To Be Full of God

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!

Read actual comments.

Classicly Convicted: Episode 62

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!).

Read actual comments.

Infanticide for Unrighteous Mammon

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......

Read actual comments.

Reading the Classics - Real Christianity (IV)

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!

Read actual comments.

Obama on Leno

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!).

Read actual comments.

Brian McLaren Comes to Louisville

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.


Read actual comments.

Calvinism Changing the World

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?

Read actual comments.