. Wright’s statement.

New Comment
I am serious when I ask this question. Would the beginning rejoinder parable in Festooned With Ribbons be considered a polemic? Or would that be an incorrect usage?

Darius, I think that is Wilson’s question (concern?) as well:
Perhaps this is because his insights have emerged in a fresh place -- his environment of mainstream Anglicanism -- which has perhaps been misleading to him. Anglicans are surprised when they discover that their bishop believes in God, and when they go on to discover a published faith in the resurrection, they begin to teeter. Is nothing stable anymore? So then when Wright surfaces in their midst as a kinder, gentler Rushdoony, nobody quite knows where to look. If you are treated like a green space alien for years, it is perhaps excusable to begin thinking you are one.

PS: Alan, though I disagree with the argument, good post!

24 Things About to Disappear in America

2009-02-09T08:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3638
Doug:

I agree with more than a sagging economy (a real, deep “crash”) those things could/should go. Also, though, the recession could just “do in” some of the items as well (as Dreher points out) as advertising in digital is faaaaaaaar cheaper than print (in many cases).

Also, while (during a recession) we should be cutting back and doing just the things you mentioned, I think that America and the current culture has bred such a mentality in us that we see these things as “necessities” now. Take, for example, a friend of mine who offered that she and her husband were looking for their internet provider and got a cable package bundled together because “I mean it was only a few bucks more a month”. The alarming thing to me and my wife is that her husband is out of work (has been for almost a year now), nor does she work (young mother). Internet is vital for many industries these days and is becoming an invaluable (if not borderline necessary) tool for job searching, but it was unthinkable to this couple to do without internet at home (Library or coffee shops, anyone?), and, honestly, cable tv was viewed as a near necessity. Just a mentality.

New Comment

Other thoughts (that have little weight in anyone’s world ;-):

Yellow pages: This is sad since the digital versions are terrible in many ways, comparatively. Maybe with the reduction of print the online versions will get better, but I don’t see how.
Blue crabs: And fishing along the African coast. That is very tragic.
Ash Trees: Fascinating baseball note.
The Milkman: Never knew they still existed!
Hand-Written Letters: This is sad as well. E-mail and text replaced it, and, in several big ways, not for the better (see Challies today).

A La Carte (2/9)

2009-02-09T07:35:00.000-08:00

http://www.challies.com/sideblog/archives/2009/02/a_la_carte_29.php
I'm glad the extra post was deleted. I was afraid I was going to have to read everything twice just to be sure! Two things from the “stimulating” post.

“Also, the U.S. Coast Guard needs $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship—maybe global warming isn’t working fast enough.”

“Given that the fastest-growing segment of public-school expense is administrators’ salaries—not teachers’ pay, not direct spending on classroom learning—this is a requirement that has almost nothing to do with ensuring high-quality education and everything to do with ensuring that the school bureaucracy”

Freedom of Choice Act: 101, Part 3

2009-02-06T12:06:00.000-08:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/02/freedom-of-choice-act-101-part-3.html
Just before reading your part 3, Suzanne, I read Dr. Burk's post:

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3621

Quite sad. You very rightly highlight that we (OK, I'll say I, can't speak for others) do let our guards down during other administrations. As Dr. Burk says:
I aim to win hearts and minds to stand in defense of the unborn. The only way to do this to keep the humanity of the unborn in plain view. This tragic story does that. How can anyone with an ounce of decency remain indifferent to this?

Thanks, Suzanne!

Update from SBTS: Aslan is on the Move

2009-02-02T05:52:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3566
It almost pains me to write this, Denny, but back here in Big D it was nearly 70 degrees, sunny and absolutely spectacular the last three days. Wait, after typing it, I take it back. That really wasn’t even close to painful to write. Oh, well. Glad y’all are out (getting out) of the cold. I enjoyed Dr. Moore and the country music he brought to the show :-).

Are Calvinism & Complementarianism Related?

2009-01-28T12:18:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3483
Yes, there are a few verses that are puzzling but are not required to be understood as comps understand them.

Interesting way to phrase it. I would say the complenetarian view is a recurring example, thought and theme throughout scripture and not, as you say, a few verses or an isolated example with nothing surrounding it. But then again, the debate has been hashed and rehashed many times.

Piper Thunders To Obama on Abortion

2009-01-27T09:06:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3520
The president (and we, for that matter) reveals and speaks his worldview when he explains why he makes decisions that he does (which he (and presidents past) does for all "national" decisions).

Stimulus Package Takes Aim at Babies

2009-01-26T12:20:00.000-08:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/01/the-pill-will-save-our-economy.html1) Sorry to see edits having to occur. It seems odd, but as they say, oh, well.
2) I heard a quote from Dr. Russell Moore identifying the thinking read above:
“The abortion culture is downstream from many things that are going on in our churches. Because before we aborted children in the womb, we aborted them in our minds…..We began to see children as a burden. Children as an obstacle.”--Russell More
3) Along that lines, it was nice to hear Steve on the Dr. Mohler radio program. He had some great advice for your young marrieds here.

New Comment
Craig M. (#19): astute...that is Dr. Moore (if you've ever listened to him much)!

Tiffany (#20): I agree that is a question that has weighed heavily on me, as well. Not that I've figured the answer, though. It's (bc) something that I've had a tendency to "just accept", but rarely even thought it through. It is a heart issue, and no one knows this except ourselves (that sounds like terrible grammar) and God (and sometimes we like to delude ourselves into thinking it one way, but deep down we really know the answer is different). Funny thing. Candice answered almost exactly our question.

PS: Dr. Mohler had a radio program on this, but I couldn't find it. But I did find his commentary on it.

New Comment

Adam (#23): Interesting. I love Albert Mohler and Russell Moore, but their views on marriage and children are not Biblical. Quite an accusation. To what specifically do you refer?

And regarding the population concern, many times, when some speak on the declining population, it is in reference to the 1.3 children per household, not that the population needs to increase each generation, but it shouldn’t almost ½ in one generation.

The problem is our society only thinks about themselves - I believe that is exactly the point of Dr. Moore.

I would say that Dr. Moore and Dr. Mohler (and many others) favor a thoughtful consideration of contraception. It is a rightful warning against the thought that we should have a McDonalds life (what I want, when I want and anything short of that is a right to complain).

Nancy Pelosi Thinks We Need Less Children Being Born

2009-01-26T08:03:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3508
“The abortion culture is downstream from many things that are going on in our churches. Because before we aborted children in the womb, we aborted them in our minds…..We began to see children as a burden. Children as an obstacle.”--Russell More

I think that is a very revealing thought. It’s an erosion of our consciences. I agree with Joe (his two quoted thoughts………which, I think, means that he believes them to be bad, according to the last few threads), but the dulling of our own conscience is a great travesty that has led where we are.

New Comment:
Just out of curiosity, Paul, which fiscal conservatives are telling poor people not to have kids (I'm not as knowledgeable about politics as you and most here).

New Comment

Though not addressed to me, I’ll pipe in……
how NOT to have kids
Paul, I would say it is an argument that the education championed exalts sex (little mention of any repercussions and a lot on how you can avoid repercussions), says this has no repercussions and if it feels right, do it. IMO, education definitely belongs in the home. And there, I would say, is where a great difficulty lies. The public education system is steeped first and foremost (all too often, but there are exceptions) in the “if it feels right, do it” mentality. And when kids are immersed in that for so much of their lives, it presents a great difficulty. There’s no pithy answer, and most who argue against your position (though you would call us southern mouth-breathers) continually weigh that balance and do so with great care.

I think it is a travesty that you make that statement about women and, presumably, complementarian thought. It was highly insulting, but I’m sure you knew that.

And what do you say to the op-ed guy from the National Review who says that poor people shouldn’t have children?
I would say he is showing elitist ignorance. God-exalting values are what are to be elevated. I think in this case (and this will be sooooooooo unpopular, I know), what that means is a cessation of economic crutches provided by our government. Part of the repercussion of having large government handouts and subsidies is a devaluation of community and personal interdependence. The care for the poor should belong to the people in our communities. The sad thing is that I doubt we’ll be back at that point until a “reformation” of sorts happens again (if ever in this nation). Right now, the handout is given as a big, giant grey box. When a handout is given through community action (I would say further, especially when through faith), there is a hand on the other side of that handout. It’s no longer impersonal. There is a body that looks them in the eye.

I suppose I could go on, but I see that we’ve meandered off of the original point of Pelosi’s idea of pushing birth control for those who are economically unfit. Say, wait a minute. Isn’t that what I, as a conservative, was just accused of?

New Comment

To clarify, the first line (in #21) should be "exalts pre-marital sex".

Also, Rick, the fascinating thing is Pelosi's statement of "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom." I don't see how that squares together, but oh, well.

New Comment
Not making a bold stand, it was simply a purposeful shot (straw-man stereotype) that seemed to be insulting. Or, perhaps to soften the language, it sure appeared to be a purposeful slur. If it were not meant as an insult, you would have brought forth your argument (about head coverings).

Regarding your argument (and way off topic again), now, I am not as eloquent as most of my complementarian brothers and sisters, so I'd say take a look at questions 32 and 33 here. Not that I haven't considered this as well as many other questions unearthed (from this site, especially! What a great crowd!) on my walk. To summarize the summary (there is far more expounded upon about this than the one reference):

(1) we seek for clues in the context that this is so; (2) we compare other Scriptures relating to the same subject to see if we are dealing with limited application or with an abiding requirement; and (3) we try to show that the cultural specificity of the command is not rooted in the nature of God, the gospel, or the created order.

I posted your requested comment.

Obama Forces Tax-payers To Fund Abortions

2009-01-26T07:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3480derek:

I know you meant Dr. Burk, but Ted Slater had an interesting take on closing gitmo (is it an acronym? I never noticed.).

Robert George on Roe v. Wade

2009-01-23T08:43:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3469I don't remember the Koop study way back when and I guess I've never heard much about long-term stress disorder. But the suicide rate (read: short term stress disorder) is 3 – 7X in post abortion women. Also, when reading reports (regardless of which side you seek to bolster), stating things like “no high-quality” allows a dismissal of nearly anything you want. That said, I would trust that Dr.’s at JH would be less likely to fall victim of that (then again, pride puffs up…..). I don’t find it hard to believe that there isn’t a long-term stress disorder. With a bevy of people saying “no, it’s perfectly fine” would allow one to suppress quite a bit. Thanks, Susan!

Obama on Roe v. Wade Anniversary

2009-01-22T13:31:00.000-08:00

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3444You know, there was a discussion I read recently about the trinkets that the president carries around. One of the questions that came up by association was one of accountability. I like the new whitehouse site (I think). It has some slick parts of it that could relate. I think that Nathan asks a good question, though. Could Nathan’s proposed question ever get asked at the press conference? But also (by association of association), how do evangelical (/catholic/pro-life/etc.) Obama voters (I don’t want to say supporters since he is my president and by default I support, though disagree with his proposed policy here) square this? To me, this falls out of the bounds of overall reduction of abortions (as our policies really won’t impact other countries’ pregnancy rates). Is this just something about which an Obama voter disagrees with him? Is it all part of the plan, do you think?

BTW, I would say that we shouldn’t nit-pick every decision the president makes (even though I fear that is exactly what will happen), this just happens to be a big one that has far-reaching implications.

PS: If anyone hasn’t looked at the new whitehouse website, I suggest checking it out. Pretty slick. Definitely a great aspect of a “next generation” president dedicated to change (I hope….ha ha…..)!

New Comment
Paul: A specialty that might drive you crazy, but as a musician, you should appreciate:
Béla Fleck Brings The Banjo Back To Africa.

Young Married Readers?

2009-01-21T14:12:00.000-08:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/01/young-married-readers.htmlAs a non-young-but-young-married, but I have been involved in a group that went through a book that was an excellent combination of theology, application and winsome empirical data (stories). For anyone interested, it's The Most Important Year In a Man's/Woman's Life. I would be interested in the same blend here. In our group (and the other young marrieds I know), it is always an isolating event (leave your father and mother…..and often your singles group, rearranging your schedule pulls us away from time with friends, etc.). So I would say:

Encouragement (we’re not alone, it can be done)
Theological Admonition (The bible is clear for so many things)
Practical Admonition (older couples have been there, what is their practical advice)
Helpful resources (though the FotF site is replete with these!)

Good Luck, Mr. President

2009-01-21T07:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/01/good-luck-mr-president.htmlI’m struck by a few things

* - Mr. Slater, I agree with your post, but it would have been better to have said this during the campaign (I think it was highlighted back then…..or so I’m told). Or at least a day or two after the inauguration.
* - For people who say (or imply) “lighten up”, folks sure do take things seriously.

When first read, I thought the intent of the post was light. Just a raised eyebrow of “hmm, how odd”. Then I read the furor that returned. Thus,

* - I think the comments do highlight a lack of “take every thought captive”.

I think the main thrust is the cavalier attitude towards a just God who will judge all. I think we should find idol worship abhorrent. From bowing down literally to Gautama to forgoing a relationship with God to sacrifice at the altar of greed (see our credit card bills). Each is offensive to God. Every one of us (beginning with me) at one time or another enjoys putting God on the shelf and minimizing who He is and exactly what He thinks. And (given satan’s help) we are really good at justifying and minimizing things. Acting that something isn’t really a big deal. As far as this goes, I don’t know what President Obama thinks when he reaches for and grasps that chit or that little statue. I (very fortunately) do not know his heart. I wish that he would tell us. As a fellow believer, it seems that he should be accountable for something as conspicuous as this. First, since he was the one who opened this dialog (so to speak) with the picture (this isn’t a telephoto look onto a private secluded beach, folks). But second because we are to be accountable to our body (the Church). We enjoy thinking things not as sin but as a preference and that it’s nobody’s business anyway. We Christians in America in particular delude ourselves this way. I get to conceal my life because it’s private and nobody’s business. But that which is spoken in the dark will be brought to the light. Sometimes that will happen to us before Christ returns. Am I happy when that happens to me? Not at first. But it is a necessary process that demonstrates patience by a supreme God with a self-centered, me-first sinner.

Unlike Mr. Slater’s post, mine was more of a rant.

New Comment
Charlotte C (#57): Well put, I wish my browser updated and I could have read it before my original post (to avoid the redundancies).

New Comment
Michelle (#74) (in addition to the 1 Cor 9), were you thinking of 1 Cor 4 –

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.

And yes, an excellent thing to remember.

A La Carte (1/20)

2009-01-20T12:14:00.000-08:00

http://www.challies.com/sideblog/archives/2009/01/a_la_carte_120.phpKim: That cracks me up.
Tim: I think you need to do more stumping. You're only 61 GR's from beating out Piper (ha ha.........ha..........). Of course, DG has more authors there........