Farewell, NBA

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!

Read actual comments.

Doug Wilson on the Occupy Wall Street Protest

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.


Read actual comments.

My Plan for Reading the Bible This Year

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

Read actual comments.

Is Your Doctor a Believer?

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.

Read actual comments.

Giberson Shows His Hand

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.

Read actual comments.

Another Complementarian Caricature

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.

Read actual comments.

Desktop Extinction

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).

Read actual comments.

Who is the Bible for?

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 ;-)).

Read actual comments.

Bauer Reviews “In the Land of Believers”

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).

Read actual comments.

Golf vs. Motherhood

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.

Read actual comments.

10th Wedding Anniversary

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

Read actual comments.

Russell Moore on NPR

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!).

Read actual comments.

Are We Making Men the "Bad Guys"?

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).

Read actual comments.

Russ Douthat on Feminism

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

1. 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.


2. 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.
   


3. 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.
   


4. 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.

Read actual comments.

Liberal Dependence on Abortion

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.

Read actual comments.

Limbaugh vs. Moore

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.

Read actual comments.

What about Derek?

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.

Read actual comments.

NFL Draft

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!

Read actual comments.

Jennifer Knapp is NOT worthless

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.

Read actual comments.

McLaren Doesn’t Want To Hurt Anybody?

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.

Read actual comments.